28 November 2023 , 20:18
464
0
Andy Burnham has said he will seek an explanation from Sky Sports after an interview with the mayor of Manchester regarding Everton ’s 10-point deduction was shelved.
The Goodison Park season ticket holder has said the Premier League ’s decision to punish Everton so severely was “an abuse of process” and “regulatory malpractice.”
Burnham has written a letter to the Premier League arguing the decision should be declared “null and void” because the investigatory process had changed and was unfair. He has also demanded government intervention from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
And he is now raging after an interview he had given to Sky Sports News at the weekend did not air. “I don’t know why it wasn’t broadcast and I’d very much like an explanation,” Burnham told the Daily Mail. “As a former Cabinet Minister, I don’t expect third parties to decide what I can and cannot say.”
However, Sky say the decision was taken because of a shift in editorial direction following the passing of Terry Venables and a spokesperson said: “Sky Sports has covered this news story extensively across our TV and digital channels, taking a fair and balanced approach to our reporting as always.”
Teachers, civil servants and train drivers walk out in biggest strike in decade
Before Sunday’s game against Manchester United at Goodison Park, Burnham told reporters: “I am not saying Everton Football Club does not have a case to answer, clearly it does have a case to answer. But that is not the question.
“The question in this situation is, has there been a fair process? After studying the case, I have concluded that there has not been a fair process, there has been a highly flawed process. I would go as far to say there has been an abuse of process.
“And that abuse of process concerns the guideline and framework that was put together in August and submitted to the independent commission. I have been a government minister and been very familiar with the world of regulations and regulatory practice.
“You cannot in an ongoing case create new policy in the middle of (it) and then introduce it towards the end of it. It is what people would call regulatory malpractice - it is simply not possible to do that. But that is what happened in this situation.”
He added: “I would say the process should be declared null and void because of the regulatory malpractice of introducing new rules in the middle of a process, when really no regulator ever should do that.”