The Premier League claimed in a letter coinciding with the club’s appeal of the 10-point sanction that Everton had failed to cut spending during “months” of warnings.
Just two weeks after the club was charged for the second time, Everton’s bid to overturn the cuts begins on Wednesday, with a decision expected next month.
Ahead of the hearing, the top tier’s chief executive Richard Masters and chairman Alison Brittain defended the competition’s integrity in pursuing the case, saying the club continued to spend “significant amounts on transfer fees and wages” even after the alarm was raised.
Their joint letter was sent in response to three high-profile Evertonians – Mark Carney, Sir Brendan Barber and Dame Sue Owen – who described the points deduction as “draconian”.
Laurence Rabinowitz KC is leading the club’s legal bid at the three-day hearing and is expected to argue the penalty was disproportionate. Neither the club nor the Premier League are allowed to present new evidence and the matter cannot be taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Masters and Brittain’s six-page correspondence, first reported by the Times but confirmed by Telegraph Sport, deals with a range of issues raised by Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, and Barber, the former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress. Owen, who served as permanent secretary at DCMS for six years.
‘Full transparency was provided to Everton’
In response to allegations of a “lack of transparency” regarding how the 10-point deduction was calculated, the League wrote: “We completely reject the suggestion that the tribunal and commission hearing this case were completely independent of the League. The suggestion that these individuals were somehow compromised is completely unfounded.” and it is unfounded.Continuing this in your letter published in the press is counterproductive and unhelpful.
“Everton was provided with full transparency regarding the board’s view on the appropriate sanction in this case. In order to provide as much information and clarity as possible, details of not only the final sanction the board deemed appropriate but also how it arrived at that response were communicated to the club two months before the hearing.
“The club was given the opportunity to explain why it disagreed and to make its own representation as to appropriate sanction, through written and oral submissions and submissions before and during the hearing.
“As you can see from the decision itself, the commission disagrees with the board [and the club] and came to his own opinion.”
The letter also states that the comparison with the 115 ongoing allegations against Manchester City is unhelpful. “Everton’s case represented a single breach of the PSRs, which was eventually accepted by the club and left solely to the commission to decide on sanction,” the letter said.
“Given these points, and the importance of resolving rule breaches as quickly as practically possible to provide certainty for fans, stakeholders and other clubs, it would not be appropriate to wait for other cases to be concluded before Everton’s admitted breach is resolved.”
The points deduction was imposed by a commission in November after the Premier League claimed Everton had breached the profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) in 2021-22 by £19.5 million above the maximum allowable loss of £105 million. Everton said the breach amounted to £9.7 million due to mitigating factors relating to the club’s stadium development.
Masters and Brittain write that the club failed to effectively curb excessive spending after being challenged by the league before last year’s accusations. “
‘There have been concerns about transfers in the Premier League for a while’
As to whether a sporting sanction is appropriate in this case, the Premier League board’s view, in line with the EFL and endorsed by multiple decision-making bodies, is that breaches of the PSRs would confer a sporting advantage on the club. “The couple are concerned that the only appropriate sanction is a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction,” he added.
“Unfortunately, the Premier League has had concerns about Everton’s transfer level and wage costs for some time. “These concerns have been raised with the club for months, but despite these warnings Everton continue to spend significant amounts on transfer fees and wages while other clubs remain within the relevant threshold.”
Meanwhile, the appeal panel also heard a submission from the Everton Supporters’ Advisory Board on the impact of sporting sanctions submitted by the league to the appeal panel.
Telegraph Sport has approached Everton for comment on the allegations made in the joint letter.