I literally have no clue why some Forest Fans think they should get lower than us, when they spent millions,signings a pile of players. and have literally had a sporting advantage for one, on a player they sold way after the dealine, then added to the accounts. They should 100% get 6points at least.
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