6 + 2 Point Deductions

[RD2910]

Oh look, that’s exactly what Forest did.

It's what Everton did. Taking your argument about Johnson further paying Richarlison his wages led to a quantifiable sporting advantage.

Haven't you been hugely critical of Everton getting a points deduction throughout? Surely you should be on Forest's side?

 

[MikeH72]

It's what Everton did. Taking your argument about Johnson further paying Richarlison his wages led to a quantifiable sporting advantage.

Haven't you been hugely critical of Everton getting a points deduction throughout? Surely you should be on Forest's side?

Again, not even remotely the same. If we’d kept Richarlison, played him in the opening 3 games of the 22/23 season, and then sold him to Spurs for £80m, then it would be the same.

I’m against points deductions full stop. However, we have already been given one, so now that that’s over and done with I would like to see some consistency applied.

 

[RD2910]

Again, not even remotely the same. If we’d kept Richarlison, played him in the opening 3 games of the 22/23 season, and then sold him to Spurs for £80m, then it would be the same.

I’m against points deductions full stop. However, we have already been given one, so now that that’s over and done with I would like to see some consistency applied.

It doesn't need to be the same. You have picked out an individual 'good' thing from Forest spending or not recouping money and said sporting advantage resulted from it. You could do that with any number of individual transactions Everton made. I'm arguing it's not a fair point to make.

 

[MikeH72]

It doesn't need to be the same. You have picked out an individual 'good' thing from Forest spending or not recouping money and said sporting advantage resulted from it. You could do that with any number of individual transactions Everton made. I'm arguing it's not a fair point to make.

We have been punished with a points deduction for ours. I’m simply asking for the same treatment to be applied to Forest, I’ve got no idea why you seem to have a problem with that.

 

[RD2910]

We have been punished with a points deduction for ours. I’m simply asking for the same treatment to be applied to Forest, I’ve got no idea why you seem to have a problem with that.

I agree, I think Forest should get a points deduction and shouldn't get a points deduction. The whole thing's insane.

But in fairness you've extended their breach further than Everton's in saying their advantage is quantifiable. That wouldn't be the same treatment. That's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[MikeH72]

I agree, I think Forest should get a points deduction and shouldn't get a points deduction. The whole thing's insane.

But in fairness you've extended their breach further than Everton's in saying their advantage is quantifiable. That wouldn't be the same treatment. That's the point I'm trying to make.

If they’re trying to use Johnson as a mitigation then it isn’t the same is it. Their case is fundamentally different to ours. Sporting advantage has to come into it if they’re trying to use that as a mitigation.

 

[Victus]

If they’re trying to use Johnson as a mitigation then it isn’t the same is it. Their case is fundamentally different to ours. Sporting advantage has to come into it if they’re trying to use that as a mitigation.

They really should be dead to rights as that argument is shocking. If the sale of one player was the determining factor between breaking these rules, then they have been mismanaged just as much as us and deserve just the same treatment as us.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

A thought about today’s game (in the right thread this time):

With the new 7 day rule Forest will almost certainly know their verdict but are choosing not to announce it prior to the game. How is that in any way fair to Luton if Forest know how many points Forest have but Luton don’t?

Could make a significant difference to how you approach the game. If Forest dropped 6 points yesterday a draw for Luton is OK, if it was a gentle warning they need to win.

 

[MikeH72]

A thought about today’s game (in the right thread this time):

With the new 7 day rule Forest will almost certainly know their verdict but are choosing not to announce it prior to the game. How is that in any way fair to Luton if Forest know how many points Forest have but Luton don’t?

Could make a significant difference to how you approach the game. If Forest dropped 6 points yesterday a draw for Luton is OK, if it was a gentle warning they need to win.

They seem to time these announcements to perfectly coincide with an international break so they can go to the bunkers and hide for a couple of weeks. I’m sure that’s purely coincidental of course.

 

[Jacko93]

You don't see the fact that Everton were allowed to write off over £200m of debt compared to Forest's 20M in the same period as Everton having a sporting advantage??
Plus the fact that Everton were warned then subsequently still found to be outside permissable debts despite spending big on players like Beto.
Forest's charge is their first charge and should therefore be treated the same as Everton's , with a warning not to do it again.

Our first charge saw us hit with 10 points. So yes, I agree. Deducted 10 points and told, don't do it again.

 

[mikel_88]

Hope they get hit heavy if they have gone over by more, if the same then the 6 will do. They must but deluded to think they will get anything else like a transfer ban ect is a points deduction. Cant stand them was happy to laugh call us cheats then as soon as they find they broke ffp ask us to join them.

 

[RD2910]

If they’re trying to use Johnson as a mitigation then it isn’t the same is it. Their case is fundamentally different to ours. Sporting advantage has to come into it if they’re trying to use that as a mitigation.

It's a stupid argument in the context of the rules, and should be instantly rejected. But turning an argument for a mitigating factor into an aggravating factor like that doesn't seem fair.

 

[PhilEFC]

You don't see the fact that Everton were allowed to write off over £200m of debt compared to Forest's 20M in the same period as Everton having a sporting advantage??
Plus the fact that Everton were warned then subsequently still found to be outside permissable debts despite spending big on players like Beto.
Forest's charge is their first charge and should therefore be treated the same as Everton's , with a warning not to do it again.

I like Forest and think it’s a disgrace either of us are getting points deducted, but we are building a new stadium and had been working with the Premier League to avoid getting into trouble.

We haven’t spent any big money on players for years and any new signings were after we sold our better players. We’ve also whittled down our wages by getting rid of top earners.

Don’t believe the Sky/Talksport helmets.

 

[Neiler]

You don't see the fact that Everton were allowed to write off over £200m of debt compared to Forest's 20M in the same period as Everton having a sporting advantage??
Plus the fact that Everton were warned then subsequently still found to be outside permissable debts despite spending big on players like Beto.
Forest's charge is their first charge and should therefore be treated the same as Everton's , with a warning not to do it again.

No, if you’re going to come on a another forum at least have the correct knowledge.

For one our charge didn’t relate to any Covid losses or 200 mill in debt, it was a disputed £19.5 mill in interest payments on a loan we took out for our new ground, we claimed as infrastructure but the PL didn’t accept it. There is a whole two reports on it and the proceedings.

When was our warning, like everyone else, we submit our accounts, as per the dates, we have no previous charge, before our first.

Beto was signed last summer so he goes into 23/24 accounts, we haven’t been charged for that year.

So in summary if Everton got charged and got a 10 point deduction for being 19.5 mill over the threshold, for a disagreement over an interest payment on building a new infrastructure project. Keeping in mind the commission said the mistake was not intended to mislead and made in good faith. Then Forest will get mullard for the following reasons,

1. They intentionally broke the rule, consciously and purposefully,

2. They played Brennan Johnson, in games at the start of the season - so an actual sporting advantage,

3. Unless Forest get mullard whats to stop every club doing the same thing in the summer,

4. Forest are now at a financial and sporting advantage compared to every club in the league by purposely breaking the rule. They got an extra 20 odd mill for BJ by breaking the rules, deludedly Forest may see that as a valid defense - but what about clubs who had to comply with the rule and sell players at a lesser cost, or clubs who had to comply with the rules. Forest can reinvest that extra 20 mill gained on players and wages now - creating a sporting advantage by purposely cheating.

It’s not looking good for Forest at all. Forest fans are living in dreamland.

I wouldn’t even rule out a second charge, same as us on double jeopardy.

 

[Dorset Red]

L O L

How much did we give Udinese in the summer for Beto mate

The fee was about £26m I believe, not sure about the amortisation aspect though.
The point being that your finance people must have already known you would be close to the mark after the previous charge but didn't rectify the matter sufficiently .
For what it's worth I don't believe either of us should be getting any kind of points deduction , it's does seem to be about keeping us "small" teams in our place.