Forest deducted four points

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


It will be interesting if they appeal.

If they decide to appeal and not abide by the decision then in my view they should immediately lose the 2 points they got back for cooperating.

I don’t agree with reducing points through cooperation. You have rules, you are expected to comply. You’re not doing someone a favour by doing that. If you’re being obstructive, then you should be punished further.

But if Forest want to bank those 2 points they should be deterred from appealing. You can’t very well get 2 points back for respecting the process and then being allowed to throw your toys at the last minute because you can’t accept the outcome.

It should be a full appeal for both parties. A different panel, with the possibility of an increase as well as a decrease. None of there appealing with only an upside as a possible outcome.
 
sheffieldred said:
Yeah. Not saying that it means we shouldve spent what we have. But it shows something about the disparity for teams coming up.

Yours would've been similar in 2019.
Click to expand...
But it wasnt. How do we know? We didn't have an investigation or points deduction.

All this has shown is... take a massive 500m loan, spend it all on a squad and take a 4/6 point deduction in 3 years time when you're comfortable in mid table.

It's an absolute joke.

Anyone caught cheating should just get automatic relegation. That's the only way to stop clubs doing it.
 
Inter_blade83 said:
But it wasnt. How do we know? We didn't have an investigation or points deduction.

All this has shown is... take a massive 500m loan, spend it all on a squad and take a 4/6 point deduction in 3 years time when you're comfortable in mid table.

It's an absolute joke.

Anyone caught cheating should just get automatic relegation. That's the only way to stop clubs doing it.
Click to expand...
True,West Ham got away with illegally accumulated players without even a points deduction in 2007,they should have been relegated.Breaching FFP is just another way of illegally accumulated players when others are playing by the rules.
 
Inter_blade83 said:
But it wasnt. How do we know? We didn't have an investigation or points deduction.

All this has shown is... take a massive 500m loan, spend it all on a squad and take a 4/6 point deduction in 3 years time when you're comfortable in mid table.

It's an absolute joke.

Anyone caught cheating should just get automatic relegation. That's the only way to stop clubs doing it.
Click to expand...
I was just meaning that back then you probably came up with a squad that was assembled for a lot less than most of the other teams in the league.

It is a bit of a conundrum in the wider sense for Premier league and the rules change for next season anyway.

Personally i reckon the reduction of 6 to 4 and the leniency point is directly linked to the stuff Shay Given is ralking about. Take the 4 points so it can be done before the end of the season.
 
sheffieldred said:
I was just meaning that back then you probably came up with a squad that was assembled for a lot less than most of the other teams in the league.

It is a bit of a conundrum in the wider sense for Premier league and the rules change for next season anyway.

Personally i reckon the reduction of 6 to 4 and the leniency point is directly linked to the stuff Shay Given is ralking about. Take the 4 points so it can be done before the end of the season.
Click to expand...
On June 30th, 2019 our squad had cost around £9m. Nearly half of that was on John Egan (£4m) with a futher £2m on Oli Norwood. The only other players to have cost us anything were Lundstram (£700k), Stearman (£600k), Sharp (£500k), O'Connell (£400k), Moore (£250k), Baldock (£250k), Lavery (£100k) and Clarke (£50k). During the season we'd sold Leonard and Evans for a profit of over £1m between them.
 
Blacksea said:
Click to expand...

I still can’t believe how grown adults can write a set of dos and don’ts but not outline expressively what the punishments are for the don’ts,

It should be very simple - period starts here and ends there; anything outside of that period isn’t factored in.

Here is your target. For every 1m, 2m, 5m you go beyond that target you lose a point.

If you’re late to provide figures you get fined by how much per day or you provide inaccuracies then you get fined for by how much per day to put them right.

This isn’t part of the original offense you are trying to regulate. You certainly don’t start adding or subtracting points from the final punishment based on friendly relations and timeliness of bookkeeping.

There are few mitigating circumstances if any. You get your house in order according to that and that’s it.

You don’t need committees and cases being put forward.
 
The fans of teams that should be most upset are Leicester and Leeds. If Forest and Everton had obeyed the rules theyd almost certainly have stayed up last season.
There really is no easy answer to it though. As has been said many times, promoted clubs now have to spend a huge amount to even have a chance of surviving meaning they will break PSR and so get a points deduction sometime in the future. Seemingly now a measly one that does not offset the benefit of purchasing the players but does mean you get the many millions for remaining in the Premier League.

PSR was meant to protect clubs from overspeanding, but it's really protecting the 'big' teams for challenges for other clubs who might have very rich owners but not the resources and infrastructure to stay with PSR whilst trying to challenge.
Even Villa and Newcastle are about to fail to meet it supposedly, which why Archer was 'sold'.

I'm starting to think we do away with PSR and just let clubs spend what they want. It could put badly run clubs in trouble, but those clubs will probably ignore the rules and be in trouble anyway, and it would also allow countries to buy a club and just spend huge amounts so distorting the market but the current model just ensures the status quo and that promoted teams will really struggle.

The current model of English football is fundamentally broken and I can't see a solution tbh. Impose spending restrictions and clubs will break them, especially if weak punishments whilst effectively keeping the status quo in the league and giving promoted teams a massive disadvantage, don't impose any and clubs with either put themselves in trouble or clubs like City and Newcastle will spend amounts that make the gap at the top even wider and inflate player prices and wages.
 
Should simplify the punishments, include it in black and white, you are deducted .5 of a point for every million over P&S you are, so Forest being 30 million over would be 15 points, Make the punishment harsh if you want P&S to be respected
 
FredZeppelin said:
Zero tolerance is the only way forward. You overspend, you're down.
It's the ultimate deterrent and would scare the shit out of any team thinking about cheating, which is what Forest have done in this period and, what they really are. Cheats.

utb
Click to expand...
Sounds good in theory but isn't going to happen. It would need 14 clubs to agree to it, plus there could be a situation very soon where quite a large number of clubs could fail PSR, including Villa, Wolves, Newcastle, Chelsea, Forest, Everton and a few others. No way are all those clubs being relegated.

It would also distort the Football League even more. Any team that has overspent to stay in the Premier League without being relegated won't have much trouble re-gaining promotion. Some might even see it as a risk worth taking. One year in the Championship winning every game with a very good team to get promoted again.
 
FFP as it's run in England is absolutely farcical

Punishments shouldn't be after the event, the EPL and EFL should be proactive, as the league is in Spain.

It's hard for me to believe the Spanish have things more organised but for several years now they've set the spending limits prior to the start of the season for each club based on their income and liabilities.

It was this policy that caught Barcelona's phenomenal overspend and meant they had no option but to say goodbye to Messi - and several others.

How it can be beyond the wit of football authorities to do something similar in England I cannot imagine. Instead we're once again stuck with this byzantine circus
 

It does need an overhaul that's for sure.

I tend to agree with letting people spend their cash by gifting it to the club. Putting too many regulations around it creates a game of find the loophole. DC taxis was it?

Since football began, those with the deepest pockets will have on average been nearer the top.
 
The sooner there is live tracking of financial data the better. I don't buy into the whole concept of a certain allocated amount of points deducted for x amount overspent. That's like telling a crack head it's 5 days in prison for nicking a Rolex. More specifically, telling teams awaiting promotion that they can smash 30 million over their FFP with a punishment of a measly 4 points if they cooperate in their investigation. Any 30m striker worth his weight in spunk should be able to at least grab you 10 points a season on his own. You legitimately know it's a farce with florest fans celebrating just 4 points.

If there's live tracking of financial data and in my opinion, requiring 3rd party approval for a transfer via an independent regulator, they can simply deny any transfer that would take them over their FFP limitations. Cut out the ability to overspend entirely.
 
If I forget our defence and our issues I cant help but look at the table and think..
We COULD ya know 😯
 
At what point dues it become league manipulation?

It’s a joke really.

Probs deductions applied out season and only on the coming season.
 
Balham Blade said:
On June 30th, 2019 our squad had cost around £9m. Nearly half of that was on John Egan (£4m) with a futher £2m on Oli Norwood. The only other players to have cost us anything were Lundstram (£700k), Stearman (£600k), Sharp (£500k), O'Connell (£400k), Moore (£250k), Baldock (£250k), Lavery (£100k) and Clarke (£50k). During the season we'd sold Leonard and Evans for a profit of over £1m between them.
Click to expand...

JOC £400k - could almost make you weep when you consider what we've spent in recent years and what we've had back for it.
 
sheepbridge said:
The fans of teams that should be most upset are Leicester and Leeds. If Forest and Everton had obeyed the rules theyd almost certainly have stayed up last season.
There really is no easy answer to it though. As has been said many times, promoted clubs now have to spend a huge amount to even have a chance of surviving meaning they will break PSR and so get a points deduction sometime in the future. Seemingly now a measly one that does not offset the benefit of purchasing the players but does mean you get the many millions for remaining in the Premier League.

PSR was meant to protect clubs from overspeanding, but it's really protecting the 'big' teams for challenges for other clubs who might have very rich owners but not the resources and infrastructure to stay with PSR whilst trying to challenge.
Even Villa and Newcastle are about to fail to meet it supposedly, which why Archer was 'sold'.

I'm starting to think we do away with PSR and just let clubs spend what they want. It could put badly run clubs in trouble, but those clubs will probably ignore the rules and be in trouble anyway, and it would also allow countries to buy a club and just spend huge amounts so distorting the market but the current model just ensures the status quo and that promoted teams will really struggle.

The current model of English football is fundamentally broken and I can't see a solution tbh. Impose spending restrictions and clubs will break them, especially if weak punishments whilst effectively keeping the status quo in the league and giving promoted teams a massive disadvantage, don't impose any and clubs with either put themselves in trouble or clubs like City and Newcastle will spend amounts that make the gap at the top even wider and inflate player prices and wages.
Click to expand...


If the punishment was strong enough (relegation) or a point per £ over then it would make breaking the rules daft. As such the rules are not set in stone. So it actually makes some clubs think it's worth the risk.

Is the regulator going to set a maximum price for a match ticket or drink/meal?

How about a wage cap. Is that on the table? After all players wages are why most clubs find themselves in trouble.
 
Balham Blade said:
On June 30th, 2019 our squad had cost around £9m. Nearly half of that was on John Egan (£4m) with a futher £2m on Oli Norwood. The only other players to have cost us anything were Lundstram (£700k), Stearman (£600k), Sharp (£500k), O'Connell (£400k), Moore (£250k), Baldock (£250k), Lavery (£100k) and Clarke (£50k). During the season we'd sold Leonard and Evans for a profit of over £1m between them.
Click to expand...

It was even more stark. Egan was 3.5 million and Norwood 1.2 million (both prices revealed by CW). We sold Brooks for over 10 million, made substantial profits on Leonard and Evans (as you point out). In the League one season we made substantial money on the sales of Calvert Lewin, Ramsdale and Che Adams and banked substantial sell ins including the Walker money (when he moved to Man City).

Our second seasons expenditure was predicated on an FA Cup quarter final and 9th place Prem prize money the year before.

Now we have this little thing called wages. Forest's wage bill when promoted was around 60 million including bonuses. Their wage bill sans bonuses was substantially higher than United's sans bonuses...
When we came down our wages were around 25 million lower than the second lowest team (Burnley's). Forest's will be substantially higher than both given the cast of "names" they've had. It wouldn't surprise me if it was double United's relegation wage bill.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
steve26272 said:
this is almost rewarding cheating

23/24 £131m spent on 17 players (net spend £50m)
22/23 £195m, 29 players (£190m net)
21/22 £7m, 17 players (£6m net)

So in last 3 years they’ve seen 63 new faces, with a net spend of £327m for only 4 points

I like to take the moral high ground, but if a rich owner comes in and says yeah fuck it, huge squad overhaul, daft wages, spunkin £300+m and they want to dock me 4 measly points in 3 years time?
View attachment 180742
Click to expand...
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
 
Just relieved none of this affects us this time. We will do well to get to 23 pts as we did in 20/21 relegation season.

However, it is a similar shambles to our West Ham ‘Tevez’ screw by the Premier League. You can almost predict that the points deductions (or appeals) will massively impact on Luton’s position come the end of the season.
 
nopigfansintown said:
It was even more stark. Egan was 3.5 million and Norwood 1.2 million (both prices revealed by CW).
Click to expand...
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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

originaltrueblade
Now this comes as no surprise
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
Numpty's Dusty Ruts.
N
Fjortoft's Aeroplane
30 points
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Sheffsteel
Sheffsteel
C
Why would Premier League punish Forest for being big club again?
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
10K
CityInPeace
C
B
Pundits not even hiding that they want us relegated…
2 3
Replies
60
Views
5K
biggiesablade
B
Overthehills
Another nail in the PL coffin...
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
5K
JJBlade
JJBlade

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