6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Neiler]

Personally I think it's incredibly hypocritical. We spent ages on here criticising the 'sporting advantage' element yet now we pinpoint that particular section of Forest's expenditure/failure to recoup funds and say 'look, sporting advantage'. I really wish everyone would stop saying those words.

It's exactly the same as saying we got a sporting advantage from not selling Pickford, which is utter nonsense.

The whole thing may stink.

However rules have been applied to us, so equity needs to be applied, I’m not going to be happy if Forest get a lesser punishment for what I feel is a much worse offence.

They are a direct rival, so it’s critical for us that stinking rules are applied with equity.

 

[Wat Tyler]

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.

TKO

 

[Dorset Red]

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 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 what 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. 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.

Except it appears that we we're in contact with both Tottenham and the Premier League about the Johnson transfer and if we do have evidence of this and that the Premier League okay'd it , as has been suggested , then that does equal a substantial mitigation .
I don't think the double jeopardy thing will hit us , the allowable losses will go up quite a bit and we have since sold more players , but then again it could.

 

[Wat Tyler]

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.

I can’t see how Forest would have been told yet. Yes, the PL said it can be no longer than a week but they’ve shown how all over the place they are with our case.

If Forest have been told it would have to be announced and the league table adjusted accordingly.

 

[maccavennie]

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.

FINISH HIM!!

 

[Dorset Red]

TKO

However our disadvantage in EFL rules not allowing us to write off such vast sums has directly played a part in our losses so it is entirely relevant.

 

[Neiler]

FINISH HIM!!

ACB.

 

[Ferguson1878]

ACB.

View attachment 248978

That was the cheat to get to the last level of sonic wasn’t it ?

 

[maccavennie]

ACB.

View attachment 248979

Yessssss mate that's what I'm talking about!!!

 

[mikel_88]

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.

Hope you lot get done you clown

 

[maccavennie]

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.

"My name is Dorset Red and I don't have a clue what I'm talking about!"

 

[jonnyboy316]

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.

Will be interesting. Personally I think finishing above Luton is our best chance of escape so part of me would take some comfort from a smaller Forest penalty as it might mean a smaller second penalty for us

 

[kev]

Will be interesting. Personally I think finishing above Luton is our best chance of escape so part of me would take some comfort from a smaller Forest penalty as it might mean a smaller second penalty for us

Genuinely hope that both Everton and Forest stay up. NOBODY deserves to be relegated due to matters off the pitch.

 

[Wat Tyler]

However our disadvantage in EFL rules not allowing us to write off such vast sums has directly played a part in our losses so it is entirely relevant.

But you knew all that when you came up and signed thousands of players.

No one is disputing the rules aren’t fair, take a look at our net spend over the last 5 years. If the team that has third lowest net spend in the division is getting points deducted while Chelsea, City, United etc. can just spend window after window, something is seriously wrong with the rules.

 

[Dixieslaces]

let’s hope

if they get away with it or a crappy 2pts deduction i will take off

"I Believe I can Fly"