Burnley suing Everton for £50M in PSR impact claim

Jack Convery

1 Posted
16/09/2025 at
13:16:42

Daily Mail reporting Burnley in court, demanding £50M to £60M in compensation for their relegation a few seasons ago.

Any one got any more on this and how likely Burnley are to win the case? Being heard behind closed doors — why?

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.

James Newcombe

7 Posted
16/09/2025 at
14:21:56

“Had Everton’s 6-point deduction occurred during the 2021-22 campaign, Burnley would have been safe with the Toffees relegated in their stead.”

I would argue that that is not necessarily the case. Situations such as point deductions and being in the drop zone change mindset and tactics. We’ve seen that.

This will set a very dangerous precedent. But if there’s one club to make an example of — one club in the whole land — we know who it is.

Mark Taylor

8 Posted
16/09/2025 at
14:37:35

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.

Les Callan

11 Posted
16/09/2025 at
14:40:41

Does Burnley’s claim take into account the parachute payment they received?

Wouldn’t they have to repay that if successful?

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.

Rob Halligan

23 Posted
16/09/2025 at
15:27:31

The shite are claiming all the Premier League trophies Man City won!

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 £49,000,000 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 £50,000,000. So, 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 grifters 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 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 xould sue then for being crap and costing us £49m in 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 PL 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 21-22. Meaning Everton were relegated and not them.
They want Everton to compensate them for perceived losses for the following season were 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.
Ok. So.
IMO legally Burnley don’t have a leg to stand on.
Looking at PL rules, they can say what they want. Doesnt make them legal in the eyes of the law.
Recently the PL rules were bought into court (Man City) whereby it was deemed they were poorly draughted and required rewriting.
That part anyway.
Clearly in this case the rules don’t hold up. The PL denied Burnley access to the hearing and then say but 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.

Kevin Molloy

37 Posted
16/09/2025 at
17:17:45

Kash Patel live from the Senate. vivid red tie. I peer at it ‘that’s never’ but it is. I see a liver bird.

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 has 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 a £19.5m player trading profit.

The reason we didn’t is because at that point, we had no idea were 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 v Middlesborough 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- £5m.

James Hughes

39 Posted
16/09/2025 at
17:26:41

Click bait nonsense. if remotely true then it would be on the BBC & Sky sites. They would be all over it.

This is only on 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 Evertons 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 21/22, at what point of the season would it have been imposed? Considering the actual points deduction we got was imposed in season 23/24, it’s nigh on impossible to determine who would have gone down and who would have stayed up in 21/22. We could argue that “ok 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 would 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 sue another prem club.

GTF 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, that 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

23/24
Everton 40 points (after -8 deducted)
Brentford 39
Nott For 32 (-4)
Luton 26
Burnley 24
Sheff Utd 16
22/23
Everton 36
Leicester 34
Leeds 31
Southam 25
21/22
Everton 39 goal diff -23
Leeds 28
Burnley 35 goal diff -19
Watford 23
Norwich 22
So Burnley need to persuade the commission that 4 of the 8 points deduction decided on and applied in season 23/24 should apply to season 21/22.

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 six points the season after the season they went down… someone needs to explain their case to me.