6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jarvick]

I read two things from that:

• Not allowing us to use 'trend' as a mitigating factor due to years 1 and 2 both being above £50m loss so a reduction of loss in year 3 is not really a trend.
• Disclosing incorrect information is an aggravating factor, albeit an innocent mistake.

Both of these will be different in the next charge - we will have two years worth of positive trend (I assume), and we have disclosed accounts in accordance with the rules. So even before we make the double jeopardy argument we have more mitigation and less aggravating factors. I firmly believe the PL and EFC both want to make the second charge effectively a non-punishment and take the heat out of this and everyone can move on.

I wouldn't however fancy being Forest right now.

I'm not so sure we'll have two years of downward trends. Didn't we see 55M/55M and then 9.5M in the three year period from the appeal report? I skimmed quick, check the math, but that was my impression. So if the first 50M drops off and we add the latest year, wouldn't we have to be over by at least 45.5M in the latest year to exceed 105M over the last three years? I think we are in trouble with all the debt we are carrying for regular operating expenses.

 

[sbbefc]

4 points gives us no headroom and I suspect we won't know which league we're playing in at the end of the season.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I don't understand either. The Appeals Board clearly said that the vast majority of our losses during the 3-year period came in years 1 and 2. The loss for year 3 was comparatively minor, which is what we tried to argue as mitigation: that we were trending in the right direction and had sorted the systemic problems out. The Board acknowledged that it was at least somewhat true, but essentially said that one year doesn't make a trend, so they wouldn't really take that into significant account.

But what that all means is that when year 1 drops off, how are we even in breach a second time? We sold Gordon, Kean, etc. and didn't have much of an incoming spend. How could we possibly have lost enough money last year to even get charged a second time?

It looks like the appeal panel are saying our trend is again positive into 2023. So it is hard to understand what has happenned to be in breach again. High interest payments is my only guess, but I don't know.

They also decided to leave our improving situation out of account when making their decision..... I find the approach to the mitigations pretty baffling to be honest. Just seem to have rejected everything out of hand.

 

[Axlswhk]

Unlikely to be 12 I'd say

Unlikely to stay at 6 either

That would be my guess. I expect another much smaller points deduction

If they go with 12, then we are punished 2/3 of the same years twice. And they seem to be moving towards the EFL rules which don't allow for that.

If rules forbid double punishment, surely that’s the end of our deduction this season?

 

[jazzy]

Has anyone checked on @ForeverEverton by the way? He was absolutely adamant we were getting nothing back.

And weren't you equally adamant that we were getting all 10 back ?

 

[kenada_blue]

But if it’s dealt with on a case by case basis and future cases will have nothing to do with ours, why would that matter?

Ask the people saying Forest will get leathered. Not me.

Personally think they'll get judged on what they PL have learnt from our case, not what they did on it

 

[Lapeno77]

What we can say for definite today, is this season will not end on the final whistle of the last game.

 

[ToffeeTim]

If rules forbid double punishment, surely that’s the end of our deduction this season?

No the EFL rules do not allow it, and they seem to have based the appeal verdict on them. But we can't really be sure. The only we do know is that they are making this all up as they go along so anything could happen.

The logical thing to happen is probably another 2 point deduction, possibly mitigated down to some degree. We got 6 points for a breach, and the next charge covers two of those years - so 1/3 x 6 = 2 points.

But again, who knows.

 

[Benno]

Clear progression on our accounts at companies house though so going in the right direction. The very poor 2021 losses I guess still come in and are included but you can see from the company accounts the club are learning their lesson and doing everything they can. You can’t just cancel all your outgoings when you have players on long contracts. Seems double jeopardy to me and of course I’m not biased. Reading forests accounts and they don’t look pretty either.

 

[pfim]

Scab 6 - different rules. - The End

Same rules, just set up in their favor.

 

[jazzy]

I agree with others here who have said that Forest's fans are delusional if they think they're getting less than us. After reading the various bits of information from the Appeals Board and knowing what attempted mitigations were rejected for us, I don't see how Forest gets out of this without pretty much the maximum possible penalty, whatever that's considered to be.

Certainly can't be less than ours, surely.

Except that

1. This is their first offence and is a year year set of figures rather than the 3 year period that we had

2. Usually a 2nd offense is treated more harshly

 

[TGW89]

It looks like the appeal panel are saying our trend is again positive into 2023. So it is hard to understand what has happenned to be in breach again. High interest payments is my only guess, but I don't know.

View attachment 247292

View attachment 247293

They also decided to leave our improving situation out of account when making their decision..... I find the approach to the mitigations pretty baffling to be honest. Just seem to have rejected everything out of hand.

But if we can't be done twice for the same period, then the same mitigation can't be use twice surely. The improving situation is irrelevant to the first three years charged for, and can only be legit argued for the 22/23 period - the only unpunished period at present.

So we've still got that for any appeals after a second deduction.

 

[TGW89]

Except that

1. This is their first offence and is a year year set of figures rather than the 3 year period that we had

2. Usually a 2nd offense is treated more harshly

Usually, a prosecutor isn't harping to the judge, the jury and the media that they want to lock away a felon for 20 years over a crime that typically has 4-5 years jail time.

Real world doesn't apply here.

 

[anton66]

2 more points deductions for us and forest, then 2 more appeals. League positions will be known mid August. We’re so crap at the moment, this 4 points doesn’t seem like it will keep us away from a relegation struggle.

 

[MikeH72]

Ask the people saying Forest will get leathered. Not me.

Personally think they'll get judged on what they PL have learnt from our case, not what they did on it

So that line about them reviewing on a case by case basis and one not impacting the other can now be rendered meaningless then?