Sky just mentioned the Forest appeal verdict may be shared this week.

They received a 6 point penalty which was reduced to 4 due to their guilty plea and co-operation. The question I have is whether there is any chance their penalty could be increased? As a layperson it feels that the fact of appealing should cancel out the co-operation and plea but I’m also aware that I’m very much looking through claret glasses.

Does anyone know if the punishment could increase? Or is it max 4 and could be less? I’ve tried researching via Google but struggled to find a recent article.

Clutching at straws I know

If they appeal surely the "co operation" and "guilty plea" aspects should be void.

At least that's the way I see it.

pauliopaulio wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:16 pm

Sky just mentioned the Forest appeal verdict may be shared this week.

They received a 6 point penalty which was reduced to 4 due to their guilty plea and co-operation. The question I have is whether there is any chance their penalty could be increased? As a layperson it feels that the fact of appealing should cancel out the co-operation and plea but I’m also aware that I’m very much looking through claret glasses.

Does anyone know if the punishment could increase? Or is it max 4 and could be less? I’ve tried researching via Google but struggled to find a recent article.

Clutching at straws I know

It shows the sh*tshow the premier league is that they can reward a club who cheated for cooperating after admitting to breaching rules, then they are also able to able the decision. Then you have the whole statements forest put out last week, they have taken the premier league for a ride

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:33 pm

It shows the sh*tshow the premier league is that they can reward a club who cheated for cooperating after admitting to breaching rules, then they are also able to able the decision. Then you have the whole statements forest put out last week, they have taken the premier league for a ride

Exactly this. The PL have left themselves so wide open by the inconsistency of how they treat and, invariably, punish teams it really has created a question of integrity. Rules should be rules. If you break them and get punished then it's X amount of points deducted; no appeal should be allowed. It's all an absolute shambles.

If I were Newcastle I'd spend 1 billion in the summer, write an apologetic letter and accept the 8 point deduction once they are 20 points clear

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:42 pm

If I were Newcastle I'd spend 1 billion in the summer, write an apologetic letter and accept the 8 point deduction once they are 20 points clear

Yes and remember the double jeopardy rules they brought in, once that £1 billion spend has lapsed it's all good going forwards.

They are changing the rules around FFP from next season but not sure what that entails.

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:42 pm

If I were Newcastle I'd spend 1 billion in the summer, write an apologetic letter and accept the 8 point deduction once they are 20 points clear

The thing is Vegas, I know you will be saying this slightly tongue in cheek (I think) but it really is how it sits at the moment. Whilst City go and win their 5th (in the last 6 seasons) title with 115 impending charges against them it makes the whole league an absolute laughing stock. Best league in the world? As said by Ricky Tomlinson; "My arse"

It has always been my opinion that there should be no points deduction but fines.
The reason I have this view is that Forest and Everton “ crimes” are a fraction of Manchester City Spurs Leicester ( when they won the Premier League and went bankrupt and got the Stadium free)
Chelsea and Manchester United would receive far harsher penalties but would never be sent down several divisions

One thing is for sure.
They will get half the points back which will make our situation even harder than it already is.

DAVETHEVICAR wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:57 pm

It has always been my opinion that there should be no points deduction but fines.
The reason I have this view is that Forest and Everton “ crimes” are a fraction of Manchester City Spurs Leicester ( when they won the Premier League and went bankrupt and got the Stadium free)
Chelsea and Manchester United would receive far harsher penalties but would never be sent down several divisions

But Dave, fines are "fine" with clubs who have unlimited money so it just wouldn't impact them at all. The points deduction is the real hurt against these teams. I agree with your point re inconsistencies re City, Chelsea, Leicester etc - they have to get them eventually or there really is absolutely no point.

I think the outcome will be that the points already deducted (4) will stay the same.

Should go back up to six because they are getting right on my nerves

I think we all know that what should happen and what will happen are two different things.

Forget fines or points deduction. The PL is a pantomime, Forest should be made to play their games in clowns' shoes.
That would teach 'em

I’d go further. Automatic relegation for any breach of financial regs. These clubs have top barristers, lawyers and accountants. If they can’t do it legally screw ‘em.
Portsmouth also won the FA Cup under corrupt ownership to add to the list above.
Leicester and M’boro got promoted after having players salaries paid for them. How ridiculous.

Crooks down, football town teams up.

3 points is the minimum penalty as soon as guilt is proved, so they can't get more than 1 back. I would hope!)

On the other hand, that point means that we would have to get more points than them from the next two games. As it stands now, we only need to match them, so assuming they beat Sheffield United then we would need to win one of the two. If they get the point back and then beat Sheff U, then we would need a win and a draw. It's a significant difference.

tarkys_ears wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:32 pm

If they appeal surely the "co operation" and "guilty plea" aspects should be void.

At least that's the way I see it.

I think that would depend on whether they’re appealing the verdict or the penalty.

Surely the sensible option would be to say to any transgressors that your penalty is a loss of say 10 points. But as you cooperated and pleaded guilty that will drop to 6 points. But if you appeal this decision it goes back up to 10 points or even 12 with a further appeal not an option.

Corky wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 7:53 am

Surely the sensible option would be to say to any transgressors that your penalty is a loss of say 10 points. But as you cooperated and pleaded guilty that will drop to 6 points. But if you appeal this decision it goes back up to 10 points or even 12 with a further appeal not an option.

Some interesting points in the last few posts that I’d not considered.

I agree with tarkys_ears that if you fail to accept a verdict you’ve hardly been cooperative. Also understand hoskinsgoalatswansea’s point that it’s the penalty, not the verdict they’re appealing, but surely they’re one and the same

My view is that the premier league rules should have set out a clear set of sanctions for breaches. For example: £0 to £5m = 2pts, £6m to £10m = 4pts, etc. Then it’s like a speeding fine - get caught, you get a punishment which is the same as everyone else.

And that’s just the thing… these are as plain as a speeding fine because the audited accounts are there in black and white for all to see so I’m not sure what cooperation they really gave to warrant a lower deduction than Everton.

Points should be added for non-cooperation or any evidence you are trying to subvert the rules. That would act as a stronger incentive to ‘comply’ and I agree any appeal should carry the risk of a penalty increase to avoid all this prolonged uncertainty.

Cannot understand DAVETHEVICAR’s view that tacking financial corruption should be done by fines?! That’d just allow all rich clubs to do what they like.

All in all though, at the moment it just looks to me like a random number generator and probably one that will lead to an unfavourable outcome for us.

dsr wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 3:45 am

3 points is the minimum penalty as soon as guilt is proved, so they can't get more than 1 back. I would hope!)

On the other hand, that point means that we would have to get more points than them from the next two games. As it stands now, we only need to match them, so assuming they beat Sheffield United then we would need to win one of the two. If they get the point back and then beat Sheff U, then we would need a win and a draw. It's a significant difference.

I hope you are right but why did Everton only get 2 points in the latest deduction?

Rouwens_Weapon wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 8:45 am

I hope you are right but why did Everton only get 2 points in the latest deduction?

As they need to be around to finish the spanking new stadium for the Euros?

The Premier League will give Forest a couple of points back. They'll be frightened of the legal battle if they stick with the current deduction and Forest get relegated. They've completely and utterly messed up this season. Clubs will ignore any threat of punishment and spend what they like. Why would clubs like City of Newcastle care about overspending when the punishment is as little as 2 points. Spend away guys... the Premier League has lost control.

3 is the minimum isn't it?

That said I agree with what you are saying.

Given Forest were originally awarded 6 points reduced to 4, for cooperation it would be ridiculous if they return any now.

Let's see... Personally I think they will take path of least resistance and give them one back and that will be our season cooked if they can beat Sheff U.

I know it's probably a daft analogy but at the university I work at, when students appeal their assessment scores, they are told that their marks can go down as well as up.

I'd say about 90% of appeals the mark goes down (as the appeal is marked by an independent tutor who has NO investment/relationship in/with that student whatsoever so they mark strictly as the work is presented).

We almost always impose the new (lower) score on students to stop frivolous appeals.

In effect, Forest are appealing against a verdict which was reasonably lenient i.e. a lower penalty due to their co-operation. They should be told that an appeal against that decision may mean their penalty is increased (as the co-operation leniency is now void) as much as the penalty might be reduced. That would have made them think long and hard about whether to continue with any appeal.

Personally, I hope they have a 6 point penalty imposed with maybe 1 point given back due to their earlier co-operation i.e. the net effect is the end up with an increased penalty to 5 points. That would serve 'em right imho.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 8:16 am

...

And that’s just the thing… these are as plain as a speeding fine because the audited accounts are there in black and white for all to see so I’m not sure what cooperation they really gave to warrant a lower deduction than Everton.

...

The audited accounts are a long way from the complete picture for FFP though. You're allowed various exempt costs in the calculation and you can't get those from the accounts.

Most of my work is carrying out "hostile" audits. Although most are amenable to it you do get some who refuse to cooperate or try and provide the bare minimum and it does make a big difference to the work.

For me, the only ways these clubs could be fined as a punishment; would be if the fine is then split amongst other teams in the league. Therefore effectively if they cheat, it benefits their opponents too. That's the only way I can see it ever being stopped.

Back to the OP's question though - I too think that if NF have been shown leniency for being compliant and pleading guilty - they can't then appeal the decision and not expect a maximum points deduction should they lose the appeal.

whiffa wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 10:21 am

For me, the only ways these clubs could be fined as a punishment; would be if the fine is then split amongst other teams in the league. Therefore effectively if they cheat, it benefits their opponents too. That's the only way I can see it ever being stopped.

The problem is, let’s say they cheat and win the league by doing so, then get a £19m fine (pretty hefty), it probably doesn’t outweigh their winnings or give the silverware back to who should’ve rightfully won it.

Then the £19m = £1m per club - hardly makes any positive impact on any of the 19 other clubs… or certainly not as positive an impact as breaking the rules in the first place might have on the cheating club.

For me there needs to be a rule where all silverware won in that year is returned, the prize money returned and a points deduction.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 10:31 am

The problem is, let’s say they cheat and win the league by doing so, then get a £19m fine (pretty hefty), it probably doesn’t outweigh their winnings or give the silverware back to who should’ve rightfully won it.

Then the £19m = £1m per club - hardly makes any positive impact on any of the 19 other clubs… or certainly not as positive an impact as breaking the rules in the first place might have on the cheating club.

For me there needs to be a rule where all silverware won in that year is returned, the prize money returned and a points deduction.

Could they not fine the club and fine the clubs in the league?

I expect Forest to get a one point reduction on appeal which is probably about the right decision but I hope after all the noise they've made the Premier League reject the appeal and the original decision stands

Apparently lots of murmurs suggesting they are getting 2 points back .. that is basically enough to keep them in premier league

It is insane that the decision is still awaited with only 3 games to play. No decisions should happen so late in a season when the implications are magnified significantly.
Let’s have a retrospective appeal against Lutons equalizer at Burnley !!! Imagine if that had been disallowed That would have us level with Forest and 3 ahead of Luton.
Changing that result is no more stupid than giving Forest points back for no reason

The best way to use these first FFP punishments would have been as a deterrent to scare any club knowingly overspending in the future.. however, they've made such a hash of it, for the risk of a 1/2/3/4 point deduction, clubs won't be put off. It will be an issue season after season. The League wants to be seen to be dishing out punishment without actually punishing anyone. It's rapidly becoming a farce.

Carlos the Great wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 1:36 pm

Apparently lots of murmurs suggesting they are getting 2 points back .. that is basically enough to keep them in premier league

Get ready for the ramipril overload on here if that happens

Carlos the Great wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 1:36 pm

Apparently lots of murmurs suggesting they are getting 2 points back .. that is basically enough to keep them in premier league

Which would give the deduction that Forest believed they were going to get and is why they have appealed

Clearly off field decisions can be made and then amended whereas on field decisions cannot be deferred and changed at a later date. Clearly our National game is no longer played on grass but has moved to Premier League carpets ! The Forest deduction is clearly just a token gestureb

The rules over FFP were very clear, there is even a large buffer in terms of losses (£105 million) to allow teams the time to get their finances in order.

Forest went on a spending spree in the summer of 2022 and continued this again to a lesser extent a year later.

Unless they had a work experience lad doing their accounts they were well aware of the ramifications of their spending, to give them a nominal punishment is a complete disgrace in the first place and the talk of it being halved is laughable.

Goody1975 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:19 pm

The rules over FFP were very clear, there is even a large buffer in terms of losses (£105 million) to allow teams the time to get their finances in order.

Forest went on a spending spree in the summer of 2022 and continued this again to a lesser extent a year later.

Unless they had a work experience lad doing their accounts they were well aware of the ramifications of their spending, to give them a nominal punishment is a complete disgrace in the first place and the talk of it being halved is laughable.

This is part of Forest's complaint on FFP. If you've been in the championship that figures drops (possibly by £22m for each season outside the premier league, I can't remember exact figures).

They claim that on promotion to the premier league you actually need to spend more to compete and so coupling that requirement to spend more with a lower limit is unfair.

In terms of being well aware of the ramifications, if the Johnson transfer had gone through a few weeks earlier they would have been within the limits.

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:11 pm

Which would give the deduction that Forest believed they were going to get and is why they have appealed

what is to stop Newcastle spending 2 billion in the summer and accepting an 48 point deduction reduced to 6 on appeal ? When do the new 'rules' kick in ?

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:36 pm

This is part of Forest's complaint on FFP. If you've been in the championship that figures drops (possibly by £22m for each season outside the premier league, I can't remember exact figures).

They claim that on promotion to the premier league you actually need to spend more to compete and so coupling that requirement to spend more with a lower limit is unfair.

In terms of being well aware of the ramifications, if the Johnson transfer had gone through a few weeks earlier they would have been within the limits.

True but Forest chose to refuse offers that would have enabled them to fall under the limit to maximise their profit; suggesting they considered it a risk worth taking and a willingness to play fast and loose with the rules, both in overspending in the first place and failure to correct their mistake because it did not suit them as a club to do so, when given ample opportunity.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:36 pm

This is part of Forest's complaint on FFP. If you've been in the championship that figures drops (possibly by £22m for each season outside the premier league, I can't remember exact figures).

They claim that on promotion to the premier league you actually need to spend more to compete and so coupling that requirement to spend more with a lower limit is unfair.

In terms of being well aware of the ramifications, if the Johnson transfer had gone through a few weeks earlier they would have been within the limits.

the flip to that argument is that Forest freely admitted that they had budgeted to come 12th in the first year in the Premier League in what seems like forever. It is apparent that they deliberately set out to defy the rules and effectively try and get them changed via legal means rather than apply the process of Premier League. This is a billionaire bully who doesn't like the rules as they currently apply to him.

"Unless they had a work experience lad doing their accounts they were well aware of the ramifications of their spending, to give them a nominal punishment is a complete disgrace in the first place and the talk of it being halved is laughable."

LOL

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:36 pm

This is part of Forest's complaint on FFP. If you've been in the championship that figures drops (possibly by £22m for each season outside the premier league, I can't remember exact figures).

They claim that on promotion to the premier league you actually need to spend more to compete and so coupling that requirement to spend more with a lower limit is unfair.

In terms of being well aware of the ramifications, if the Johnson transfer had gone through a few weeks earlier they would have been within the limits.

If the ref had correctly disallowed Luton equalizer we would have been in a much better position. Big word is ‘if’

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:54 pm

the flip to that argument is that Forest freely admitted that they had budgeted to come 12th in the first year in the Premier League in what seems like forever. It is apparent that they deliberately set out to defy the rules and effectively try and get them changed via legal means rather than apply the process of Premier League. This is a billionaire bully who doesn't like the rules as they currently apply to him.

If any one post "nailed it"......this is the one.

Take note, aggi.

FCBurnley wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:59 pm

If the ref had correctly disallowed Luton equalizer we would have been in a much better position. Big word is ‘if’

probably don't have to go that late in the season - get Darren England to not argue the Berge handball at the City ground and we have two more points and Forest 1 less with Lyle Foster probably not getting a red card either

Quite simple....Any club that set out to defy the rules, should be punished, and punished accordingly.

If this turns out to our benefit, then all the sweeter.

Royboyclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 3:06 pm

If any one post "nailed it"......this is the one.

Take note, aggi.

I'm not saying I agree with Forest's stance, just pointing out the facts.

I am of the view that all teams should be using the same year-end for these calculations though. I'm quite surprised that Forest didn't change their y/e date to fix this themselves.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 4:13 pm

I'm not saying I agree with Forest's stance, just pointing out the facts.

I am of the view that all teams should be using the same year-end for these calculations though. I'm quite surprised that Forest didn't change their y/e date to fix this themselves.

Come on, aggi....the very reason Forest didn't change their y/e date is all the evidence you need to know.

Guilty.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 29, 2024 2:36 pm

This is part of Forest's complaint on FFP. If you've been in the championship that figures drops (possibly by £22m for each season outside the premier league, I can't remember exact figures).

They claim that on promotion to the premier league you actually need to spend more to compete and so coupling that requirement to spend more with a lower limit is unfair.

In terms of being well aware of the ramifications, if the Johnson transfer had gone through a few weeks earlier they would have been within the limits.

I understand you are putting the counter argument used by Forest rather than your own feelings on the matter.

The facts are that Forest were fully aware of the rules of FSR when they joined the Premier League at the start of 2022/23. Just because they thought this meant that newly promoted sides were at a disadvantage is no defence for their flagrant disregard for the rules. The rules would have been put in place by at least fourteen of the twenty member clubs voting for it (unless the voting system was different then).

Johnson being sold later for more money is an argument but on the flip side, less of an outlay in the previous summer would have meant this would have been irrelevant, they must be deemed to have gained a sporting advantage by not adhering to the rules in place. Sell Johnson prior to the cut off date and this isn't the case, no matter if the fee is lower, they can't have it both ways.

At the end of last season, Forest stayed up by four points and Everton by two.