6 + 2 Point Deductions

[MACCA75]

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

I don’t think anyone cares what you expect tbh.

 

[Blue Willy]

So what do folks reckon they will get?

6 down to 4 on appeal?

 

[knowing your history]

Forest holding onto that player must be an aggravating factor surely?
Our charge was largely put down to poor / miss- accounting in the end wasn’t it? So there’s should be at least 6 points,

They beat Sheffield United with Johnson starting that game. It does beg the question what would've happened if he'd done his ACL in that match. They'd have had to fire sale Gibbs White probably at the last minute.

If Johnson was going to be sold then you don't risk playing him so that really is two fingers stuck up at the situation.

More I think about it more I can actually see them getting -10 as makes sense to take away the three points won in that game aswell and then the panel will probably randomly find another reason to round it up to the same punishment this club got in November to make sure things are consistent.

I'd be interested to read the report as if they really clamp down on them starting Johnson then an appeal to get back down to -6 won't be as clear cut as the reasons this club got four points back.

Forest are going to have to win plenty of games between now and the end of the season so big pressure on them.

 

[MikeH72]

So what do folks reckon they will get?

6 down to 4 on appeal?

I don’t think there’ll be an appeal. Whatever they get is what they’ll get.

 

[Lee Smith]

Haven't really been following the NOTTS Forest side of things, but listening to talkSport now (I know I know), Simon Jordan (I know I know) just said he thinks Forest will get a points deducation "but nothing like Everton's, probably a couple of points". WTF? How do people come to that conclusion if their overspend is alledgedly more than ours?!

 

[gixerk6]

So what do folks reckon they will get?

6 down to 4 on appeal?

You’d think they would want to be somewhat more fairer to stop us wanting to put in another appeal which screws up the end of the season and have it all ironed out before the season ends and somewhat mitigate the backlash over clubs in relegation places or near to having to wait to see what happens with the appeal before finding out their fates.
Of course the PL don’t show common sense in anything they do.

 

[MACCA75]

So what do folks reckon they will get?

6 down to 4 on appeal?

6. Nothing back on appeal. Essentially we got the 4 points back because the panel felt 10 was not in line with other points deductions for administration etc. They dismissed all our other reasons for appeal and they will with Forest too.

6 is the precedent for a first breach, that’s the only sanction I’m expecting.

 

[Joey66]

Haven't really been following the NOTTS Forest side of things, but listening to talkSport now (I know I know), Simon Jordan (I know I know) just said he thinks Forest will get a points deducation "but nothing like Everton's, probably a couple of points". WTF? How do people come to that conclusion if their overspend is alledgedly more than ours?!

The top 6 apart from the team over the park have well over spent, United alone spent 1/2 a billion on players in August ....

 

[Chewbacca]

Haven't really been following the NOTTS Forest side of things, but listening to talkSport now (I know I know), Simon Jordan (I know I know) just said he thinks Forest will get a points deducation "but nothing like Everton's, probably a couple of points". WTF? How do people come to that conclusion if their overspend is alledgedly more than ours?!

They’re not Everton

 

[toffeeblue9]

Nottingham Forest expected to learn outcome of Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) early this week

Nottingham Forest are expecting to learn Profitability and Sustainability (PSR) fate early this week; Forest are the second club to be charged for breaches this season, alongside Everton, who were docked six points; Nuno Espirito Santos side three points above relegation zone

www.skysports.com

Compare the narrative here compared to the many pieces we had written about us around the time of our original deduction...

Is there a 'but' coming?
Yes. Two, in fact.

The first 'but' is that Forest believe they were only in breach for two months - between filing their accounts on June 30 last year and September 1 when they received the first instalment of their sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham.

The dates are significant because Forest - and at least one other Premier League club that we are aware of - believe that the dates for Premier League accounting should be aligned with the transfer window.

And the second 'but' is that Forest believe not only would they have been within FFP and the Premier League's sustainability rules had they sold Johnson in June, but selling Johnson in September was in the 'spirit' of those sustainability rules.

Those arguments seem extremely weak to me.

To be completely fair to Forest, their argument effectively shows what a nonsense PSR is - they're incentivised to sell players by an arbitrary deadline to comply with an arbitrary loss figure, despite selling the player a couple of months later being better for their actual financial health and sustainability as a business

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the rules applied as stringently as they were to us as we received no mitigation for a similar scenario for Richarlison, nor any of the common sense mitigation around Russia etc, but I do have sympathy with Forest's argument - the "profit and sustainability rules" in the example here have literally the opposite effect to what they're intended to achieve.

End of the day, PSR and the new iteration of it are nothing other than a system designed to preserve the status quo in football - actual sustainability is a complete afterthought

 

[hallamblue]

If you remember we said in our statement after the 10 point penalty that we would be watching other judgements very closely. I don't see any way Forest get less than 6 points unless they're only £5 million over

 

[hallamblue]

To be completely fair to Forest, their argument effectively shows what a nonsense PSR is - they're incentivised to sell players by an arbitrary deadline to comply with an arbitrary loss figure, despite selling the player a couple of months later being better for their actual financial health and sustainability as a business

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the rules applied as stringently as they were to us as we received no mitigation for a similar scenario for Richarlison, nor any of the common sense mitigation around Russia etc, but I do have sympathy with Forest's argument - the "profit and sustainability rules" in the example here have literally the opposite effect to what they're intended to achieve.

End of the day, PSR and the new iteration of it are nothing other than a system designed to preserve the status quo in football - actual sustainability is a complete afterthought

That's like doing 50 mph in a 30 zone and saying "well it shouldn't be 30 mph there". Try that one and see how you get on!

 

[jonnyboy316]

I have said for a while both of us will get 4

 

[Goat]

If forest get less than 6 points this place will meltdown.

 

[mikel_88]

If forest get less than 6 points this place will meltdown.

I would take them getting 4 us getting 2