Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[ToffeeTim]

I cannot see why a second breach would lead to a suspended punishment. That makes less sense than a suspension for a first punishment

It would make sense to me if someone was hugely over because of period 1 (i.e. year 1 - year 3) and then made massive strides in the right direction year 4.

Even if they still failed the test for years 2-4, do they deserve a similar punishment if they've made a big improvement? I'd say definitely not.

 

[trueblue84]

Has the "super silk" been downgraded to just a "silk" now?

Once Everton has touched you 'n' all that...

 

[BullensRoad]

It doesn't change his record when he was here which was the best period to be an Everton fan since the 80s.

Nah, Martinez for me. Even if it was a lost cause in the end.

Couple of semi finals and that crap badge season was quality and should have got 4th if we didn’t bottle it to palace at home (after beating Arsenal 3-0!).

 

[Zezti]

If the second charge ends up taking points off us too, and it all goes tits up on the pitch and whatever points we end up with is just short of what we need to stay up, could we go to CAS to appeal and have the deduction postponed? Trying to think of any options in the worst case scenarios.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

A very real possibility that Forest end up with an 8 point deduction by the way, if this particular commission's findings are anything to go by. All depends on how much they actually breached by..

 

[blaze]

I think it was pretty unrealistic to expect all the points back sadly, the club have admitted to breaching the rules and as much as they've put forward mitigating factors it doesn't actually sound like they were expecting to have the points deduction removed completely either, they made some attempts at suggesting an alternative but sounds like they never really seemed confident enough in what they were saying. The fact they're saying they're happy with the outcome of the appeal speaks volumes.

The 2 upheld appeals basically just say the original committee went beyond their scope, that they stated things which were never asked of them (the comment of the club being less than frank) and took that into account when producing a points deduction, a points deduction that they made up (due to lack of framework) despite having a realistic alternative framework to work from instead (i.e. EFL rules).

 

[ToffeeTim]

why is a second more likely?

Because from initial reaction, this decision seems to reinforce the decision than any breach is punishable by points deduction, and that breaching is the key issue, not how much the breach is.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

Can anyone clarify the model/precedent now then?

A breach = points deduction.

How have they now said they work out the number?

£19.5m over = 6 points?

So if Forest are say... £40m over. Is it 12 points?

Wasn’t it 6 pts for the initial breach and then 1 pt for every £5m you were over?

 

[barneygumble]

Can anyone clarify the model/precedent now then?

A breach = points deduction.

How have they now said they work out the number?

£19.5m over = 6 points?

So if Forest are say... £40m over. Is it 12 points?

I'm reading it as a breach is a flat fine as there's no ground for determining the figure? Masters 1 point per £5m had mo substance and was dismissed?

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Possibly but then they found the argument about getting 9 points for administration to have weight.

So it seems like it would be hard for anyone to get above 9 point deduction, based on this.

That's the thing - I mean, 19.5m = 6 points.

500m over = less than 9 points?

Doesnt really seem right to me.

 

[jayden28]

and luton madrid

Not really, Sheffield utd and Burnley are down so as long we ahead of forest by the end of the season with both teams getting deducted 6 points we be fine

 

[Sussex]

Just wish they'd do away with ffp rules, things would settle down quickly, everyone would know where they stood and there wouldn't be the mess there is now.

Same here. FFP just keeps the big boys at the top and anyone else away from the top table.

It is almost becoming a non sport now with accountant's running the sport.

Might have said it before but back in the 80's, when you stood on the terraces, did you hear anyone speak about balance sheets or profit & loss. You would have got a few thousand weird looks.

 

[Raino85]

We can all point to short periods. It was great winning all those games at the start of Carlo's first season as well. But Moyes produced a period where we played excellent football for the most part, we had a team of good players with good players on the bench. We knew we would be competitive in virtually every game and there was a genuine feeling that we only need a bit of investment to crack the top 4. Martinez first season was great too but it was largely built on the Moyes team and quickly fizzled out into nothing as did Royle's team.

Also with Moyes we knew if a talent was coming through the acadamy....he would get a chance

 

[Victus]

Thx mate. But how does the double jeopardy come into play? I thought the second charge was for a different three-year rolling time frame (2020–23)?

Feck me I need a drink!

The first charge is for 4 years (covid counted as 2 for some reason) the second charge is then for 3 with the covid years dropping off.

 

[Wat Tyler]

Forest maybe.

Us. Don't see it as we should prove there's no rules in place for being punished twice for the same thing.

They asked Masters about this in that parliamentary hearing and he said all clubs agreed to it so if that’s our argument it won’t stand for long