[Football] Forest docked 4 points FFP

[GrizzlingGammon]

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

100points deduction spread across the next 1000 seasons

 

[Easy 10]

Agree in sentiment, but all we will be left with is the established big clubs along with no foreseeable way to break into the group. Chelsea only have a successful history in the last 20 odd years as they bought it with Russian tears. No-one else can now do that, buy success and earn a load of $$$ whilst picking up an army of (annoying) plastic fans who continue to help any profit the club may end up with, albeit not in their current kamikaze model. And that will probably sew up the top spots for the most part except for the odd and less frequent outlier like Leicester. So we may end up with a less and less competitive league.

I do see that argument - FFP/PSR does help protect the status quo. But whats the alternative. Unfettered spending for all ? History tells us that clubs WILL overreach to buy their way to success, sometimes with disastrous long-term consequences (or hilarious, in the case of Portsmouth).

Its a bit like the idea that has been floated to have an "Enhanced Games", ie an Olympics with no drugs testing. All the athletes can be shot up to the eyeballs in performance-enhancing drugs, and we just say to hell with it and see how it plays out. Sure it levels the field - but at what cost ?

I don't have the answers. There have always been haves and have-nots in the football pyramid, and there always will be. I think we're lucky insofar as we've grown over the last 25 years to reach where we are, and are more than capable of giving a bloody nose now and then to the "elite". There isn't a solution. But there needs to be rules IMO.

 

[oldboyroy]

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.

There was something on talk sport about city around 2 months back. Some geezer "in the know" with City's alleged 'crimes' and he said if they were found guilty the minimum they can expect is relegation! It was something along the lines of fraud?

 

[um bongo molongo]

Full marks to TBMBE for keeping us legal, but just as an example, we purchased Harry Kane who then scored 30 goals and got us into the UCL.
We would have a season or more of European football, attract even better players and make lots of money.
Then, two years later, we get deducted 6 points.
This is just an example of the complete waste of time picking on the small club but waiting years to maybe hit the big clubs.

We’d soon knock that shooting first time and getting headers on target out of Kane. That’s not the Brighton way.

 

[um bongo molongo]

Predictably this whole sorry saga is drowning in a sea of whataboutery.

The wider point is that breaches of FFP/PSR is now finally showing some TEETH, with actual shock-horror points deductions instead of slap-on-the-wrist fines - and this is what is now driving the outrage. That, and the fact that it is relatively unprecedented. Well guess what - they are now setting the precedents that will help in setting future tariffs for clubs breaching the rules. The rules, I might add, that EVERY CLUB signed up to.

You could argue that the points deductions have been too lenient, given that Forest and Everton have narrowly swerved the guillotine at the expense of other clubs who cut their cloth, and went down as a result. And I'm annoyed at the appeals process cutting the punishment. But at least this is a start.

If you are going to take the piss with spending, then as everyone has seen, you will now reap the consequences. Its already in the post for Chelsea when their incredible splurge is due for review. City have arseholed up the whole process with their lawyers for years, but I live in hope that they'll meet their Waterloo at some point.

Meantime, I'm liking seeing consequences. Its a mess, but it needed doing.

I agree completely BUT was it asking too much for them to come up with a more robust and transparent punishment system, and to not have the appeal deadline 5 days AFTER the end of the season. I can’t really understand why they couldn’t do all of the reviews in the close season and allocate the points deductions before the start of the next season. But maybe that’s why I don’t get paid the £m’s to run the show

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

"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.

Indeed.

I drove at 30 miles an hour for 30 minutes on the M2 yesterday. I figure I can drive at 110 for half an hour tomorrow, and my average speed will be a silky 70. Bosh.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I agree completely BUT was it asking too much for them to come up with a more robust and transparent punishment system, and to not have the appeal deadline 5 days AFTER the end of the season. I can’t really understand why they couldn’t do all of the reviews in the close season and allocate the points deductions before the start of the next season. But maybe that’s why I don’t get paid the £m’s to run the show

The clubs voted on this system, I agree a points per x amount over would have been a much better option, but i doubt they would get the 14 votes needed.

 

[Hiheidi]

There was something on talk sport about city around 2 months back. Some geezer "in the know" with City's alleged 'crimes' and he said if they were found guilty the minimum they can expect is relegation! It was something along the lines of fraud?

That geezer was Man City's former financial adviser

 

[Bodian]

We’d soon knock that shooting first time and getting headers on target out of Kane. That’s not the Brighton way.

Or we'd get him injured during training, and miss half the season.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

When will our accounts be published? Must be soon...

 

[Hiheidi]

Quite interesting/worrying if it sets a precedent for the likes of Chelsea...

 

[drew]

Predictably this whole sorry saga is drowning in a sea of whataboutery.

The wider point is that breaches of FFP/PSR is now finally showing some TEETH, with actual shock-horror points deductions instead of slap-on-the-wrist fines - and this is what is now driving the outrage. That, and the fact that it is relatively unprecedented. Well guess what - they are now setting the precedents that will help in setting future tariffs for clubs breaching the rules. The rules, I might add, that EVERY CLUB signed up to.

You could argue that the points deductions have been too lenient, given that Forest and Everton have narrowly swerved the guillotine at the expense of other clubs who cut their cloth, and went down as a result. And I'm annoyed at the appeals process cutting the punishment. But at least this is a start.

If you are going to take the piss with spending, then as everyone has seen, you will now reap the consequences. Its already in the post for Chelsea when their incredible splurge is due for review. City have arseholed up the whole process with their lawyers for years, but I live in hope that they'll meet their Waterloo at some point.

Meantime, I'm liking seeing consequences. Its a mess, but it needed doing.

My view is that the points deductions for Everton (possibly with more to come) and Forest is laying the ground work for substantial sanctions against City and Chelsea that will of course be challenged but even if they are reduced after appeal, will be enough to relegate both or at least prevent them getting any where near Europe.

As an aside with all this talk of 'sporting integrity' being sacrificed with asterisks left right and centre on the table, why not relegate any club that would have gone down if it hadn't been for the points deductions along with clubs that fall into the bottom three because of the deductions. If that means 5 clubs go down then let 5 clubs come up. Shake it up a bit.

 

[Easy 10]

I agree completely BUT was it asking too much for them to come up with a more robust and transparent punishment system, and to not have the appeal deadline 5 days AFTER the end of the season. I can’t really understand why they couldn’t do all of the reviews in the close season and allocate the points deductions before the start of the next season. But maybe that’s why I don’t get paid the £m’s to run the show

Well, like I said earlier its a mess. But I think its just one we're going to have to suck up whilst they put in place the process of punishment. Asterisks against clubs is far from ideal when its the difference between staying up and going down, but this IS a new process. Its not directly comparable with any previous forms of punishment criteria, so yes, they are pretty much making it up as they go along. There isn't an ideal linear solution to any of this though, so of course the whataboutery arguments are rife, and appeals will always delay. City have turned it into an artform.

At the end of the day, lines were drawn on FFP/PSR, and some clubs haven fallen on the wrong side of it. Yes they'll all have excuses, and what-about-so-and-so, but they've breached the rules. It might take 2-3 years and some "harsh" cases to drive it home, but we've already seen signs (from the miniscule spending in January compared with previous years), that clubs are beginning to get the willies and pull back from the ridiculous splurge. I'm not against that.

Eggs and omelettes and all that.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I do see that argument - FFP/PSR does help protect the status quo. But whats the alternative. Unfettered spending for all ? History tells us that clubs WILL overreach to buy their way to success, sometimes with disastrous long-term consequences (or hilarious, in the case of Portsmouth).

Its a bit like the idea that has been floated to have an "Enhanced Games", ie an Olympics with no drugs testing. All the athletes can be shot up to the eyeballs in performance-enhancing drugs, and we just say to hell with it and see how it plays out. Sure it levels the field - but at what cost ?

I don't have the answers. There have always been haves and have-nots in the football pyramid, and there always will be. I think we're lucky insofar as we've grown over the last 25 years to reach where we are, and are more than capable of giving a bloody nose now and then to the "elite". There isn't a solution. But there needs to be rules IMO.

If the owners are rich enough and are willing to put the money into the club and pay those bills from their own wealth, should they be stopped from doing that? They wouldn't be saddling the club with debt, but the rules stop them from doing that despite having the money to actually pay for it without adding any debt to the club

However another club can continue to lose the maximum allowed each season, adding to a pile of debt the club gets saddled with, despite not having any funding in place to cover those debts but they'll still comply with FFP/PSR

All it seems to do is to lock clubs in place, and will make it even harder for promoted clubs to compete as they don't have the benefit of several seasons of greater income to be able to build a squad capable of staying up

The argument against allowing owners to put as much money in as they like (if funded fully) will mean rich clubs buying their way to the top, however restricting clubs from doing it will mean that those promoted and near the bottom of the league will find it difficult to stay up / move up the table and break into the top standings, so what's the right solution?

Would we have met the limits after we were promoted? or would we have had to sell players? (seeing as we didn't sell for a few years after promotion) weakening the team, and making relegation far more likely, would we have been able to afford to invest in the likes of Caicedo and Mac Allister? and to be in a position to turn a large profit on them and others we've invested in further down the line?

 

[Easy 10]

My view is that the points deductions for Everton (possibly with more to come) and Forest is laying the ground work for substantial sanctions against City and Chelsea that will of course be challenged but even if they are reduced after appeal, will be enough to relegate both or at least prevent them getting any where near Europe.

As an aside with all this talk of 'sporting integrity' being sacrificed with asterisks left right and centre on the table, why not relegate any club that would have gone down if it hadn't been for the points deductions along with clubs that fall into the bottom three because of the deductions. If that means 5 clubs go down then let 5 clubs come up. Shake it up a bit.

Its really late and I've had some port. OK with the first, but I do not understand your second paragraph one iota chap.

 

[drew]

Its late and I've had some port. OK with the first, but I do not understand your second paragraph one iota chap.

In that case I'll explain. Let's say that Burnley, Sheffield and Luton occupy the three relegations spots before any points deductions are made. They are in that position on merit (or lack of it). Then apply the points deductions then it's Burnley at the bottom, then Forest, Everton Sheffield and Luton in 16th. My idea is to relegate all 5 and replace them with the top 4 in the championship and whoever wins the play-offs between 5th and 8th. However, if after the points deduction Everton or Forest are still outside the relegation zone they don't go down.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[spence]

Its really late and I've had some port. OK with the first, but I do not understand your second paragraph one iota chap.

Taylors late botted vintage is a lovely port. Give it a whirl when on offer

 

[worthingseagull123]

When do Man City and Chelsea have their deduction?

 

[Easy 10]

In that case I'll explain. Let's say that Burnley, Sheffield and Luton occupy the three relegations spots before any points deductions are made. They are in that position on merit (or lack of it). Then apply the points deductions then it's Burnley at the bottom, then Forest, Everton Sheffield and Luton in 16th. My idea is to relegate all 5 and replace them with the top 4 in the championship and whoever wins the play-offs between 5th and 8th. However, if after the points deduction Everton or Forest are still outside the relegation zone they don't go down.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[drew]

Sober up and try again in the morning!