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.
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