[Football] Forest docked 4 points FFP

[Giraffe]

It's pathetic isn't it. If it's financial then say it's 1 point for every £10m over or something. Surely it has to be fairer to be black and white then a bunch of grey suits just deciding how hard to punish a certain club. Nonsense.

Luton already planning their staying up party.

[Music] - Fancy a big weekend in Luton?

Said no one, until now it seems... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-68594048

www.northstandchat.com

 

[Badger]

Probably wait until May 18th to decide how many points Man City have deducted.

I hear they're going to be given some of Everton's points.

 

[Sussexscots]

It's all a bit random, farcical and it reflects badly on the game and its administration.

Until, however, something actually happens about the numerous alleged breaches by Manchester City, the suspicion will remain that FFP is only something that smaller clubs need be concerned about.

 

[Pavilionaire]

My thoughts:

1. Today's ruling will give Burnley and Sheff Utd hope where previously there was none.
2. Everton's 6 point penalty was ridiculously lenient, but now a team below them has been docked 4 points it looks even kinder. If they weren't safe before they certainly are now.
3. I got the impression last summer that Luton were content simply to bank the 'one and done' season Prem cash. They may now have to prepare contingency plans for a second season.

 

[Giraffe]

"Forest, who hired leading sports lawyer Nick de Marco to defend them, are thought to have based their case around the sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham Hotspur in September.

The move, worth more than £45m, took place after the accounting deadline but Forest argue selling Johnson at a later date allowed them to earn a higher fee than if they had sold him by 30 June."

So what? It's easy to use an isolated transfer as the reason they breached. They knew when the financial year end was they shouldn't have spent so much in the first place. If they wanted to spend they should have sold first. Pathetic attempt to justify it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I wonder how they got to 4pts? Everton were initially docked 10 which were then reduced to 6. What did they do that was 50% worse than Forest?

All seems a bit random.

I suspect it's lower than Everton's deduction as they took into account Forest's argument around the timing of the sale of Brennan Johnson to Spurs as mitigation, having showed how it was in their best interest to hold out for a few months to receive a far better price for the player, rather than to sell earlier to meet this deadline but receive a far lower fee in return.

Their argument was simply why should they be forced to sell early when it damages them financially, and if that (later) sale was taken into account, they would have met the criteria.

If clubs are forced to accept low fees in order to meet a deadline whilst negotiating with other clubs over the sale of their assets, then it hands the initiative to the buyer, who can use that as leverage to pay a lot less than an asset may be worth, punishing the selling club as they would be left with the dilemma of accepting an unrealistic, undervalued bid and passing, or getting a fair / true value for their asset but fail.

 

[fly high]

My thoughts:

1. Today's ruling will give Burnley and Sheff Utd hope where previously there was none.
2. Everton's 6 point penalty was ridiculously lenient, but now a team below them has been docked 4 points it looks even kinder. If they weren't safe before they certainly are now.
3. I got the impression last summer that Luton were content simply to bank the 'one and done' season Prem cash. They may now have to prepare contingency plans for a second season.

Aren't Everton due another points deduction for accounts submitted in December?

 

[peterward]

"Forest, who hired leading sports lawyer Nick de Marco to defend them, are thought to have based their case around the sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham Hotspur in September.

The move, worth more than £45m, took place after the accounting deadline but Forest argue selling Johnson at a later date allowed them to earn a higher fee than if they had sold him by 30 June."

So what? It's easy to use an isolated transfer as the reason they breached. They knew when the financial year end was they shouldn't have spent so much in the first place. If they wanted to spend they should have sold first. Pathetic attempt to justify it.

So I paid my credit card late, a month after the final payment date, but I had more money later with wages coming in.

Can you cancel my interest payments please, and remove the late payment fine, as I did eventually pay!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

So I paid my credit card late, a month after the final payment date, but I had more money later with wages coming in.

Can you cancel my interest payments please, and remove the late payment fine, as I did eventually pay!

Or more like a second loan company saying they can lend you the money needed to make that payment and not be left with interests payments and late payment fines, but instead have to agree to a very bad deal in order to secure that payment (thinking along the lines of a Wonga pay day loan % / fee)
Either way you lose, but which of the 2 evils do you choose?

 

[Badger]

"Forest, who hired leading sports lawyer Nick de Marco to defend them, are thought to have based their case around the sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham Hotspur in September.

The move, worth more than £45m, took place after the accounting deadline but Forest argue selling Johnson at a later date allowed them to earn a higher fee than if they had sold him by 30 June."

So what? It's easy to use an isolated transfer as the reason they breached. They knew when the financial year end was they shouldn't have spent so much in the first place. If they wanted to spend they should have sold first. Pathetic attempt to justify it.

Exactly. Maybe they should have considered this the previous summer and removed a couple of players from their basket before going to the checkout.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Until, however, something actually happens about the numerous alleged breaches by Manchester City, the suspicion will remain that FFP is only something that smaller clubs need be concerned about.

The whole Man City thing is so frustrating and seemingly rewards their owner's policy of obfuscating, challenging and obscuring at every turn, whilst the club hoovers up titles and cups with apparent impunity and to general fawning over their greatness from pundits.

In much the same way BBC guidelines require newscasters etc to qualify certain statements or groups, I think any MoTD or Radio 5 Live reference to Manchester City should also include the statement: "Manchester City are currently charged with 115 breaches of financial rules," just to put what we are watching / listening to into its rightful context.

 

[Beanstalk]

This isn't true though. Everton rightly got punished for their breaches. They got their original punishment reduced due to the finding of 2 legal errors on appeal, both of which relate to Everton acting in utmost good faith.

The commission found the following, these were upheld by the appeals board:

• Everton’s PSRs difficulties were not because of their stadium development, those costs had been excluded as a result of a previous agreement. Their difficulties were due to overspend (largely on new players and inability to sell other players) and having finished lower than projected in the 2021/22 season (in itself causing a £21m loss through loss of prize money). Everton’s desire to improve on-pitch performance (including to replace it’s “non-existent midfield”, as described by its owner) resulted in the club taking chances with its PSR position.
• The position that Everton found itself in was of its own making. It was the club’s responsibility to ensure compliance and the excess over the Allowable Threshold (of £19.5m) was significant.
• Everton had failed to manage its finances and it was mismanagement that led to the Applicable Threshold being exceeded by £19.5m.

 

[Taybha]

So where's the actual points deduction tracker? Who the fk are making these rulings up ? Boobah Out.

 

[BBassic]

It's going to be hilarious (read: entirely unsurprising) when City come away scot-free.

 

[keaton]

This seems to be the Everton point of view but stadium costs are not included in FFp spending

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I wonder how they got to 4pts? Everton were initially docked 10 which were then reduced to 6. What did they do that was 50% worse than Forest?

All seems a bit random.

Everton lied

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

This seems to be the Everton point of view but stadium costs are not included in FFp spending

It's a load of cope, they actually lost around 300 million.

The PL included covid losses and stadium build

They used loads to buy players as well

But the truth doesn't allow them to cry CORRRRRRRUPTION

 

[Oh_aye]

It's all a bit random, farcical and it reflects badly on the game and its administration.

Until, however, something actually happens about the numerous alleged breaches by Manchester City, the suspicion will remain that FFP is only something that smaller clubs need be concerned about.

Exactly. The idea that forest or Everton are the key drivers of financial doping and anti competitiveness in football.

This points deduction is an absolute shambles. The level of overthinking and abject lack of faith they must have in the intelligence of the average punter is remarkable. The original effort was back of a fag packet stuff. You think they'd have learnt their lesson.

 

[Beanstalk]

It's going to be hilarious (read: entirely unsurprising) when City come away scot-free.

They won't. It'll be a largely disappointing punishment and likely to not destabilise them in the long run but they will get punished. The PL charges aren't blighted with the loopholes that the UEFA case suffered from (mainly because of UEFA's stupid statute of limitations rules) - in my opinion UEFA would've likely won that case if they had more robust process in place.

The issue is, because of City's financial might, it's going to take ages. And when it is finally all over, it will likely mean that City will have had more than enough time to prepare for what is coming and be largely unaffected on the field - even if a points deduction stops them from winning a title for one season. It will likely, thanks to the ridiculous money that they have to spend, stop teams from cheating in the manner City are alleged to have cheated again. Which ultimately, is the point of PSR/FFP and to some extent, justice will have been served. Remember that we're talking about entirely different crimes here.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I suspect it's lower than Everton's deduction as they took into account Forest's argument around the timing of the sale of Brennan Johnson to Spurs as mitigation, having showed how it was in their best interest to hold out for a few months to receive a far better price for the player, rather than to sell earlier to meet this deadline but receive a far lower fee in return.

Their argument was simply why should they be forced to sell early when it damages them financially, and if that (later) sale was taken into account, they would have met the criteria.

If clubs are forced to accept low fees in order to meet a deadline whilst negotiating with other clubs over the sale of their assets, then it hands the initiative to the buyer, who can use that as leverage to pay a lot less than an asset may be worth, punishing the selling club as they would be left with the dilemma of accepting an unrealistic, undervalued bid and passing, or getting a fair / true value for their asset but fail.

Forest could have not signed 25 players in 3 windows.....

They had to sell because of that