[Football] Forest docked 4 points FFP

[HastingsSeagull]

There's a huge problem with something as clear as 10M = 1 point, some maths wizard will work out the sweet spot that if they spend 120M extra and take the 12 points, they'd be able to stay up and then they're at that level forever. Or Mr Oil Baron comes in and blows 5 billion and returns to the league after a season in the Champ, to challenege for teh PL title.

Sure the current method is at least as much of a joke though!

For me there must be at least one zero missing from these announced points deductions and if going the exact figures route need to make it so harsh that clubs mentioned just get auto relegated.

 

[Wardy's twin]

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?

It's supposed to be a sporting competition....

 

[jimhigham]

Barney Ronay nails it…

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-for-points-deductions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

[Milano]

The most ridiculous comment of the last 24 hours goes to that crook who owns West Ham. "The EPL is the best league in the world, we don't want a regulator to ruin that", literally in the next sentence "EPL clubs owe £20bn, there is no spare bucket of cash to pay EFL clubs". The whole thing is built on sand, and the tide is coming in for some clubs. West Ham are in debt, how is that even possible for a club literally given their stadium by the tax payer?

 

[Oh_aye]

The most ridiculous comment of the last 24 hours goes to that crook who owns West Ham. "The EPL is the best league in the world, we don't want a regulator to ruin that", literally in the next sentence "EPL clubs owe £20bn, there is no spare bucket of cash to pay EFL clubs". The whole thing is built on sand, and the tide is coming in for some clubs. West Ham are in debt, how is that even possible for a club literally given their stadium by the tax payer?

Given their stadium by the tax payer and allowed to sell their previous stadium to a property developer with no requirement for affordable housing. Lionel Hutz doing the negotiating there by Newham Council.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It's supposed to be a sporting competition....

And when they get bored.....

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The most ridiculous comment of the last 24 hours goes to that crook who owns West Ham. "The EPL is the best league in the world, we don't want a regulator to ruin that", literally in the next sentence "EPL clubs owe £20bn, there is no spare bucket of cash to pay EFL clubs". The whole thing is built on sand, and the tide is coming in for some clubs. West Ham are in debt, how is that even possible for a club literally given their stadium by the tax payer?

I think even more ridiculous were the Forest and Everton fan 'talking heads' they had on Sky Sports News last night.

Forest chap: fully accepted that they'd broken the rules, but didn't think the rules (that obviously Forest had signed up to) were fair, because "we have a really rich owner, and it is impossible to stay in the Premier League without spending what we spent".

Everton ('Toffees TV') chap: the rules are a joke and designed only to stop the likes of Everton crashing the top six, and they are not needed because (direct quote) "no Premier League team is ever going to go bust, are they?"

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I think even more ridiculous were the Forest and Everton fan 'talking heads' they had on Sky Sports News last night.

Forest chap: fully accepted that they'd broken the rules, but didn't think the rules (that obviously Forest had signed up to) were fair, because "we have a really rich owner, and it is impossible to stay in the Premier League without spending what we spent".

Everton ('Toffees TV') chap: the rules are a joke and designed only to stop the likes of Everton crashing the top six, and they are not needed because (direct quote) "no Premier League team is ever going to go bust, are they?"

I hope the well informed sky reporter responded to the Everton fan that they are being kept afloat by loans from 777.....

No? What a shock.

 

[Acker79]

Barney Ronay nails it…

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-for-points-deductions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I think the fans who demand more players, more success, more spending, deserve some blame, too. Obviously a stronger owner will not overspend just to keep the fans happy, but it does add pressure - especially when those fans start turning on an owner for not spending more.

 

[southstandandy]

I know you can accuse me of saying this when it's not us involved BUT in the scheme of things isn't 4 points fairly paltry? Yes, for those towards the bottom it could mean the difference between going down or staying up (and all that that entails) but what is the deterrent?

Man City have 115 charges against them and I suspect when their day comes the worst (realistically) that will happen will be 10 points plus, which for them would still mean Europe etc etc etc. If the penalties are this small and you have the wealth of a Man City or Chelsea it's almost worth blowing the budget for as high a finish as you can get knowing that by flouting FFP at worst you'll get a small point deduction at the end of the season.

 

[Audax]

Very much like Red Bull going over the F1 budget due to their catering budget.

It wasn't the catering budget with Red Bull really. It was a cocktail of admin errors (missed out on a costs-reducing tax break) and either deliberate (pushing the rules to the max) or accidental (genuinely making a mistake with incorrect interpretations) on what could and could not be excluded. And yes, some of the latter was related to "catering". FWIW, in the Red Bull case I think it was a combination of deliberate and incompetent. Deliberate in that they made a clear decision to try to maximise the amount of budget they could have excluded from the final calculations. And incompetent in that I don't think they put as much time into fully understanding the financial rulebook as they do into understanding the technical rulebook.

In Forest's case, it looks like a slam dunk that they carried on spending knowing full well they would fail the financial tests. They weren't exploring "grey areas" in a rulebook that was still being established (as Red Bull were); they were willfully breaching the rules and hoping they would get away with it.

It's good that in both cases they've been punished. A little underwhelmingly so in both cases. Unless, of course, Forest get relegated by a point or two.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It's will be ironic if - after years of dithering - the Premier League finally take action against 2 clubs, yet the 3 that came up in 2023 still go back down again in 2024.

Forest's strategy of breaking the rules and spending big to get a foothold in the Prem seems sound, it's just they should have sold Brennan Johnson before 30 June 2023. They already had an offer of £30mill from Brentford and I'm sure Spurs would have bought for £40 mill, rather than the £47.5 mill they spent at the end of the window.

I fancy Forest will stay up, but they will sweat it and the 4 point penalty will probably costs them as much place prize money as the difference in transfer proceeds had Johnson been sold in time.

 

[Motogull]

and if going the exact figures route need to make it so harsh that ....

in the scheme of things isn't 4 points fairly paltry?

knowing that by flouting FFP at worst you'll get a small point deduction at the end of the season.

A deterrent only works if it puts the willies up you. You are both right. At present it is a waste of time. Weak as warm piss.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I really find it weird that there appear to be no well defined 'punishments' for the rule breaking , sure the PL must employ some lawyers

Yes things are up to interpretation but surely that is about guilt or innocence rather than the level of 'punishment. I think the PL have driven themselves into a hole with this.

 

[drew]

I really find it weird that there appear to be no well defined 'punishments' for the rule breaking , sure the PL must employ some lawyers

Yes things are up to interpretation but surely that is about guilt or innocence rather than the level of 'punishment. I think the PL have driven themselves into a hole with this.

Firstly, the Premier League do employ lawyers but it's just the likes of City can afford much better ones. The irony is that the City own 1/20th of the organization that has charged them!!

 

[Wardy's twin]

Firstly, the Premier League do employ lawyers but it's just the likes of City can afford much better ones. The irony is that the City own 1/20th of the organization that has charged them!!

I assumed they did employ lawyers but find it strange that they would not have this sown up so that in terms of punishment it was very clear what would happen to rule breakers, it's pretty basic for any organisation let alone something riding on hundreds of millions/5 billion pounds.

Not sure if its irony, in theory all democratic process that way e.g. some UK voters voted for Boris...

 

[Official Old Man]

Appeal failed, as you were.

Nottingham Forest points deduction: Appeal rejected against four-point penalty

Nottingham Forest fail in an appeal against their four-point punishment for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[fly high]

Appeal failed, as you were.

Nottingham Forest points deduction: Appeal rejected against four-point penalty

Nottingham Forest fail in an appeal against their four-point punishment for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

They should have been grateful it wasn't more and shut up & put up.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The cynic in me, is saying that this screams that now Forest are almost certain to stay up, there's limited litigation downside in appearing strict on PSR. Had Forest lost at the weekend, and Luton found the win, I wonder if the panel would have found differently?

 

[nickbrighton]

The cynic in me, is saying that this screams that now Forest are almost certain to stay up, there's limited litigation downside in appearing strict on PSR. Had Forest lost at the weekend, and Luton found the win, I wonder if the panel would have found differently?

Maybe this is a stretch but....Given that the bottom three were the expected bottom 3, and if you disregard the deductions were reasonably nailed on for relegation from quite early on, were the Forest and Everton deductions calculated so that the PL could appear to be being tough in an effort to show the Government a regulator isnt needed, but actually were designed not to relegate them. and cause little actual hardship to Forest and Everton otherr than a lot of hot air and worried fans (who the FA and PL dont give two hoots about)