6 + 2 Point Deductions

[whiteshadow]

If there is any mention of the Johnson profit being a factor we should be fuming. The PSR benefit of that comes in the 23/24 accounts, irrelevant to the assessment period but will help them in the final PSR assessment next winter (which should still happen). Be like us selling Pickford this June and claiming we no longer had a massive loss in 2021 because that was the plan all along, we were waiting for him to calm down so we’d get a bigger fee. That sort of bollox will have been floated by a Forest Esk wannabe in between explaining what amortisation means to their teary confused fans, racked with guilt for calling us cheats. Nonsense.

They should announce both penalties on the same day. The PL will ideally want agreed penalties with no appeal to avoid chaos at the end of the season. How can Forest agree not to appeal if they don’t know what penalty we get. Will be lots going on behind the scenes this time I reckon. If both clubs barter the deductions down to avoid appeals, makes our 1st charge stupid, and if we went down, I think we’d have to try and revisit that.

Any breach up to £20m Forest should get 6. If it’s something crazy, no reason not to go over 9 points. Sod the administration argument. Spending £50m+ over the limit entirely on squad strengthening is not a mistake, and you benefit in multiple years going forward. Massive points and transfer ban for an egregious breach

I worry their breach may be a lot smaller than people are thinking (i.e. guessing with no real science).

The administration argument for no points deduction equal to or above 9 points is a valid argument that I think any IC will follow as our ruling set a precedent.

Saying there is no reason to not take off 9 or more points is as ridiculous as Forest saying selling Johnson later should be a mitigation as they got more money for him.

I think it's pretty safe to assume the panel will follow the precedent set in our ruling.

 

[blue to the bone]

Rumours around that Forest have been warned about future conduct and received a warning.

Rumours around you have been banned from every all you can eat buffet this side of Hadrians wall .

 

[Goat]

Rumours around you have been banned from every all you can eat buffet this side of Hadrians wall .

Had a lovely all you can eat Chinese last Sunday for Mother's Day, proper nice it was.

 

[Bazlar]

Forest fans can't see the wood from the trees.

Someone will pull the Hood over their eyes

 

[blue to the bone]

that’s scandalous

They haven't a clue.
Guess work

 

[Swartzy]

no a forest win keeps luton 4 below

them forest get them deducted

boom we’re in the champs league

All Forest will be getting is a slap on the wrist..

 

[Wat Tyler]

All Forest will be getting is a slap on the wrist..

Get Dyche to do it, he likes slaps

 

[johnjoeefc]

I think you 2 should branch off into the comedian industry!!

Snap! I see what you did there

 

[Dorset Red]

Incidentally I’ll be really upset if Forest don’t get mullard more than us, they had intent and gained a sporting advantage also involved player trading - which opens the flood gates.

You don't see the fact that Everton were allowed to write off over £200m of debt compared to Forest's 20M in the same period as Everton having a sporting advantage??
Plus the fact that Everton were warned then subsequently still found to be outside permissable debts despite spending big on players like Beto.
Forest's charge is their first charge and should therefore be treated the same as Everton's , with a warning not to do it again.

 

[Marc bolan]

Someone will pull the Hood over their eyes

The FA Robbin the poor to feed the rich

 

[Marius57]

I keep seeing this prevailing theory that they will somehow gift Forest a lighter punishment in exchange for them not appealing. It sounds like nonsense to me. These are serious processes and the decision made by the KCs will be based on rules and precedent, it's not a negotiation. If there was going to be a plea bargain there wouldn't be a hearing, that ship has sailed.

I think it's good for us that the cases are consecutive, in fact I think it's the only way it can really operate, if you had two simultaneous ICs they could diverge from each other, from precedent or even set competing precedents. Seeing what they rule on Johnson certainly helps us going in, if they are allowing post-FY transfers to be essentially backdated I don't know what would stop us backdating transfers of our own. We sold a number of players after 22/23 had concluded.

Considering we have already made the argument about having to sell richarlison by a certain date and claimed spurs took advantage of it and it was dismissed entirely, the precedent is there for the Johnson sale. They should have sold him earlier.

 

[Jacko93]

Yes.

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

But this isn't a legal case in the court of law, and it was stated as part of our first ruling that each commission meeting should be independent of the others, with no precedent set by each.

 

[Jacko93]

Considering we have already made the argument about having to sell richarlison by a certain date and claimed spurs took advantage of it and it was dismissed entirely, the precedent is there for the Johnson sale. They should have sold him earlier.

Ours was dismissed because we had no proof upon which we could claim Richarlison was worth more. Forest have the sale to prove Johnson was worth more.

 

[Neiler]

All Forest will be getting is a slap on the wrist..

As opposed to a slap in Portugal!

 

[mahermi1]

Ours was dismissed because we had no proof upon which we could claim Richarlison was worth more. Forest have the sale to prove Johnson was worth more.

To be fair the Richarlison sale was handled badly, we got to the stage were we had to sell and my feeling was Spurs got him a bit cheaper because of that.