pisilinuxworld.org

Everton’s three-day hearing against a second Premier League profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) breach begins on Monday. Here’s the full story on what’s happening – and what might happen next.

Everton have already been penalised for overspending for the accounting period to the end of 2021/22 and saw an initial 10-point deduction reduced to six on appeal in February.

Now, they face another charge for the three years to the end of 2022/23 – which largely includes the same period they were disciplined over in their first case.

Premier League clubs are permitted to lose a maximum of £105m over a three-season period (£35m a season).

The top flight revealed in January that Everton had confirmed a breach of the rules for the assessment period ending season 2022/23, alongside Nottingham Forest.

Last week, an independent panel ruled Forest should be deducted four points for the manner of their breaches.

The Toffees’ latest three-day hearing is scheduled to run until Wednesday. An outcome and any potential further sanction, including points deductions, is not expected to be announced until next week at the earliest.

Could the table still change after the season has ended?

Sky Sports News chief reporter Kaveh Solhekol:

“Now Everton’s first PSR breach has been settled here comes another – one for the Toffees, and one for Nottingham Forest as well.

“Then they will have the right to appeal any decision and then an appeal panel would have to be set up, but the Premier League are insistent that this all needs to be done within three or four days after the end of the season.

“So, we are still heading for a situation where we could have games on the final day of the season and we won’t be sure what the bottom of the Premier League looks like because we won’t have had the final decisions about these possible points deductions for Everton and Nottingham Forest.

“It’s a very confusing picture but if the Premier League spoke in public about this, I’m sure they’d say that these are the rules agreed by the 20 Premier League clubs. They were all voted upon and that is what needs sticking to.”

Would another deduction represent ‘double jeopardy’?

Sky Sports News’ Vinny O’Connor:

“What we’ve been hearing from those close to the club is that when it came to that PSR figure Everton submitted, they’re pretty unhappy with that figure. They’re in disagreement with the Premier League over the parameters when it comes to the PSR calculation.

“For example, payments on the [new] stadium not being written off against PSR and mitigating factors not being taken into account, such as the war in Ukraine and how it cost them a £200m naming-rights deal for the new stadium, along with other commercial deals associated with USM [the sanctioned company owned by Alisher Usmanov]

“They’re also unhappy this charge was brought before the conclusion of the appeal process for that initial 10-point deduction.

“There is also the argument regarding double jeopardy and Everton being punished twice for breaches in the same timeframe.”

Everton hit out over Premier League rules ‘deficiencies’

At the time of the charge being levelled in January, Everton criticised a “clear deficiency in the Premier League’s rules”.

Their statement read: “The Premier League does not have guidelines which prevent a club being sanctioned for alleged breaches in financial periods which have already been subject to punishment, unlike other governing bodies, including the EFL.

“As a result – and because of the Premier League’s new commitment to deal with such matters “in-season” – the club is in a position where it has had no option but to submit a PSR calculation which remains subject to change, pending the outcome of the appeal.

“The club must now defend another Premier League complaint which includes the very same financial periods for which it has already been sanctioned, before that appeal has even been heard. The club takes the view that this results from a clear deficiency in the Premier League’s rules.

“Everton can assure its fans that it will continue to defend its position during the ongoing appeal and, should it be required to do so, at any future commission – and that the impact on supporters will be reflected as part of that process.”