I mentioned before mate, there was a Forest fan on here this weekend who said they should get a warning like us. He simply seemed to miss out us getting a 10pt penalty.
I mentioned before mate, there was a Forest fan on here this weekend who said they should get a warning like us. He simply seemed to miss out us getting a 10pt penalty.
I think if that happened I'd be demanding Everton make a very public statement saying they are now in the process of discussing the matter with Sports Lawyers.
I'm not even arsed about putting Forest below us due to points, we should be above them on merit in football terns anyway. If we got stuffed with a 10pt deduction then I want other teams to suffer exactly the same process we've suffered which is
- clubs name dragged through the mud
- 3 months of football with a 10pt deduction hanging over our heads
- no room to manoeuvre in January without knowing how many pts would be deducted
- all plans on hold for summer/contracts for players/negotiations we might have been in for new signings etc
A chance for Forest fans to help back the corruptness and stand together with 2.4k Evertonians when we played at their ground.....nah, we'll sing "you cheating bast**ds to Evertonians instead".
Sound, any crumb of sympathy I had for Forest disappeared in an instant.
Tony’s Carp
Player Valuation: £40m
Would be bizarre. The IC is there to give the punishment they in good faith think is correct. It’s not a negotiation. If they start haggling with “but less if you don’t appeal” it’s outside their remit, and worse could knowingly be giving a decision that is incorrect. Because you can’t say 6 points is correct but 3 is also correct. Very close eye from a number of clubs lawyers if so.
without knowing more, I suspect we took out the loans to go to the stadium costs, but in the intervening period, used the loans for cash flow purposes, hence why they were accepted under PL rules. Had we known that our biggest sponsor and a major source of income was going to get pulled, we may have been more careful in how we handled these loans etc, and actually getting stuff down in writing about promised deals that were in the pipeline, that when they got pulled, we couldn't evidence properly.
Well we might get another 6 points if Forest receive 6 -8 but appreciate my post wasn't particularly clear. Also not receiving any further points deduction would mean we remain 3 points above Luton.
GoldenToffee
Player Valuation: £50m
Surely not seeing as we've been given a 6 point penalty and the next breach already tasks a majority of the first breach into account - should be a quarter of the first amount / a third of it. Two points maximum. Obviously wouldn't put it past the Premier League to throw the book as us though.
Wat Tyler
Player Valuation: £70m
It’s farcical how arbitrary the whole thing is.
Wat Tyler
Player Valuation: £70m
Bravo, bravissimo!
WestStandLower
Player Valuation: £1.5m
The PL have no choice when the £105 million but to charge clubs.
We know that clubs can and indeed as did Everton make representation to the PL and get sums treated as exceptional and as a consequence have sums discounted.
It’s clear that Forest didn’t get any such concession if the numbers were that close and the profit from the sale was enough to tip the balance.
So going simply on the view taken at the Everton appeal if Forest are found to have exceeded £61 million over 3 years the starting point is 6 points. That will probably be the same again if Everton are found likewise to have exceeded the £105 million three year threshold . But
Both cases will be then assessed separately using mitigating and aggregating factors.
1) Will likely be the extent the number has been exceeded . We don’t yet know either clubs statutory losses or indeed how any IC will make , if any, further allowances in this regard for Forest . In other words if both Everton and Forest miss by the same number I would imagine that Forest will viewed pro rata being worse.
2) Will the IC accept mitigation or perhaps justification in them claiming they were prepared to breech the limits because getting a bigger fee actually shows a valid approach toward long term sustainability? Easy to dismiss and they should but as I pointed out the other day ( and got pelters) Sheffield Wednesday did convince their IC that delaying a transaction to get a better financial outcome is a mitigating factor.
3) Then you have trend. Forest inevitably will be reporting bigger losses in 22/23 . Everton in the 21/22 case argued that the losses were down year on year . And they were.
The appeal IC rightly dismissed the PLs reference to the 22/23 stating these numbers will take care of themselves and that’s where things are. The 22/23 loses will be greater than the 21/22. Put quite simply they have to be otherwise there wouldn’t have been a second charge
4) Double jeopardy isn’t really an argument. It shouldn’t even be an issue but it should be a factor when it comes down to mitigating factors
i am guessing and I know that but I dont think that there won’t be any suspension of points. Would an IC looking at 22/23 numbers want to tie the hands should another charge be appropriate?
So if I were a betting man I would expect Forest will get 3 or 4 or maybe even 5 points as for Everton’s 3 points see 4) above
If our ace accountant Moshiri had kept our day to day running separate to the ground build - we may have escaped any points deduction, rumours have it ?
Genuinely can't believe people have laughed at that!It’s literally your arguement reversed.
If their breach is by more than ours then it’s only fair they get hit with the ten points we got hit with. Let’s see how it affects their players, fans, staff and also then they can appeal, like we did, at a massive cost, like us and then if they have grounds for a appeal they can have some points back.
If they simply get a deduction of say 4/5/6 points then I think it’s safe to say the league is completely corrupt and and Everton should sue the league.
If they simply get a deduction of say 4/5/6 points then I think it’s safe to say the league is completely corrupt and and Everton should sue the league.
knowing your history
Player Valuation: £20m
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.
It's laughable isn't it.
Basically Forest's defence is their own interpretation of FFP! Pretty arrogant way of attempting to abide with it.
At least this club were saying stuff like Sigurdsson being taken out of action and the Ukraine war were mitigation. Perhaps stretching the truth but they seem to be far more plausible than what Forest are claiming.
I expect those reasons to be given extremely short shrift and they'll be losing at least six points at some point this week.
