Forest deducted four points

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Silent Blade said:
Why Sky? The PL wanted Everton to have 12 points deduction
Click to expand...
just think that sky sports have a big influence on the premier league silent but only my opinion in any case dont think everton will go down think theyve enough to keep em up think im just biased against everton can never forget the goodison result against wimbledon on last day 94 imo the biggest fix in football history how hans segers got away with it i will never know
 
I’m honestly so fucked of with the fans of Everton, Scabs and now Leicester, it’s fucking simple:
These are the rules voted by you, you all knew exactly what they were, you gained and are still have an advantage over little old teams like ours.
I do not give a flying fuck how badly treated & how unfair you feel about it, just fuck off you whinging cunts, it’s only took this for you to realise the league is biased towards the bigger clubs, only now you worry about it because your position is sort of under threat, but you’re still got the better players, playing them in the relegation battle.
I don’t think they’ve gone nearly as far as they should, 1 season of teams being automatically relegated would resolve this shit straight away, and players listed in their playing squad should be banned from playing for the rest of the season to level up the playing field.
If we’d ever done this I’d expect everything that was thrown at us and rightly so, look at the stick we took for being late on a payment for a player, again we deserved it .
 
Addison said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know there is this reference to the EFL constantly with insolvency being 10 pts and it being 9 in EPL but no one every points out that the EPL deduction is actually more severe due to them playing 38 games in the EPL against 46 in the EFL. If anything, the sanction in the EPL should be more not in line with the EFL.
 
what baffles me now is the word on the street is Everton are to get another points taken away before the season ends as theyve broken the rules once again,
but I thought the punishments tariff went up for repeat offenders , not down
to get 10 reduced to 6 on the first inability to stay within the rules , being cut by 33% for offending again seems illogical
 
However, Sky Sports report that Forest have already been informed that it is highly unlikely they will see a harsher point penalty implemented than the one they already face. Forest can expect their case to be heard within the next three weeks, before the April 12 deadline.

Nothing to lose for appealing then , have they ?
 
I was under the impression the points deduction was reduced because they co-operated, accepted they'd breached the rules and that a deduction was fair? So surely the fact they're now appealing the incredibly lenient deduction should void that "good behaviour" and the full deduction should be back on the table?

Although, having said that I suppose in all fairness...


Actually nah, fuck that. Triple it. Wankers.
 
It’s absolute bollocks. Let’s be honest. No one outside the big 6 can do anything anymore. Villa, Newcastle. Probably even Bournemouth and Forest are completely hamstrung if their owner wants to put cash in or show some ambition. We’d be the same. It just adds to the status quo. Football is boring.
 
Gin&Juice said:
It’s absolute bollocks. Let’s be honest. No one outside the big 6 can do anything anymore. Villa, Newcastle. Probably even Bournemouth and Forest are completely hamstrung if their owner wants to put cash in or show some ambition. We’d be the same. It just adds to the status quo. Football is boring.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t it mean that the clubs outside the top 6/7 can now compete with each other to remain in the PL on a more level field ?
 
Snowflake said:
Doesn’t it mean that the clubs outside the top 6/7 can now compete with each other to remain in the PL on a more level field ?
Click to expand...
Probably not, as the likes of Everton, Newcastle, West Ham etc will always have a higher turnover than the likes of us, therefore can always spend more. All it does really is keep the top clubs as the top clubs.

The only way to solve the problems in football is to have a salary cap that's the same for everyone. We know it'll never happen.
 

Working Class Hero said:
Probably not, as the likes of Everton, Newcastle, West Ham etc will always have a higher turnover than the likes of us, therefore can always spend more. All it does really is keep the top clubs as the top clubs.

The only way to solve the problems in football is to have a salary cap that's the same for everyone. We know it'll never happen.
Click to expand...
Yet look at the fuss when the big boys fancied a Super League.
 
Working Class Hero said:
The only way to solve the problems in football is to have a salary cap that's the same for everyone. We know it'll never happen.
Click to expand...
Different caps for different leagues of course. You're right, the rich / successful clubs will never agree to effectively leveling the playing field. They'd say 'The EPL is such a successful product because the world's best players come here. A salary cap would mean that they will go elsewhere and devalue the product'. My response would be 'tough shit. People's interest in the PL isn't based on how much players earn. Above all they want to see competitive games.Many of the world's top players will come here regardless.'
 
Pegster said:
However, Sky Sports report that Forest have already been informed that it is highly unlikely they will see a harsher point penalty implemented than the one they already face. Forest can expect their case to be heard within the next three weeks, before the April 12 deadline.

Nothing to lose for appealing then , have they ?
Click to expand...
Why would you not appeal with that stupid rider attached?

It should be a complete reevaluation of all evidence and if they then decide it’s 10 points then tough.

Nonsense to have an appeal that can only go one way.
 
MobileBlade said:
I know there is this reference to the EFL constantly with insolvency being 10 pts and it being 9 in EPL but no one every points out that the EPL deduction is actually more severe due to them playing 38 games in the EPL against 46 in the EFL. If anything, the sanction in the EPL should be more not in line with the EFL.
Click to expand...
The equation of insolvency and P&S is slightly odd on one level.

EFL has -12 for each at the top end of FFP but it can do go -21 with Aggravating Factors- FFP I mean.

The arguments by the Panel in th4 Nottingham Forest case were odd. If they've imported EFL Provisions as they did with Everton turn a £15m overspend=12 points.

It's about 40% of the £39m threshold. Nottingham Forest was at least 40%. 12 points mins 2 for the excellent behaviour or pro rata at minimum 10 points minus 2 for excellent behaviour.

Even that notwithstanding it feels at least 2-3 light.
 
CityInPeace said:
The equation of insolvency and P&S is slightly odd on one level.

EFL has -12 for each at the top end of FFP but it can do go -21 with Aggravating Factors- FFP I mean.

The arguments by the Panel in th4 Nottingham Forest case were odd. If they've imported EFL Provisions as they did with Everton turn a £15m overspend=12 points.

It's about 40% of the £39m threshold. Nottingham Forest was at least 40%. 12 points mins 2 for the excellent behaviour or pro rata at minimum 10 points minus 2 for excellent behaviour.

Even that notwithstanding it feels at least 2-3 light.
Click to expand...
It’s going to end up being one win chalked off or a win that becomes a draw.

What a ridiculously low-ball punishment for a complete lack of discipline. So contrary to what the actual aim was.
 
Pegster said:
However, Sky Sports report that Forest have already been informed that it is highly unlikely they will see a harsher point penalty implemented than the one they already face. Forest can expect their case to be heard within the next three weeks, before the April 12 deadline.

Nothing to lose for appealing then , have they ?
Click to expand...
Sky sports knowing the outcome before the appeal is worrying
 
Dkc said:
Different caps for different leagues of course. You're right, the rich / successful clubs will never agree to effectively leveling the playing field. They'd say 'The EPL is such a successful product because the world's best players come here. A salary cap would mean that they will go elsewhere and devalue the product'. My response would be 'tough shit. People's interest in the PL isn't based on how much players earn. Above all they want to see competitive games.Many of the world's top players will come here regardless.'
Click to expand...
Also the fact is that it's only the top 6 that buy the top players anyway. It wouldn't affect the rest at all.

In fact, we could end up watching better players at Bramall Lane if we did have a salary cap, as we might be able to hang around in the top flight for more than 5 minutes!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dkc
1973Blade said:
Does this us any hope?!
www.theguardian.com

Nottingham Forest docked four points for Premier League financial rules breach

Nottingham Forest have received a four-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I don't think there should be ANY points deductions mid-season, it feels corrupt. And the season should be based on teams playing each other and winning points, not this bunch of weak willies playing around with the points so they look like they are doing something but without risking too much controversy.

If we believe teams that spend more should be handicapped to level the playing field, why not do that? Man City start the season on -12 points, SUFC and Luton start the season on +12, that would level things up a bit! (we'd still get relegated this season though!)
 
corner_flag said:
I don't think there should be ANY points deductions mid-season, it feels corrupt. And the season should be based on teams playing each other and winning points, not this bunch of weak willies playing around with the points so they look like they are doing something but without risking too much controversy.

If we believe teams that spend more should be handicapped to level the playing field, why not do that? Man City start the season on -12 points, SUFC and Luton start the season on +12, that would level things up a bit! (we'd still get relegated this season though!)
Click to expand...
It’s a great idea but unfortunately those at the top aren’t here to improve the competitiveness, they’re just here to line their own pockets, they don’t give two shits what they’re doing to our game.
 
MobileBlade said:
I know there is this reference to the EFL constantly with insolvency being 10 pts and it being 9 in EPL but no one every points out that the EPL deduction is actually more severe due to them playing 38 games in the EPL against 46 in the EFL. If anything, the sanction in the EPL should be more not in line with the EFL.
Click to expand...
Sanctions in the EPL should be higher than the EFL due to the significant revenue disparity imo. PSR was instigated to police financial mis management. The EPL board pleaded in Everton their draft sanctions should be applied. The EPL asked for -12 points. -10 for the offence (6 minimum plus 4 for the near £20m overspend) and a further 2 for non co-operation. The Independent Commission (IC) awarded a - 10 point deduction yet failed to provide reasons. That enabled the Appeals Panel(AP) to drive a coach and horses through the decision referencing EFL's rules which had a sanctions matrix written into them unlike the EPL.

30 EFL clubs have gone into administration since 2004 when points deductions were first implemented for insolvency. In 2009 the only EPL insolvency, Portsmouth, occurred. - 9 points were allocated by an IC based on the premise a lower figure for 38 games as opposed to the 46 in the EFL with the EFL sanction being set at -10 up to -12.

The current IC hearings are benchmarks for future cases as precedent is limited. Everton IC gave the AP a tap in. They rightly concluded insolvency was a more serious offence so the sanction could not be more than - 9. They alluded to precedent set in our neighbours case " points deductions for sporting advantages of this nature" and plucked out of thin air a reduction down to -6 points in line with that ruling. Again no methodology written into the decision.

The parties in Florist went full circle concentrating sanctions pleadings on the EFL matrix. The EPL proposed a formula with a starting point of -3 points(EFL matrix). This set Florist with -8 reduced down to -6 for cooperation. Florist IC disregarded the EPL's calculation and double discounted Florists cooperation resulting in a figure of -4.

Current case law has set the bar at -3 points minimum for a breach. It makes a mockery of PSR if Florist are able to reduce the penalty even further on appeal. Ignore the barrack room lawyers who are spouting rubbish that Florist have been told they will not receive an increase in points deducted if they appeal. That pre empts legal principle and will not be looked on favourably by any credible KC adjudicating as the AP chairman. A rigorous defence of PSR pleading Florists breach was more serious being £15m more than Everton must be a minimum requirement for EPL counsel. Reference to the original IC's error in double discounting, ergo the sanction should be increased to -6 not reduced below-4. Anything less and the whole process will need to be consigned to the dustbin.

The EPL if they incorporated their sanctions matrix into disciplinary rule 50 would provide clarity for future IC's. My recommendation increase insolvency to -15 to reflect the present day revenue flowing into the league. No EPL club should ever go to the wall. Sanctions matrix minimum breach at -6 increasing to a maximum of -12. That change is unlikely to happen .The members all 20 of them are feeling bruised at the moment. They never envisaged points deductions would be implemented and they are now looking to adopt an adapted UEFA model which favours the top 6 in terms of increased spending.

Whether the EPL have the appetite for propping up a failing PSR model will be reflected in their pleadings at the ensuing 2 hearings. Failure to pursue an increase in the Florist penalty on appeal will confirm they have conceded the current process is dead in the water.
 
Bladey_blade said:
Sky sports knowing the outcome before the appeal is worrying
Click to expand...
It really does make you wonder what goes on behind the scenes . Remember Chancer , at a fans forum , years ago , claiming he was owed favours from ' the powers above ' ( or words to that effect ) to rapturous applause from the clapping seals in attendance !!
 
jt64 said:
I must have missed the point where they say how many points they will have deducted after the appeal, please can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Pegster said:
However, Sky Sports report that Forest have already been informed that it is highly unlikely they will see a harsher point penalty implemented than the one they already face. Forest can expect their case to be heard within the next three weeks, before the April 12 deadline.

Nothing to lose for appealing then , have they ?
 

Shit show.
No fucker knows what the punishments are, as there is no logic applied at all.
Brown envelope-o-rama, whilst those who follow the rules get shat on from a great height :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Westran
Promoted teams and points deductions
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
YES Blade
YES Blade
originaltrueblade
Now this comes as no surprise
2
Replies
57
Views
6K
Numpty's Dusty Ruts.
N
Kenny Powers
Transfer strategy
Replies
21
Views
1K
Alex Cheeseright
Alex Cheeseright
Fjortoft's Aeroplane
30 points
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
Rufus Smalls
Rufus Smalls
Tony Currie
Everton - could be further nine points on entering Administration
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
dn5 shaun
dn5 shaun

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom