6 + 2 Point Deductions

Take UTD they owe over £1billion in debt make losses year on year but are fit & proper for PSR
View attachment 247286
Now maybe I live in a different reality but 23+92+115 is very much over the 105 limit for 3 years losses, it's over double at 230 so how are they not in breach ?
I’m guessing all the mitigation brought them below the threshold. We lost a lot more than 19.5 but argued to have most of it thrown out. It’s all a joke though, at the end of the day they’re all just arbitrary numbers we’ve been crucified on.
 

This is baffling to me. The breakdown of adjusted losses is 58-55-10 oldest to newest (21/22).

If the 58 drops off that means the period up to 22/23 should be 65 plus 22/23. How is it possible that we’ve lost over 40m in 22/23 when we only lost 10m in 21/22?

Am I missing something?

No mate.

Our first breach (the one we've just heard back from appeal) used Year1, Year2 and Year3.

For our next (supposed breach), Year1 will drop off and be replaced by Year4: Year2, Year3 and Year4.

If our Year4 accounts are healthier than our Year1 accounts were, then our breach would be less in terms of £.
I don't understand either. The Appeals Board clearly said that the vast majority of our losses during the 3-year period came in years 1 and 2. The loss for year 3 was comparatively minor, which is what we tried to argue as mitigation: that we were trending in the right direction and had sorted the systemic problems out. The Board acknowledged that it was at least somewhat true, but essentially said that one year doesn't make a trend, so they wouldn't really take that into significant account.

But what that all means is that when year 1 drops off, how are we even in breach a second time? We sold Gordon, Kean, etc. and didn't have much of an incoming spend. How could we possibly have lost enough money last year to even get charged a second time?
 

I agree with others here who have said that Forest's fans are delusional if they think they're getting less than us. After reading the various bits of information from the Appeals Board and knowing what attempted mitigations were rejected for us, I don't see how Forest gets out of this without pretty much the maximum possible penalty, whatever that's considered to be.

Certainly can't be less than ours, surely.
 

Top