One down, one to go.
Following their 10-point deduction being reduced to six on appeal, Everton are about to fight their second charge for a breach of profit and sustainability rules (PSR), with a hearing expected in the middle of the month and a verdict delivered in early April.
With so much at stake and Sean Dyche’s side in a relegation battle, The Athletic looks at what last week’s appeal outcome means for the second case and what arguments the club are likely to use in their defence.
What did the appeal verdict say and how might it impact Everton’s second case?
Everton fought the 10-point deduction on nine grounds and were successful in two, with the appeal board finding that the original panel had made “legal errors” in their judgment.
The new commission decided that Everton had not acted in ‘bad faith’ and that the original judgment was disproportionate when benchmarked against other sanctions, including the nine-point deduction for any Premier League club entering administration.
Advertisement
The outcome of Everton’s appeal may end up being used as a benchmark for future PSR cases, including the proceedings for 2022-23 involving themselves and Nottingham Forest.
In the absence of a defined Premier League sanctions policy, the appeal board leant heavily on EFL guidelines in their decision-making. In cutting Everton’s deduction by four, they also argued that “six points was a minimum but sufficient” penalty for PSR breaches.
“It’s a useful decision in that it effectively prescribes a loose tariff for determining PSR sanctions,” says sports law barrister Sam Cuthbert. “That tariff is grounded in the EFL guidelines and jurisprudence — for instance, the appeal board looked at the Sheffield Wednesday breach (where the club had exceeded the EFL upper loss threshold by 47 per cent) as well as the EFL’s focus on how a club’s finances are trending.
“The Premier League had, at first instance, made what’s been called the ‘structured sanctions submission’, but this was rejected as being inconsistent with the unrestricted powers conferred on the commission.
“It’s an interesting situation because, on the one hand, the Premier League could enforce a mandatory structured formula for dealing with PSR breaches by amending its regulations. On the other hand, though, in seeking to effect something similar by way of the structured sanctions submission and that being rejected, we now have a tariff from the appeal board that is much more closely aligned with EFL rules.
“As far as how it will impact the next case, the appeal board agreed with the commission that the main reason for the club’s breach was that it did not manage its finances as prudently as it should have. Given the overlap between the two sets of alleged breaches, it’s not difficult to conceive of that financial imprudence being a further vulnerability for Everton in the next case.”
GO DEEPER
Everton points deduction: What the appeal decision means for them and everyone else
Is ‘double jeopardy’ a valid argument?
Double jeopardy, or ‘natural justice’ as it is often referred to by legal experts, is likely to be a central part of Everton’s defence for their 2022-23 breach.
“This (new charge) relates to a period that covers seasons 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23,” a club statement said in January. “It therefore includes financial periods (2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22) for which the club has already received a sanction.
Advertisement
“The club must defend another Premier League complaint that includes the same financial periods for which it has already been sanctioned.
“The club takes the view that this results from a clear deficiency in the Premier League’s rules.”
As the statement pointed out, the Premier League has no provision in its rules for such an occurrence. EFL rules, by contrast, prevent a club’s given season from being considered for multiple PSR breaches.
Why is this significant? Well, in the absence of clear direction, the appeal board for Everton’s 2021-22 case chose to look at EFL guidelines for inspiration. It is entirely plausible the new panel may do so again when treating the idea of double jeopardy.
Everton are likely to argue that, in terms of alignment and basic fairness, they cannot be penalised twice for the overlapping years — and that they should predominantly be assessed on their 2022-23 PSR figures.
“The appeal board held that the extent of the PSR loss (£19.5million; $24.7m) is aggravating, but that the excess loss of more than £105m should not be double counted,” Cuthbert says. “This point went to sanction and is uncontroversial as a legal principle.
“Everton could argue that another sanction in its next case — given the period overlaps — would amount to double counting. The response from the league, I imagine, would be to argue that the periods of breach are not identical, that the sanction should reflect the putative future benefit of an overspend, and that breaches need to be prosecuted and seen to be prosecuted.
“If the commission accepts Everton’s so-called ‘double-jeopardy’ argument, it would do so based on principles of natural justice, which would be read into the rules. It should not need to rely on comparators like the EFL or borrow from their guidelines.”
GO DEEPER
Assessing Everton's PSR arguments: Is double jeopardy a valid defence?
What other mitigation could they use?
Everton’s 2022-23 accounts are unlikely to be released before their March hearing, so we do not have access to exact figures — but it is worth noting certain facts.
While the appeal board rejected seven of their grounds for mitigation, including the impact of the war in Ukraine on sponsorship revenues and the suspension of Player X, who was arrested on suspicion of child abuse and eventually released amounting to an estimated loss of £10m, some of these arguments are likely to play out again.
Advertisement
The upcoming hearing will not only be an opportunity to re-litigate some of those points but also to provide fresh evidence.
It appears Everton’s argument around the impact of the war in Ukraine is stronger this time around. For their 2021-22 case, they argued that they were in negotiations to bring forward a stadium naming rights sponsorship with Alisher Usmanov’s USM Holdings worth £10m per year, but were unable to prove that the deal had already been agreed. This time, they can point to several existing sponsorship deals with Usmanov-linked companies that were suspended indefinitely due to the war in Ukraine.
The suspension of such deals is thought to have cost Everton in the region of £20m for 2022-23 — the first set of accounts in which they received no monies from USM and affiliates.
Other sponsorship deals have been signed on improved terms, but Deloitte forecasts Everton’s turnover in 2022-23 to fall by nearly £12m to £169m, which will not have helped their attempts at compliance. As recently as 2021, Everton’s turnover was as high as £193m, with poor league placings and the loss of sponsorship revenues leading to a subsequent decline, increasing the risk of non-compliance.
Everton cut ties with USM in March 2022, a month after Russia invaded Ukraine, but it was not until March 2023 that the UK government formally sanctioned USM. The club are likely to argue that they did the right thing in suspending the partnerships at the first available opportunity and, due to legal expediency and contractual matters, could not replace income in these areas while the deals were suspended.
“The appeal decision on loss of USM funding had two limbs,” says Cuthbert. “The first was that the new naming rights deal had not been completed before the date of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and no documents had been offered to show that receipt of monies from USM in the 2021-22 financial year was probable. Everton was without the evidence to anchor its claim for loss of chance.
“The second was broader: the loss of any chance of USM paying £10m in the 2021-22 financial year was not sufficient to reduce the club’s culpability in respect of breaching the PSR based on the commission’s multi-factorial assessment. This includes the proposition that the loss of a proposed agreement is the type of event businesses experience.
Advertisement
“In circumstances where Everton can show that other (sponsorship) deals became impossible in 2022-23 due to sanctions or even mounting political pressure, it may be open to mount an argument on loss of chance. You’d expect the evidence of those deals to be widely available and so limb one would be more easily met.
“That may well also impact the assessment at limb two, though wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient to satisfy it.”
Are there any potential aggravating factors?
The appeal board detailed Everton’s two-year rolling PSR total as being negative £65m before the inclusion of their 2022-23 accounts. Clubs are permitted to lose up to £105m over the usual three-year period, which means that, to be non-compliant, the club must have made a PSR loss in 2022-23 of more than £40m.
Given Everton, like others, will have been permitted add-backs in their PSR calculations, it is fair to assume their actual loss for 2022-23 is significantly higher still — and likely to comfortably eclipse their £44.7m total in 2021-22.
As their 2022-23 accounts are set to include the ‘pure profit’ (in PSR terms) £45m sale of Anthony Gordon to Newcastle United and Moise Kean’s move to Juventus, among others, it is hard — albeit not impossible — to see how a loss of that magnitude is even possible. As recently as the summer, there was a belief that the departures of Gordon, Kean, Ellis Simms and Ishe Samuels-Smith for fees totalling around £80m had helped satisfy their PSR position.
One theory is that interest costs have continued to rise as the club relies heavily on external debt and that, with revenues falling again, player sales may not have been enough to compensate.
The fact is that Everton and the Premier League believe there has been another breach — at least, if the league sticks to its position on how interest costs are treated and that the loss of Player X does not mitigate the overspend.
Advertisement
The EFL places weight on a positive trend when assessing PSR cases and whereas before Everton have pointed to movement in the right direction and a reduction in losses, that almost certainly will not be the case here.
It will also be interesting to see if the league and commission place any extra weight on this being Everton’s second breach.
The club continues to maintain that its breaches are not due to footballing spend, although two separate commissions have now rejected that theory.
The March hearing will be another opportunity to fight their corner, with double jeopardy and loss of USM revenue being two key arguments they need to win. The return of Laurence Rabinowitz, the renowned KC who successfully fought their 10-point deduction, has not been ruled out but remains dependent on availability and timings.
There is hope they can avoid a sanction similar to the ones imposed in November and February and it seems a reasonable assumption that they should avoid punishment for the years of overlap, thus incurring a potentially smaller penalty this time around.
The events of the last six months, however, are a reminder that nothing can be taken for granted in these cases.
GO DEEPER
How does Everton getting four points back impact the Premier League relegation battle?
(Top photo: Peter Byrne/PA Images via Getty Images)
