by Everton failed to curb spending with “many months” of warning, the Premier League claims in a letter to coincide with the club’s appeal against its 10-point sanction.
Just two weeks after the club was charged for a second time, Everton’s bid to overturn their deduction begins on Wednesday, with a ruling expected next month.
Ahead of the hearing, top-flight chief executive Richard Masters and chairman Alison Brittain defended the integrity of the competition as the case continued saying the club continued to spend “heavily on transfer fees and wages” even after the to raise an alarm.
Their joint letter was sent in response to three high-profile Evertonians – Mark Carney, Sir Brendan Barber and Dame Sue Owen – who called the points deduction “draconian”.
Laurence Rabinowitz KC is leading the club’s legal bid at the three-day hearing, and is expected to argue that the punishment is disproportionate. Neither the club nor the Premier League are allowed to present new evidence and there is no chance of taking the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The six-page correspondence between Masters and Brittain, first reported by the Times but verified by Telegraph Sport, addresses a range of issues raised by Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, Barber, a former general of the Trades Union Congress, and Owen , who was permanent secretary at the DCMS for six years.
‘Full transparency provided to Everton’
In response to his allegation of a “lack of transparency” in how the 10-point deduction was calculated, the league writes: “We absolutely reject the suggestion that the judicial panel and the commission that heard this case are completely impartial any other. the league. The suggestion that these people are somehow put at risk has no merit or foundation. It is harmful and unhelpful to perpetuate it in your letter, published in the press.
“Full transparency has been provided to Everton regarding the board’s view of the appropriate sanction in this case. To provide as much notice and clarity as possible, the club was notified two months before the hearing with details of not only the final sanction the board deemed appropriate but how it arrived at that response.
“The club was then given the opportunity in written and oral evidence and submissions, before the hearing and at the hearing itself, to explain why it did not agree with him and to make its own submissions on the appropriate sanction.
“As it happened, as you can see from the decision itself, the Commission disagreed with the board [and the club] and came to his own sight.”
Comparisons with the 115 charges still outstanding against Manchester City are futile, the letter says. “Everton’s case represented a single breach of the PSRs, which the club eventually admitted, leaving the commission with the sole task of determining a sanction,” the letter reads.
“Given these points, and given the importance of resolving breaches of rules as soon as possible to give certainty to fans, stakeholders and other clubs, it would not be appropriate to wait for other cases to be concluded before Everton’s admitted breach would be resolved.”
The commission imposed the points deduction in November after the Premier League argued that Everton breached its profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) in 2021-22 by £19.5 million over the £105 million maximum loss allowed. Everton said the £9.7 million breach was due to mitigating factors relating to the club’s stadium development.
Masters and Brittain write that the club has failed to effectively curb overspending after the league challenged them over fees last year.
‘The Premier League has been concerned about payouts for some time now’
“Regarding whether or not a sporting sanction was appropriate in this case, the view of the Premier League board, which is aligned with the EFL and endorsed by multiple decision-making bodies, is that a breach of the PSRs confers a sporting advantage on the. club in question and the only appropriate sanction for it is a sporting one in the form of points deduction,” say the two.
“Unfortunately, the Premier League has been concerned for some time about Everton’s level of transfers and salary payouts. These concerns have been raised with the club for many months and yet, despite these warnings, Everton have continued to spend heavily on transfer fees and wages, while other clubs have remained within the relevant threshold.”
Meanwhile, the appeal board also heard a submission from Everton’s Fan Advisory Board regarding the impact of a sporting sanction which the league also submitted to the appeal board.
Telegraph Sport has contacted Everton for comment on the claims made in the joint letter.
