Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

6 + 2 Point Deductions

MikeH72 said:
That was a key point in the report about trending in the right direct which lots of people clearly haven’t read.
Click to expand...
In the hearing, we apparently tried to project forward out of the period in the scope of the first charge, too - because that showed huge improvement - but weren't allowed because it was out of scope.

It won't be out of scope with this second charge.
 
Jeff Jones said:
What's the difference between Notts, and Man for City and Utd. Notice I didn't even say United?
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose that Forest fans are being over sensitive and pedantic, in that 'Man' is a generally accepted shortening of Machester, whereas 'Notts' is technically the short version of the county of Nottinghamshire, and so validly used for Notts County, but not so for Forest, which is named after the city of Nottingham. I suppose if people incorrectly used a nickname for the other lot to apply to us, we'd be more than a bit narked.
 
We raised nine points for the appeal, seven of the nine were dismissed.
The main point where we were successful related to if our dealings with the PL were in good faith or not.

What about the seven that were dismissed ? What were they about ? were they just frivolous points which were summarily dismissed?
If these were genuine arguments then why are we not as a club focusing on these and considering further action ?

I can't help but feel that we were as guilty as sin, knew it but have not admitted it to the fans and are delighted with the result.

I think we just seem to have accepted this decision too easily for a club that genuinely feels it is innocent of the charges.
 
If there were any legal errors at all in the original IC decision, then our conviction is unsafe and all charges should be dropped with 10 pts returned.

I'm ready to die on that hill.
 

Its really impossible to predict lids, they make it up as they go along, there is no indication in the rules in terms of second offences how they are treated or is any weight carried cumulatively or double jeopardy or even multiple punishments in the one year. The fact there is nothing in the rules may or may not work in our favour. We've been through the process but actually know even less in application of the second charge.

Its very much comes down to interpretation.

Think its absolutely impossible to predict, even though we've been through it.
 
Toffe3m4n said:
This will certainly be the argument. This latest commission even briefly considered suspending the 6 points but ultimately decided against it. Wouldn't be surprised if the second breach resulted in a suspended deduction considering that we're clearly trending positively at this point.
Click to expand...
But we aren't trending positively, that's the point. The 2022/23 losses are going to be much higher than the 2021/22 losses.
 
blueblue said:
We raised nine points for the appeal, seven of the nine were dismissed.
The main point where we were successful related to if our dealings with the PL were in good faith or not.

What about the seven that were dismissed ? What were they about ? were they just frivolous points which were summarily dismissed?
If these were genuine arguments then why are we not as a club focusing on these and considering further action ?

I can't help but feel that we were as guilty as sin, knew it but have not admitted it to the fans and are delighted with the result.

I think we just seem to have accepted this decision too easily for a club that genuinely feels it is innocent of the charges.
Click to expand...
They never claimed they were innocent they have said all along they were guilty but thought they could argue that the circumstances meant they shouldn't be punished but the commission didn't agree it was like someone getting done for assault and agreeing they did it but saying they were under so much pressure at work and their wife had left them and they'd took some new medication that affected them worse than they thought so the judge should be lenient with them sometimes the judge will agree and sometimes they won't.
 
blueblue said:
We raised nine points for the appeal, seven of the nine were dismissed.
The main point where we were successful related to if our dealings with the PL were in good faith or not.

What about the seven that were dismissed ? What were they about ? were they just frivolous points which were summarily dismissed?
If these were genuine arguments then why are we not as a club focusing on these and considering further action ?

I can't help but feel that we were as guilty as sin, knew it but have not admitted it to the fans and are delighted with the result.

I think we just seem to have accepted this decision too easily for a club that genuinely feels it is innocent of the charges.
Click to expand...
This appeal was harder could only really fight ocer the result of the first not bring in new evidence, hopefully with the second case we will be more prepared. The club did admit this forst charge , i think now the just want moce on from it now and -6 will be the best they can get with then more positive about the new charge
 

Moomin said:
We have been punished.

I can't see how we can get a further points deduction for the second charge.

We have reduced the wage bill and squad size and even from the original commision in November they made reference that efforts had been made in recent years by us.

22/23 season will again show we have reduced the wage bill again.
Click to expand...
I just dont see them thinking that way myself - then again no one knows what they will think. The report yesterday almost make's it seem like 6points for anyone is the starting point. I dont even think the 1st Hearing/Appeal will be in thoughts of the 2nd hearing - Off course we dont even know what we have supposedly gone over by, if at all. and going by some we have to be 40 mil odd to be caught again
 
If we are under 35 million for last years accounts (which i reckon we probably are), then any charge and punishment issued that is based upon a rolling 3 year period will instantly become double jeopardy because 2 years of that charge have already been used and punished upon. It would open up a massive can of worms, massive backlash and law suits against the PL. I think they will want to just make the mess they have created go away and our second charge will either be dropped or suspended.

Different for Forest as their 3 year threshold is only 61 million and hasn't has anything punished on to date. Nothing down for them tbh, they will take a minimum 6 point hit and possibly more depending how bad it actually is and with very little hope of a successful appeal.
 
MikeH72 said:
That was a key point in the report about trending in the right direct which lots of people clearly haven’t read.
Click to expand...
It's not trending in the right direction, you can tell with the maths. The appeal board agreed with the original commission that there was a small mitigating effect from the lower losses in 2021/22. They also agreed with the original commission that this wasn't the case to consider the extent of the 2022/23 losses; the Premier League had tried to introduce them as evidence that the upward trend has stopped. However, it is true that the upward trend has stopped.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top