Forest docked 4 points for FFP breaches | Appeal unsuccessful

Reckon this is all being done with a view to the City charges. Something like 'look we've shown we take these breaches seriously, but Manchester City have shown us (brown envelope shaped) evidence to prove their innocence'
Even if City get punished (which I think they will eventually) it’ll be much milder than they deserve because they have to balance optics and keeping rich people happy.
 
The general reaction to the punishment from Forest fans is that it's less than they were expecting and they seem happy to accept it and move on. A complete contrast to the reaction by Everton fans!
 
Last edited:
I mean... that's what happens in life no? If you break the law, depending on the judge/jury you get, you might get a different sentence depending on the circumstances.

They are working on the same rulebook and seem to have a rationale for both decisions as posted by @mazhar13 so I'm not sure there's any reason for shock or outrage.

Not really in regards to shock/outrage. There wasn't anything to compare to for us aside from other charges for other cases like administration which was less than our original 10 points. Now for this charge there is something to compare it to (our original 10 points), yet Forest go ~31m over and we only go ~19m yet their charge is purely related to player trading...the nuances of how to handle this is a learning on the job process.

Let's also not pretend there isn't shock/outrage with how some criminal cases are dealt with in regards to lenient/harsher than expected sentencing.

It doesn't work to have different people deciding different interpretations of rules in this scenario.
 
4 points puts them below Luton town doesn't It? It all feels so arbitrary.

I can't help feeling that these punishments should ALL be dealt with pre season, and not in the middle of one. The one bonus being I expect this plays absolute chaos in the betting companies. feck them
 
Interesting that the written reasons suggest Atletico Madrid offered £42.7m for Johnson on 30th June which was the financial deadline. Forest countered for £55.6m and discussions went no further.

Brentford then made 3 lower offers of £32.5m, £35m and £40m weeks after!
 
Haha not quite my friend. They still have a much more favourable run in (we have Spurs, Arse, City away in the next four) and we also have like 10 players injured, playing with a RWB in LCB etc plus our captain and top scorer out for the season, both DMFs injured etc. It'll still take a lot of effort to avoid the drop.
 
Not really in regards to shock/outrage. There wasn't anything to compare to for us aside from other charges for other cases like administration which was less than our original 10 points. Now for this charge there is something to compare it to (our original 10 points), yet Forest go ~31m over and we only go ~19m yet their charge is purely related to player trading...the nuances of how to handle this is a learning on the job process.

Let's also not pretend there isn't shock/outrage with how some criminal cases are dealt with in regards to lenient/harsher than expected sentencing.

It doesn't work to have different people deciding different interpretations of rules in this scenario.
Honest question (just curious)… would you back rules that said something like;
  • Break the threshold AT ALL = 4 points
  • Every £10m above the threshold = 1 point
Personally, I struggle to have any sympathy with clubs who buy a gazillion new players then say they couldn’t sell one at the price they had in their heads so it’s not their fault.

I looked at a deal for a football club a while ago and it had a detailed cash flow and various assumptions (cup runs, promotion, play offs, players in/out, timings). All the stuff I’d expect to see for any club (actually any (well run) business) … a base cash flow, assumptions, milestones, triggers and Plan Bs/Cs/Ds if it goes wrong. It’s literally business basics
 
Haha not quite my friend. They still have a much more favourable run in (we have Spurs, Arse, City away in the next four) and we also have like 10 players injured, playing with a RWB in LCB etc plus our captain and top scorer out for the season, both DMFs injured etc. It'll still take a lot of effort to avoid the drop.
They’re never the games that decide 16th-20th though (.I.m.o)… home or away, points v those aren’t really expected. But you have Bournemouth, Fulham, Everton, Brentford, Wolves too.. a few at home.

Didn’t know about the injuries though, that might be a killer. That said, we played a right winger at LB and a 10 at CH yesterday ;)
 
They’re never the games that decide 16th-20th though (.I.m.o)… home or away, points v those aren’t really expected. But you have Bournemouth, Fulham, Everton, Brentford, Wolves too.. a few at home.

Didn’t know about the injuries though, that might be a killer. That said, we played a right winger at LB and a 10 at CH yesterday ;)
Good point! Hopefully we just get one of the DMFs back, that's been the biggest issue.
 
Honest question (just curious)… would you back rules that said something like;
  • Break the threshold AT ALL = 4 points
  • Every £10m above the threshold = 1 point
Personally, I struggle to have any sympathy with clubs who buy a gazillion new players then say they couldn’t sell one at the price they had in their heads so it’s not their fault.

I looked at a deal for a football club a while ago and it had a detailed cash flow and various assumptions (cup runs, promotion, play offs, players in/out, timings). All the stuff I’d expect to see for any club (actually any (well run) business) … a base cash flow, assumptions, milestones, triggers and Plan Bs/Cs/Ds if it goes wrong. It’s literally business basics

Yes, as long as there is a clear cut system of how points are docked.
 
In the appeal though they said we did actually in good faith and didn't supply anything with intention to deceive or whatever so it's all a bit of a mess and tit for tat because there is no general rule in place and instead it's being decided by different independent commissions. It's an awful fecking process and if the PL were trying to show that can deal with this stuff without a regulator then all they've done is more damage to their cause.
Sorry but the appeal IC didn’t say that at all. What they said was that the Commission was wrong when it said that Everton had been ” Less than Frank” indeed in the aggravating factors it , the appeal board , referred to the submission of “incorrect information “
The relevance was that a further charge would have had to be made by the PL (B15) but it wasn’t so the appeal concluded that the IC should not have even used the phrase let alone factored it in when determined the sanction
The Everton appeal basically has given a template which it seems that the Forest IC relied heavily on .in effect the entry point is 3 points deduction with a further 3 for a substantial breech ( north of £105 million) and that can be increased or decreased by way of mitigating factors and increased by aggravating factors .
Forest , it seems did nothing to delay the matter and had fully co operated even admitting the charge within days of it being issued.If you cast your mind back to the Everton case they initially denied .
Basically ever other of Forests claims to mitigation ( like Evertons ) were dismissed
 
Honest question (just curious)… would you back rules that said something like;
  • Break the threshold AT ALL = 4 points
  • Every £10m above the threshold = 1 point
Personally, I struggle to have any sympathy with clubs who buy a gazillion new players then say they couldn’t sell one at the price they had in their heads so it’s not their fault.

I looked at a deal for a football club a while ago and it had a detailed cash flow and various assumptions (cup runs, promotion, play offs, players in/out, timings). All the stuff I’d expect to see for any club (actually any (well run) business) … a base cash flow, assumptions, milestones, triggers and Plan Bs/Cs/Ds if it goes wrong. It’s literally business basics

If you break the threshold it is already an automatic 3 points.
 
Therefore 460 points deduction for City ?
 
The bottom 7 teams in the league have 4 wins total in the last 35 games...So any team putting any kind of run together can stay up... Including Forest, even with the points deduction.

I don' think the bottom teams in the league used to all be this bad?
 
I don't agree with punishments that take away points. I think it leaves room for corruption and fixing championships.

In defense of the EPL, other leagues, such as Serie A in Italy, do the same thing. But I think it enables corruption.

They could make alternative punishments, like forcing Forest to play more under-21s, for example.
 
I don't agree with punishments that take away points. I think it leaves room for corruption and fixing championships.

In defense of the EPL, other leagues, such as Serie A in Italy, do the same thing. But I think it enables corruption.

They could make alternative punishments, like forcing Forest to play more under-21s, for example.
Point deduction is the only way to get clubs to take notice. However I would have them start the next season they play in the PL with the deduction so that they know from the start what they need to do. I don’t think it’s fair to upset them at this stage of the season
 
Point deduction is the only way to get clubs to take notice. However I would have them start the next season they play in the PL with the deduction so that they know from the start what they need to do. I don’t think it’s fair to upset them at this stage of the season

In theory i like that idea because this will just change too many things for many teams during an ongoing season. But is that fair to the other teams? It could be that during this season Forest will be able to use a player that they could only get by breaking the rules. That player scores the goal that keeps them in the Premier League this year. Another club that didnt break the rules will relegate because of that goal by that player. Forest will get another year of PL money while that other club has to slog it out for atleast 46 matches in the Championship.
 
Its bizarre that their deduction is less than Evertons despite them being a lot more over the allowed losses than Everton were.
 
Its bizarre that their deduction is less than Evertons despite them being a lot more over the allowed losses than Everton were.

Because there isn't a clear cut rule which says you go over this limit you get this deduction, it's all based on recommendations. Hopefully the regulator introduces a rule or rules which changes this so it's fairer and reduces as much subjectivity as possible which I think is what Everton fans currently feel aggrieved by in each case.
 
Because there isn't a clear cut rule which says you go over this limit you get this deduction, it's all based on recommendations. Hopefully the regulator introduces a rule or rules which changes this so it's fairer and reduces as much subjectivity as possible which I think is what Everton fans currently feel aggrieved by in each case.

It wouldnt suprise me if the FA exercised tgeir right of appeal as 4 seems too lenient, Newcastle might as well just forget FFP and go and spend a billion in the summer window if all they are going to get is a 4 point deduction which would hardly affect them.
 
What a player this lad is, do we need another 10 though?

Edit - Also a Utd supporter
To be fair it`s probably far down the pecking order with Mount back as possible cover for Bruno. I am however one of those with the opinion that as long as Bruno is our sole nr 10, as much as he contributes to our present form of play, we will struggle to truly dominate games the way Liverpool, City and Arsenal have been doing.
 
Because there isn't a clear cut rule which says you go over this limit you get this deduction, it's all based on recommendations. Hopefully the regulator introduces a rule or rules which changes this so it's fairer and reduces as much subjectivity as possible which I think is what Everton fans currently feel aggrieved by in each case.
But why is subjectivity, notably with regards to cooperation with the authorities, a bad thing?

Absolutely all regulators work on that basis - BNPP got a 9bn USD fine 10 years back because they tried to obfuscate and hide things from the regulator, in the same way that companies with similar infringements got more lenient sanctions because of their cooperation.

It's absurd to think a system with "objective criteria" would be a better thing, it's a fallacy and from a practical view, it's impossible.
 
But why is subjectivity, notably with regards to cooperation with the authorities, a bad thing?

Absolutely all regulators work on that basis - BNPP got a 9bn USD fine 10 years back because they tried to obfuscate and hide things from the regulator, in the same way that companies with similar infringements got more lenient sanctions because of their cooperation.

It's absurd to think a system with "objective criteria" would be a better thing, it's a fallacy and from a practical view, it's impossible.

Because it's not just impacting Everton or Forest but it's impacting the other clubs who could be relegated, winning titles, getting into Europe, other financial deals etc etc. It means that you have consistent appeals and ongoing cases throughout seasons which go from 10 point deductions and then reduced to 6 points deductions etc., and a big cycle of sueing and arguing. If you have a cut and dry rule which states if you break this rule you get an -insert number here- point deduction, it makes everything a lot simpler and easier to navigate the follow on.

You could have people arguing that Forest didn't cooperate with authorities or the PL though since they knew that not selling Johnson before 30th June would be a problem and therefore knew they were likely to break rules yet did it anyway so not exactly acting in good faith, but yet we are then arguing they acted in good faith by admitting guilt of stuff and being up front about it. It's all just really weird and it's much simpler in footballing terms and for the leagues to reduce subjectivity as much as possible.
 
If you have a cut and dry rule which states if you break this rule you get an -insert number here- point deduction, it makes everything a lot simpler and easier to navigate the follow on.
If you truly believe this to be the case, and believe this is a possibility, then there's really no point on carrying on discussing this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Stan Collymore is a regular studio guest/pundit on Canal+ Football in France - I still haven't worked out why - especially as he doesn't speak French and they have to translate everything he says, which is usually nonsense.

I think they have to translate everything he says on Talksport too, which coincidently is also usually nonsense.
 
The timing isn't great by any means...no doubt Forrest will appeal and the season will be over in no time, leaving everyone at the bottom in the lurch.

There is something to be said for punishing teams from the start of the following season, or have a limit on the appeal timeframe or something.
 
The timing isn't great by any means...no doubt Forrest will appeal and the season will be over in no time, leaving everyone at the bottom in the lurch.

There is something to be said for punishing teams from the start of the following season, or have a limit on the appeal timeframe or something.

Sounds like they're gonna Rock the Boat