HAPPY MONDAY!. FOREST, points deduction?

[South West Claret.]

What a chance Burnley now have to escape relegation.

[Carlos the Great]

No appeal coming from here me thinks

[Big Vinny K]

Just heard on the radio from Kevin Maguire that the mitigation put forward by Forest around the Johnson transfer was the reason they got a 4 point deduction and not 6 points.

The rules are arguably unfair to the teams just promoted from the Championship. But that said Forest were fully aware of those rules and went significantly over the thresholds of losses aloud.
They spent a fortune in that first season - more than 30 players purchased. I’m really struggling to have any sympathy for a team who is prepared to give Lingard a £200k a week contract for 12 months (and then not play him !!). Look at the money they paid for Gibbs - White. And even though the Chris Wood transfer they paid was only around £15m how much are they paying him in wages ? They must have had to match his Newcastle contract so that has to be the best part of £100k a week on a long contract for a player in his 30s.

You play with feathers….you get your arse tickled

[Boss Hogg]

For four points some clubs ( and owners) will think it’s worth breaking the rules. The deterrents are weak. A bit like the PL when it comes to looking after their own.

[jdrobbo]

No mention of intention to appeal in club statement:
.

IMG_4622.jpeg (1.05 MiB) Viewed 2581 times

[PremierLeagueClass]

Last three paragraphs are interesting.

[aggi]

yes so if they had sold Johsnson in June for 35 million they would have had losses of around 60 mil for the 3 year period (1 mil below the max allowed).
But instead they sold 2 months later for a greater amount and as such have made a smaller loss during those same 3 years (around 48 mil).
The current system has actually punished them for making smaller losses, this is whats bothering me. I think if something similar happened to us we'd definitely expect the club to appeal.

Obviously the question is where do you cut it off?

What if they'd kept Johnson until January and sold him for £80m? Or the end of the season and £100m?

Aligning the transfer window with the start of the season could help but that's a moving date and not many clubs will have a year end that aligns with that.

[kevinlasagne]

For four points some clubs ( and owners) will think it’s worth breaking the rules. The deterrents are weak. A bit like the PL when it comes to looking after their own.

Youre not wrong there.
I think that at least part of the reason the punishments are weak is because the rules themselves are poorly thought out - specifically that the accounting period ends halfway though the summer window. It inevitably creates situations like we've seen with forests sale of Johnson late in the window.
The fact that the PL are reducing forests punishment because of this is really just an acknowledgement on their part that their own rules are nonsensical. Instead of having to dish out reduced punishment because of unfair rules why not make the rules clear and fair and then anyone who breaks them will be justifiably punished without need for leniency?

[123EasyasBFC]

It’s all a complete messed biggest most watched league in the world have clubs getting points deductions for trying to advance themselves as clubs whilst clubs at the very top can spend what they want

[kevinlasagne]

Obviously the question is where do you cut it off?

What if they'd kept Johnson until January and sold him for £80m? Or the end of the season and £100m?

Aligning the transfer window with the start of the season could help but that's a moving date and not many clubs will have a year end that aligns with that.

I think having the cutoff point at the end of the summer transfer window is what makes the most sense, thats the period where the bulk of clubs financial activity occurs so why not have the two aligned? Whats the advantage of having a somewhat arbitrary cutoff point in the middle of the window?
Also as I mentioned in a previous post the current system creates a loophole where clubs can still spend big without breaking the rules. All they have to do is hold back on incoming transfers until after the accounting cutoff point but before the end of the window, thereby bringing players in for the upcoming season whilst pushing the losses incurred from those transfers into the season after.

As for having the transfer window at the same time as the start of the season thats another argument i suppose

[Rileybobs]

No mention of intention to appeal in club statement:
.


IMG_4622.jpeg

Reads very much like an agreement was reached to take a reduced punishment at an early date which won’t be appealed.

[BleedingClaret]

For four points some clubs ( and owners) will think it’s worth breaking the rules. The deterrents are weak. A bit like the PL when it comes to looking after their own.

I was thinking that and further that with the Johnson sale in mind that clubs could buy half a billion pounds worth of players in the summer, get 30 points by January ensuring survival and then sell them in January

[NewClaret]

Reads very much like an agreement was reached to take a reduced punishment at an early date which won’t be appealed.

I think they’ll leave that open until the last minute depending on their league position and the impact

Out of danger? No point incurring the fees. Cut adrift (unlikely)? Likewise. Looks like it could prove pivotal? Appeal will be forthcoming.

Personally I think there should be potential for the sanction to be increased to deter frivolous appeals.

[NewClaret]

Last three paragraphs are interesting.

I don’t really understand them as the current rules are going to be scrapped at the end of this year.

My only take on them is that they’re complaining they’ll also be in breach of next seasons rules too.

[expoultryboy]

If they appeal , doesn't this mean they aren't cooperating so the deduction would go back to 6 ?

[taio]

I think they’ll leave that open until the last minute depending on their league position and the impact

Out of danger? No point incurring the fees. Cut adrift (unlikely)? Likewise. Looks like it could prove pivotal? Appeal will be forthcoming.

Personally I think there should be potential for the sanction to be increased to deter frivolous appeals.

They have 7 days to appeal

[timshorts]

There is the tiniest part of me that has a little sympathy with City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Everton and Forest etc spending above their means to try and achieve success.
IMHO the FFP/PSR rules were not set up to protect clubs such as ourselves or others who abide by the rules they were introduced to protect the old guard of long established global commercial brands such as Man Utd, Liverpool, Real Madrid and AC Milan etc. Those clubs and others have massive worldwide fanbases that generate hundreds of millions through their global support giving them an unfair competitive edge over their rivals. They didn't like it when clubs such as Chelsea and City came on the scene and they have done everything possible to stop their success because ultimately it means less money for them.

This is exactly right. The whole concept was a good one that has been hijacked by a few powerful clubs for their own benefit.

The net effect is a potential farce - which is now beginning to be realised.

Yes, I like the fact that forest have had four points deducted, but there is no financial risk caused by the Greek guy buying 32 players or 40 players for double that amount of money if he is throwing money into his club at his own expense and without it being or somehow becoming a loan. The risk would be if the future wages were not going to be paid or the ground was used as security or there was a leveraged buyout involved.

The present rules are completely in equitable, and it is becoming clear that they lead to all sorts of negative consequences to the clubs and to their players and families - unless, of course, it is one of two or three clubs that generally wear red in which case (to quote lindsay lohan in her mathletes top) "the limit does not exist"

Just as I hope that we get some sort of financial compensation for the Everton breach, I also hope that this system is either changed so that it does what it was originally supposed to do, or Chelsea or Newcastle or wolves or forest challenge it in a "proper" court for the equivalent of a US style anti-trust violation.

[NewClaret]

They have 7 days to appeal

Ah okay, didn’t know that, I read somewhere they had until 15th April. Scrap that then, sorry.

[quoonbeatz]

That's statement would be funny if it didn't seem like they actually believe themselves. **** Nottingham Forest, **** Everton and most of all **** the Premier League. Looking forward to being out of this again asap as it's a sham competition.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The whole point of these rules is so clubs with wealthy owners can’t blow others unfairly out of the water with director’s loans etc.

As they are a bigger club with a bigger turnover than all of the bottom three, Forest (this season not last) are allowed to spend more in any event. So there should be no sympathy if they then spend more on top. 4 pts is virtually no punishment if they get something from their easy home games coming up.

Still rankles with me that we were robbed against both Forest and Luton, and would be level with 17th otherwise.

[LaLigaClaret]

Nottingham Forest broke the rules, they knew what they were and chose to break them. I think their protestations are frankly insulting and laughable, they have got away with it by only getting a 4 point deduction. Everton's breach was in my opinion quite blatant and deserved a 10 point penalty and because they did so again for a seccond time period they should receive another sizeable deduction despite their rambling nonsense about it covering the same time period for a second time. They should receive at least another 6 points deduction though somehow I don't think they will but another points deduction is well deserved. Forest should have received at least the same as Everton so only getting 4 points deducted is ridiculous, I believe their deduction should have been higher as their breach was worse than Everton and the nonsense spouted about the sale of Johnson is insulting. They have received leniency for being coperative but as others point out this wouldn't have been the case had they not been caught in the first place.

Sadly the inconsistency in how the rules are being applied is now another complete farce along the same lines as the VAR nonsense that has taken football down the tubes. Forset are guilty and should face a proper points deuction.

[Zom Zom]

it their appeal fails then will the initial sanction will be increased? Or do they battle on with -4 points?

If this has been explained elsewhere, then I apologise, but I haven't the time to read every post.

Thanks.

[aggi]

I think having the cutoff point at the end of the summer transfer window is what makes the most sense, thats the period where the bulk of clubs financial activity occurs so why not have the two aligned? Whats the advantage of having a somewhat arbitrary cutoff point in the middle of the window?
Also as I mentioned in a previous post the current system creates a loophole where clubs can still spend big without breaking the rules. All they have to do is hold back on incoming transfers until after the accounting cutoff point but before the end of the window, thereby bringing players in for the upcoming season whilst pushing the losses incurred from those transfers into the season after.

As for having the transfer window at the same time as the start of the season thats another argument i suppose

It's the period with the headline one-offs but apart from selling academy products at a big profit it often isn't hitting the profit/loss to a huge level, most of the financial activity is throught the year with tv money, wages, amortisation, etc.

You could align it but you'd then need to pro-rate TV money, ticket sales, season tickets and all the rest. It can be done but you'd lose clarity on how FFP matched publicly available accounts.

This is a bit of an atypical case as Forest came up into the Premier League not as a yo-yo club but still had the money to spend heavily. For most clubs the finessing between periods isn't that much of an issue as FFP is on a rolling basis assessed over three years so shifting spending from one year to another doesn't really make a difference in the long term.

Also, timing of Incoming transfers have a minimal impact. Sign a player for £50m on a 4 year contract 15 days before the FFP cut-off and only 1% of that transfer fee is going through in the year of signing. The rest is spread over the next four years.

Obviously there are also plans to overhaul the English FFP rules to follow the UEFA style PSR ones more closely which would change all the calculations.

[kevinlasagne]

It's the period with the headline one-offs but apart from selling academy products at a big profit it often isn't hitting the profit/loss to a huge level, most of the financial activity is throught the year with tv money, wages, amortisation, etc.

You could align it but you'd then need to pro-rate TV money, ticket sales, season tickets and all the rest. It can be done but you'd lose clarity on how FFP matched publicly available accounts.

This is a bit of an atypical case as Forest came up into the Premier League not as a yo-yo club but still had the money to spend heavily. For most clubs the finessing between periods isn't that much of an issue as FFP is on a rolling basis assessed over three years so shifting spending from one year to another doesn't really make a difference in the long term.

Also, timing of Incoming transfers have a minimal impact. Sign a player for £50m on a 4 year contract 15 days before the FFP cut-off and only 1% of that transfer fee is going through in the year of signing. The rest is spread over the next four years.

Obviously there are also plans to overhaul the English FFP rules to follow the UEFA style PSR ones more closely which would change all the calculations.

I have to say your first point seems somewhat self contradictory : "apart from when you sell players for a profit, it doesn't affect profit"

on your second point I think you'll have to prorate things no matter where you draw the cutoff point anyway so kind of a moot point.

The rest is fair enough.

Im no expert on these matters so I apologise if I come across as ignorant, just trying to get my head round it all.

[AlargeClaret]

Forest must be laughing their t1ts off , surely even their most optimistic shout was -6 ? and they were every bit as bad as Everton if not worse , who, should really have had the -10 but for the “ prosecution” making a cock up . I can only presume there must be some absolute bona fida legal defence evidence for Forest to get them a lesser sentence for a seemingly worse crime ?

[IanMcL]

Prem getting frightened. Just a minimum penalty for saving hundreds of millions as a result of their spend.

Perhaps we are in with a shout....

[aggi]

I have to say your first point seems somewhat self contradictory : "apart from when you sell players for a profit, it doesn't affect profit"

on your second point I think you'll have to prorate things no matter where you draw the cutoff point anyway so kind of a moot point.

The rest is fair enough.

Im no expert on these matters so I apologise if I come across as ignorant, just trying to get my head round it all.

The point wasn't that clear. Basically incoming transfers have a minimal impact, selling players after a year for a decent amount when they cost a decent amount (like Collins for instance) will also have a minimal impact, it is only sales like Johnson that will make a difference (but obviously can be a big difference).

[Roosterbooster]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68620769

Warburton's remarks are nothing short of thick, as far as I can tell

He says Forest have been punished for being ambitious. But completely ignores the point of FFP. As far as I can tell, nearly all clubs that have run into financial problems do so because they are overly ambitious, and it eventually comes back to bite them

[South West Claret.]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68620769

Warburton's remarks are nothing short of thick, as far as I can tell

He says Forest have been punished for being ambitious. But completely ignores the point of FFP. As far as I can tell, nearly all clubs that have run into financial problems do so because they are overly ambitious, and it eventually comes back to bite them

Yes seems a bit of nonsense argument.

[jdrobbo]

Wow!

Even Nottingham Forest fans are saying that this is frivolous….

IMG_4703.jpeg (847.25 KiB) Viewed 1472 times

[randomclaret2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68620769

Warburton's remarks are nothing short of thick, as far as I can tell

He says Forest have been punished for being ambitious. But completely ignores the point of FFP. As far as I can tell, nearly all clubs that have run into financial problems do so because they are overly ambitious, and it eventually comes back to bite them

Spoken like a true Currency Trader in the city of London...

[Anonymous Claret]

Wow!

Even Nottingham Forest fans are saying that this is frivolous….

IMG_4703.jpeg

If a defendant is convicted of a criminal offence, then appeals against the sentence, is it true that in some cases, if the Court of Appeal deem it to be frivolous, they can increase the sentence?
Can the above principle be applied to clubs like Forest who make a groundless appeal?

[NewClaret]

If a defendant is convicted of a criminal offence, then appeals against the sentence, is it true that in some cases, if the Court of Appeal deem it to be frivolous, they can increase the sentence?
Can the above principle be applied to clubs like Forest who make a groundless appeal?

I read somewhere that if appealed there was a chance the points deduction could be increased. No idea if that’s true, but I think it should be possible to prevent frivolous appeals.

CP may know more on whether a points increase is a possibility at appeal.

[Chester Perry]

I read somewhere that if appealed there was a chance the points deduction could be increased. No idea if that’s true, but I think it should be possible to prevent frivolous appeals.

CP may know more on whether a points increase is a possibility at appeal.

I am not aware of any penalty for a frivolous appeal, which is unfortunate, but it is entirely possible that the two points that were deducted for co-operation and self-reporting, which appeared very generous could be reinstated. there is also the issue about why both a £34.5m overspend (Forest) and £19.5m overspend (Everton) both merited a 3 point penalty - that could come back to bite them and hopefully it does, because the message it sends out is that owners can tally up an overspend and see if it is worth it to them - as has been suggested up the thread.

It seemed pretty obvious from the outside, the penalty given to Forest was lenient, though reports suggested they were only expecting 2 points

[Roosterbooster]

Spoken like a true Currency Trader in the city of London...

Eh?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

I’m sure we had a midfielder years ago who had his suspension increased after a ‘frivolous appeal’ against his red card!!

[Chester Perry]

I’m sure we had a midfielder years ago who had his suspension increased after a ‘frivolous appeal’ against his red card!!

that is the FA - they still have that in their rule books, it is the only type of frivolous appeal penalty that I am aware of in English Football

[CrosspoolClarets]

Not sure this is clever.

Best case, 1-2 points added back. Worse case, 3-4 more points taken away.

As it stands they should finish above Luton. Take more points away, it starts to become less likely.

We could be kingmakers in the final game even if we are down, we may have to decide who we want down with us. Personally, I’d choose Forest, simply for fun / justice / kudos to Luton. Trying to be pragmatic and hoping Luton drop with us is the kind of thinking that will bite us on the arse.

[Roosterbooster]

I would be surprised if there's a chance the points deduction could increase for them

[Quicknick]

Not sure this is clever.

Best case, 1-2 points added back. Worse case, 3-4 more points taken away.

As it stands they should finish above Luton. Take more points away, it starts to become less likely.

We could be kingmakers in the final game even if we are down, we may have to decide who we want down with us. Personally, I’d choose Forest, simply for fun / justice / kudos to Luton. Trying to be pragmatic and hoping Luton drop with us is the kind of thinking that will bite us on the arse.

Luton will go down and do nothing next season.

[burnley007]

Sky Sports News has been told it is highly unlikely they will be given a higher points penalty as a result of their appeal, which will be heard within the next three weeks before the April 12 deadline.

[burnley007]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... psr-breach

[Roosterbooster]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... psr-breach

As far as I can tell, 3 is the minimum points deduction you can get. So they'd be aiming to reduce it from 4 to 3. But their breach is much bigger than Everton's (£34.5m vs £19.5m). And it was entirely deliberate. They had a 6 point breach reduced to 4 for cooperating. As much as I'd be surprised if it changed at all, I'd be tempted to put it back up to 6 for such an idiotic appeal