I'd be surprised if they managed to claw back any points...if they do then I'd be fuming if I were us as it feels like the mitigating factors were all addressed in their first hearing and based somewhat on our hearing and appeal.
Forest docked 4 points for FFP breaches
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
Sentencing guidelines are standard, even used in the football league. Practically they are used for consistency in sentencing(think speeding punishments or any other offence really). It sums up the process that there is none, and this is how you end up with things like ~ double the breach 40% the punishment for Forest.
Interestingly there has been 3 cases. 1st Everton case appealed 2nd they found themselves to have made legal and judgemental errors. Including overturning that we did not act in good faith. 3rd case Forest relied heavily on good faith.
They also noted that in the absence of sentencing guidelines they should use EFL as precedent however it would not be an exact transformation. Everton argued for the same punishment as the break away teams got as precedent.
How Forest got 4 for purposely breaking the rules, when Everton got done for interest on a stadium is astonishing. Especially considering a lot of emphasis was on “sporting advantage”. As for their appeal, who knows what happens with these corrupt Kangaroo courts.
The most hard done by club in all the land. Poor likkle Forest.
There should be extra punishment if teams appeal without any grounds for said appeal. I think 4 points is a gift for a blatant and acknowledged breaking of the rules.
+2 points if the grounds for appeal are found to be frivolous.
+2 points if the grounds for appeal are found to be frivolous.
Any rules in force in the PL were decided by the clubs - including Everton. The fact they didn't establish stringent guidelines was exactly for this - to allow for subjectivity and case by case decisions.
They did vote for FFP. I haven’t got a full record of all votes for rule amendments.
I’m not sure if they voted in favour of the rule change for infrastructure projects for example. The rules are changing again. Presumably because the current set Everton are getting done twice by are inadequate.
Funnily enough they tried to install a stringent sanctions policy case 1# 6 points for initial breach then 1 point for each 5m over. 13 points for Forest then?. Then they deferred to loose transformation of EFL guidelines case 2# then abandoned that case 3# there must be rules / laws on fair treatment.
I think as the process matures they will introduce a sanctions policy like UEFA, EFL & American sports.
I honestly don't even understand the point you're trying to make
I hope they get the points deduction increased - they got off very lightly in the first place. I see they also briefed sky sports that they don't expect any increase due to the appeal but this can't be coming from the EPL side as they wouldn't have even appointed the members of the appeal panel yet. I guess that's how you operate when your club is run by an alleged gangster with an alleged murky past though - rules don't apply....
I can understand why but this is clearly looking through Everton Tinted Glasses.
1) The IC actually didn’t say that Everton “ Acted in Good Faith “ which is the narrative that many ,including the club, seem to have concluded or imply from the written reasons . Far from it what the IC actually says is that as the PL had not charged Everton with “ Not acting in utmost good faith” it was not for the first IC to make a judgement either on such an accusation.
2) The IC stated that the reporting of incorrect information around stadium interest was an aggravating factor. ( see 1 above)
3) Everton had and still have significant debt that isn’t stadium related . Borrowings for just normal cash flow run into tens, no hundreds of millions. These borrowings were obtained for specific purposes and that was not for funding the Stadium. That fact was in the paperwork the PL had sight of very late in the day and it wasn’t a case of Everton getting”done for stadium interest” is was the fact that the PL made the call, supported by both the IC and the appeal board that such interest wasn’t an allowable deduction.
4) The appeal IC took a view about using the EFL regime as a template that differed from the original commissions interpretation of matters . Which is correct ? It’s just a s possible that any future IC will view things completely differently .
5 ) Ironically Forest’s arguments seem to be that Everton’s first breech pro rata was worse than Everton’s , Everton’s to agree to argue the polar opposite. Which is correct ? It’s all about opinions.
6) Evertons appeal ruled 6 points was correct with no mitigation factors appropriate. Forests again ruled 6 but benefited from two points deduction in respect of mitigating factors. Will those two points be withdrawn in full or in part at appeal or will the get even more allowances?
7) Sky are stating that the IC appeal won’t/ can’t increase Forests point deduction.That no doubt is a view put forward by an expert the problem is that the IC will form their own view and I can’t see at this time how any sane person would be trying to second guess matters
Oh and when it comes to the six clubs that signed up for the SL. Under the rules in place at the time point can you point to a rule that the clubs were in breech of ? Some Point to acting in good faith or bringing the game into disrepute and maybe but the reality is to prove either would become a clear battlefield based on no clear definition and We see just how complex matters can become when things aren’t clearly defined
Last edited:
With regards to the bolded, I heard on a podcast the other day that basically because the accounting period for Forest included 1 or 2 seasons in League 1, their cap was obviously lower than the 105m PL clubs get over 3 seasons, and they argued that while the amount that they exceeded their cap was bigger, the overall amount was much lower than Everton's and that the panel shouldn't focus so much on the amount they exceeded it by and should focus on the merits of each case or something, which the panel agreed with.
1) they charged us with not acting in good faith then decided that was legal / judgemental error. What other types of faith is there? Why were we not assessed for the same entitlement of reduction? intentional breach from Forest is not good faith either!
2) Everton made a technical error on interest payments Forest intentionally breached.
3) This is factually incorrect without stadium interest we would not have breached. Else is irrelevant. The rules also changed mid cycle for infastructure.
4) cases should set precedent.
5) Forest breach was 77% higher than Everton's. There was a clear and obvious sporting advantage v Everton stadium build. Their lower allowance is due to championship revenue, did they cheat in the championship as well judged over 3 years? If they went down finaces would have been at huge risk. Rules are rules. There breach / loses larger % revenue.
6) They ignored ignored multiple mitigations from Everton: Stadium, player x, Ukraine war loss of revenue. and did not giive us to the same mitgation as Forest 1).
7) Who knows what will happen they are corrupt.
3 "independent" commisions. Legal errors, 3 inconsistent methods. These are facts.
As for the SL punishment must have broke a rule otherwise they wouldn't have been fined.
Last edited:
1) The PL didn’t charge Everton with” Not acting in Good Faith “ that’s the very essence of the issue .The IC wasn’t there to judge on matters not before it. So simply put the IC appeal said that formed grounds for appeal.
2) The appeal quoted Everton who offered up the submissions in respect of Stadium Interest was “ objectively misleading “ both the first IC and the appeal IC saw what Everton called a pitch as an aggravating factor.
3) The rules re interest didn’t change . Everton’s misleading PSR submission meant that initially the PL accepted the sums re stadium interest but that changed once the loan documents showed that they weren’t granted to facilitate the stadium build. The changes to rules re infrastructure were granted following representations from Everton in terms of not being able to capitalise sums prior to planning consent.
4) That’s what following the Everton appeal you are close to. The fact that the Everton appeal is mentioned so often in the Forest written reasons makes it clear that the second case was very much influenced by “ precedent “ Subjective calls around mitigation and aggravation will always lead to the view that there isn’t consistency .
5) Forest believe that the promotion bonus paid to their staff was a mitigating factor. I can’t see that nor do I think that the claim around the date they sold Johnson will hold any more weight on appeal.
6) Both the IC and appeal dismissed Evertons claims for mitigation most were pretty light weight . For instance there was absolutely no certainty that they would have been successful in any legal proceedings against player X particularly as he was never charged or found guilty in a court of law. so how could a sum be allowed on a maybe but even then it was Everton’s call not to issue legal proceedings. Ukraine loss of income there was absolutely no contractual evidence that up to 21/22 Everton lost any income. Indeed had the owner signed off agreements with USM then there may have been grounds for that mitigation to be factored in. Look no further than process. Forest admitted the charge on receipt Everton didn’t and indeed as evidenced changed its submission and pleading till very late in the day.
Finally none of the SL received a fine from the PL.None we’re ever charged by the PL simply put the rules in place at the time didn’t support any such charge. The clubs made a voluntary donation of £22 million
Here’s the statement from the PFL
A statement from the Premier League read: "The six clubs involved in proposals to form a European Super League have today acknowledged once again that their actions were a mistake, and have reconfirmed their commitment to the Premier League and the future of the English game.
"They have wholeheartedly apologised to their fans, fellow clubs, the Premier League and The FA. As a gesture of goodwill, the clubs have collectively agreed to make a contribution of £22m which will go towards the good of the game, including new investment in support for fans, grassroots football and community programmes.
are wrong the SL clubs were never charged nor subjected to a hearing. The clubs collectively donated a sum of £22 million to settle the matter
That what happened with the SL? that makes total sense, given the different treatment of teams like City and Chelsea. Maybe you think it is all above board and consistent / fair?
We could argue point by point all day long(no thanks), including how they did not use EFL guidelines, which is now established precendent for Forest. Or how Everton got a sporting sanction for a none sporting breach, that was securing the long term sustainability of the club. Or how board minutes shown legal work for naming rates from an already involved investor, was not mitigation because they were "not probable". I wonder how much of this would stand up in a real court?
The fact remains the processes are incosistent, and they have made legal errors. I'm quite sure there will be more legal errors(Clearly made in the case 1# and case 3# IMO), it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Also with regard to good faith charge / rule breach and precedent. "The appeal board has imposed a six-point deduction with immediate effect having concluded that “the commission made legal errors” when hitting Everton with the biggest sporting sanction in Premier League history last year. The commission was wrong, it said, to say that Everton had been “less than frank” about the debt incurred for the construction of the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock and had therefore breached another Premier League rule, B.15, that says clubs have an obligation to act in “utmost good faith”. Secondly, the commission was wrong not to take into account available benchmarks when deciding the punishment. It was a material error not to consider the sanction formula used by the EFL, for example."
Deduct another 4 for them crying on social media.
The appalling standard of officiating should be called out.
Wow that tweet was crazy 
Just watched the replays of the penalty claims and yeah they were robbed
Just watched the replays of the penalty claims and yeah they were robbed
They've rightly called out a shit system that's shafted every club at least once this season. I'm firmly behind more clubs calling mind boggling decisions out.
Shameful and embarrassing by Palace. They're basically making a serious tweet about the terrible officiating, seem like it's trivial.