6 + 2 Point Deductions

[jazzy]

if true, it'll surely mean forest get at least 6 for their 1st charge?

The IC didn't consider the 2nd charge and don't have power to rescind.

That is a highly implausible outcome and could only happen if the PL withdraw the 2nd charge.

 

[Victus]

Rumoured to be. We don’t know that. And we don’t know by how much they have actually infringed by. For all we know it’s less than what we have.

I mean it's not really rumoured, that's what their case is about.

 

[The binman chronicles]

The only thing I could think of, is that the appeals panel accept some form of mitigation we put forward. And that mitigation then means we become compliant for period 2.

But to get to that decision it would take time, and it would surely be for the PL to determine that, not the appeal panel.

I'm not saying it's impossible we get to that situation at some point down the line, but it doesn't feel likely to happen right now. This is an appeal into the 10 point penalty for charge 1.

Is correct. If the calculation of how much we are over in period 1 changes then it could wipe out the 2nd. If the PL accept that verdict then they can release that news at the same time.

 

[JohnRoss23]

Let's say it is 4 points back, 2nd charge dropped. What is that look like for Forest? How much did they 'overspend'?

 

[navidson]

Let's say it is 4 points back, 2nd charge dropped. What is that look like for Forest? How much did they 'overspend'?

I imagine they'd be docked 6 points like us

 

[nick_waters]

The IC didn't consider the 2nd charge and don't have power to rescind.

That is a highly implausible outcome and could only happen if the PL withdraw the 2nd charge.

It might explain the delay in publishing the appeal outcome?

 

[matty1878]

I imagine they'd be docked 6 points like us

for what we did to them and they only
6 points?

 

[JohnRoss23]

I imagine they'd be docked 6 points like us

I thought they docked points based on how much overspent?

 

[Marius57]

I mean it's not really rumoured, that's what their case is about.

Them not selling Johnson isn’t the sole reason for their breach. It’s not just a single factor issue. Same way ours wasn’t.

And we didn’t know our specifics until the report from the hearing was published.

Forest literally might only be £1m over for all we know.

 

[GoldenToffee]

Let's say it is 4 points back, 2nd charge dropped. What is that look like for Forest? How much did they 'overspend'?

Kin loads more than we did. They bought about 40 players and sold nobody of value.

I imagine they'd be docked 6 points like us

How do you work that out? The appeal from us surely sets a precident of 6 points for £19m. So it would completely depend on their amount.

As theirs is likely regarding spend on players, a clear sporting advantage and also zero mitigating factors.

 

[matty1878]

The IC didn't consider the 2nd charge and don't have power to rescind.

That is a highly implausible outcome and could only happen if the PL withdraw the 2nd charge.

what’s the IC?

 

[CrimsonToffee]

I think on a principle level we wouldn't be happy unless its all 10 back, but in the real world scrapping the second charge would be huge, a further deduction should realistically be the only thing that would put us in real trouble as we should be able to play our way out of even the current deduction, never mind if any get added back on

Yeah, we very much deserve all 10 back, but it's almost certainly not going to happen in any real-world scenario, so we can bang on about the injustice until we're blue in the face, but doing so isn't going to change the outcome.

Is correct. If the calculation of how much we are over in period 1 changes then it could wipe out the 2nd. If the PL accept that verdict then they can release that news at the same time.

Not saying the rumor is true by any means, obviously, but nothing in it precludes this interpretation from being true. The appeals board need not say anything about the second charge. It could just be that in their decision on the first charge something was said that made the PL accept that the second charge should be dropped. Both things could happen from the actions of two separate parties (the board and the PL) but simply be announced simultaneously.

 

[matty1878]

Them not selling Johnson isn’t the reason for their breach. It’s not just a single factor issue. Same way ours wasn’t.

And we didn’t know our specifics until the report from the hearing was published.

Forest literally might only be £1m over for all we know.

so they can’t just deduct then6

 

[Walken]

It probably isn't a sensible policy for me to put absolute faith in Paul Devine, it also isn't going to stop me doing so.

 

[Victus]

Them not selling Johnson isn’t the sole reason for their breach. It’s not just a single factor issue. Same way ours wasn’t.

And we didn’t know our specifics until the report from the hearing was published.

Forest literally might only be £1m over for all we know.

Yes, there of course will be other factors, them buying a lot of players put them close to going over but the Johnson sale is what pushed them over the edge, which is what their entire argument revolves around.

I'm not sure why that doesn't make sense to you?