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

Chegsy said:
Another club not realising we have still had 6 points and 2 wins taken from us. Put the points on the board then Brentford and stop relying on other teams getting points taken. They all want an easy ride to safety.

What is this narrative that giving us 4 points back is giving us some kind of unfair advantage?
Click to expand...
The silence was deafening before we got any back, now it’s a hot topic for the whole league and unfair? Just Koff to the lot of them. They will be silent again if we get hit for another 6, no one will care again except us and forest.

Sick to the back teeth of it all, and of how ill informed fans and players of other clubs have been about it.

The other 14 really are just happy to make up numbers and get the head pats, it’s disgusting.
 
Dougie said:
It’s pathetic. Had the points wrongly took of us since November. They have been on par with Sheffield form for last 14 games or so. The fact they are trying to use the fact we got 4 points back and went level with them, that’s the reason they got battered by a poor form West Ham.
Click to expand...

You would think we’d been given 12 back the way some of them are carrying on.

Even if we got 10 back we’d just be getting back points we had accrued on the pitch. Something they haven’t done.

As I say they all want it easy. They are still the same number of points away from Luton as they were 2 days ago 🤷🏻
 
NathDogg said:
The silence was deafening before we got any back, now it’s a hot topic for the whole league and unfair? Just Koff to the lot of them. They will be silent again if we get hit for another 6, no one will care again except us and forest.

Sick to the back teeth of it all, and of how ill informed fans and players of other clubs have been about it.

The other 14 really are just happy to make up numbers and get the head pats, it’s disgusting.
Click to expand...

Said similar yesterday. The PL will be laughing their tits off that the rest of us are all arguing amongst each other whilst their top 6 get richer year on year. They will all be moaning soon enough when they once again lose their best players to comply with P&S. we have already seen the geordies fume that they can’t spend.
 

Chegsy said:
You would think we’d been given 12 back the way some of them are carrying on.

Even if we got 10 back we’d just be getting back points we had accrued on the pitch. Something they haven’t done.

As I say they all want it easy. They are still the same number of points away from Luton as they were 2 days ago 🤷🏻
Click to expand...
Hope we pull through all this and still remain in the prem. Would say look forward to others teams getting done, since our club has been dragged through the mud, but we know and maybe forest will only be ever done for this.
 
Bluepablo said:
Having skimmed the report I think Forest will get a deduction of 3 or at the most 4. Think our deduction will depend on the amount & reasons we are over again with 8 being the max.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you can come to that conclusion tbh. Nobody even knows yet the full amount of how much Forest actually lost but the general feeling is that it was a lot and deliberate and given that report seems to infer 6 points as a baseline, if anything you would expect it to be 6 as a minimum and maybe more, certainly not less.
 
blueblue said:
My understanding is that certain expenses such as interest on certain loans were not accepted as stadium costs but instead went onto the P & L thereby increasing the loss instead of reducing it. I would like to know if this is the case.

Losses can be made larger or smaller depending on expenses which are allowed or disallowed , we could be guilty based on one interpretation of expenses but maybe innocent if interpreted in a different way.

I would just like to know what the seven issues that were dismissed were all about.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused as Hunter in the Grauniad said that only 2 of the nine issues were dismissed, but other places say 7 of the 9.

Which is right?
 

DanB90 said:
Which points in the report specifically make you think
Click to expand...

DanB90 said:
Which points in the report specifically make you think this?
Click to expand...
Specifically

Our deduction 8 max:



217. We have taken into account the fact that, under rule E.35, a PL club suffers a nine point deduction on an "Event of Insolvency". Mr Rabinowitz submitted, with some force, that an Event of Insolvency is an inevitably more serious matter for the relevant club in respect of its sustainability, and so for the integrity of the PL as a competition; which is indicative that a nine or more point penalty for the Club in respect of its breach of the PSR would be too high. The two penalties are not, in our view, directly comparable because, as Mr Lewis pointed out, the nine point penalty under rule E.35 is automatic and may be accompanied by other disciplinary sanctions for breaches of other rules which an Event of Insolvency (or the underlying circumstances) may trigger. Nevertheless, we found this submission by Mr Rabinowitz to have some force. It suggests that the ten point penalty here was internally inconsistent within the framework of the PL Rules.



Forest 8 reduced by 50%



214. We have also had regard to the cases which have been determined on the basis of the EFL P&S Rules and Guidelines. Mr Rabinowitz specifically referred us to Sheffield Wednesday (see, e.g., paragraph 91 of the Club's Written Submissions).

In that case, the club had exceeded the EFL upper loss threshold by 46.7% (equivalent of a £49m overspend in the PL, compared with the Club's overspend of just under {20m), and the club had a worsening trend of losses. The club offered no explanation for its losses, having spent 168.1% of its entire turnover in the last year of the relevant period on wages alone.

The case, it was submitted, was

therefore in every respect more serious than this case; but a deduction of only six points was made. However, that submission fails to take into account that the Commission in that case was minded to deduct 12 points, but for the mitigation of the club having sold its ground shortly after the relevant period which, had the ground been sold less than three weeks earlier, would have meant that the P&S Rules would not have been breached at all. That was the reason why the Commission reduced the deduction from 12 points to six (see [113]). We deal with the mitigation relied on by the Club below (see paragraphs 220-224); but the Club has no golden mitigation point such as that.
 
MisterJ said:
I'm a bit confused as Hunter in the Grauniad said that only 2 of the nine issues were dismissed, but other places say 7 of the 9.

Which is right?
Click to expand...
The report itself says they dismissed 7 of the 9. The other two were points based on precedent of punishments & the argument that 'utmost faith' wasn't carried out by the club as per the first ruling.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top