So: a further utterly NONSENSICAL aspect of the ruling against Everton by the independent commission is that they openly admit to relying heavily on evidence from David Baldwin to establish the link between £19.5m overspend and the 4 points extra Everton gained ahead of Burnley.
1. David Baldwin, and by the IC's OWN ADMISSION, had spent 6 years being associated with Burnley.
2. His testimony was treated as that of an 'expert' despite him admitting he was using his "lived experience". Seriously?
3. The gist of Baldwin's argument was that Everton's £19.5m overspend - which was cumulative over 3 years - could you be used entirely to support the extra 4 points Everton gained over and above Burnley in the one season, 21/22. This was without him using any mathematical, statistical or probabilistic modelling - just 'lived experience'
4. Remember, we already established that the IC thinks a PSR breach can occur at anytime, 365 days a year, during a 3 year cycle - and not at the point they are actually tested. This is 'dangerous & unworkable' as Everton put it in their statement & also highly likely why they were so angry. There is no way the rules were drafted to intend this. It also means if you were already in breach of PSR but sold hotels or your women's team to cure it, you are still in breach. Clearly a nonsense, because in several instances these "cures" have been allowed - *as long as it was done by the financial year end, when PSR was being tested*. This is a key pillar of Everton's defence - Burnley were relegated before Everton's year-end and so a PSR breach had not yet occured.
5. Baldwin's testimony is used to rebuff that; he infers that sporting advantage was gained already at the start of the season because Everton did not reduce their squad/sell players/adjust their PSR position. Not true. Everton submitted an initial PSR position showing compliance - they did not set out to breach.