-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** English Football Season 2023/24
- Thread starter Furball
- Start date
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
Kind of feel for Everton given what Chelsea and City have been up to.
But they join an exclusive club of teams who have been penalised by the Premier League - hope they don't spiral into League 2 like my lot did. Mind you, we did make the Cup Final that season....
But they join an exclusive club of teams who have been penalised by the Premier League - hope they don't spiral into League 2 like my lot did. Mind you, we did make the Cup Final that season....
I thought Bournemouth been okay this year?
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
I disown this action, as much as I want to see Everton pay.
Luis Sinisterra and Tyler Adams must pay
Aidan11
International Vice-Captain
That could start a dangerous precedent if successful.
Socerer 01
International Captain
the 19th and 20th teams suing makes no sense only the 18th should have a case if any
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Burnley was a different season. Leeds probably have the weakest case but I guess the joint action makes it more powerful.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
I wonder what the cause for any legal action/suing is here tbh. Everton haven't directly done anything to harm any of these clubs, which ordinarily is what is required in order for one party to sue another. If anything the clubs in question would most likely have a grievance with the Premier League for not imposing the fine earlier, I should have thought.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do you know anything about how West Ham settled with Sheffield United over Tevez keeping them up when illegally registered? Sounds like that should've been taken up with the Premier League too.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Yeah, that was another weird one imo. A very comparable case though. I don't know a lot about it but I imagine the settling occurred because neither team wanted to endure a protracted and expensive legal battle.
The problem with these sorts of situations is that as a general principle of law, no matter what the cause of legal action is (e.g., defamation, negligence, trespass, an economic tort of some kind) damages and compensation will only ever be awarded if it can be convincingly established that a definite causal link exists between the wrong that has been done (e.g., Everton's financial impropriety) and the harm that has been suffered (e.g., clubs being relegated).
If the gap between the wrong and the harm can only be bridged by speculation (which would clearly be the case here) this will not be enough to establish causation, meaning the relegated teams would likely lose their case if it was litigated.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do they completely reject probabilistic reasoning? I.e. it increased our chance of relegation from 30% to 80%, which is worth £X million.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Not completely (I don't think - I'm not really an expert when it comes to these civil litigation type issues), but there comes a point where if the harm complained of is too remote from the alleged cause the court will just throw the case out.
As I understand it, the relegated clubs would likely have to build a pretty solid case that demonstrated (on the balance of probabilities) that:
a) They would have avoided relegation if Everton hadn't broken the rules; and
b) Everton breaking the rules was a significant and operative cause of them being relegated.
I'm not really sure how you could convincingly argue either, let alone both, of these things without having to rely on all sorts of ifs and buts and hearsay and conjecture tbh.
Last edited:
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Everton's defence would also likely be:
"What more could we actually have done? Voluntarily rescinded points we had already won (something we don't have jurisdiction to do anyway) for an alleged breach of rules (that at the time was not only not confirmed, but of which we didn't even have any awareness)?"
Not unpersuasive imo.
"What more could we actually have done? Voluntarily rescinded points we had already won (something we don't have jurisdiction to do anyway) for an alleged breach of rules (that at the time was not only not confirmed, but of which we didn't even have any awareness)?"
Not unpersuasive imo.
Last edited:
