Everton ignored ‘many months’ of Premier League overspending warnings, says Richard Masters

Everton failed to curb spending during “many months” of warnings, the Premier League claims in a letter coinciding with the club’s appeal against their 10-point sanction.

Just a fortnight 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, Richard Masters, the top tier’s chief executive, and its chairwoman Alison Brittain defended the competition’s integrity in pursuing the case by saying the club continued to spend “significantly 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 had branded 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 permitted to present new evidence and there is no possibility of taking the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

A six-page correspondence from Masters and Brittain, initially reported by the Times but verified by Telegraph Sport, addresses a range of issues raised by Carney, the former Bank of England governor, Barber, a former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, and Owen, who was permanent secretary at the DCMS for six years.

‘Everton was provided with complete transparency’

In response to their allegation of a “lack of transparency” over how the 10-point deduction was calculated, the league writes: “We completely reject the suggestion that the judicial panel and the commission that heard this case is anything other than absolutely independent of the league. The suggestion that these individuals are somehow compromised is entirely without merit or foundation. Its perpetuation in your letter, published in the press, is damaging and unhelpful.

“Everton was provided with complete transparency as to the board’s view on the appropriate sanction in this case. So as to provide as much notice and clarity as possible, it was communicated to the club two months before the hearing with detail of not only the ultimate sanction that the board considered appropriate but how it had got to that answer.

“The club was then given opportunity in written and oral evidence and submissions, in advance of the hearing and at the hearing itself, to explain why it disagreed with it and make its own submissions on the appropriate sanction.

“In the event, as you can see from the decision itself, the commission disagreed with the board [and the club] and came to its own view.”

Comparisons with the 115 charges that remain outstanding against Manchester City are futile, the letter adds. “Everton’s case represented a single breach of the PSRs, which was ultimately admitted by the club, leaving the commission with the sole task of deciding on sanction,” the letter reads.

“Given these points, and given the importance of resolving rule breaches as soon as practically possible to provide certainty for fans, stakeholders and other clubs, it would not have been appropriate to await the conclusion of other cases before resolving Everton’s admitted breach.”

The points deduction was imposed by a commission in November after the Premier League argued Everton had breached its profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) in 2021-22 by £19.5 million above the permitted £105 million maximum loss. Everton said the breach was £9.7 million because of mitigating factors relating to the club’s stadium development.

Masters and Brittain write that the club effectively failed to curb overspending after being challenged by the league prior to charges last year.

‘Premier League held concerns about outgoings for some time’

“As to whether or not a sporting sanction was appropriate in this case, the view of the Premier League board, aligned with the EFL and endorsed by multiple decision-making bodies, is that a breach of the PSRs does confer a sporting advantage on the club concerned for which the only appropriate sanction is a sporting one in the form of a points deduction,” the pair add.

“Unfortunately, the Premier League had held concerns about the level of Everton’s transfer and salary outgoings for some time. These concerns were expressed to the club over many months and yet, despite those warnings, Everton continued to spend significantly on transfer fees and wages, whereas other clubs remained within the relevant threshold.”

The appeal board, meanwhile, has also heard a submission from Everton’s Fan Advisory Board supporting the club’s position.

Telegraph Sport has approached Everton for comment over the claims made within the joint letter.