Leeds United are understood to be persisting in their intention to engage in legal proceedings with Everton after the Premier League club were found guilty of breaching profit and sustainability rules earlier today.
That is according to a report from the Daily Mail, which claims that Leeds are set to sue the Toffees alongside Leicester City and Burnley for a combined total of £300m which would be split equally between the three complainants if successful.
A potential lawsuit would only add to Everton’s current woes after they were docked 10 points as a consequence of their Financial Fair Play (FFP) breach, a punishment which leaves them in the top-flight relegation zone on four points.
The Merseyside club – as per a statement released following the decision – are set to appeal the ruling, meaning that any further legal action taken by Leeds and the other two clubs will be delayed until the appeal has been fully considered.
Representatives of Leeds, Leicester and Burnley reportedly all met following the announcement today to discuss next steps, and confirmed their intent to sue Sean Dyche’s side.
A statement released by Everton read:
“Everton Football Club is both shocked and disappointed by the ruling of the Premier League’s Commission.
“The club believes that the Commission has imposed a wholly disproportionate and unjust sporting sanction. The club has already communicated its intention to appeal the decision to the Premier League. The appeal process will now commence and the club’s case will be heard by an Appeal Board appointed pursuant to the Premier League’s rules in due course.
“Everton maintains that it has been open and transparent in the information it has provided to the Premier League and that it has always respected the integrity of the process. The club does not recognise the finding that it failed to act with the utmost good faith and it does not understand this to have been an allegation made by the Premier League during the course of proceedings. Both the harshness and severity of the sanction imposed by the commission are neither a fair nor a reasonable reflection of the evidence submitted.”