6 + 2 Point Deductions

But it's not true though because before the City game we had 3 consecutive draws.
Can’t argue with the factual truth of points gained over X games. But the further you go back, the less relevant it is, especially for us when our form can swing randomly from decent to Wolves. 4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses in last 10 sounds great. 3 draws and a loss in the last 4 whilst looking very ineffective going forward with tells a different story, along with some pretty agricultural cup games in January against poor opposition.

I’m not moaning. As turgid as we have been, if we play like we did against spurs in the home games with the lower teams, we will win plenty enough. Just not a fan of a last 10 games form stat when all the wins and most of the points were as far away as possible whilst still falling within that period.
 

The 65 millions comes probably from what they are allowed as loses because of the 2 seasons in the championship instead of the 105 millions for premier league clubs (3 seasons), Forest can only have 61 millions...the fact that they have spent in both summer and January would suggest to me that they are not that far over even though I am aware that Johnson sale was pure profit.
Pure profit or not the deal was done after the year to date had ended. Therefore this sale doesn’t count. Forest will argue that it should count because from a business sense it made no sense to sell for cheap to appease P&S or hold out for more money, after the deadline has passed, which they did.

However Everton will be following this very close because our argument with Richarlison was that we believed he was worth 80m but we had to take 60m because of the position P&S put us in.

In the PL or an independent comission rule in favour of Forest and therefore allow them to write off the Johnson money for the current set of accounts (which they probably will) then I think it will then be fair for Everton to say ‘this is completely fixed against us, there is now no doubts about it’. At that point I would independently sue the Premier League.
 
Can’t argue with the factual truth of points gained over X games. But the further you go back, the less relevant it is, especially for us when our form can swing randomly from decent to Wolves. 4 wins, 4 draws, 2 losses in last 10 sounds great. 3 draws and a loss in the last 4 whilst looking very ineffective going forward with tells a different story, along with some pretty agricultural cup games in January against poor opposition.

I’m not moaning. As turgid as we have been, if we play like we did against spurs in the home games with the lower teams, we will win plenty enough. Just not a fan of a last 10 games form stat when all the wins and most of the points were as far away as possible whilst still falling within that period.
Not sure how long you deem it appropriate to go back. Is one game OK? We lost away to the best team in the world. Luton lost at home to the team that is bottom of the League.
 
Pure profit or not the deal was done after the year to date had ended. Therefore this sale doesn’t count. Forest will argue that it should count because from a business sense it made no sense to sell for cheap to appease P&S or hold out for more money, after the deadline has passed, which they did.

However Everton will be following this very close because our argument with Richarlison was that we believed he was worth 80m but we had to take 60m because of the position P&S put us in.

In the PL or an independent comission rule in favour of Forest and therefore allow them to write off the Johnson money for the current set of accounts (which they probably will) then I think it will then be fair for Everton to say ‘this is completely fixed against us, there is now no doubts about it’. At that point I would independently sue the Premier League.
I'm not so sure the PL will buy Forest's defence around effectively backdating the Johnson sale.

On the one hand, I think it's ridiculous clubs should have to sell players under value just to get within a certain number on a certain date. Clubs, like any business, should be able to run themselves in a way that can maximise profit. That's what P&S should be promoting not punishing.

BUT on the other hand, their numbers can't have (or shouldn't have) crept up on them, so it seems like it was a deliberate strategy all along to spend big in summer '22, go over the number they needed to hit for PSR, but then make a big sale before the end of the FY to get back inside it.

That's a valid strategy, effectively "borrowing" more PSR allowance then paying it back before the year end, but if that's the strategy there's no excuse if you elect not to do the second part. The loss of value on the back end is the risk you take for playing that strategy.

Plus they played him for three games so really you can't pretend the sale happened earlier to backdate the money onto the previous year. For both reasons I think the PL, if they are consistent in a strict approach, will reject their defence.
 

I've always liked this website when looking for stats. I like it even more now.

1707682699706.png
 

Top