Forest deducted four points

[dn5 shaun]

£34m overspend - they've easily earned a win and a draw extra from that, so it was a worth it for them.
A punishment should leave you behind.

Yes your correct but we haven't got anyone to put £34m in never mind overspend by £34m

 

[nopigfansintown]

The whole thing is a bit of a farce and no one has the right answer for it.

Everyone wants clubs to be protected, the Bury's Rochdale's etc etc going / about to go are very sad stories.

Is there not a mechanism whereby the wealthy owners who wish to spend their money on buying players/ wages put the relevant money in a 'safe' account so that the club arent at risk. Ive not looked at the figures or detail but say Forest / everton are £40m overspent if their owner has covered that i personally dont see the issue.

If its the club that's got to cover it and its based on future earnings then obviously that's dodgy ground and shouldnt be allowed. Like any half decent business if the club are producing monthly management accounts its easy to see how their finances are. It could all be analysed accordingly by Governing Bodies so that when club x are looking to sign someone surely its relatively straightforward for someone to say 'yes you've the money' or 'no you havent'. The latter can then be a two way decision, you dont have the money or b the owner puts the requiste funds in an account.

The rules as they are just favour a handful of clubs. Technically Newcastle have access to in theory unlimited amounts of money, but cant spend it even though there's a very low chance of that club going pop, and again the money could be held in account. So, the top of the league just becomes a closed shop with the rich clubs getting richer! Clubs coming up are going to really struggle to stay up.

Someone mentioned leeds and leicester suffered. Possibly teams from other years too. But we've got a daft situation where Leicester might get promoted and then get points docked or be really limited in their spending due to other years. For me its just skewed wrong and as such is another factor in the slow death of football being enjoyable and competitive

There's also a situation where if rumours are right Villa could be breaking it. They might get 4th, get the riches of that prize money, get champs league money, and then have points taken off next season when they wont give a shit. Doesnt add up really. As said at the start i dont think there is a perfect answer to it all

It probably could be done, yes. The issue is that they are then distorting the market for everyone as this expenditure isn't happening in a vacuum. They are forcing up the cost of footballers for everyone.

You're right about FFP being a way for top clubs to maintain their hegemony. They have an interest in maintaining and enforcing it. The bind the PL, government and other football authorities have is that they want to protect the brand(s) and keep the money rolling in whilst at the same time appearing to protect clubs.To protect the Prem brand they need the best players here on the biggest salaries regardless of cost. For that reason I see this as performative hand wringing.

The simple solution is some sort of draft system. Or an equal budget on player expenditure for all clubs. Good luck with that one.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Egan was "a club record deal". Given that our record before was Beattie for £4m it's safe to assume that Egan was slightly above that.
Norwood was a £750k loan fee followed by a £1.25m loan to perm.

6:30 - 7:00, horse's mouth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p077pws6

 

[Panini]

Lots of anger at "the Premier League" over this, and frustration that the rules/punishments should be different.

"The Premier League" is not an autonomous organisation, it's simply the 20 clubs themselves represented at a corporate level.

So any anger should be directed at the clubs for the rules/punishments they set and agreed to. Unfortunately this is where most arguments fall down because the dissonance required is too difficult or problematic.

 

[Hartley Hare]

ooogh moneh.

HH

 

[Robby Blade]

Everton's part 2 charges to begin next week and should be decided by 08th April. Going to be a shit storm if there's appeals afterwards and it's not concluded before the end of the season.

April 8th is "" got to consider the fans" territory e.g. nowt will happen.

 

[steve26272]

Yeah and look at their position in the league.
I don’t consider it cheating. It’s taking a chance to cement your prem status and go for Europe.
It failed and now they are in trouble. Same with Everton really

I get that, but they’ve overspent by £34m, at £2m a league position they needed to finish top 3 for the gamble to pay off

 

[Champagneblade]

Going over financial fair play limits is essentially a club playing with ineligible player(s) for at least part of the season - in all competitions. It's more, not less egregious than a club fielding ineligible player(s) in a cup tie. For that rule break you'll be eliminated from the cup with the minimum of fuss.

The punishment should be so damaging to your league campaign that no team should contemplate going over. It doesn't matter what you think of FFP: the bottom line is that all clubs have signed up to these rules, however imperfect. Docking a measly few points is essentially a green light to chance your arm. You have to ask why the punishment is so light? I'd suggest it's because nobody actually wants to reduce the £ going into the game. That's the last thing they want.

At a base level it is Financial FAIR Play.

If you are not adhering to FAIR Play, then what is the point of sport?

You are acting therefore UNFAIRLY and by definition affording yourself an advantage not afforded to your opponent.

Those suggesting no sporting advantage are quite frankly thick. Of course you are. You are absolving yourself of the confines of rules that everyone else bar you are respecting.

If this were non-league they’d be draconian punishments galore.

 

[Addison]

Lots of anger at "the Premier League" over this, and frustration that the rules/punishments should be different.

"The Premier League" is not an autonomous organisation, it's simply the 20 clubs themselves represented at a corporate level.

So any anger should be directed at the clubs for the rules/punishments they set and agreed to. Unfortunately this is where most arguments fall down because the dissonance required is too difficult or problematic.

Yes an important point that the media, pundits and clubs themselves conveniently forget. The EPL Board represents each of the 20 members. They are not a separate organisation, they all signed up to FIFIA's FFP rules and the ensuing PSR.

The pathetic post decision statement issued by Florist yesterday illustrates how conveniently incompetent clubs are in understanding their own rules. Where they stupid enough to believe that the disciplinary process outlined in rule 50 was a gentlemans club agreement whereby if you were cooperative the charges would fall away. I doubt it but it adds to the general furore against the EPL. Now the legal principles are being enforced they are crying foul. You reap what you sow and Florist in particular should consider themselves lucky the Independent Commission(IC) fell at the final hurdle in applying points deducted by appearing to double count the co-operation discount of 2 points.

Rather than direct the ire at their own EPL board Florist should be pursuing constructive arguments to change EPL rule 50 to allow for a more uniform sanctions matrix to be incorporated into the disciplinary process. They are unlikely to do that as it would mean tacit acceptance of points deductions. The IC yesterday set out a formula of minor, substantial and major breaches that could pave the way for change but the clubs would need to buy into it. There is little appetite for that at the moment as clubs employ expensive counsel to find ways around the current process even if that includes raising unsubstantiated allegations against your rivals(Everton) in submissions as Florist did on 6/7 March.

 

[Champagneblade]

Lots of anger at "the Premier League" over this, and frustration that the rules/punishments should be different.

"The Premier League" is not an autonomous organisation, it's simply the 20 clubs themselves represented at a corporate level.

So any anger should be directed at the clubs for the rules/punishments they set and agreed to. Unfortunately this is where most arguments fall down because the dissonance required is too difficult or problematic.

That’s the thing. Forest getting upset that they got charged yet they are breaking rules they helped to set and signed up for.

 

[Balti Pie]

Yes an important point that the media, pundits and clubs themselves conveniently forget. The EPL Board represents each of the 20 members. They are not a separate organisation, they all signed up to FIFIA's FFP rules and the ensuing PSR.

The pathetic post decision statement issued by Florist yesterday illustrates how conveniently incompetent clubs are in understanding their own rules. Where they stupid enough to believe that the disciplinary process outlined in rule 50 was a gentlemans club agreement whereby if you were cooperative the charges would fall away. I doubt it but it adds to the general furore against the EPL. Now the legal principles are being enforced they are crying foul. You reap what you sow and Florist in particular should consider themselves lucky the Independent Commission(IC) fell at the final hurdle in applying points deducted by appearing to double count the co-operation discount of 2 points.

Rather than direct the ire at their own EPL board Florist should be pursuing constructive arguments to change EPL rule 50 to allow for a more uniform sanctions matrix to be incorporated into the disciplinary process. They are unlikely to do that as it would mean tacit acceptance of points deductions. The IC yesterday set out a formula of minor, substantial and major breaches that could pave the way for change but the clubs would need to buy into it. There is little appetite for that at the moment as clubs employ expensive counsel to find ways around the current process even if that includes raising unsubstantiated allegations against your rivals(Everton) in submissions as Florist did on 6/7 March.

You raise a very good point about double counting the co-operation discount of 2 points!
I thought this when the explanation was given by Sky Sports' chief correspondent on SS News last night:
The standard charge for breaking the rules but admitting so.....3 pts
The severity of the offense (overspend) extra charge.....3 pts
Discount for co-operation.....-2pts

So in theory, for a less severe infringement of the rules, with admission and co-operation.....3pts - 2pts = 1pt
So a club could break the rules and receive 1pt?

Makes no sense! They clearly make the punishment up based on absolutely fuck all!

 

[Balti Pie]

That’s the thing. Forest getting upset that they got charged yet they are breaking rules they helped to set and signed up for.

Forest's statement was an absolute joke, along the lines of, "We are extremely disappointed with the decision, and this jeopardises any trust we have in the EPL."
What it actually should have said was, "Thanks very much - we're laughing our tits off that we've gotten away with it, you absolute mugs. We won't hesitate to do it again."

 

[Fjortoft's Aeroplane]

Forest's statement was an absolute joke, along the lines of, "We are extremely disappointed with the decision, and this jeopardises any trust we have in the EPL."
What it actually should have said was, "Thanks very much - we're laughing our tits off that we've gotten away with it, you absolute mugs. We won't hesitate to do it again."

It's hilarious they are still in relegation trouble after all they've spent and after getting such a small penalty.
Almost impressive to spend as much as they have and still be shite. I haven't followed them in detail, does anyone know what's the core reason for them being so shit? (Manager? Too many new faces? Poor purchases?)

 

[sheffieldred]

It's hilarious they are still in relegation trouble after all they've spent and after getting such a small penalty.
Almost impressive to spend as much as they have and still be shite. I haven't followed them in detail, does anyone know what's the core reason for them being so shit? (Manager? Too many new faces? Poor purchases?)

We were spunking loads of money (relatively) to be shit in the championship for 23 years so not too fazed.

We've made too many individual mistakes (Matt Turner has a great highlight reel).

Being shit at defending set pieces has cost us dearly

We got really quite effective at punishing mistakes and being clinical. However this has dropped off. Losing awoniyi hasn't helped as we've lost a focal point/ battering ram that our support cast (MGW/Elanga/CHO) could benefit from.

The 'too many faces' thing definitely has legs and involves vanity meddling from the owners son. We should have learned our lesson about this but the signing of Gio Reyna stinks of someone who cant leave football manager alone. Faced with that, cooper got a spirit together with the team with some unlikely heroes in people like Aurier that saw us stay up last time. Further chopping and changing again has lost some of that although overall the team still seem to give a shit.

 

[Addison]

You raise a very good point about double counting the co-operation discount of 2 points!
I thought this when the explanation was given by Sky Sports' chief correspondent on SS News last night:
The standard charge for breaking the rules but admitting so.....3 pts
The severity of the offense (overspend) extra charge.....3 pts
Discount for co-operation.....-2pts

So in theory, for a less severe infringement of the rules, with admission and co-operation.....3pts - 2pts = 1pt
So a club could break the rules and receive 1pt?

Makes no sense! They clearly make the punishment up based on absolutely fuck all!

IMO the Florist IC has tied themselves up in knots when apportioning the points deduction after producing sound legal reasons in their decision up to this point. They make the following statement;

"The Commission does not know how the extra points 3 points were arrived at by the Appeals Board for Everton, but some part of those points must relate to provision of incorrect information."

The Appeals Board made no reference to the minimum starting point for sanctions as being 3. It is an iteration in the Florist IC's written reasons alone based on the EFL sanctions guidelines. The Appeals Board did state the original Everton IC should have considered more closely the EFL matrix when deciding on 10 points,. As insolvency only accrued 9 points in the EPL as per the Portsmouth ruling it was more reasonable to apply 6 points for a lesser offence based on the precedent of Sheffield Wednesday v The Football League.

The EPL put forward an argument that Florists breach was significantly higher (£34.5M v £19.5M). They recommended a sanction of 8 points 2 above Everton less a discount of 2 for cooperation resulting in -6.

The Florist IC seem to lose their way at this point. They state Evertons was a more serious breach than Florists because they provided incorrect information so no discount was applied. That is supposition on their part as to how the Appeal Board arrived at a figure of 6 as they confirm earlier in their own words.

They ignore the principal behind PSR imo which is to prevent financial mismanagement. Surely exceeding the bar by £15m higher is more serious so should carry extra points as espoused by the EPL in their figure of 8. Thats how the EFL matrix works; more points deducted for higher amounts lost. You can't use an authority as a means to justify your decision then disregard its application in part.

Florist IC refer to their recommendation that future breaches be split into minor, substantial and major. Whilst that may be useful to develop for the future there is no detail on how this would work in the present other than minor may not carry a points deduction and major may result in expulsion. You can not consequently state Evertons and Florists breaches fall into the substantial category and are therefore the same without precedent or process to rely upon.

The effect of this imo opinion is that a double discount has been applied. The EPL's position is supported by a calculation based on a stating point of 3 for the offence with an extra 5 added to reflect the seriousness of the offence. In ignoring this and imposing their own supposition on what the Appeals Board may or may not have done when reaching a figure of 6 opens this up to Appeal by the EPL.

The double discount is 2 for disregarding the evidence Florists breach was more serious down from a recommended 8 to 6 and then a further 2 for cooperation which the EPL agreed upon.

 

[Creepy]

The Governing bodies don't make it easy for themselves by handing down such subjective punishments. I would rather see that any club in breach of such rules is automatically relegated at the end of the season. Full stop. (possibly by more than one league if breaches are serious enough). This has no bearing on the three teams who finish bottom who are deservedly relegated as well because they weren't good enough.

How you replace such a club is open for debate (e.g. automatically promote another team from the league below either that season or the season after) but the punishment is severe and you don't have other clubs hanging on to wait to see if they are going to be saved only to be relegated on appeal in June/July.

I look forward to seeing Manchester City in the boy scouts league next season...

 

[Bell4]

At a base level it is Financial FAIR Play.

If you are not adhering to FAIR Play, then what is the point of sport?

You are acting therefore UNFAIRLY and by definition affording yourself an advantage not afforded to your opponent.

Those suggesting no sporting advantage are quite frankly thick. Of course you are. You are absolving yourself of the confines of rules that everyone else bar you are respecting.

If this were non-league they’d be draconian punishments galore.

Spot on

 

[west_yorks_blade]

Sucker head butting Billy, attacking other players, and cheating massively hugely but still whinging about a watered down pathetic punishment.

Scabs have become more repugnant than dirty Leeds. Can’t believe I had to write that.

 

[mattbianco1]

Everton's part 2 charges to begin next week and should be decided by 08th April. Going to be a shit storm if there's appeals afterwards and it's not concluded before the end of the season.

You just know United will finish 4th bottom then go down when they win their appeal.

Weve not been relegated like that before.

 

[Bell4]

I hope I get my enjoyment mojo back re anything Utd before I croak it

 

[Belvedere Blade]

 

[sheffieldred]

Not sure where the johnson thing ended up but we've got 30/35m coming for mangala I think so sure we will be fine. Got plenty of saleable assets anyway.

We should just take the 4 and move on. No pink placards or victim mentality, just go and get the necessary points

 

[Demon Blade]

Suck that you weird accented cunts.

Fost.

 

[Proper Blade]

Four points is a joke and they'll probably get a reduction, down to two points I suspect. Sort of makes ignoring the rules for clubs like Forest with rich owners worthwhile. Stay within the rules and almost certainly be in the relegation zone, spend over and there's a good chance even with a small points deduction you'll be above those who have kept to the rules.
Bit like a small slap on the wrist to say we need to be seen to punishing you but we're not really.

Forest's defence that if they had sold a player they'd have kept within the rules but they didn't so could get more at a later date that is outside the financial period is laughable. Every club could argue that with promising youngsters who are progressing each year. Sell someone else then, or don't buy players you don't need to sit in the reserves.

Yep. Totally boggles the mind that this is the best defence they could come up with, and they were (seemingly) expecting to get away with overspending because of it.

 

[Davalon]

Listened to Andy Burnham talk about this on the radio earlier.

Whilst I find myself agreeing with him on a fair amount of stuff, I thought he talked absolute bollocks on this.

Contradicted himself by reading the rules out and stating Forest haven't been deducted enough but used that as the argument for Everton being deducted less.

Then went on to say it wasn't fair on a club of Everton's standing and the fact they're having a new ground built

 

[Addison]

Listened to Andy Burnham talk about this on the radio earlier.

Whilst I find myself agreeing with him on a fair amount of stuff, I thought he talked absolute bollocks on this.

Contradicted himself by reading the rules out and stating Forest haven't been deducted enough but used that as the argument for Everton being deducted less.

Then went on to say it wasn't fair on a club of Everton's standing and the fact they're having a new ground built

I worked with Andy Burnham on a Committee when he first came into politics. Bright, articulate, innovative, willing to consider all points of view, untainted by the Westminister bubble. Exemplary in the support he gave the Hillsborough families.

Unfortunately as happens with all politicians particularly those who aspire to greater things he has regressed down the road of dogma, intransigence and party political blindness. He supports Everton so his opinion on PSR is tainted. His arguments are weak, unsubstantiated and lack research on the subject. Not the person I remember. He conveniently ignores the fact, like most MP's do when wanting to get their own view across, that Everton are part of the EPL club who voted for PSR and are required to abide by EPL rule 50, the disciplinary process. History and size mean little when you apply the rules as our neighbours have found out to their cost. Suppose being economical with the truth is preparation for the ensuing general election later this year.

As a footnote having just read what he actually said today his ignorance of the process is illustrated in his comment the PSR disciplinary process should be independent of the EPL. It is!! Its an Independent Commission selected by an independent chairman based on legal principle ffs!

Calling for it to be dealt with by an Independent Regulator makes no difference they'd still appoint the same type of body to adjudicate.

 

[Bladesman]

I worked with Andy Burnham on a Committee when he first came into politics. Bright, articulate, innovative, willing to consider all points of view, untainted by the Westminister bubble. Exemplary in the support he gave the Hillsborough families.

Unfortunately as happens with all politicians particularly those who aspire to greater things he has regressed down the road of dogma, intransigence and party political blindness. He supports Everton so his opinion on PSR is tainted. His arguments are weak, unsubstantiated and lack research on the subject. Not the person I remember. He conveniently ignores the fact, like most MP's do when wanting to get their own view across, that Everton are part of the EPL club who voted for PSR and are required to abide by EPL rule 50, the disciplinary process. History and size mean little when you apply the rules as our neighbours have found out to their cost. Suppose being economical with the truth is preparation for the ensuing general election later this year.

As a footnote having just read what he actually said today his ignorance of the process is illustrated in his comment the PSR disciplinary process should be independent of the EPL. It is!! Its an Independent Commission selected by an independent chairman based on legal principle ffs!

Calling for it to be dealt with by an Independent Regulator makes no difference they'd still appoint the same type of body to adjudicate.

When he says independent panel I think he means a panel of Everton fans.

 

[ancientblade]

theres no way the premier league will allow everton to be relegated they want all the big clubs in there as do the media press and tv companies just the same as they wont relegate man city even though theyve broken more rules than any other club as for forest their laughing all the way to the bank 300m earned from the premier league broken the rules blatantly and docked a paltry 4 points the only way to stop this shambles is to make it clear any club breaking the financial fair play rules is automatically relegated if found guilty

 

[Silent Blade]

theres no way the premier league will allow everton to be relegated they want all the big clubs in there as do the media press and tv companies just the same as they wont relegate man city even though theyve broken more rules than any other club as for forest their laughing all the way to the bank 300m earned from the premier league broken the rules blatantly and docked a paltry 4 points the only way to stop this shambles is to make it clear any club breaking the financial fair play rules is automatically relegated if found guilty

The Independent panel will make the decision on Everton's points deduction, not the PL

 

[Silent Blade]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68580638