Everton FAB Statement demands Transparency and Fairness

In partnership with

ToffeeWeb

·4 August 2026

Everton FAB Statement demands Transparency and Fairness

Everton Fan Advisory Board have compiled a statement expressing outrage at the disproportionate punishments meted out to Chelsea and Everton in recent years, culminating with last month's whitewash and suspended slap on the wrist for more egregious fraudulent acts by the London club, which continues to evade any meaningful sporting sanction for their rule-breaking.

This relates to the Token fine deemed sufficient punishment for Chelsea's persistent rule-breaking after a Premier League investigation published its sanction agreement back in March 2026.

OneFootball Videos

In his Analysis Series, Paul Quinn has today published his own assessment of The Chelsea FC Premier League sanction agreements, providing a long and detailed analysis of the charges, process, decisions and sanctions, with the case for and against the Premier League’s approach.

Paul's key findings are:

The Premier League used a negotiated Rule W.6.7 Sanction Agreement, not a contested Commission, to resolve Chelsea’s admitted eight-year concealment of £47,524,925.74 in third-party payments (Phase 1) and ten Youth Development Rule breaches (Phase 2), imposing fines of £10.75M, a suspended two-window first-team ban, an immediate nine-month academy ban, an unpaid £771,288 levy and full costs, but no points deduction.
On the law, the Board’s outcome is defensible: the settlement mechanism is legitimate, the PSR “no-breach-in-any-scenario” finding removed the trigger for a points deduction, and self-reporting plus “exceptional co-operation” (~200,000 documents) properly earned a 50% mitigation, a position the FA Appeal Board effectively vindicated on 31 July 2026 when it quashed a suspended six-point deduction as “excessive”.
On the merits, the outcome is hard to reconcile with Everton (10→6 points for a £19.5M arithmetical overspend) and the FA Commission’s own finding that Chelsea’s “principal and overall motive… was to gain a sporting advantage”. The firm judgement: the Premier League reached a legally sustainable but institutionally corrosive settlement, correct on doctrine, wrong on deterrence, and the stronger arguments lie with the critics on consistency and quantum, and with the Board only on process and PSR mechanics.

Puzzled by the timing of this... More than 6 months since the agreement was published.

And Paul seems to say, the process was defensible. Chelsea's concealed payments would not have induced a PSR breach in any assessment period between 2011 and 2018. No PSR breach, therefore no Sporting Advantage gained, therefore no Points Deduction required, per the Premier League rules.

In direct comparison with Everton (and other cases), Paul explains:

In contested proceedings, Everton (PSR), Nottingham Forest (PSR) and the Manchester City proceedings, an independent Commission drawn from the Judicial Panel hears the case, finds facts on the evidence to the requisite standard, determines breach and imposes sanction in a published, reasoned decision that is subject to appeal to an Appeal Board. The Sanction Agreement route substitutes negotiated admissions and an agreed sanction for adjudicated findings; there is no cross-examination, no reasoned tribunal decision, and no appeal. Critically, the Phase 1 agreement itself concedes (Section 17(b)(v)) that had the League been “put to proof by the club before a Commission, it may have been difficult to establish, to the relevant standard, certain aspects of the Rule breaches now recorded in this Sanction Agreement”, several breaches were established only through the Club’s own admissions.

All still very unsatisfactory...