I think you need to read the full context around this. Pretty sure this is unrelated to future breaches and is just about how they assessed the "allowed" 105m loss vs anything spent over that (in our case 19m ish)
The structure of the deals had caveats in it I believe mate, there were certain milestones based on Juves performence, CL qualification etc - that had to be satisfied before the deal could be permanent, it was never a direct obligation to buy from day one, it had clauses to meet.
There was murder on here last year when Juve got a point deduction as it called the deal into question.
anton66
Player Valuation: £50m
He forgot to mention his club came up took the 90M didn’t spend anything, went down took the parachute payment and spent nothing. Got promoted and received another 90M, spent nothing and are heading back into the Championship to receive another 40M.
Remember-the-name
Player Valuation: £5m
This fella lee MC is a notorious attention seeking gimp I will never forget the whinging he did over Rodriguez leaving, bad bad melt.
They had no intention of listening to any of the financial mitigations. The way they were all rejected out of hand shows that. I still don't trust the process at all.
I'm still sticking by my prediction of Friday 1st March and I haven't seen anything yet to make me change my mind.
Marius57
Player Valuation: £50m
Essentially, if you breach, you get punished, they basically said it in the report. So Forest will get punished. And it will be a minimum of 6 points. If at any point a club breaches and gets let off, mitigation allowed, I’d hope we chase the PL through the courts.
But the question remaining is around how they manage a second breach.
anton66
Player Valuation: £50m
Usually by picking balls out of a hat. They’re just making them up as they go along.
Blue_in_london
Player Valuation: £10m
Was McNeil a reduced price - thought we paid £20m for him!
He used to post on here a few years back.
We bloody overpaid as he was absolutely crap for them in that last season before they got relegated. 1 goal all season.
WestStandLower
Player Valuation: £1.5m
I am trying to get my head around the extent of the 22/23 P & S loses . I think that you have been treated shabbily but I don’t see that ending come the end of this witch hunt.
The original IC gave a strong hint that the 23 figures had worsened and it seems now that if 19/20+20/21 averaged was £55 million 21/22 was £10 million then the 23 figures for have to be in excess of £40 million that in effect will be an increase of £30 million PS loss year on year
So I have been trying to make sense of how those numbers are made up
I think that non stadium interest will by virtue of interest rate increases be more, perhaps almost doubled , that the prize money will be less by several million but I am struggling to see how when there clearly was a clear out of high wage earners can it be the £40 million I mention above unless the player trading profit has dipped by £30 million ish that and or amortised sums have increased as well.
From my reading none of the disputes re allowable sums will be a feature in the 2nd charge. Everton didn’t really return to them in the appeal so practically speaking it will be the extent of the breach first and second how the claim re double jeopardy plays out and. Similary it’s worth noting that Forest by virtue of the fact that were promoted won’t be assessed against a £105million loss and yes they had a massive spend but until we know the numbers it’s near enough impossible to gauge matters even more so than Everton’s
As I said yesterday like most I can’t see that you could or even should receive a second punishment for 2 of the 3 years but the fact that a charge has been levelled the IC won’t be questioning the rules ( which need questioning) but will look coldly at the rule which was strangely agreed by the clubs and then how to measure the appropriate sanction.
You can throw all sorts of analogies as to what punishment could look like and I have no idea which way any IC will go but the cold calculation that any sanction for a breach of a PS rule re the limits brings with it a minimum entry point of 6 points and then reduced by way of mitigation or increased by aggravating matters is just wrong.
The idea of a points deduction being necessary to achieve fairness is a good one.
Would that be to make it fairer for the clubs that are already able to spend continuously whatever amounts they like due to the current rules?
This whole sporting advantage theory is just a total nonsense. The fact that it can never be quantified proves that.
Blue Smoke
Player Valuation: £1m
All this nonsense and uncertainty is down to the PL refusing to structure how these points are reached.
If they simply said theres a 3 point deduction for going over and then a point per 5 million increments (or something like that), then everybody would know whats going on.
We'd be able to know what to expect and forest to.
The appeal process would be easy and quick as well.
If they simply said theres a 3 point deduction for going over and then a point per 5 million increments (or something like that), then everybody would know whats going on.
We'd be able to know what to expect and forest to.
The appeal process would be easy and quick as well.
WestStandLower
Player Valuation: £1.5m
There really isn’t enough in the public domain to work out just what will or won’t be shown in which year. On the face of it you are probably correct but until we see the accounts we won’t know the impact.
