Forest points deduction appeal

[Royboyclaret]

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.

I'm guessing aggi is finally accepting the argument........Chester Perry was very clear.

[Goody1975]

I'm guessing aggi is finally accepting the argument........Chester Perry was very clear.

Too late to edit but FSR should be PSR in my post

[Royboyclaret]

Too late to edit but FSR should be PSR in my post

No worries, Goody......and little doubt that aggi will accept the finality of CP's evidence.

[Carlos the Great]

Notts forest argument was based on in the sustainability period they spent 2 years in the championship where the breach is with the EFL not the premier league … but also responded I think to EFL saying they were in the premier league for a period of time they breached their rules zzz I think it’s too late and shouldn’t give them any points back now Zz remember Forest have asked for the audio of the VAR room as one is a Luton fan .. now unless the man in question said clearly .. listen I’m a Luton fan fcuk Forest its pretty pointless

[CrosspoolClarets]

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

And possibly also not having his mental health absences because incidents like that can easily be triggers for such problems. I’m sure Foster and Kompany have pondered that too, pointless though that is.

All ifs and maybes but all any of us really want is consistency and fairness in applying decisions - whether it be by officials on the pitch or in the PSR rule enforcement. Whichever way we look at it we seem likely to have been affected by that, adversely, and, I suspect, are about to be again.

[jedi_master]

The Johnson ‘argument’ is evidence that should be used AGAINST Forest as opposed to favour their attempts to be compliant. They saw fit to keep rejecting bids and stick to their guns on a price in spite of knowing it would make them non-compliant with PSR. That greed is on them and is their own choice.

[Colburn_Claret]

They admitted breaking the rules, they just tried to justify it. A none stater in any walk of life.
They've already had a reduction, due to them owning up, so I can't see how they can expect any further reduction, it would just make the original punishment and the rule book itself a pointless exercise.


That said the Premier League are a law unto themselves, common sense doesn't come into it.

[123EasyasBFC]

There probably didn’t think 4 points would actually drag Forest into a relegation battle and now they are on edge thinking points deduction might take a team down, so by giving them 2 points back practically leaves them only needing one more win to stay up. Surely relegation should be the biggest detarent to any team breaching rules

[Chester Perry]

In case people are forgetting - as seems quite apparent from the posts I am seeing - The Premier League will be arguing against a penalty reduction and actually argued for a greater penalty than was given

It is the independent commissions that make the decisions, the Premier League has been unhappy with everyone so far and said as much in their presented arguments - though they have been more accepting of the judgements, in terms of not appealing.

[aggi]

No worries, Goody......and little doubt that aggi will accept the finality of CP's evidence.

I'm not really sure what I'm meant to be accepting here. I can't change what Forest are arguing.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that Forest have a point re: the reduced thresholds for teams out of the Premier League but I don't believe it is a mitigation, they were aware what the rules were even if they didn't agree.

I believe that the Johnson transfer may be a mitigation depending what their forecasts show. If it shows that they are expecting to make future profits then that is mitigation in the guidance (so still a breach but with a reduced penalty).

Ultimately I think the whole thing is poorly implemented with no real clarity behind the sanctions which leads to all these arguments and appeals.

[123EasyasBFC]

In case people are forgetting - as seems quite apparent from the posts I am seeing - The Premier League will be arguing against a penalty reduction and actually argued for a greater penalty than was given

It is the independent commissions that make the decisions, the Premier League has been unhappy with everyone so far and said as much in their presented arguments - though they have been more accepting of the judgements, in terms of not appealing.

Can the premier league not appeal the independent panel’s decision

[Chester Perry]

I'm not really sure what I'm meant to be accepting here. I can't change what Forest are arguing.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that Forest have a point re: the reduced thresholds for teams out of the Premier League but I don't believe it is a mitigation, they were aware what the rules were even if they didn't agree.

I believe that the Johnson transfer may be a mitigation depending what their forecasts show. If it shows that they are expecting to make future profits then that is mitigation in the guidance (so still a breach but with a reduced penalty).

Ultimately I think the whole thing is poorly implemented with no real clarity behind the sanctions which leads to all these arguments and appeals.

Indeed, didn't the commission show some sympathy for the argument, which may have been part of the appeal

The lack of clarity in sanctions is largely down to the clubs who have repeatedly refused to agree to specific sanctions

As for the commissions, while not implementing a absolute stand level of sanction are implementing a sanctions in a way where it is possible to build up a picture of likely sanctions within a relatively narrow band of tolerance, and that includes reductions for various actions. I suspect those tolerances are not dissimilar to what we see in the English judicial system which makes sense given who is involved.

[Goody1975]

I'm not really sure what I'm meant to be accepting here. I can't change what Forest are arguing.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that Forest have a point re: the reduced thresholds for teams out of the Premier League but I don't believe it is a mitigation, they were aware what the rules were even if they didn't agree.

I believe that the Johnson transfer may be a mitigation depending what their forecasts show. If it shows that they are expecting to make future profits then that is mitigation in the guidance (so still a breach but with a reduced penalty).

Ultimately I think the whole thing is poorly implemented with no real clarity behind the sanctions which leads to all these arguments and appeals.

My big issue with the whole circus around the charges is as I argued earlier. Forget about increased income from a later sale or increased profits moving forward.

Forest made the conscious decision to spend a certain amount on players and wages when the entered the Premier League, unless they were completely dense they were well aware that this put them in breach of PSR, they had plenty of time to correct this.

Being in excess of PSR in September was fine because as long as they sold players prior to the cut of point for their accounts they would be compliant.

They chose not to and this must be argued gave them a sporting advantage over their rivals, remember they finished four points clear of Leicester who were relegated.

The penalties for being relegated far outweigh a sanction of four points in the following season.

[northeastclaret]

Do we know why it has all gone quiet on the outcome of the appeal. I thought it was imminent two days ago?

[Swizzlestick]

Do we know why it has all gone quiet on the outcome of the appeal. I thought it was imminent two days ago?

It was expected middle of this week, so today or tomorrow.

They'll get two points back because the whole process is a farce.

[aggi]

Indeed, didn't the commission show some sympathy for the argument, which may have been part of the appeal

The lack of clarity in sanctions is largely down to the clubs who have repeatedly refused to agree to specific sanctions

As for the commissions, while not implementing a absolute stand level of sanction are implementing a sanctions in a way where it is possible to build up a picture of likely sanctions within a relatively narrow band of tolerance, and that includes reductions for various actions. I suspect those tolerances are not dissimilar to what we see in the English judicial system which makes sense given who is involved.

I think the issue is it's a pretty infrequent event so trying to build up sanctions on a "case law" basis is limited.

My big issue with the whole circus around the charges is as I argued earlier. Forget about increased income from a later sale or increased profits moving forward.

Forest made the conscious decision to spend a certain amount on players and wages when the entered the Premier League, unless they were completely dense they were well aware that this put them in breach of PSR, they had plenty of time to correct this.

Being in excess of PSR in September was fine because as long as they sold players prior to the cut of point for their accounts they would be compliant.

They chose not to and this must be argued gave them a sporting advantage over their rivals, remember they finished four points clear of Leicester who were relegated.

The penalties for being relegated far outweigh a sanction of four points in the following season.

I think it's a flaw of a system where the timing of a big sale, still within the same transfer window, can dramatically alter the landscape of the finances (but a big purchase doesn't) but they are the rules. It's a difficult one to get away from though. UEFA use calendar years rather than financial years which arguably makes more sense in terms of timing but does give issues around promotion/relegation (obviously less of an issue for teams in UEFA competitions).

[Clockwork Claret]

It was expected middle of this week, so today or tomorrow.

They'll get two points back because the whole process is a farce.

They will want to wait until they can say the decision has no bearing on the result.. However the longer they wait the more bearing it will have ironically

[Taffy on the wing]

They’re probably waiting until after the weekend results…. Hoping Forest win & we lose.
The whole thing is a fiasco!

[Clockwork Claret]

Exactly.

[Clockwork Claret]

What happens when we win though? They they will probably keep the points as is? Or delay again? It's a farce.

[Spike]

The sensible and trustworthy thing would be to announce the final decision before Saturday’s round of games,
There is no logical reason to delay past 9am tomorrow unless there really is something dodgy and sinister afoot

[chipbutty]

Never heard as much b@ll@cks talked in my life as the speculation on this post! Clowns

[burnley007]

We should have found out by now.

I wonder if the delay is because there is a change to the points and they are preparing the media responses?

[AlargeClaret]

Thought and prayers for the mental health of some of the posters on this thread .

[CaptainKirk]

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

I am working on the basis that if I keep saying this it will turn out incorrect.

[HahaYeah]

BBC reliable as ever, said we should know by yesterday, Wednesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68858390

This article says it could be as late as Monday the 6th of May.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/nott ... on-3014622

[wilks_bfc]

BBC reliable as ever, said we should know by yesterday, Wednesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68858390

This article says it could be as late as Monday the 6th of May.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/nott ... on-3014622

That’s an old article from last week

All media sources were saying the hearing was due to be last Wednesday (24th)

[mickleoverclaret]

This is on the BBC's latest football news feed today:

"Forest still waiting on profit and sustainability appeal verdict
published at 11:24
11:24
Nick Mashiter
BBC Sport senior football news reporter

Nottingham Forest are still waiting to discover if their appeal against a four-point deduction for breaching profit and sustainability rules has been successful.

The appeal was held last Wednesday but, unlike the independent commission which heard Forest’s initial case, there is no seven-day timeframe for it to be resolved.

Last year the Premier League brought in rules to fast-track PSR cases so breaches were handled within 12 weeks, with the punishment applied that season.

Forest were charged in January and were docked four points in March with the process falling within that time.

Before the new fast-track rules, Everton’s first case took around eight months, from when they were charged in March 2023 to having an initial 10-point penalty handed out in November last year.

The Toffees appealed and had it reduced to six while they are also appealing a second two-point deduction for a separate breach.

Forest had to appeal their punishment within seven days, with a committee needing to be assembled a week later before a date was set.

But while an outcome is expected soon there is not the same timeframe attached to an appeal decision apart from the backstop of 24 May, which is five days after the final games of the Premier League season, for all cases to be resolved.

Forest’s case will certainly be finalised before the end of the season."

[Rileybobs]

It's hard to see a situation that plays out where some points aren't awarded back to Forest. That just seems to be the way this goes.

[warksclaret]

I am working on the basis that if I keep saying this it will turn out incorrect.

just keep saying it please

[burnleymik]

These next three games are crucial for the teams involved at the bottom. This farce has to be done quickly so everyone knows where they stand ASAP.

[Goody1975]

Get rid of PSR and let clubs spend what they want, all great until they can't afford it anymore, that's when businesses big and small get ten pence in the pound back.

It's okay having a sugar daddy or oil baron until they aren't there to pay off the credit card bill.

[bfcjg]

I wonder if the delay is bad news for Forest? They've been told pre announcement what it is and lawyers are bombarding the committee. TBH it's a total farce they are hardly decrypting the DNA of a new pandemic virus.

[JohnDearyMe]

It's hard to see a situation that plays out where some points aren't awarded back to Forest. That just seems to be the way this goes.

It's a real shame as we'd just managed to create a bit of excitement about the last 3 games.

[Roosterbooster]

Didn't the original Everton appeal announcement happen 3 weeks after the hearing date? Seems like knowing the Forest outcome this week is optimistic

[burnley007]

What an absolute shambles.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I view this as near100% certain we are down, anything else is a bonus. I have zero expectation of a fair outcome in this issue, even if they don’t give points back our position remains highly challenging.

If we do go down, it will be due to, in this order:
1. Errors in selection and performances on our part.
2. Errors by referees against us
3. Stitch ups by not punishing misdeeds properly

So whatever happens in this Forest case, we will still mainly only have ourselves to blame.

[boyyanno]

I think there is a very good case for the integrity of the league being compromised.

Think of this scenario- Luton are drawing at the weekend and Forest getting beat. Luton can look to hold out for a point as opposed to going **** or bust for the win.

Forest then get 2 points back, Luton would have maybe changed their approach at the end of the game.

That's just one out of loads. It's a farce.

[Andingle]

If they are going to give points back , maybe we can be given back the 3 pts we were cheated out of at Forest

[ManchesterClaret]

I think there is a very good case for the integrity of the league being compromised.

Think of this scenario- Luton are drawing at the weekend and Forest getting beat. Luton can look to hold out for a point as opposed to going **** or bust for the win.

Forest then get 2 points back, Luton would have maybe changed their approach at the end of the game.

That's just one out of loads. It's a farce.

I get what you’re saying and it makes sense but Luton kick off at 20:00 tomorrow evening.

[Vegas Claret]

this will end up in court

[scamander]

I view this as near100% certain we are down, anything else is a bonus. I have zero expectation of a fair outcome in this issue, even if they don’t give points back our position remains highly challenging.

If we do go down, it will be due to, in this order:
1. Errors in selection and performances on our part.
2. Errors by referees against us
3. Stitch ups by not punishing misdeeds properly

So whatever happens in this Forest case, we will still mainly only have ourselves to blame.

I agree with the first, that we are accountable to our position. I don't like the ref bashing though, we've been on the end of bad decisions but I've often seen 'we got away with that' comments in the match reports. If each team was given back the poor decisions which affected them (for example the recent decisions against Forest) then the table may be different. We can't tell.

The ref wasn't picking the team, selecting the tactics which included setting up to defend a narrow lead with 20 mins left, misplacing passes, not controlling the ball and missing chances. I appreciate you've outlined that it's much our responsibilty as to where we are btw so this is a wider point not made against you.

This season was always going to be tough, I expected us to be in the relegation scrap we are given our squad etc. If it wasn't for teams overspending we'd have been down already.

What will be interesting is next season in the Prem, assuming we aren't there and Luton go down. Few big teams circling the drain this season and won't have such an easy time of it.

[dandeclaret]

BBC reliable as ever, said we should know by yesterday, Wednesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68858390

This article says it could be as late as Monday the 6th of May.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/nott ... on-3014622

I mean - in the BBC article you linked, it didn't say anything about "Should know by Yesterday, Wednesday". Word for word what it says is "Nottingham Forest's appeal against their four-point punishment for breaching profit and sustainability rules (PSR) will be heard on Wednesday, 24 April.

The hearing is expected to be wrapped up within a day, but no final decision will be made on Wednesday and Forest will have to wait to discover if they are successful, with the timeframe of the outcome unclear."

No final decision will be made on wednesday..... Timeframe of the outcome unclear.

Looks pretty reliable reporting of what's happened so far..... to me anyway.

[HahaYeah]

I mean - in the BBC article you linked, it didn't say anything about "Should know by Yesterday, Wednesday". Word for word what it says is "Nottingham Forest's appeal against their four-point punishment for breaching profit and sustainability rules (PSR) will be heard on Wednesday, 24 April.

The hearing is expected to be wrapped up within a day, but no final decision will be made on Wednesday and Forest will have to wait to discover if they are successful, with the timeframe of the outcome unclear."

No final decision will be made on wednesday..... Timeframe of the outcome unclear.

Looks pretty reliable reporting of what's happened so far..... to me anyway.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. The whole thing is doing my nut in - not knowing where we stand atm.

[jedi_master]

I don't understand why they're even in scope to get more back - they already got 2. What are the Premier League so scared of? You set the rules, you issue the punishment. Why back down after the fact? It just publicly displays their weakness and emboldens the rest of the league to continue to laugh in the face of PSR.

I am on the side of those above that the longer this draws on the clearer it becomes to me they are probably getting 1-2 points back, at least - then again, I am a perennial cynic.

[NewClaret]

Interesting words from Nuno today:

“It’s difficult. We have been dealing with this situation for a while. We all expect this decision to come sooner so we are aware and we don’t know exactly how many points we have. Do we have 30, 29, 28? So we need to know as fast as possible”.

Sounds like they are expecting at least two points back.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Interesting words from Nuno today:

“It’s difficult. We have been dealing with this situation for a while. We all expect this decision to come sooner so we are aware and we don’t know exactly how many points we have. Do we have 30, 29, 28? So we need to know as fast as possible”.

Sounds like they are expecting at least two points back.

He actually said 27 as well and started to say 26 then changed it to “whatever” so I don’t think this is relevant.

[agreenwood]

Whether you have sympathy for Forest or not, no club should be in a situation where it has no real feel for how many points might be required to stay up with 3 games to go.

[equinox]

Whether you have sympathy for Forest or not, no club should be in a situation where it has no real feel for how many points might be required to stay up with 3 games to go.

Like we are, you mean?

[boyyanno]

I get what you’re saying and it makes sense but Luton kick off at 20:00 tomorrow evening.

Good point well made but the example itself isn't important, you could also apply to the previous game weeks that have gone by.