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

Zatara said:
Win games
Stay up
Forest relegated
We sign their best couple of players
Forest implode
Click to expand...
I think Forest stay up they have a much easier set of fixtures than Luton. I just hope this points deduction doesn’t give Luton a shot in the arm because for me they are the most likely team to go down with Burnley and Sheff United.
 
jimmythenut said:
Separate argument altogether, but what needs to happen is, the bottom 14 teams need to use their voting power once and for all and try and get the league back to a level playing field.

All you ever hear is how much power the top 6 have, but without the other 14 teams who'd watch it? Wish the top 6 had broken away would have been the best thing to ever happen for English football.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there will be quite a few club owners in that bottom 14 who are unable or unwilling to spend much money. Mid-table mediocrity is all they can ever wish for, and P&S as it stands HELPS them.
 
Dymak said:
Forest’s statement is assertive in rejecting their punishment but makes no mention of an appeal, whereas I think Everton’s statement to the initial appeal mentioned our intention to appeal straight away.

I hope this is a good sign. I would be in acceptance of these reported agreements in which clubs are given lower deductions in return for not appealing.

Our objective is to finish above LUTON!
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
b-rad said:
The PL suggested there should be a "substantial" reduction in Forest's punishment due to good behaviour.
Click to expand...
Oh they made matters even worse. Particularly when good behaviour is a requirement not an optional extra. You are 100% right. But their opening gambit of 8 does seem reasonable when looking at our eventual outcome. Forest’s statement following the ruling is substantially more scathing than even ours, massively targeting the PL’s aggressive approach.

Leaked to the Times wasn’t it that Forest planned to go legal on the whole prices if they got more than 6?

I could almost almost roll my eyes at giving them a reduction in penalty for being compliant (even though previous reports have discounted this as an option) IF their starting point was consistent with ours. They got a reduction from 6 to 4 on the spot at a cost of £zero. We had to payhundreds of thousands on legal fees to get from 10 to 6. We had to pay to get to a point where its was reported our first hearing had legal issues. That part is entirely on Forests commission. Completely ignored our case and appeal, and the PL suggestion of 8. Was never getting anywhere near 8 as a starting point. They started from 3 waffled up to 6 then back down to 4.

Probably not possible, but if precedents can be completely ignored by each IC, our appeal should have been heard after Forests charge completed. No way we’d have settled for 6 after yesterday.
 
Jacko93 said:
There are facts that are available in the public domain and then there are assumptions that you are making, both are at odds with each other.

Forest and us (for charge 2) are part of an Expedited process, one which led to a charge being initially raised 16th January this year following a newly devised financial reporting system. The process must run to its full conclusion and, even though it is part of an expedited process specifically created to allow that to happen, it may still run into one week post season. The speed of this process was considered the fastest possible to allow fair outcomes and proper application of due process. That consideration was through the PL and the IC.

Our initial charge was raised against us on 24th March, and in order for completion to happen within the season, the entire process, incl. appeal which is an agreed part of the process, would have been required to have been completed in 65 days. (it took 240 prior to appeal, 340 inclusive of Appeal)

The Forest charge, as part of the expedited process, and without an appeal yet even being raised, never mind heard, has taken 64 days. They relied heavily on the Everton case to assist in their decision making, allowing them to make assumptions based upon prior findings, something that wasn't afforded to the IC during Evertons first hearing. Everton are 64 days into the expedited process without a hearing even taking place (though the previous charge lead to extenuating circumstances in that regard)

Are you saying, with those given facts available to you, that anybody who doesn't think Everton delayed the process "deliberately" in order to stave off relegation is brainless? Or, do you think that, as many people who do have minds of their own do, that it is entirely possible that we suggested that in order to have the full process followed and come to a fair conclusion, the timeline to complete it in the same season was just far too tight. The IC agreed with us, the PL agreed with us. Did it serve us positively that this was the case, yes, absolutely, but none of that is our doing, nor did we deliberately delay any of our provision of evidence or response to charges. We worked entirely within the confines of the process as it was laid out, as we are also doing this time.

To imply that people have no mind of their own for having the temerity to disagree with you, while you are ignoring simple facts, is really quite a bold move.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this: With Everton not coming out and having a go at the premier league, a proper go like Forest did yesterday maybe they already know something regarding the second charge, our barrister insisted at the appeal about two charges in one season was blatantly unfair. Let’s see the result of this second charge, I’m expecting no further points deduction. Even if this happens it doesn’t change the fact that the six point deduction was far too much as was Forests four point penalty. There are no fixed points penalty, doubt if anyone knew the rules as they stood because the premier league didn’t make them plain nor the penalty if found guilty.

Now, after Everton were made the Guinea Pigs and then the scapegoats, Forest were charged but every other club have now been forewarned and jumping through hoops in order not to be charged like us. The new rules in August will help every club in order to get the premier league out of the mess they made themselves. The bigger the club the bigger the escape, we will just have to lick our wounds and hope we can overcome this unjustness and move on.
 

witchdoc187 said:
Has the club commented on this yet?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are unhappy with a 4 point deduction - they have 7 days to appeal - but even if they are successful they may only get 1 point back if they are lucky = is it worth that ?
Going on the rate, it's a 3 point minimum deduction stated by the appeals panel - the Prem wanted a 6 point deduction - the appeal independent panel knocked two off in the mitigating circumstances the forest legal team put forwards.... ....

Irrespective their overspend was 30 % higher than ours in one season .... & we initially got a ten point deduction - it's a pure nonsense system they are making changing rules as they go a long IMO
 
Johnniepk said:
“The commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the appeal board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information.”

Seems we got an arbitrary 3 points for being Everton to me.
Click to expand...
This alone gives significant grounds for the original case to be quashed as it is an unsafe conviction.

But it won't be, it's not a legal process, you signed up to the rules, etc. etc.
 

witchdoc187 said:
Has the club commented on this yet?
Click to expand...
Whatever you think of Forest’s two points for co-operation it’s clearly meant to incentivise clubs not to rock the boat.

There’s nothing to be gained from a statement at this time. We can all see and judge with our own eyes.

After our second judgement is in it’s time to assess with our lawyers whether we have been treated equitably across both cases in relation to the Forest judgement.

IMO the club is right to keep close watch and let the evidence mount up. Preserve the nuclear options for after the next hearing.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top