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

sd_1992 said:
We were granted a lot of mitigations on the year that dropped out that we probably won’t be granted for last year.

So I don’t think it is that simple and is probably why we have been done again.
Click to expand...
What 'mitigations' were considered? They were all dismissed. Only 'good faith and intent' were considered at the appeal (which were excuses to legitimise the 4 point return).
The PL have de facto set a framework, unintentionally imho, of 3 points per £10m, which puts Forest at a huge risk.
They can't allow mitigating circumstances for Forest so have backed themselves into a very dodgy corner. If challenged by either team legally, bearing in mind timescale towards season end, they will open to challenges from the entire league.
 
Tin-Tin said:
Anyone seen the article on Forests breach. Says the below. But then the rest of the article is how they will see even a 6 point deduction worthy of appeal.

They told the PL they were selling Johnson once Kane went (not sure what would have happened if he broke his leg or got a bad injury).

They have kept quiet so have been more respectful, not garnering local MP's support (even though we only did that AFTER the 10 point deduction

They only have £61m to breach, which is a lot less. Even though, like we were told, they are the rules fair or not.

They have to buy more players to stay in the league.

Sounds like they honestly feel that they should or will get a lesser punishment of around 3 points with more suspended.

"Forest are understood to have breached by a higher figure than Everton, who had an overspend of £19.5million on their allowable losses of £105m over a three-year period.

Crucially, however, Forest’s breaches occurred over a considerably shorter time frame.

Because Forest spent two of the three years they are being assessed over in the Championship, their loss limit is lower, at £61m
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the last two paras. The system is designed to be interoperable so that promotion and relegation can be taken into account.

It’s a three year period for them as it is for any club, both in terms of spend and in terms of their limit which is set according to the limits of the years in question. The system doesn’t disadvantage them at all. So I don’t see how it’s a defence.

Consider a situation where the PL disregarded the years in the EFL- you could spend a billion in the championship, buy promotion and if the PL ignored EFL spending get away scot free in PSR terms.

That’s why it’s designed to be interoperable and why “we’ve only been in the PL for a year” doesn’t seem to me to be a defence. It’s a three year calculation the same for them as anyone.
 

www.bbc.co.uk

Wolves financial results: Club set to avoid Premier League rules breach despite big losses

Wolves believe they will avoid any Premier League financial charges after filing accounts showing significant losses for 2022-23.
www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC don’t give figures for all the seasons which is annoy but I can’t see why Wolves escape for breaching the single season overspend by such an amount two seasons in a row.

Also if Forest get away with their appeal, surely Everton can come back with - we’ll we’d have held out and sold Richarlison for me if we realised we could just ignore the rules during the transfer window.
 
Grfirestorm said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Wolves financial results: Club set to avoid Premier League rules breach despite big losses

Wolves believe they will avoid any Premier League financial charges after filing accounts showing significant losses for 2022-23.
www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC don’t give figures for all the seasons which is annoy but I can’t see why Wolves escape for breaching the single season overspend by such an amount two seasons in a row.

Also if Forest get away with their appeal, surely Everton can come back with - we’ll we’d have held out and sold Richarlison for me if we realised we could just ignore the rules during the transfer window.
Click to expand...

Wolves made an £18 million profit in 20/21 apparently so they haven’t breached, and should be ok after selling Neves etc in the summer.

I don’t think the £35 million per season rule is in place for clubs that have 3 years of Prem accounts.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know why people still bother going to PL football matches. It’s a totally manufactured 6-team mini league with 14 others literally making up the numbers, with rules that are blatantly designed to prevent other teams from challenging the 6.

Its the same every year, it is continually blighted by garbage like VAR and TV broadcasts are basically one big betting advert, with moron ex-footballers talking about the same bollocks every week.
 
Tin-Tin said:
Anyone seen the article on Forests breach. Says the below. But then the rest of the article is how they will see even a 6 point deduction worthy of appeal.

They told the PL they were selling Johnson once Kane went (not sure what would have happened if he broke his leg or got a bad injury).

They have kept quiet so have been more respectful, not garnering local MP's support (even though we only did that AFTER the 10 point deduction

They only have £61m to breach, which is a lot less. Even though, like we were told, they are the rules fair or not.

They have to buy more players to stay in the league.

Sounds like they honestly feel that they should or will get a lesser punishment of around 3 points with more suspended.

"Forest are understood to have breached by a higher figure than Everton, who had an overspend of £19.5million on their allowable losses of £105m over a three-year period.

Crucially, however, Forest’s breaches occurred over a considerably shorter time frame.

Because Forest spent two of the three years they are being assessed over in the Championship, their loss limit is lower, at £61m
Click to expand...
Think the Johnson argument will be interesting. We sold richy before the cut off for potentially less than we could have got and breached. They sold Johnson after the cut off for more. The PL will need to say which strategy is better for a club in terms of P and S.

....or they will be complete morons and say you shouldn't do either and should do both. Because, you know, the PL.
 

Tin-Tin said:
As we only got some points back due to being called dishonest, its hard to see how Forest wont get hit with 6-8 points at least - I dont think the overspend figure has been released so it could be £20m or £80m.

Imagine if Forest do get a lesser punishment for a bigger breach.
Click to expand...
Forest reported losses of £45.6m for 22/23. The PL have assessed their losses as £61m over the three years to the end of that period. This is from The Telegraph Jan 2024.

Forest said they delayed the sale of Johnson until after 30/6/23 because they knew they could get more for him by holding out until near the end of the 2023 summer transfer window. This waiting to sell Johnson is their only defence against selling him before 30/6/2023 to reduce their reported losses despite them knowing they had overspent. With them blatantly ignoring their losses and knowingly overspending and without having a crafty Belarusian and Iranian and an almost billion pound stadium build to consider, their charge and subsequent penalty should, in effect, be greater than ours.
 
PhilRegan said:
Neto sale will solve that , then a semedo back up . But will likely see them down.
Click to expand...
Strangely Wolves are one a a small number of clubs with a May 31st accounting year end. Whether they have the option to push it back at this point to the end of June I am not sure but unless they do this proceeds from any Neto sale will be a non factor
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top