Burnley suing Everton for £50M in PSR impact claim | OneFootball

In light of Everton breaching the Premier League's Profitability & Sustainability Rules, Burnley are looking for £50million-plus in compensation after claiming loss of revenue as a result of their relegation to the Championship.

The hearing starts this week at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, 2 years after Everton were controversially handed successive points deductions for breaches of PSR over 3-year rolling periods ending in 2021-22 and 2022-23.

Burnley were relegated from the Premier League in 2021-22 when they finished just 4 points behind Everton in 18th place.  Had Everton's 6-point deduction occurred during the 2021-22 campaign, Burnley would have been safe with the Toffees relegated in their stead.

Under the Premier League's rules, a PSR breach is deemed to confer a sporting advantage, the penalty incurred being a points deduction (although other punishments could have been decided upon by the Independent Commission hearing the original cases).

They did not award or recommend compensation to other affected clubs in the decisions that resulted in points deductions for Everton; however, such compensation claims were green-lighted as a part of a pre-hearing back in May 2023 where Burnley and four other clubs failed in their bid to gain participation in the hearings of the PSR charges against Everton.

But the clubs were given a window of 28 days after the decision on Everton's breaches to assert their wishes to pursue a claim for compensation under Rule W.51.5 of the 2022-23 Premier League Handbook, which allows the Commission to order a club guilty of breaches to pay compensation unlimited in amount to any person or to any club.

Reader Comments (81)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Les Callan 2 Posted 16/09/2025 at 13:19:22

Only that it’s being reported also in the independent. Surprised that there hasn’t been more reaction on here.

Michael Kenrick 3 Posted 16/09/2025 at 13:24:10

Unless nipped in the bud this case could open a huge can of worms, with clubs lining up to sue Manchester City and Chelsea for breaching the rules.

Haven't we been punished more than enough by the unprecedented points deductions and the unfair treatment of valid mitigations?

Jack, it's probably constituted as a hearing under the Premier League's rules and these are always held in private because 'sensitive' commercial interests and business matters are involved.

Christy Ring 4 Posted 16/09/2025 at 13:33:59

Should they not be suing the CEO of the Premier League, Richard Masters, who are totally in charge?

How can you sue an individual team for their failings?

Ray Jacques 5 Posted 16/09/2025 at 14:06:06

Can we sue the league for all the dodgy refereeing decisions over the years?

This is a load of crap. Burnley were relegated for their failure to gain sufficient points over the course of 38 games, not because of Everton.

They didn't play us every week did they?

Ian Wilkins 6 Posted 16/09/2025 at 14:15:53

This could get very interesting and complex for a number of reasons. This is I think the first case of its kind.

The doors for it were opened by the Premier League legal adjudicators when handing out the initial 10-point penalty to Everton (subsequently appealed). The lead KC said that there were legal grounds for other clubs to pursue compensation claims.

Interestingly, I believe the same Premier League legal team sit again on this matter. You would assume therefore that they lean towards Everton's guilt.

Everton admitted PSR breaches but assert they complied with Premier League rules on timing of cases; the rules have since changed to insist that cases are now heard sooner.

Burnley are claiming loss of revenue from relegation that would have been avoided if the case had been heard sooner, and Everton relegated. It's not Everton's fault re timing of case, that's down to Premier League rules.

It's messy. A lawyers goldmine.

As Michael says a successful claim by Burnley would open the floodgates to other claims against Man City and Chelsea if they have breached rules.

If Everton are found guilty then it will likely be a hefty financial bill (Burnley claiming upwards of £50M). I would expect Everton will claim mitigation, or seek a compromise to reduce any claim.

Who knows what the outcome of this will be…

I also expect that TFG factored this potential liability into the cost of acquisition from Moshiri.

I wouldn't have thought this case has a chance in hell for a number of reasons:

1) Given the breach happened over 3 seasons, not one, then hypothetically one could argue the nominal points deductions should be over 3 seasons, not just one. And that ends Burnley's case.

2) But the above is hypothetical because the rules state points deductions apply in the season where the case is finalised — which wasn't 2021-22. It was only afterwards that the Premier League moved to shorten timeframes. Premier League clubs would have signed up for these rules.

3) Burnley might have had a shred of a case had there been any unequivocal proof that the overspend was a) deliberate and b) clearly conferred a sporting advantage. Neither likely to be proven.

On the former, the main issue was the manner in which the stadium was financed and to the extent a bigger stadium confers a sporting advantage, it will be in the future not the past.

To the extent players were signed in 2021-22, these were Patterson, Dele and Van der Beek, none of whom are comparable in influence to Tevez and Mascherano which in any case was a case on different grounds to this.

£50M is a pipe dream and, even if somehow Burnley can persuade the hearing of a 'butterfly effect', there would still be (low) probability applied to the possible loss. £0-£10M would be a more realistic range. I wouldn't rule out a settlement somewhere in this range, just to move on.

Alan J Thompson 9 Posted 16/09/2025 at 14:38:44

Time for Everton to follow other club(s) lead and drag this out in all and any court for the next few years at least during which any arrangements between the Premier League and Man City and/or Chelsea are dragged out into the open.

Send the message: we won't go gently into the night.

Ted Roberts 10 Posted 16/09/2025 at 14:39:56

James, that would point to a good case of “circumstantial evidence” in my book: ifs, buts, maybes and what-ifs in abundance.

If the points deductions becried by Burnley where to have been implemented early enough, we could have clawed our way back.

This is all pure speculation on Burnley's part, in my view, but I am interested to see how it is brought to a conclusion, if any.

Gerry Quinn 12 Posted 16/09/2025 at 14:48:08

Agree with Alan (9) - drag this ridiculous bloody shitcase out for as long as bloody possible - I absolutely hate this era of, boring, biased and full of cheating/diving/sneaky buggers footie! Can't even watch it nowadays...or remember the last time I sat through a whole half!!!

Dan Parker 13 Posted 16/09/2025 at 14:49:33

I hope the new owners and lawyers aggressively defend this case.

Enough is enough.

Jim Harrison 14 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:06:02

Surely they should be suing the Premier League?

Bobby Mallon 15 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:10:11

Burnley were relegated from the Premier League in 2021-22 when they finished just 4 points behind Everton in 18th place. Had Everton's 6-point deduction occurred during the 2021-22 campaign, Burnley would have been safe with the Toffees relegated in their stead.

This is not true though is it? Everton got a 10-point reduced to 6 and we went on a remarkable run that got us to safety. What's to say that wouldn't have happened then?

Fuck off, Burnley.

Jake FitzGerald 16 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:10:28

“Under the Premier League's rules, a PSR breach is deemed to confer a sporting advantage.”

Am I wrong in thinking that the overspend was solely to do with the stadium costs, so no sporting advantage was gained from it?

Rob Halligan 17 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:11:21

Tell them to shove it up their tiny little Lancashire cotton mill arse!

Kevin Molloy 18 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:14:59

This sort of thing is no longer of any relevance to us as fans in my view.

Last season, we could all have worried that it may have tipped us into bankruptcy, but now it will be with the lawyers, and something will get thrashed out. Burnley might get £5M if they're lucky.

Gerry Quinn 19 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:18:33

BBC have absolutely no news on this whatsoever...

Bobby Mallon 20 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:19:38

We could give them Keane back!

Raymond Fox 21 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:25:08

I thought we were getting too much good news.

If they are awarded anything it opens up a right can of worms.

What of the other clubs who have got in trouble with PSR, are they too to be sued because they finished higher than they should have.

Not as serious as in Burnley's case, but it has cost clubs below them money.

Paul Kossoff 22 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:25:11

Manchester City will have to get to the bank then, won't they? If it's £50 million from us, then what will City get sued for? Chelsea and Forest? In fact anyone, over God knows how far back, can be accused of causing a team to be relegated.

What is the time on accusations, two, three, five ten seasons? Will Burnley open the flood gates, or will the Premier League quickly close the doors on this as surely, they are themselves complicit in this.

Also, as they will say it's our fault, can the lynch mob, headed by Mr Masters, have another go at Everton as far as taking more points from us?

Looks like we may need Clint Eastwood and Co to get us out of Dodge this time.

Jerome Shields 24 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:28:18

On the purchase, TFG would have insisted in some type of indemnity insurance being in place provided by Moshiri. This would be very much the American way of doing business.

A friend of mine sold a company to Americans. He found himself at a meeting by himself, with the purchaser and two of their top managers and three of their lawyers.

He would not be on your own nowadays, for sure, he now tells me.

Ian Wilkins 25 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:48:44

There won't be any further points deductions.

This is not brought by the Premier League, it's another club seeking compensation.

John Pendleton 26 Posted 16/09/2025 at 15:52:06

Impossible to isolate and measure the cause and effect.

Otherwise, who do we sue for..?

The rule change that allowed LFC's admission into the Champions League, attracting greater income and better players that have given them a sporting advantage over us ever since?

EFC's point deductions where others who transgressed far, far further go unpunished?

Coventry's disallowed FA Cup 'winner' that eased Arsenal's purchase of Gyökeres that strengthens their attack against us in the future?

Clive Thomas for changing our history?

Tony Abrahams 27 Posted 16/09/2025 at 16:10:48

Surely TFG will just claim that this all happened under a completely different regime -- which is something I'm sure the Chelsea new owner claimed after taking over from Roman Abramovich?

Barry Williams 28 Posted 16/09/2025 at 16:23:57

Now, I know absolutely nothing about the legalities here, but Burnley would have received a parachute payment for being relegated. Online figures suggest £49M last season (giving them an unfair advantage over other clubs in the 2nd tier).

So, it would be interesting in how they came to a figure of £50M? In theory - if other clubs are found guilty of financial transgressions - Burnley should sue them too.

Les Callan - 11 - Yes, it seems odd.

Pete Neilson 29 Posted 16/09/2025 at 16:26:17

Hopefully they get nothing except heavy legal costs.

Their owner saddled them with over £100M of debt using a leveraged buyout. Now after a grifter's payday.

Ray Robinson 30 Posted 16/09/2025 at 16:28:08

Doesn't mean that the current Chelsea won't get punished for their offences under a previous regime, does it Tony?

Burnley - and only Burnley seem to have a genuine claim for compensation, albeit probably not as much as £50M because of parachute payments etc, but they should be suing the Premier League, not us, for not applying the points deduction in the correct season.

God knows how much the RS will claim by way of lost championships if Man City ever get found guilty!

Huge can of worms!

Frank Crewe 31 Posted 16/09/2025 at 16:49:19

In the meantime Burnley came back up and were relegated again. Was that our fault as well? Now Burnley are back again, and will no doubt be relegated again. Maybe Burnley should just face the fact that they are simply not good enough for the PL. They are a yoyo club that just keep buying their way back to the PL with the parachute payment money they receive after their latest relegation. Plucky Burnley back for another swing.

This is why I doubt they could claim loss of revenue. This is exactly what the parachute payment is for. But I don't think the PL ever thought it would be used as a business plan.

Ray Robinson 32 Posted 16/09/2025 at 16:54:34

The parachute payment, Frank, is designed to soften the blow of relegation, to ease the transition to the lower league.

It doesn't equate to the full amount of lost earnings, nor does it prevent relegated clubs from having to prune their wage bill and possibly sell their best players to do so.

Jack Convery 33 Posted 16/09/2025 at 16:54:58

Maybe we should sue them for being crap and costing us £49M in missed parachute payment.

Frank Crewe 34 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:00:06

Well, Ray, Burnley appear to be getting their blow softened every other season.

But apparently a bit more softening from Everton is required.

Les Callan 35 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:15:52

Jack @ 33. You may have a point there of course.

Had we been relegated, we would have got the parachute payment. So if found against us, we should pursue the Premier League for that, surely?

Martin Farrington 36 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:17:13

Christy @4 is correct.

The crux here is what the Plaintiff (Burnley) have said in their complaint against the Defendant (Everton). Here, it appears that the claim for compensation is based upon the fact of points deduction.

Burnley are aggrieved that Everton were not deducted points for the season 2021-22. Meaning Everton would have been relegated and not them.

They want Everton to compensate them for perceived losses for the following season, where demotion had a direct effect upon their business.

They are looking at the rule that, by breaching PSR, Everton gained an unfair sporting advantage as cited by league rules.League rules also state, guilty clubs can sue the culprit.

Okay, so, IMO, legally, Burnley don't have a leg to stand on.Looking at the Premier League rules, they can say what they want. It doesn't make them legal in the eyes of the law.

Recently the Premier League rules were bought into court (by Man City) whereby it was deemed they were poorly drafted and required rewriting. That part anyway.

Clearly, in this case, the rules don't hold up. The Premier League denied Burnley access to the hearing and then say they have a case to litigate. Contradiction.

Then you have the reason for the breach, a loan on a stadium not yet built, and breaching because the interest on the loan took them over.

This was later rectified to stop further breaches after the second one occurred. The breach was a financial mistake on a building and had no direct influence on the pitch nor gaining the club an advantage.

Finally, Everton are not responsible for when points are deducted. Nor the process by which it is brought to a completion. In fact, Everton complied at every turn, even requesting the governing body for assistance. Unlike other clubs (Man City and Chelsea) who refused to show the league paperwork relating to players, transfers and hidden accounts.

Burnley, if they have a complaint, should be bringing an action against the Premier League. They are the judge and responsible body for implementation. If they failed to apply their own rules fairly and in good time, then Burnley's losses (if believed) are with them.

Everton have no fault in this matter. Case dismissed.

Mark Taylor 38 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:20:41

In addition to it being, in my view, very hard to prove with reasonable probability that Everton would have earned 4 points fewer had we not been in breach (I think that is almost impossible given it was not linked to specific players like the West Ham case), it is also the case that, if we are to deal in theories, Everton could in fact have escaped sanction had they, after the season ended, but before end June, sold players to a value that would have led to at least a £19.5M player trading profit.

The reason we didn't is because, at that point, we had no idea we were £19.5M over because the case hadn't been heard. In other words, strictly speaking, we had not transgressed at the point Burnley were relegated and were not provided a chance to mitigate for the reasons above.

I still think, for this case to have any merit, it would have to be on 'loss of chance' where the threshold for proof is lower, but then so is the payout.

A similar case might be Derby County v Middlesbrough, where Gibson sought c £40M but eventually settled for £2.7M. In other words, a pretty small fraction of what was claimed. Hence we might look for a settlement point of £2.5M to £5M.

James Hughes 39 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:26:41

Clickbait nonsense. If remotely true, then it would be on the BBC & Sky sites. They would be all over it.

This is only in the red Echo and the stated time period does not count.

Andy Crooks 40 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:40:58

I have threatened to eat my hat many times.

If Burnley get a penny from us, I will.

Mike Gaynes 41 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:48:04

I'd predict that not only will the TFG's legal team win the case, but will collect £1M and Kyle Walker from Burnley for vexatious litigation.

Les Callan 42 Posted 16/09/2025 at 17:53:10

And how about this for a tasty snippet:

Apparently the woman leading Burnley's claim was Everton's lead counsel at the time we breached PSR. Conflict of interest?

Rob Halligan 43 Posted 16/09/2025 at 18:09:42

Assuming a points deduction had been imposed in season 2021-22, at what point of the season would it have been imposed?

Considering the actual points deduction we got was imposed in season 2023-24, it's nigh on impossible to determine who would have gone down and who would have stayed up in 2021-22.

We could argue that “Okay, the deduction could have been imposed at the start of the season, giving us plenty of time to make those points up” while Burnley, naturally would want the points deduction at the end of the season.

It's all hypothetical anyway, as there's absolutely no way of knowing what could have happened. Also, we should sue them for the loss of the parachute payments we would have received, or are they going to pay that back?

Steve Brown 44 Posted 16/09/2025 at 18:15:40

After we have won the case, sue the inbred freaks for costs.

Burnley, the place where the family trees have no branches.

Ray Robinson 45 Posted 16/09/2025 at 18:34:13

Rob,

I'm guessing that they are “only” claiming £50M, being the difference they perceive between the actual loss and the parachute payment. But you know that... of course you do.

Shaun Parker 46 Posted 16/09/2025 at 20:00:32

Bunch of Charlatans.

Send them back to the Championship where they belong.

They have never been a Premier League club: shit ground, shit fans, shit manager.

Not good enough to the core, so they try to sue another Premier League club.

Get the fuck out of town and back where you belong.

Tony Abrahams 47 Posted 16/09/2025 at 21:07:08

Ray@30, that's exactly my point, mate.

Chelsea got away with certain offences because they had nothing to do with their new owners, because they had been committed before they arrived?

I might not be wrong but I'm sure something like this happened?

Ray Robinson 48 Posted 16/09/2025 at 21:30:40

Tony, as I understand it, the current 74 charges against Chelsea all relate to the previous owner.

The new owners self-reported but the club will still be punished if found guilty.

Brendan McLaughlin 49 Posted 16/09/2025 at 21:41:08

True, Ray #48,

Although it will be interesting to see how leniently Chelsea are treated due to their "good behaviour".

Tony Abrahams 50 Posted 16/09/2025 at 22:16:36

Thanks Ray. It’s taking that long that I must have just automatically assumed that they’d been given a walkover mate.

Phil (Kelsall) Roberts 51 Posted 16/09/2025 at 22:45:42

Can we claim for being excluded from Europe because of our neighbours' thugs?

Macc Gordon 52 Posted 16/09/2025 at 22:57:34

Can anyone confirm that Amy Wells was Everton's head of legal from July 2017 to December 2022 and she joined Burnley in April 2024 to be their general counsel?

If true, she will have insider knowledge.

Mark Taylor 53 Posted 16/09/2025 at 23:07:26

Macc, I don't think there is any doubt about that, it's on her Linkedin page.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/amywells1/

A lawyer will be along in a bit to explain why there is no conflict of interest.

Macc Gordon 54 Posted 16/09/2025 at 23:31:08

2023-24Everton 40 points (after -8 deducted)Brentford 39Nottm Forest 32 (-4)Luton 26Burnley 24Sheff Utd 16

2022-23Everton 36Leicester 34Leeds 31Southampton 25

2021-22Everton 39 goal diff -23Leeds 28Burnley 35 goal diff -19Watford 23Norwich 22

So Burnley need to persuade the commission that 4 of the 8 points deduction decided on and applied in season 2023-24 should apply to season 2021-22.

Brendan McLaughlin 55 Posted 16/09/2025 at 23:39:29

Can't help but think there's a narrative being spun.

Everton were only found guilty of breaching PSR after Burnley were relegated.

So we were docked 6 points the season after the season they went down... someone needs to explain their case to me.

Colin Glassar 58 Posted 17/09/2025 at 00:42:16

We should do a Trump and sue them for every penny they've got.

To hell with being nice, play by the rules, Everton. They can sod off!

Si Cooper 59 Posted 17/09/2025 at 01:11:14

Mark (53), I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess that as she was looking after the legal stuff and not the accounting, she probably wasn't even aware of the overspend. PSR isn't the law of the land, it's part of our ‘contract' with the football authorities.

There's no reason she has to operate in our best interests once she was no longer employed by Everton.

Brendan (55), if the overall duration of the overspending (by which we supposedly ended up with a competitive advantage) includes the season they were relegated, why would it matter that we were only found guilty after Burnley were relegated? What we were found guilty of occurred in the past, as is the normal state of affairs.

Doesn't mean I agree they have a case. The responsibility for any ‘damage' to Burnley rests with the Premier League for not having a system that worked in a suitable timeframe to prevent it.

Colin (58), we simply don't have the power that Trump has to bend the US legal system to his will... so no, we shouldn't act like he does.

Si Cooper 60 Posted 17/09/2025 at 01:31:42

James (7), I agree, so I doubt that will be what Burnley base their claim on. I think they will stick to the putative ‘sporting advantage'.

We are a shining example of how just spending money is no guarantee of sporting advantage, if you look at our performances relative to spending, and I'm sure there must be others.

If those presiding do simply accept the notion that the overspend made us better on the pitch, then I will accept there is clear and obvious bias against us.

Jake (16), sorry but I just think you are wrong. How could we claim the overspend only went on part of what we spent money on overall? It would be like saying your overdraft was only because of what you spent on the basics and nothing to do with the luxuries you also spend money on.

Bob Parrington 61 Posted 17/09/2025 at 01:42:40

I wonder how many good Everton goals were denied and how many bad penalty decisions were made against us in the said season(s). Pretty sure this would have lost us more than 8 points!!!!! TIC

The Amy Wells link is interesting???

Derek Knox 62 Posted 17/09/2025 at 03:48:29

We should counter-sue them for sacking Dyche, which allowed him to come to us.

Reminds me of that famous play by William Shakespeare: 'Much Ado About Fuck All'. :-)

Paul Hewitt 63 Posted 17/09/2025 at 05:14:41

This will get settled at a much lower amount than the £50M Burnley are claiming.

Laurie Hartley 64 Posted 17/09/2025 at 05:31:08

Kevin # 37 - seeing is believing.

https://images.newrepublic.com/efad7c68056b9089d1a2ae5ed01a2639b3dbe02b.jpeg?auto=format&fit=crop&crop=faces&ar=3%3A2&ixlib=react-9.10.0&q=65&w=768&dpr=2

The dark side are even trying to infiltrate the FBI - or is that an oxymoron?

Mark Andersson 65 Posted 17/09/2025 at 06:11:20

Jammie Charragha was asked for his qoute of the day..his answer was "don't shake hands with the devil"

Christine Foster 66 Posted 17/09/2025 at 08:46:58

On the possibility of the case being found against us, I fear pandora's box would be blown open as a result.Most culpable in all of this is the Premier league, firstly for making an example of us in deducting points, not having a system, process, to make a symbolic case against us, without due care, due time frame to allow the charge to be refuted, heard and finalized in a timely manner. Hardly the fault of the club.Secondly, inviting clubs to sue us as a result, of their "independent" panel.But the cat will be out of the bag should any decision be found against us. What then, those clubs such as city, who we played and lost several times in the period whilst they were in breach? Are those results to be examined! Would we be awarded points, would that torpedo Burnleys attempt to sue us? Would all city's winning results be null and voidBecause they should be, would we sue city as a result? Laugh you might but it's as laughable as Burnleys alleged case against us.This is a direct result of actions taken by the Premier League wanting to make an example for purely self serving reasons.Where is the independent panel review into Chelsea, City, Forest, in fact anyone who use dubious accounting practice to fudge accounts and without any shadow of doubt, gain competitive advantage.Personally I hope we fight this every step of the way. Bankrupt Burnley, why? Because had we not had TFG and still Moshiri, this case would have bankrupted us into liquidation. So I have no bad feeling about doing the same to Burnley.

Ray Robinson 67 Posted 17/09/2025 at 09:04:55

Mac #54, the commission does not have to apportion the 8 points. Remember, we had two charges? The first resulted in a 10 points deduction (reduced on appeal to 6), the second one in a two points deduction.

It is the first charge that Burnley claim would have relegated us had it been applied in the season when the offence occurred. I'd have thought therefore that their case should've been brought against the Premier League not us.

Since then, I believe the Premier League has brought the PSR reporting date forward to avoid the same thing happening again.

Mark Andersson 68 Posted 17/09/2025 at 09:05:46

I don't care any more, football is currupt on so many levels. Sure you can celebrate a fair win, but over all you know that the cheating will diliute any enjoyment you may have.

Moyes won't try to beat the RS on Saturday, he will do his best not to get beat, fair enough, because we have been dumbed down to except a draw as a moral victory.

If we do manage to get a head in the game, the cheats will no doubt do their dirty deeds to stop us having a victory..

Steve Brown 69 Posted 17/09/2025 at 09:49:30

Everton's 6-point deduction didn't occur during the 2021-22 campaign due to the Premier League's lack of timely action. Compensation should be sought from them.

Regardless of the outcome of the hearing, this will go on for a long time and the lawyers will be the ones who profit.

Christine Foster 70 Posted 17/09/2025 at 10:13:45

I think a verdict against Everton would set a president that would open civil war within the league that would cause its collapse. Litigation for failing to qualify for Europe, litigation for ANY defeat by Man City, Chelsea, Forest, Everton, Relegation because of defeats by those teams, the list goes on, it would be chaos one which would see the demise of the Premier league or a completely new governing entity.It cannot be allowed to succeed. That's the truth?.

Peter Mills 71 Posted 17/09/2025 at 10:57:07

Good to see that the spirit of Bob Lord, The Burnley Butcher, lives on.

Paul Hewitt 72 Posted 17/09/2025 at 11:08:57

Christine@70. If that's the outcome then I hope Burnley win

Ron Sear 73 Posted 17/09/2025 at 11:13:16

Can law firms be sued if they give bad advice that could potentially damage their client, in this case Burnley? I can't see how Everton can be held responsible for the Premier Leagues decision.

Dave Abrahams 74 Posted 17/09/2025 at 11:42:28

Peter (71), Bob Lord!told me to eff off once when I was trying to convince him to buy a rosette I was selling at the Burnley 3-1 loss cup game, I did some talking though and wouldn’t leave him alone ‘til he bought one, gave me half a crown and said “ Now fuck off and keep the change” they were two shillings each.

Brendan McLaughlin 75 Posted 17/09/2025 at 12:00:20

Si #59

Perhaps I'm reading it wrongly but the thing that struck me is that the article suggests Everton were found guilty of breaching PSR and if the points deduction had been applied in a timely fashion Everton would have been relegated and Burnley would have stayed up.

That's simply not true because Burnley were relegated the season before Everton were deemed to have breached PSR not the season before the points deductions were applied.

As to Burnleys claim itself, the PSR limit is £105M so a team doesn't "gain" any "sporting advantage" until they exceed this figure. Everton had not exceeded the limit and by extension had gained no sporting advantage in the three year period ending the season Burnley were relegated.

Les Callan 76 Posted 17/09/2025 at 12:18:18

Phil @51. We ought to have done that in 1985. Make no mistake, had it happened the other way round, they would definitely have sued us.

Matt Traynor 77 Posted 17/09/2025 at 13:04:47

Les #76, the Tory Government were, diplomatically, anti-football at that time. A working class sport that stood against everything they believed in and were pushing for.

When the sanction was placed by UEFA, they made it clear it was indefinite, and the RS would be subject to an additional 3 years when the ban was lifted. That was quietly dropped, I think they served an additional year and can't recall if they would've qualified anyway as a resurgent Utd were in "Operation knock them off their perch" mode.

Of course, to make light of their faux pas, those jovial japesters had a banner for years in the Kop, proclaiming Steau Bucarest (the EC winners in 1986) - knowing many felt we would win that year. That banner was only removed fairly recently, when the connection was pointed out to the hierarchy. Which is unbelieveable. If only there were more Evertonians in the media who could highlight these lamentable acts.

Bitter? You better effing believe it. Yet one bad VAR decision and they expect a national day of mourning.

Les Callan 80 Posted 17/09/2025 at 14:10:33

And of course lads……..Heysel never happened. I wrote to half a dozen news outlets this year , and LFC , asking what they proposed to do to commemorate 40 years since Heysel. I got one reply, from north west news who said they would report on it if there was anything to report ! I had a similar ( non ) response when I did the same for the 25th anniversary. LFC said they were putting a plaque on the wall. No other response either time. And that included the red echo.