Everton express 'surprise and anger' over latest hammer blow from Premier League
Everton have reacted with anger at the decision by a Premier League commission to order the club to pay compensation to Burnley in relation to Profitability and Sustainability Rules breaches in 2022.
Everton were found guilty in the autumn of 2023 of breaking the league's spending rules and were initially deducted 10 points by a Premier League panel, although that ruling was later reduced to six points on appeal. A further two point deduction was levied for a futher breach of the upper limit permitted by the league for financial losses over a rolling three-year period.
Now, the same three-man commission responsible for the first 10-point penalty has demanded that Everton pay Burnley £35m, including £9m interest, after the Clarets argued that they would not have been relegated in 2021-22 had the Blues not illegally over-spent.
In a statement, Everton FC said that they are, "surprised and angered by the decision of a Premier League Independent Disciplinary Commission to order a compensation payment to Burnley Football Club in relation to Everton’s PSR breach in June 2022."
"The Club does not recognise the findings of the panel in determining Burnley’s relegation from the Premier League in May 2022 was caused by a sporting advantage gained by Everton due to a breach of Profit & Sustainability Rules, for which a substantive sporting sanction has already been received.
"This ruling sets a dangerous and unworkable precedent for English football, given it is constructed on a principle that a club can be in breach of financial rules at any point in a financial year.
"Everton believes the panel’s ruling misrepresents the clear evidence presented by its legal representatives and that an appeal will be successful."
The club have lodged an appeal which will be heard by a different Premier League panel. Any financial sanction that is either upheld or revised will not impact Everton's calculations under the new Squad Cost Ratio rules and is not expected to impact this summer's transfer business.
Reader Responses
Selected thoughts from readers10/06/2026 16:37:17
Prelude to City being exonerated?????
10/06/2026 17:01:30
Ted #2 Why would that be the case ?
10/06/2026 17:31:25
What is the point in even attempting to compete, anymore?
The game is rigged both on the pitch and off it.
Can Everton sue Liverpool for loss of earnings due to Heysel?
Can we sue Chelsea having finished below them for all those years that they were in breach of the rules?
10/06/2026 17:48:28
I try to be quite measured and objective but let’s be honest we’ve been massively singled out and harshly treated miles beyond the experience of other clubs.
Glad we’re appealing.
Absolutely disgraceful
10/06/2026 18:38:12
I cannot believe this, I thought it was all behind us.
10/06/2026 19:31:24
I think this one single, disgraceful decision, made by the same commission who handed Everton the largest sporting sanction in PL history, will mark the beginning of the end of the Premier League.
The implication of that disgraceful and inappropriate decision was compounded at the time when their ruling also invited any aggrieved clubs to sue Everton.
Yet again, a world first, yet again, a monumental act of vindictiveness, yet again caused by a Premier League hierarchy who are not only complicit but have orchestrated this from the very beginning.
This whole vindictive mess of singling out the club in such a manner whilst allowing excesses of others is comparatively unjust and the club should seriously consider its position legally to appeal.
This precedent will allow any club to sue another if it has been found to breach any, repeat, ANY, rule. The implications are potentially massive should this decision be allowed to stand. This same "independent' commission has already been previously found in error after the club won its appeal on the points deductions, have doubled down on that decision and has kicked the door open and laid bare the fuckwittery of this ruling originally.
I would expect an emergency meeting of the Premier League to change its rules to prevent clubs for sueing each other or the league itself should any rule breach by a club be clear and that the league itself will not allow so called independent panels to rule in future. Anything less would lead to chaos as clubs will rightly allege corruption and injustice in how rulings made impact clubs as a result.
This unjust decision has demolished a cornerstone of the Premier League and laid bare charges of corruption against it. One rule for one cannot and should not be allowed. Fundamentally wrong in its original decision to invite others to sue a club for a disputed breach, what now for clubs who admit significant, even criminal financial breaches or sporting breaches that lead to significant loss financially to others as a result?
This ruling cannot be allowed to stand and the PL can no longer hide behind the skirts of an independent commission in washing its hands of the matter. They are complicit in deciding to bring the charge and must take responsibility for any impact that results.
Failure to do so has laid bare the truth of one rule for one. It's implications are mind boggling and should in truth end in significant change of rules. If it doesn't then the Premier League is finished and rightly so.
10/06/2026 19:43:24
As a footnote, to announce this on the eve of the World cup in an obvious attempt to divert interest is purely coincidental, right?
10/06/2026 20:16:22
Eugene#3
Just a jibe towards the evident corruption within the Premier League Eugene,we keep kicking the same can down the same road.
10/06/2026 20:16:31
Well, they were never going to make such an announcement during the League season, knowing the supporters would then make all those mass accusations of corruption at the match, as happened previously.
10/06/2026 20:22:35
Does that mean we can sue Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Villa for loss of points ? We could make a profit here if we play our cards right.
10/06/2026 20:23:16
It's early morning here so my brain isn't really in gear yet, but I thought I would get the AI overview for clarity? (My apologies to Mike Gaynes in doing so) but here goes:
"The landmark compensation ruling against Everton establishes a massive financial precedent that shifts financial breaches in English football from simple sporting penalties into multi-million-pound legal liabilities.Legal experts and clubs view this as a "watershed moment" with broad implications across the league:
1. A Blueprint to Sue Rivals:
By ruling that Everton's overspending directly caused Burnley's relegation, the independent panel has created a template for "loss of chance" lawsuits. Premier League rules allow clubs to seek compensation for losses caused by another member's rule breaches. Rivals can now legally argue that a rule-breaking club cost them massive revenues through relegation, missed European qualification, or lost titles.
2. Immediate Threat to Chelsea
The ruling heavily exposes Chelsea, who previously avoided a points deduction but accepted a £10 million Premier League fine after admitting to making £47 million in secret, undisclosed transfer payments between 2011 and 2018. Rival clubs who missed out on trophies or European revenue during that dominant period could use this precedent to file massive civil claims against the club.
3. The Looming Manchester City "Case of the Century"
The biggest impact rests on Manchester City and their ongoing case regarding 115 alleged financial breaches. City strongly denies all charges. However, if they are found guilty by the Premier League, this Everton ruling ensures a "queue of clubs" will immediately launch astronomical compensation claims for missing out on Premier League titles and Champions League revenue over a decade.
4. Settlement Precedents (Leeds United)
The ruling validates why clubs like Leeds United proactively agreed to an out-of-court settlement with Everton in late 2025 regarding the same 2021/22 season breaches. Facing unpredictable panel verdicts, more accused clubs are expected to offer swift financial settlements to avoid public tribunals and interest-heavy payouts. Other clubs that initially considered action—such as Leicester City, Nottingham Forest, and Southampton—will look at this £40 million payout as a benchmark for future disputes.
10/06/2026 20:26:59
The printer has just ordered in a large quantity (52,000 pieces) of orange cards to be delivered by the 1st August.
10/06/2026 20:42:09
Just a little added kick in the wotsits
"Everton are being charged 11.8% interest on the compensation due to Burnley, that works out at £8,400 a day. This seems very harsh especially as their original points deduction was due to accountants squabbling over the interest charged on the loan for the new stadium." Kieran Maguire.
10/06/2026 20:55:40
Was there not a strong rumour, at the time TFG pulled out of the deal to buy Everton, that the reason they did that was they wanted Moshiri to indemnify them against claims like this? When they came back to eventually complete the deal, I wonder what, if anything, was agreed?
10/06/2026 21:12:00
Some very sensible posts Christine. Maybe because it’s summer time this decision hasn’t really bothered me as much as it normally would, but now I’ve just read that the verdict was reached by the same panel that gave us our initial draconian points deduction, then it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
I don’t know much about this type of thing but just looking at the interest payments requested on top of this fine, “they’re having a fucking laugh” are my initial thoughts.
Not a chance Everton, will end up paying this fine, otherwise I’m sure what you wrote in post 7, Christine, will definitely become reality.
10/06/2026 21:54:00
Am I reading this right, that the same panel that were subsequently found to have treated us overly harshly were then allowed to reside over this case? If that is true then I find that fact alone absolutely staggering.
We should have appealed that situation before it even started. It's like picking the same judge and jury for a re-trial. It simply doesn't happen, for good reason.
10/06/2026 23:39:41
Unbelievable, utterly unbelievable.
Others have expressed it more succinctly than I could earlier on but I’m feeling the same sense of outrage that I did when the self same commission handed down an extortionate points deduction.
Where do we go from here?
Well we appeal, obviously and start to prepare a case against Chelsea for mega millions.
We need our high profile evertonians (Mark Carney and Andy Burnham for starters, although I appreciate they might have more pressing concerns just at the moment) to raise hell in the media and start to call out the Premier League for their obvious vindictiveness against us and leniency towards Chelsea.
11/06/2026 07:14:14
We broke the rules, albeit a flawed set of rules, but we broke them.
The governing body punished us for it because again, we broke the rules. A flawed punishment issued by a flawed governing body is true. A flawed punishment that we successfully challenged to some degree. but a punishment of some description was due.
If breaking the rules did give us some form of advantage, although we were ran so abysmal you'd debate it, then we have to accept it.
Fair play to Burnley for spotting the opportunity. They've worked within an understanding of the rules to their benefit. How often has the circus that is Everton managed that in recent years?
For me, it's all just another part of the legacy of how mismanaged we were for a number of years.
If I was going to get annoyed, it would be with the inequality with which the Premier League is run. But I'm not. The same inequality has treated any number of clubs over the history of the Premier League just as badly. We had our chance over the years to be part of the inner circle and we blew it.
In all honesty, I think this is just another symptom of where the club is at within English football at present. We've earned the narrative surrounding the club, we've earned the current low levels of value and respect we have within English football as a whole. That is our standing right now. The current owners can look to make changes to it all to our advantage but the will, and the stomach for the fight, like with any other clubs, has to be there.
The inequality of it all is irrelevant in ways. There's the system, there's the governing body, there's the set of rules and how they're applied.
Get annoyed, get upset, rant and rail against the system all you want. For me, it just is what it is.
11/06/2026 08:21:19
Kieran, 19, I applaud you for offering a fresh perspective and I think there is something in what you say.
But we seem to be the only club being hit hard as the people entrusted with running the Premier League attempt to show they are in control of a dubiously maintained juggernaut. No slap on the wrist for us.
Where is all this litigation going to end? It is a huge distraction, which is also causing us reputational damage. We seem to have become a football club that is spending more on lawyers than full-backs.
We are appealing, but are we preparing for the new season, possibly entering it, under a cloud. Will we deal with it all as well as last time? Especially as we are no longer at Goodison.
11/06/2026 08:49:37
The threat to Chelsea is an interesting one, and I suspect their owners will be on a conference call this morning to war-game their options.
They admitted to corrupting the system using £47m over 8 years to win 8 trophies. Setting aside the relative injustice of their meagre £10m fine and being allowed to retain their trophies, were I one of the clubs disadvantaged by this I'd be reaching for m'learned friend this morning. If there's any justice, a tsunami of litigation should swiftly follow.
11/06/2026 09:00:53
Kieran, no. Well, yes and no.
We broke the rules, but we didn't believe we had and worked hand in hand with the league to ensure we stayed on the right side of the equation. Technically we got it wrong. But from then on it was a set up to make the club an example of for political means to try to dissuade the government from appointing a football regulator. They needed to make an example and we were the perfect opportunity. It should be remembered that Masters wanted a 12 point deduction in their submission, just exactly how that can be squared with Chelsea who fraudulently lied in its pursuit and success of trophies, 47m with huge ongoing sporting advantage. A 10m fine
Couple that with the very fact the "independent" commission made up of the original panel, whose decision was repealed factually and legally in the subsequent appeal, got the chance to double down on their invitation to clubs to sue Everton.
You can say we were found guilty but the end does not justify the means.
You may be over it but any football fan can see it for what it is.
11/06/2026 09:33:30
Your point is clear, but it could be tightened up for readability and impact. Here's a polished version:
:::writing{variant="standard" id="58241"} It's a bit of a mess, really.
The compensation itself may be set at a lower amount than some expected, but the real issue is the precedent it sets. Allowing Premier League clubs to effectively sue one another takes the competition off the pitch and into commissions, tribunals, and courts.
It's a sure sign of a broken system when matters are allowed to reach that stage. It reflects a Premier League governing body that is no longer fit for purpose, with failures in both regulation and implementation creating open-ended problems.
There seems to be a belief that money can solve every issue, but money has never been a substitute for good governance or competent management, by the Premier League. :::
11/06/2026 10:25:38
Christine, I'm only too well aware that we are being targeted, that we are being treated in a grossly unfair manner. But it is very easy to kick a club like Everton because we don't really matter. City matter, Arsenal matter, Chelsea matter, that is why we will be the fall guy for the governing body's agenda and not them.
And I do think that those clubs have worked the system, have played the game, far better than us.
No amount of me worrying, giving out, of wailing and howling at the moon will change that. I have had precious little joy in being an Everton fan on recent years. Getting upset about a corrupt system and how it treats the club is pointless as a fan.
Like I said, its up to the club's owners to instigate change, to play the game and the system to the club's advantage.
Also,I have enough stress and worry in my home and work life without adding to it.
If all of the above means I'm not a football fan or that people think I don't care, then fair enough.
11/06/2026 10:59:52
Can't help wondering if anyone at the Premier League has ever told this rather zealous disciplinary panel headed by David Phillips KC:
"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"
11/06/2026 12:05:53
Kieran, I’m sure you care and I understand that you are fed up with how we were run and are seeking to accept it to minimise the stress our club heaps on us, but, as Christine says we tried to stay within the lines but still they came for us with a disproportional response.
I’m cheesed off with the whole saga and wonder where and when it will end.
And now it turns out that not only did we have the original commission inviting clubs to sue and then resitting to hand down an exorbitant fine, they used an ‘expert’ witness with close ties to Burnley to arrive at their decision.
That’s what really annoys me. The total dishonesty of the whole procedure that needs to be called out.
11/06/2026 12:33:11
Peter, you and Christine are right that it is very dishonest and unfair on the club. I'm not disagreeing with any of your arguments. You are right that the powers that be need to be called out.
How is the real question. I do honestly feel that while fans protesting may achieve something around raising awareness, it will ultimately fall on deaf ears. The powers that be must know they are wrong. I just don't think they care. Sky sports etc al will always spin it the way of their favourites, including the PL.
The real answer lies with the Friedkin group. (I think Moshiri had the right idea, just implemented it in a cack handed manner.)The Friedkin group has made a good start with finishing the increased capacity stadium, a stadium that Moahiri as the previous owner should get credit for.
The owner's cannot change the system. But they can play it. A start is with how they manage the appeal, how they spin the fine, how they portray Everton to the outside world, to the media and to anyone who will listen.
11/06/2026 16:38:32
Did nobody in the Premier League realise that this would end up as a massive scandal.Temember you heard It here first.If the regulations and are applied pro rata to Man City, who have 100 allegations against Everton's 3 and maybe other Clubs, where Clubs missed out on Premier League titles and Champion League places the amounts of compensation could make Burnley's compensation claim look like chicken feed.Ir could bring into question the role and very presence of the Premier League and also result in litigious action against it.
Sorry I forgot our illustrious former Chief Executive( formerly Everton in the Community) was Chairman of the Premier League Committee that set up this whole regulatory process. Everton where therefore very cooperative with the Premier League during the monitoring period, until the Auditor would not sign off on the Accounts and the new Auditor did sign off with pages of clarifications, which had 'Good Concern' concerns.
Welcome to Everton, The Premier League Authorities and to Evertonian suffering.You deserve it.Ee might end up under the Scottish FA at this rate
11/06/2026 17:02:31
Genuine question. If, following our points deduction the following season, we had been relegated would Burnley still have been able to sue us?
I would say that if they can sue us now then they could have still sued us even if we had been relegated following a points deduction the next season.
Therefore, we could conceivably have been relegated and then been sued by another club because they got relegated.
How can that possibly be fair?
11/06/2026 17:09:48
PSR failings were over a 3 year period, weren't they? So why would the whole points deduction be retrospectively applied only to the season impacting Burnley?
11/06/2026 17:24:08
Christine @ 7 - a marvellous summary. It will be my go to every time I need a quick refresh of this scandal.
And to Jerome @ 28 my conclusion is the Premier League knows it looks bad, knows it opens a can of worms, but they don't care.
They are vindictively only after Everton and even if future verdicts for other clubs openly contradicts the Everton decision they don't care.
The club really does needs to be careful about the appeal and should seek the very best legal advice and support from influential people.
11/06/2026 17:27:46
On and On. Once it was decided clubs could sue us for compensation it was inevitable Burnley would win their case, even more so given the composition of the panel. Once invited, lawyers are unlikely ever to pass up the opportunity to make decisions which in turn generate lucrative work for their profession as a whole. They must be looking at the Premier League and rubbing their hands with glee at the riches to come as clubs sue, counter sue, appeal and so forth.
So now we have another protracted battle over the compensation and the extortionate interest payments accruing as we speak. We’ll soon need another table showing which clubs are suing and being sued and the amounts involved. Alongside the table of agents fees club by club there will be another showing legal fees, all money disappearing from the sport, its participants and supporters.
We might hope the Premier League and its clubs come to their collective senses and draw back from chaos. That would of course require a quality of leadership sadly in short supply among current administrators of the game.
11/06/2026 19:09:14
It strikes me that if this stands, then Everton should compile a list of poor refereeing decisions and start to sue the referees... I mean if a club can sue another club, then why can't a club sue a referee? For that matter, perhaps the clubs should start suing players who commit infractions which go unpunished...
I don't know why Everton are being singled out for this treatment - sure, Everton are a (soft target' when compared to championship/ cup winning sides like Chelsea and Man City, but I cannot see what the Premier League have to gain by pursuing this as far as they have... this behaviour places them in a real bind for Manchester City, and underlines their own corrupt nature with regards to the Chelsea situation.
As Mike said (20), once the door is opened to this sort of litigation, there is no saying where it will stop.
11/06/2026 21:01:49
if there's one thing these Friedkins will know backwards it's law fare. I think we can park this one, Burnley aint getting £40m off these chaps.
11/06/2026 22:39:31
Gerard D #31
Man City are currently being investigated, but are fighting it causing delays. Clubs had to formally reserve their legal right to compensation by November 5, 2024.It is not know what Clubs have claimed.Everton had a 12 week Case time table ,whilst the Premier.waived the 12:week deadline for Man City. Actually Everton had one, not threebreach of the rules. Mam City had 115.
11/06/2026 06:16:34
Rupert#33
Denise Barrett‑Baxendale served on various Premier League committees, but she was not involved in the independent regulatory process that ultimately charged Everton.This phase of Premier League regulation was to head off, the possible appointment if a Government Regulator, after Fan lead review.
Everton was fully cooperative with the Premier League throughout the monitoring process, which lasted over a year. Two months before the charges, the Premier League had indicated compliance, but that was based on initial figures provided by the club.
Bill Kenwright was close to the Premier League and kept Denise heavily involved. Everton was indeed the main club to support the Premier League during the European Super League breakaway, calling the "Big Six" out for a "betrayal", and helped smooth over the aftermath. Bill Kenwright likely believed he had the Premier League sown up.
What changed was the resignation of Everton's auditor (PwC), and the new auditor heavily qualified the accounts with a "going concern" issue. However, the breach (£19.5m over the £105m limit) was already known by November 2023. What became clear was that the figures provided during the monitoring period had been incorrect, and the earlier compliance statement was revised once audited accounts revealed the true position.
The Independent commission was not part of any committee that Denise chaired – it was appointed by the independent Judicial Panel Chair. But once the commission was formed, Denise went quiet and Bill was out in the cold.
Unlike Everton, other clubs (most notably Manchester City) fought legally from the start. Manchester City successfully appealed a UEFA sanction at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2020. Everton’s lack of any legal redress from the start – their full cooperation and failure to challenge the process – directly resulted in the harsh outcome they received. Where City fought and won on procedural grounds, Everton trusted the system and were punished severely: two points deductions (10 reduced to 6, plus another 2) and an order to pay Burnley compensation..Several Clubs have accepted charges, though they fought, but Everton’s cooperative stance left them uniquely exposed.
IMO, Everton under Bill Kenwright thought they could get away with anything because he believed he had the Premier League sewn up. Moshiri/Usmanov thought the same. That's why Kenwright effectively ran Everton after selling it. To some extent they were right, Moshiri did avoid certain sanctions, but the lack of legal aggression backfired badly. Bill's cosy relationship narrative didn't hold up when the actual penalties imposed.
Actually Everton's central arguement in the Appeal that got the penalties reduced , was their cooperation.
12/06/2026 09:48:43
Kevin #34 having worked for a US multinational for over 30 years one thing US business guys know is how to weaponize the law to to their advantage. The Friedkins aren't going to roll over & accept this.
12/06/2026 11:24:09
We will be talking about this for some time, fans at other clubs are asking questions, so I assume those clubs are too.
What happens next is anyones guess, but this has "a cat out of the bag, genie out of the bottle, pandoras box" feel to it.
12/06/2026 12:32:41
I have a friend who sold his company to a America Company. The meeting consisted of him on one side and five on the other side, three of who where lawyers.He refused to sign anything that day until he had spoke to his own Solicitor, to check any comeback clauses.He then signed.
Kevin and Eugene are definitely right. I think if the original case had have been handled right Everton would not have points deduction over the one breach and would not have been subject to a compensation claim.
I expect TFG to pay nothing and they may even counter sue.No statuary end period exists,in the PSR regulations,other than a six year cut of period for claims which is seperate.
12/06/2026 12:35:11
I'm more inclined to think this 'example' will now be preserved in aspic, never to apply to another team ever again Andy. Similar to when Niasse was sent off for 'diving'.
12/06/2026 15:46:19
Kevin#40
That occured to me as well.
13/06/2026 05:46:10
Everton's PSR defence was oddly meek. Here's why:
Kenwright & Co panicked because they thought they'd finally been caught with their hands in the till. Years of stripping the club, murky stadium financing, financial chaos. They knew it was indefensible.
So they played dead. No fight on the facts. Just "Please be gentle".
The appeal later overturned the "bad faith"(you where dishonest ,you thieving bastard's) finding, but the damage was done. The initial surrender told us everything.
When you're guilty, you don't argue innocence. You beg for mercy.
Kenwright & Co where on the ground with four feet in the air, and the Premier League stuck the boot into them.That is what really happened Evertonians.
13/06/2026 11:44:59
I am intrigued by why the Premier League website contains no mention of its disciplinary commission's ruling that one of its member clubs must pay £35million to a recently relegated club.
Perhaps it's me being dozy. I can see a large number of stories, ranging from one on Premier League principles for 2026-27 (ho ho ho) to the Ipswich manager leaving to Liverpool backroom staff leaving to Hull's new kit.
But the unprecedented order for one club to hand over £35million to another? I have looked for this for four consecutive days. I have seen no mention whatsoever.
Yet when we were deducted points, there was an article and a link to the actual ruling.
If it's not me being dozy, what is the reason for this glaring omission by the Premier League? Embarrassment?
I easily found a link to the ruling on the Burnley website.
13/06/2026 13:27:08
Mike, one of the little things I learnt along the way was how to "bury" bad or embarrassing news. You tack it on to good news that's so important it doesn't make a ripple. BTW, it's not making the BBC sports page anymore, funny that. But then this bit of unwanted news which definitely is embarrassing to Masters and Co, was released to the media on the very eve of the world cup purely coincidence surely? No, didn't think so.. I suppose they hope England win and that will bury the appeal verdict whatever it is!
13/06/2026 16:04:43
Christine, I think this is a step further than burying bad news. Isn't that when governments, or governing bodies, slip a statement out at 4.30pm on a Friday?
This, if I am correct (keep thinking I must have missed something), is not issuing a statement at all.
But surely putting out a statement is incumbent on them, as the governing body.
I see that the online Lawyer magazine, which is behind a paywall, claimed an exclusive on it. It seems this was then followed up by BBC, Sky etc. Of course, the question then is how did The Lawyer learn of it?
14/06/2026 07:29:31
Christine and Mike it just occured to me that what we could be talking about this Summer having been 'stabilized', is not progress, but austerity.God help us.There no doubt that the dour, auster Moyes is uniquely qualified, with a demeanour to match.Religiously so and probably a hypocrite for good measure.
Everton have known about this decision for months.
14/06/2026 11:48:23
Jerome, there are millions of pounds needed to be spent on several parts of the club. Where to start. Austerity is an apt description of where the club will be. Plod along, funding only the most essential things,until there is enough money to make a start on what will be the most important part of the club that needs fixing. Other areas will just have to wait, perhaps including the playing squad.
You would need a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk level of cash to really fix everything at once.
It is really only sixteen or seventeen months of new ownership. The Friedkin group can't be expected to sink hundreds of millions of pounds into the club on a regular basis.
Christine, I had noticed that the article was also up on Football365 briefly before also being taken down. I don't know if it's on legal advice pending an appeal being lodged by the club, at the request of the PL or at the request of the club or owners.
14/06/2026 12:08:20
Jerome, I was wondering how long the club had known, especially after reading of Moyes's "aware of this probably four or five weeks ago" comment.
Now just read Patrick Boyland article in The Athletic saying:
Draft decision, April 7
Further hearing, May 28
Final decision, June 2
Made public June 10.
Even though it may be portrayed as a club v club case, it all happened within the framework of the Premier League. So for the PL to not have a statement clearly posted on its website is, to my mind, a dereliction of duty by those in charge.
As for stability/progress/austerity, we shall have to wait and see what the transfer window brings, but I am not optimistic.
Fixtures out on Friday. I shall be looking with particular interest at who we play in our first six or seven games. They could have a bigger bearing than normal on our season.
Anyway, I am keeping my Monday nights free. Not sure what I'll be doing on Saturdays.
14/06/2026 12:39:10
Mike, as far as I am aware, the club had requested privacy on the findings until an appeal had been concluded, this was apparently reported in the the Sunday Times but the Premier League and Burnley fought for immediate release.
According to Google review,
"The Premier League and Burnley rejected Everton's request for privacy primarily to uphold transparency, public accountability, and the integrity of the competition.When the independent commission delivered the historic £35 million verdict, Everton pushed heavily to keep the judgment completely confidential until their appeal was heard. The Premier League said no to this secrecy for several critical reasons:
1. Precedent and League Integrity
This case marked the first time in Premier League history that one club successfully sued another for damages caused by a regulatory rule breach. Because the ruling fundamentally changes how Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) are enforced and establishes a major legal precedent, the Premier League determined that the wider football community and other member clubs had a right to know the outcome. Keeping a landmark decision hidden would look like a cover-up and damage the league's sporting integrity.
2. Guarding Against "Secret Tribunals"
The Premier League has faced severe criticism from fans, media, and the UK's Independent Football Regulator regarding a perceived lack of transparency in its legal processes. If the league had agreed to suppress the verdict, it would have fueled accusations that English football is governed by secret, unaccountable tribunals. Publicly releasing the document was necessary to show that the regulatory framework is open and fair.
3. Financial Reassurance for the Wider MarketEverton is in the middle of a delicate corporate transition, and a hidden £35 million liability could skew market perceptions. By insisting on immediate publication, the Premier League ensured that any potential buyers, creditors, and current stakeholders had an accurate and transparent view of the club's active financial obligations.
4. Burnley's Strong Demand for Fair PlayAs the victors in the suit, Burnley and their chairman, Alan Pace, heavily resisted any attempts to bury the news. Burnley argued that because the competitive field had been compromised, fans and the sport demanded a public acknowledgment that a rule had been broken and a competitive advantage improperly gained.
Now, I followed that query with a follow up the the above view may be seen as hypocritical to which the following came back:
"You have pointed out a glaring contradiction that many football financial experts, legal analysts, and fans are highlighting. The Premier League’s sudden embrace of "transparency" in the Everton vs. Burnley case stands in stark, hypocritical contrast to how it has handled other massive financial disputes.The league’s reasoning feels highly inconsistent when measured against three specific major cases.
1. The Chelsea "Secret Payments" Settlement (March 2026)
Just three months ago, the Premier League quietly ratified a settlement with Chelsea regarding £47 million in hidden payments to unregistered agents during the Roman Abramovich era.The Hypocrisy: Chelsea self-reported the breaches and was handed a modest £10 million fine and a suspended academy transfer ban. The entire negotiation and adjudication process was handled largely behind closed doors.The Double Standard: Critics point out that Chelsea used illicit funding to secure trophies and establish a dominant market position for years. Yet, they were granted a quiet, structured settlement, while Everton was publicly subjected to an immediate disclosure of a devastating £35 million penalty.
2. The Manchester City "115 Charges" Battle
The Premier League’s highest-profile financial investigation—the 115 alleged breaches by Manchester City—has been shrouded in secrecy from the start.The Hypocrisy: While the Premier League argued that the Everton-Burnley verdict had to be made public immediately to protect the "integrity of the competition," the Manchester City hearings have taken place in entirely private, undisclosed locations.The Double Standard: The public has been kept entirely in the dark regarding the day-to-day progression, timeline, and intermediate rulings of the City case. The league has consistently defended this privacy by citing the confidentiality of its rulebook—the exact defense they just denied to Everton.
3. The Associated Party Transaction (APT) Tribunal (2024–2025)
When Manchester City challenged the league’s rules on sponsorship and shareholder loans, the legal war was fought almost entirely in private arbitration rooms.The Hypocrisy: The public only found out about the panel's rulings when the clubs themselves leaked or forced the publication of the documents. In fact, Manchester City openly accused the Premier League of distributing a "misleading and inaccurate" summary of the private findings to the other 19 clubs to protect its own reputation.
The Bottom Line: Protecting the Brand, Not Transparency
The consensus among football analysts at The Athletic is that the Premier League enforces transparency selectively based on its political needs.When the league is under intense scrutiny from the UK government's Independent Football Regulator, it weaponizes transparency against clubs like Everton or Nottingham Forest to prove it can discipline its own members. However, when dealing with its absolute biggest commercial assets (like Manchester City or Chelsea), it frequently reverts to private tribunals, non-disclosure agreements, and backroom settlements to protect the global Premier League brand from reputational damage.
I hasten to ad that's all generated from AI but despite its hypothesis it is an aggregate of known facts and perspectives, just to balance that out, another long read BUT brilliantly done by The Esk for which I truly hope the club use ro fight this appeal.
https://theesk.org/2026/06/11/the-analysis-series-grounds-for-appeal-burnley-fc-v-everton-fc-pljp-2023-3/
14/06/2026 13:07:40
Thanks, Christine, that's very interesting. Relatively concise too.
Whilst you got it via AI, I think it is all based on human-produced reports.
So it would appear Everton pushed for privacy until the appeal has been completed. Reports suggesting this would be the New Year.
As a matter of principle, I much prefer openness. And as an Evertonian, I'd say knowing the recent decision MAY help us to understand the club's dealings in the meantime.
To my mind, no matter who owns the shares, it is our football club.
I must read the Esk article.
14/06/2026 13:21:30
The Esks article is the most concise and comprehensive rebuttal of the decision and lays out the contrary argument for the appeal.
It lays bare both the relative injustice of the findings, but more importantly the factual response to the basis of their decision making. It is indeed incorrect in both fact and law and The Esk to his credit lays it out perfectly.
My aim in showing bothe the ad hoc AI interpretation and Paul Quinns excellent piece is context. Too often details are ignored in headline reading when perspectives on facts are required.
14/06/2026 15:09:32
Another excellent piece of work by The Esk. I hope he's sent a copy to Slaughter & May.
Add Your Thoughts
Only registered users of Evertonia can participate in discussions.
Or Join as Evertonia Member — it takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your thoughts on artices across the site.
10/06/2026 16:23:37
"Evertonians can be assured that ownership are focused, with strengthened resolve, on delivering their vision of returning Everton to the top echelon of English football."
Crikey! A statement of ambition?!