6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Ring master]

So if i am reading Point 229 right on that report - which i dont know , it means unless we prove our incidence in April, or whenever. That we will auto get another 6points at best and 9 at worst

While Forest can only get between 6-9Poins, no matter what the amount they are over by ?

229. We recognise that our view differs from both that of the Commission (anexperienced panel including an expert in accountancy in the field of football) and the approach considered appropriate in the PL’s Structured Sanctions Submissionby the PL Board (which has unrivalled experience as regulator of the PL).However, we consider that a six point deduction is the minimum but sufficientsanction required to achieve the aims of the PSR; it is reasonable and proportionate; and it is not out of kilter with any of the benchmarks to which MrRabinowitz referred us including other PL Rules and the EFL scheme with itsGuidelines and the cases (such as Sheffield Wednesday) which have beendecided under that scheme

 

[Tin-Tin]

What we can say for definite today, is this season will not end on the final whistle of the last game.

John Percy is saying Forests case to be resolved by 15th April, including any appeal. So the timeline must have moved up. Assume ours will be the same. Will have 5 games left

 

[jazzy]

I don't understand what is happening, based on the figures in their report we could post an adjusted loss of 40m last year and still be within the number.

The 21/22 number was only 10m adjusted down from a 45m loss, so the 22/23 loss would have to be massive to reach an adjusted number of 40m plus. So how is that compatible with the appeal board saying FY23 shows an upturn?

The "upturn" means that the loss has increased

 

[Davideeyore]

We we’re still guilty of breaking the rules mate. We have blew half a billion quid on absolute crap, and have watched half of them leave on a free. We’re lucky Covid allowed us to make losses and blag the books.

The 'book's will tell you different about how much we blew. The net spend tables in the last few years as well. You've clearly fallen in to that narrative of spending half a billion.

The point I would make is that there should be other punishments available. They opted for a sporting punishment for a non-sporting offence. They inferred that we had a sporting advantage, but this could not be quantified. Similarly, the 10 points was both extremely disproportionate (IE 9 points for Portsmouth going in to administration) and did not seem fair in the face of other offences that avoided a points deduction. Such as the scab 6 and Tevez.

That's before you even get to City or Chelsea.

The fact is we could have had a fine, or transfer embargo, for example.

They haven't taken in to consideration other things such as loss of income from the likes of USM because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, oh, and the small matter of building a stadium.

The PL rules were full of holes anyway. As pointed out by the likes of Andy Burnham.

The club have no backbone.

 

[bluejohn66]

Matchday protests against the corrupt PL should now intensify !!

 

[CrimsonToffee]

The "upturn" means that the loss has increased

Yeah, that's the only thing I can figure as well. That originally we were reading it backwards, essentially. We thought that they were saying:

"Everton's FY22 was better, and FY23 was even better, but since this appeal has nothing to do with FY23, we can't allow that to make us be more lenient in the punishment."

When what it really meant was:

"Everton's FY22 was better, but FY23 was worse again. But since this appeal has nothing to do with FY23, we can't allow that to make us be more harsh in the current punishment."

 

[Jacko93]

Sorry I misunderstood your point. I thought you were making a direct comparison on their potential sanction and ours on the 2nd charge.

If I'm a Forest fan I think I'd be miffed that newly promoted teams are not judged for PSR purposes on 3 years sets of accounts

They are judged on 3 years of accounts.

 

[maccavennie]

We really should have got all our points back, but the six will have to do. We'll be in a comfortable enough position now if Luton don't win their game in hand.

We didn't get 6 back. We got 4 back.

 

[Tin-Tin]

 

[edge]

The "upturn" means that the loss has increased

How do you get that?
Upturn in events means they are getting better not worse?.

 

[Kylito]

Didn’t realise Forest had not only kept Brennan Johnson past the 30th June accounts deadline but that he also played the first 3 games of this season for them. One of them a win over Sheff U.

Imagine if we’d have kept Richy for the first 3 games of last season and then sold him for even more. We’d have had him for the 0-1 loss to Chelsea, 1-2 loss at Villa and the 1-1 vs Forest with Gray scoring at the death.

Sounds like a clear sporting advantage to me.

 

[jazzy]

I'm honestly baffled too. Because you're right, it looks like the Appeals Board was saying that FY23 was even better than FY22, which was already far better than FY20 or FY21. So where's the second breach? We should be well under.

The only thing I can even think of is if there's some sort of misunderstood semantics going on here, and by "upturn" they mean increase in losses rather than increase in profits?

Yes the "upturn" is an increase in the losses.

Having been in the legal profession as a solicitor for over 30 years that was exactly how I read the paragraph.

It's poorly written and would have made a lot more sense to say that the encouraging trend of reducing losses had been reversed in year 23.

You would need an accountant to hazard a guess and explain how that could be the case when

1. We hardly signed anyone but sold Gordon for £45 million

2. We lost quite a few big hitters off the wage bill.

But then I've never understood accounts.

 

[only_sleeping]

Can anyone explain how we can be punished twice in the same season?

I understand we might have broken the rules twice - but years apart. Why aren't the punishments handed down years apart too? If they are done in the same season, we are suffer a cumulative effect and it worsens our league position.

 

[jazzy]

Yeah, that's the only thing I can figure as well. That originally we were reading it backwards, essentially. We thought that they were saying:

"Everton's FY22 was better, and FY23 was even better, but since this appeal has nothing to do with FY23, we can't allow that to make us be more lenient in the punishment."

When what it really meant was:

"Everton's FY22 was better, but FY23 was worse again. But since this appeal has nothing to do with FY23, we can't allow that to make us be more harsh in the current punishment."

Exactly

 

[PrekisCrossBarlow!]

I know transfers is only a small part of finances,but I've just looked at the ins and outs for the last few years. I haven't taken into account delayed payments like Beto, just the bald transfer fees given. So Beto is an expense of £26 million for example.

20/21 - We made a rough loss on transfers of £60 million. Ended up with an official loss on the sheet of £53 million.
21/22 - We made a rough profit on transfers of £50 million. Ended up with an official loss of £10 million.

The all important 22/23 - We made a rough profit on transfers of £20 million.

We seem to have £36 million loss to play with for 22/23, so surely we are in good shape to make that, especially as our biggest earners are falling off every year?

Unless the stadium payments have gone through the roof?