• Ornery_Ad_9871B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Brooo, it was 20m over three years and the prem then signed had to sign of on our signings from the on. Its fucking disproportionate beyond comparison

  • Meth_HardyB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Interestingly enough, there is a precedent for this.

    After Sheffield United were relegated below West Ham in the 06/07 season, they sued The Hammers since West Ham’s “signing” of Javier Mascherano and more importantly Carlos Tevez was in clear breach of third party ownership rules in the Premier League. West Ham finished 3 points above Sheffield United with an inferior goal difference. Tevez literally scored the winning goal in a 1-0 victory on the final day of the season to keep West Ham up.

    Sheffield United originally sued to try and have West Ham relegated instead of them, but failed. So instead they sued West Ham for monies lost by no longer being in the Premier League, and West Ham settled out of court for £20m. One can only surmise that the reason they settled out of court was because they expected they would probably lose if it went to court.

    Thus, Burnley, Leeds and Leicester have a reason to think they might be able to financially benefit from suing Everton. However, realistically only 1 club could have avoided relegation had Everton had their points deduction sooner, and Burnley were relegated a season before Leeds and Leicester. Last season Leicester finished above Leeds, so really only Leicester should be the one suing Everton. As for Burnley, if they want to claim that Everton should have faced their points deduction in the 21/22 season then that’ll be interesting.

  • Ginger_afroB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why did nobody sue West Ham for using ineligible players (Tevez and Macherano) when they narrowly escaped relegation on last day.