The rules are what their accounts were on the 30th June 2023, not 2 months later, and their spending limit takes the championship into account. Johnson played in 3 games where they won 4 points into the new season, so sporting advantage is clear. They earned 4 points in those games, and without those points they would have been relegated. The face is they spent massively over their quota. I'd say they are in big trouble.
He only was sold this season, so wouldn't have been relegated yet but 4 points worse off (possibly?)
Sporting advantage was clear for us then because we didn't sell the players we didn't sell and played them the following season.
Be great if it was announced today as i'd rather just know where we stand and Forest's deduction directly affects us.
www.bbc.co.uk
Maybe not but I suspect you would see further legal action if the Forest penalty was disproportionately less than ours
- The Club will also monitor with great interest the decisions made in any other cases concerning the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules.
...but would they comment if they considered it another example of a chaotic process? Not a chance.
The real difference is, Forest spent £195M on player transfers 22/23 season, and failed to recoup the spending by not selling before their deadline. Our breach is mainly down to building a stadium and being run by complete morons.
Nottingham Forest expected to learn outcome of Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) early this week
Nottingham Forest are expecting to learn Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) fate early this week; Forest are the second club to be charged for breaches this season, alongside Everton, who were docked six points; Nuno Espirito Santos side three points above relegation zonewww.skysports.com
Compare the narrative here compared to the many pieces we had written about us around the time of our original deduction...
Is there a 'but' coming?
Yes. Two, in fact.
The first 'but' is that Forest believe they were only in breach for two months - between filing their accounts on June 30 last year and September 1 when they received the first instalment of their sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham.
The dates are significant because Forest - and at least one other Premier League club that we are aware of - believe that the dates for Premier League accounting should be aligned with the transfer window.
And the second 'but' is that Forest believe not only would they have been within FFP and the Premier League's sustainability rules had they sold Johnson in June, but selling Johnson in September was in the 'spirit' of those sustainability rules.
Those arguments seem extremely weak to me.
That's fair enough. I think we also did a hell of a lot of terrible spending on players and especially wages, so I don't think it's entirely fair to say ours are different mainly because of the stadium, but surely they also have the complete morons excuse?
Shagger Silk will be all over this if it works for them. It's in the spirit of the profit and sustainability rules for us to build a new stadium to generate higher income revenue streamsNottingham Forest expected to learn outcome of Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) early this week
Nottingham Forest are expecting to learn Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) fate early this week; Forest are the second club to be charged for breaches this season, alongside Everton, who were docked six points; Nuno Espirito Santos side three points above relegation zone
Compare the narrative here compared to the many pieces we had written about us around the time of our original deduction...
Is there a 'but' coming?
Yes. Two, in fact.
The first 'but' is that Forest believe they were only in breach for two months - between filing their accounts on June 30 last year and September 1 when they received the first instalment of their sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham.
The dates are significant because Forest - and at least one other Premier League club that we are aware of - believe that the dates for Premier League accounting should be aligned with the transfer window.
And the second 'but' is that Forest believe not only would they have been within FFP and the Premier League's sustainability rules had they sold Johnson in June, but selling Johnson in September was in the 'spirit' of those sustainability rules.
Those arguments seem extremely weak to me.
You can't only be in breach for two months, in the context of the rules that makes no sense.Nottingham Forest expected to learn outcome of Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) early this week
Nottingham Forest are expecting to learn Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) fate early this week; Forest are the second club to be charged for breaches this season, alongside Everton, who were docked six points; Nuno Espirito Santos side three points above relegation zone
Compare the narrative here compared to the many pieces we had written about us around the time of our original deduction...
Is there a 'but' coming?
Yes. Two, in fact.
The first 'but' is that Forest believe they were only in breach for two months - between filing their accounts on June 30 last year and September 1 when they received the first instalment of their sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham.
The dates are significant because Forest - and at least one other Premier League club that we are aware of - believe that the dates for Premier League accounting should be aligned with the transfer window.
And the second 'but' is that Forest believe not only would they have been within FFP and the Premier League's sustainability rules had they sold Johnson in June, but selling Johnson in September was in the 'spirit' of those sustainability rules.
Those arguments seem extremely weak to me.
