6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Eggs]

…..if the general consensus is that this process is flawed and the PL corrupt, then perhaps it’s hypocritical to hope for a big penalty for Forest. Human nature to want us to get out of this mess and a bigger Forest deduction than ours will help but we know the whole process stinks.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

I don’t think Forest are getting what we got.

2 of their rolling 3 seasons are in the championship where they were compliant and their prem breech was only for a period of 2 months which they then corrected (removing the sporting advantage).

If that’s their defence it could be more like 3 points. It’s not fully clear what their breech was but if Brennan Johnson is their defence and waiting to get a better price could be argued as ‘in the interests of profit and sustainability’.

They’ll still get points taken but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s less than ours.

I fear the same.

But they only removed the sporting advantage after the assessment period ended. If sporting advantage is what gets punished, then removing it after is a sign of repentance, but can’t affect the impact on the seasons being assessed.

And they can’t really be in breach for 2 months. Each £ they spent on the first day of 22/23 contributed exactly the same amount to their breach as a £ spent on the last day of that accounting period.

But I do think it could be a limp punishment. They haven’t once shown indignation over the charge or “shock and surprise” as we did. Either they have breached by £400million and know they are bang to rights, or they know they have a tiny breach and are comfortable they will be shown leniency.

Their first response mentioned the difficulty of accounting for new PL revenues when they came up, specifically mentioning promotion bonuses. I fear the Johnson thing is a sideshow and they will claim a genuine accounting misinterpretation (as opposed to our supposed shafting on loan interest which does appear to be at least partly our own stupid fault).

 

[Neiler]

…..if the general consensus is that this process is flawed and the PL corrupt, then perhaps it’s hypocritical to hope for a big penalty for Forest. Human nature to want us to get out of this mess and a bigger Forest deduction than ours will help but we know the whole process stinks.

I made the point the other day though, that even if the rules stink, then those stinking rules need to apply equally. Forrest’s breach is worse then ours and I’m going to be furious if they get anything less then 10. They can do what they like with an appeal.

 

[Librarian]

…..if the general consensus is that this process is flawed and the PL corrupt, then perhaps it’s hypocritical to hope for a big penalty for Forest. Human nature to want us to get out of this mess and a bigger Forest deduction than ours will help but we know the whole process stinks.

If all the cases were charged at the same time you might see all of the clubs come together, instead it’s divide and conquer.

 

[RD2910]

I made the point the other day though, that even if the rules stink, then those stinking rules need to apply equally. Forrest’s breach is worse then ours and I’m going to be furious if they get anything less then 10. They can do what they like with an appeal.

How do you know it's worse?

 

[maccavennie]

…..if the general consensus is that this process is flawed and the PL corrupt, then perhaps it’s hypocritical to hope for a big penalty for Forest. Human nature to want us to get out of this mess and a bigger Forest deduction than ours will help but we know the whole process stinks.

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. We were given a 10 point deduction, called "cheating bast***s" by their shower of fans when we played them away. I hope they get hit with 10 themselves so they can see what a crapshow it all is.

If the PL want to show some form of consistency, we'll they should be hitting Forest with a nice tidy points deduction and see how they like playing game after game after game with that hanging over their head.

I want to know how much they overspent by, it seems everyone knew the ins and outs of our case and already made judgement on what should/shouldn't happen to us

 

[Neiler]

How do you know it's worse?

For these reasons:

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/...2nd-psr-charge.118613/page-1939#post-11161741

 

[jazzy]

…..if the general consensus is that this process is flawed and the PL corrupt, then perhaps it’s hypocritical to hope for a big penalty for Forest. Human nature to want us to get out of this mess and a bigger Forest deduction than ours will help but we know the whole process stinks.

Despite the flaws in the process and unfairness of the rules it's not unreasonable to expect that they be treated in the same way as us.

 

[Evertonthat]

…..if the general consensus is that this process is flawed and the PL corrupt, then perhaps it’s hypocritical to hope for a big penalty for Forest. Human nature to want us to get out of this mess and a bigger Forest deduction than ours will help but we know the whole process stinks.

The process is flawed and the PL are corrupt, but if other clubs have broken rules also, then just for fairness it's only right that penalties are issued to other clubs. Personally I think the way this whole saga has been handled is disgraceful, and any points deduction renders the whole competition as a joke, but I don't see how they can punish only us.

 

[NathDogg]

So, so tired of all the bedroom accountancy and points deductions against flawed, unfair P&S rules that are only designed to keep the status quo and the e cartel happy.

I really don't want any club and their fans to have to go through what we have, but by the same token, I will be really frustrated if we are the only club to be treated as harshly hit as hard as we have been, for similar issues under the same rules.

It’s a complete farce when the likes or Chelsea and United can be billions in debt but still able to sign whoever they want and spend stupid amounts, just due to turnover.

 

[Marius57]

I don’t think Forest are getting what we got.

2 of their rolling 3 seasons are in the championship where they were compliant and their prem breech was only for a period of 2 months which they then corrected (removing the sporting advantage).

If that’s their defence it could be more like 3 points. It’s not fully clear what their breech was but if Brennan Johnson is their defence and waiting to get a better price could be argued as ‘in the interests of profit and sustainability’.

They’ll still get points taken but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s less than ours.

But they clearly weren’t compliant. That’s why they have been charged. There are calculations used for the adjustment between leagues. They may have been compliant on the previous 3 year cycle. But that doesn’t make those 2 years compliant in the next cycle. Because they aren’t viewed as individual years.

 

[RD2910]

For these reasons:

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/...2nd-psr-charge.118613/page-1939#post-11161741

You've got no idea what else Forest were doing to get themselves back in line with the limit. The Johnson mitigation argument is awful, but you make loads of assumptions there.

 

[Neiler]

You've got no idea what else Forest were doing to get themselves back in line with the limit. The Johnson mitigation argument is awful, but you make loads of assumptions there.

The same premise exists for you, you’ve no idea Forest did anything to try and come back in line. You’re just talking waffle.

 

[RD2910]

The same premise exists for you, you’ve no idea Forest did anything to try and come back in line. You’re just talking waffle.

That's a worse argument than theirs.

 

[LucBesson]

So we've established that nobody knows what they're talking about. Great.