ashwuk76
Player Valuation: £30m
However, the Commission can see that there is a risk in focusing completely on the amount of any breach in isolation: the context behind a breach should be understood too. In the case at hand, matters like the reason for the excess and the “uniqueness” of Forest (together, the particular circumstances of the club) seem to fit better in this initial starting point analysis than in mitigation. The Commission considers that it would assist to band breaches into “minor”, “significant” or “major” breaches, to remove the focus on the absolute number, especially when different PSR Thresholds can apply. However, that approach can be adopted/disregarded as other Commissions see fit - what is clear to the Commission here is, just like Everton, that Forest’s losses are “significant”, as are its excesses over its PSR Threshold, so that it should face a points sanction. As such, and as the Appeal Board in the Everton Appeal determined at [201 to 204], other available sanctions, such as warnings, fines, embargos and the like are not appropriate in the case at hand.
Look at that... the amount doesn't matter just the circumstances....
Also I notice Forest used the argument that there overall loss of £94m was less than our overall loss of £124.5m therefore ours was worse... wtaf!! Total overall makes no difference its how much you breach it by that's important! That right there should be the basis of our legal action. 2 different sets of rules being applied.
Utter utter corruption.
Look at that... the amount doesn't matter just the circumstances....
Also I notice Forest used the argument that there overall loss of £94m was less than our overall loss of £124.5m therefore ours was worse... wtaf!! Total overall makes no difference its how much you breach it by that's important! That right there should be the basis of our legal action. 2 different sets of rules being applied.
Utter utter corruption.