6 + 2 Point Deductions

[ashwuk76]

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.

 

[Librarian]

Club should have been calling for an independent regulator from day 1 and definitely need to do so now.

 

[Drico]

Imagine, being played by Nottingham Forest...

 

[b-rad]

Their whole case has been, "but look what Everton did"

 

[jazzy]

Who knows. Let's try and win some football matches and mitigate the worst case scenario, which would appear to be 6 more. Let's get 6 ahead of Luton and then we keep things in our own hands.

Well it's absolutely correct that we need to win some games but do you not get the feeling that the PL will do whatever it takes to see us get relegated?

 

[banno]

The way I am understanding this is we will get a minimum of 3+ pts deduction if the double Jeopardy does not stand up.

 

[Neiler]

K’in Uncle Toms:





Scabs.

 

[Saint Domingo]

They’ll hit us with 4 points on the 2nd charge and have their dream scenario of Forest Luton and Everton all within a handful of points from each other to the end of the season when really there was never a relegation battle to be had.

If we end up going down because of this we should just sue the PL immediately

 

[tsubaki]

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.

The statement reads a lot funnier if you imagine Peter Cook doing it:

 

[Simon Buttle]

I have a horrible feeling that that idiots appearance definitely exacerbated our punishment.

100% mate, Super Silk should have been onboard from the start and we should have just left him to it and kept all EFC employee's as far away as possible from it.

 

[matty1878]

Who knows. Let's try and win some football matches and mitigate the worst case scenario, which would appear to be 6 more. Let's get 6 ahead of Luton and then we keep things in our own hands.

it’s obvs the way we need to but we’ve been and are utter mugs and a laughing stock

forest fans and that fat greek be pissin they’re kecks

 

[The binman chronicles]

I'd refuse to kick a ball until they explain themselves.

Unfortunately they'd love that. How many points will they dock us for not showing up?

WTF.

View attachment 249195

Don't come on here with your facts, only arbitrary decision making is allowed in the courts.

 

[pfim]

K’in Uncle Toms:





Scabs.

The KNOWINGLY broke the regulation.

 

[smileychap]

We breached guidelines for a larger amount over a longer period right?

Hoping Forest now start to buckle under Nuno.
Whilst that might see an equivalent bounce in Luton - I just don't think they have the personnel to pull clear (sorry Ross - but Blues first fella).

So our GOT need to finish + 5pts clear of relegation to stay safe. We have the games to do that.

 

[Neiler]

Court now Everton.

Seriously need to look at avenues of recourse here.

K’in furious.