Lawyers issue ‘a’very difficult’ verdict on Burnley, Leicester City and Leeds United’s compensation claims of Everton
According to two sports attorneys, clubs that want to sue Everton for breaking profit and sustainability regulations and want compensation may find it hard to prove their case.
The Athletic was informed on November 22 by Dan Chapman of Leathes Prior and Nii Anteson of Sheridans that teams such as Leeds United and Leicester City may receive a smaller portion of the £100 million that is believed to be their target [Daily Mail, November 17].
Chapman also thinks Burnley’s situation is really complicated, since they may be able to make the case that their recent promotion and relegation have made them better off overall, negating the need to take on the significant financial risk.
It is important to consider what may have happened if Everton had not overspent during the crucial seasons, according to Chapman.
If I were Everton’s legal representative, I would argue that the overspending had no real impact. The attorneys for the other clubs will undoubtedly respond, No, that isn’t the case.
Well, we were only demoted because of that,’ you say if you’re Burnley, and there’s where it becomes extremely complex.
The counterargument, however, is that Burnley might be in a stronger situation because they have parachute payments (the funds awarded to clubs that have been relegated), they have relaunched, they have Vincent Kompany leading them through the Championship, and they are currently back in the Premier League.
We can’t be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that causation is made out, a judge may declare.
Even in that case, they will have to determine the proper compensation to put the parties in the position they should have been in, which will be quite challenging.
This kind of situation is frequently encountered when someone looks at a lost opportunity and applies an arbitrary percentage chance.
For instance, they can argue that if Everton had not overspent, there is a 10% probability that they would have remained in the Premier League.
Since there was a £100 million difference between them and the Premier League that season, Everton would have received £10 million.
You are attempting to convince a tribunal or court that a specific alternative scenario (Premier League survival at the expense of Everton) was more likely to occur than what actually happened or other alternatives (you would be relegated anyway), so you can already see the potential problems with it.
Even if you were successful in convincing the tribunal or court of that, they will probably reduce any reward you receive to account for the likelihood that your preferred course of action will materialize more often than not.
According to Chapman, Everton may attempt to negotiate settlements by threatening to go under, which would mean that you might get nothing anyway if large compensation were to be owed to Toffees.
On the surface, the legal evaluation ought to assist in reducing some of the significant risk associated with the possible payment of compensation.
But any optimism that the Toffees could be safe will probably be dashed when the commission board, which previously determined that Everton was guilty of a breach and that teams might be entitled to claim, also gets to deliberate on potential compensation.
It is very impossible to predict what the outcome might be because the authorities are making this up as they go along, and there is no precedent in Premier League history for a situation like this.
There is also a great deal of room for disagreement concerning who was affected and to what extent.
On paper, it appears very debatable that Everton gained any kind of competitive edge on the field from anything they accomplished during the relevant period hence, it appears that there is enough ambiguity for the club’s representatives to justify the position by offering £100 million to anyone.
It feels risky, though, given that the commission has previously essentially disregarded every defense of the breach itself.
The Premier League seems to feel that Everton shouldn’t have signed anyone else because they sold Anthony Gordon and Richarlison, who were arguably their two best attacking players at the time.
However, it should be noted that Everton’s overlimit was caused by a change in stadium payment regulations.
At the very least, two legal opinions have hinted that something other than an impending catastrophe may be in store, but given the current state of affairs, this might potentially result in even more sadness when the results are revealed.
