MrGrumpy
Player Valuation: £50m
Forest will get 8 an Everton will get 2
Netspend in £ of transfers on Transfermarkt for years 2020-21/2021-22/2022-23:
Everton: circa £32,500,000
Nottingham Forest circa £167,500,000
That's with the Johnson sale falling in the accounts for year 2023-24.
Salaries for those years would be useful to know as well.
Obviously there are other factors/figures to consider but the above figures paint an interesting picture in terms of sporting advantage gained.
Everton: circa £32,500,000
Nottingham Forest circa £167,500,000
That's with the Johnson sale falling in the accounts for year 2023-24.
Salaries for those years would be useful to know as well.
Obviously there are other factors/figures to consider but the above figures paint an interesting picture in terms of sporting advantage gained.
Last edited:
So how much have we overspent this time ? It was under 20m for 6 points.
Why ?
Give over
Librarian
Player Valuation: £60m
It was 6 this time with 2 acceptable mitigations, will those mitigations stand up a 2nd time?
This is interesting. Does it mean that they will ignore the amounts being over in the first two years of this period and only ask if we are over by more than 35m in the third year ??
If so how far are we over in year 3 this time ?
Comparing a rule breach with a murder is not what I would call sensible
steven
Player Valuation: £35m
‘notts’ forest is still @chicoazul ’s finest work. Sure ‘do you get horny on Twitter pal’ cleaned up at all the awards ceremonies, but real fans know where the quality lies.
I still find the idea of an inferred sporting advantage absolutely ludicrous to be honest. Especially when in the same section they admit it could never be quantified.
This is the problem with having legal debates decide something which should always be decided on a football pitch. We will never agree on interpretation of technical legal points and what mitigations are fair, but we can all see who score more goals on a Saturday or wins more points over 38 games.
I'm very very disappointed in the clubs timid reaction and acceptance of this decision. They should be calling for wholesale changes to how the game is governed and for the PL leadership to resign. Cooperation has clearly not helped in any way and we should be refusing to engage in an unfair process.
This is the problem with having legal debates decide something which should always be decided on a football pitch. We will never agree on interpretation of technical legal points and what mitigations are fair, but we can all see who score more goals on a Saturday or wins more points over 38 games.
I'm very very disappointed in the clubs timid reaction and acceptance of this decision. They should be calling for wholesale changes to how the game is governed and for the PL leadership to resign. Cooperation has clearly not helped in any way and we should be refusing to engage in an unfair process.
We got some points back, let’s move on now till April for the 2nd charge.
GoldenToffee
Player Valuation: £50m
As I understand it:
Initial breach, 6 point penalty.
Second breach takes into account 2/3 of the initial breach, which has now been solidified and confirmed.
You cannot expect that 2/3 to be punished again, so it's the 1/3 of it that will be looked at and judged.
Unless we just happened to have massively overspend by about £20m on that season alone that hasn't been accounted for, seems implausible that anything more than 2-3 point deduction could be awarded for second breach.
Yes technically they could still look at that 2/3 timeframe and take it into account, but that's been punished now and it must surely boil down to the remaining season that's yet to be judged.
What with Forest having gone about 5x over versus how much we went over, they're almost certainly getting bummed to oblivion - the precedent has now been set.
Initial breach, 6 point penalty.
Second breach takes into account 2/3 of the initial breach, which has now been solidified and confirmed.
You cannot expect that 2/3 to be punished again, so it's the 1/3 of it that will be looked at and judged.
Unless we just happened to have massively overspend by about £20m on that season alone that hasn't been accounted for, seems implausible that anything more than 2-3 point deduction could be awarded for second breach.
Yes technically they could still look at that 2/3 timeframe and take it into account, but that's been punished now and it must surely boil down to the remaining season that's yet to be judged.
What with Forest having gone about 5x over versus how much we went over, they're almost certainly getting bummed to oblivion - the precedent has now been set.
I'm fairly sure that is referring to the features of the aggravating factors in this particular case. It's not relevant to whether 'double jeopardy' should be considered in the second case or not.
