Talking the Blues Podcast, the Commission and the Premier League

Welc.ome to this week’s Talking the Blues podcast in which George and Andy take a detailed look at the Commission findings. We dig a bit deeper into the hearing, looking at the Premier League’s case, Everton’s defence and our case for mitigation.

We look at the sanction applied to Everton before finally turning our attention to the real culprits, those that will get away scott free.

Talking the Blues is available on all major podcast platforms, links to which can be found here

Categories: podcast

Tagged as: , , ,

4 replies »

  1. Good discussion and a lot to dig into as always.

    I am probably biased, but then I’ve been involved in audits and providing evidence to support regulatory and compliance requirements. But we have been shafted by people in grey suits who have probably never set foot in a football stadium outside of a corporate box.

    Listening to the discussion and without insider information, I can’t help thinking this was all cloak and dagger like. No transparency and conducted behind closed doors. Was there a consultancy and discussion or did they, the commission, just read documents? What is the actual legitimacy of the commission? Everton almost seem like victims of their openness and compliance.

    Will they now follow a similar process for the likes of Villa and Forest? Chelsea and if they dare, take on City?

    There is no getting away from the fact we broke the Profit and Sustainability rules. And we were going to be punished. I accept that. But this is not proportionate. Fight it Everton.

    The Board, Leadership and Ownership of the club failed the ones who will be at Goodison on Sunday and all those grounds around the country as we fight to stay up. The amazing supporters.

    No strategy, no focus on the most important thing to get right. What happens on the pitch first and foremost. Dare I say it, we only have to look across Stanley Park and 35 miles or so down the M62. Those clubs got it right on the pitch first before doing other things.

    We missed our chance in 1987. I’m not going to plead Heysels. Yes it was a factor, but in the long term it didn’t hold our then peers back. Poor management and dreadful leadership has.

    Everton has to fight this and any threats of being sued. They can sue the Premier League. There was no sporting advantage and it is ultimately us, the supporters, who will be punished. But we won’t as we will fight and come out of this. One win and we are out of the bottom three. Another and we’re almost back to where we were.

    Well, I would invite that commission to Goodison on Sunday. We will be there as always to roar on the next Great Escape. The 5th one I’ve had to witness in my lifetime.


  2. Let’s be honest the reason we are being so severely punished is for having a completely incompetent and wreckless owner and for being impacted badly by several events that were difficult to forsee occurring. I don’t think Citeh’s or Chelseas owners are as poor and their circumstances are different so why people are expecting them to get the book thrown at them I don’t know. I fully expect them to either get a slap on the wrists or found not guilty. I think part of our defence has to be that what as a club, fanbase did we do so wrong in order to punished like this? Does the premier league and the commission want us to go into administration and maybe cease to exist? Doesn’t every club trying to get back up with the big boys take gambles when wealthy owners come calling? Do the premier league want all clubs to have a chance of breaking the monopoly of 2-4 teams that constantly win everything? Or do they want the closed shop that being going on for far too long where only the very wealthiest can compete for honours. The wrong people are being punished and we, as fans are now trying everything to get back to being a properly run club and indicating this to all who will listen that this is case. The premier league and commission can either help us in this or possibly put us out of business. I have no doubts whatsoever that if they really looked into all the other clubs in the premiership most would have committed similar or worse offenses than Everton. This is simply a case of trying to flex muscle and punishing an easier target. We should shout this from the rooftops and get as many on side as possible.

  3. Hi fellas, the backdrop of this is that we have the most popular, most lucrative sports franchise in the world.
    That would appear to demand the most regulated, monitored and proactive control over the business. Your examples of Holland and Spain prove that the PL is woefully short in these areas.

    In reality we have a set of private club rules, grey at best where the controller seeks to take control as and when it suits, whilst it seems to claim that it’s own interpretation of these grey rules is the only one that can and will be accepted.

    On the Balance of Probabilities – the Civil Standard Burden of Proof.
    Paul knows my background. This matter must have been tested on the balance of probabilities. At the very closest point, the commission must examine the evidence using that test and that test can be calculated as the PL must “win” each point on a 51% v 49% basis. So weigh it up and who has done a better job of proving that point. Of course the points have to be relevant to the outcome.
    Documentary evidence is essential – it will not accept the presentation of it, albeit in written form or presented by legal, it must be backed up by documents. If it is, you will likely win the point on a 51% v 49% basis.

    I could offer a devils advocate view of DBB and Ingles not being present – that might have been harmful to EFC’s case so it might have been a safer option to allow their involvement to be judged and not cross examined. Based on what Paul said it seems they might not have produced written testimony but merely referenced in other forms.

    I could go on about each point and the above but for me, it now comes to increasing the value of the mitigation by proving the absurd nature of some of the commissions comments.


    Judges are often found wanting on what might be deemed by some to be throw away comments in explaining their decisions.

    Player X – I can’t believe that EFC did not simply focus on the fact that he could not immediately be sold because of his situation. The second he was arrested he could not be realised as a sale. The commission pointed to this being an everyday football occurrence akin to injury and loss of form. That is utterly ridiculous. How many clubs face this situation in the midst of a covid crisis, under the close eye of the PL and how on earth can this be compared to loss of form or injury? Even if that sell on value was £5m, it knocks a serious dent in the £20m identified by the PL.

    Ukraine War. Again, on a similar point. The commission found that every BUSINESS had to cope these circumstances on a daily basis. The commission seems to operate in a permanent war zone!!
    No business operates on a daily basis under those parameters – they react, adapt and cope. Then, when you add our sponsors to the mix being Russian and sanctioned, makes our situation even more unique. How many UK businesses operate in a permanent war zone? How many UK businesses have a major sponsor and potential full investor suddenly find themselves cut adrift and without a source of income that might add serious weight to that positive trend away from debt?

    The commission seemed very keen on presenting EFC’s case as no different to that of any other club or in the case of the Ukraine war, any business. Remember, the PL cleared Usmanov and Moshiri as fit and proper twice, so right up to the point of sanctions, he was a major source of future revenue for EFC and the PL that was suddenly and violently lost to us.

    In Jan 2020, Usmanov was interviewed by the FT. In that article he very clearly states that he might invest further or rapidly increase his sponsorship in EFC and he was discussing it with FM. Under these rules, that interview would constitute documentary evidence that discussions were in play and might be considered to tip that 51%v49% balance in our favour.

    Just one further point – even on the balance of probabilities, it is not up to EFC to prove their case, it will always be the responsibility of the PL to prove its charges.

    For all the reason Paul presents we (EFC fans) could argue we warned you about our inept board. But it is not at all reasonable that the PL can have us under such close scrutiny, still fall way short of the Dutch or Spanish models and then not accept some accountability for the lack of real time oversight and governance when EFC were trying to find a way out of the mess they themselves created. They could and should have said no, sell before you buy and then you can only reinvest up to whatever amount we deem is right. If that had happened in real time, some of these aggravating and mitigating factors could and should have been argued out before we reached this state of affairs.



Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.