6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Moomin]

That still doesn't add up to a 40 million loss on top of selling an Anthony Gordon. If we were paying out big transfer fees on top I'd agree, but either someone has severely shafted us or the loans on top that have been primarily used to build the stadium have counted towards PSR.

I think the issue is that the loans haven't been clearly defined as for the stadium, in other words x paid us 100 million and you can see we transferred that to LOR the next day. As I understand it we've taken the money and just say 5 million might have been used for player wages/day to day running costs and then the majority has gone to the stadium. Because of that the judges ruled any interest on the loans could not be taken out of the PSR calc. I think there might be a secondary issue here also, with the change to the rules whether to allow interest payments full stop, defined or not.

It was on the loan documents as working capital.

These loans are taken out against the TV money, we will be paying a chunk of it back each summer.

Before a ball is kicked we are making a loss.

 

[Zezti]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68602074

Interesting timing.

 

[blulouie]

Huge moment for football: Football Governance Bill begins its passage through Parliament on Tuesday. Will tackle selfish/rogue/profligate owners. DCMS says independent regulator will be “enshrined in law that will give fans a greater voice in the running of their clubs”. Regulator to “promote financial sustainability” and can fine clubs up to 10% of turnover for non-compliance. Competitions like European Super League blocked under new legislation.Regulator will implement strengthened Owners’ and Directors’ Test to “stop clubs falling into the wrong hands”. Rogue owners can be removed and struck off from owning clubs “if they are found to be unsuitable”. Regulator has backstop powers to impose a ‘new deal’ on financial distributions, which should break @premierleague clubs’ impasse with @EFL.

Clubs to be licensed from National League to Premier League. “It follows a number of issues in recent years including financial mismanagement, breakaway plans for the European Super League, and changes to club names, badges and colours against the wishes of fans.” Regulator will have no input in on-field decisions."The regulator provides a means to intervene and stop clubs being run into the ground, protect the heritage of clubs, give supporters a much bigger voice in the running of the game, and prevent any chance of domestic clubs joining a breakaway European Super League,” says Kevin Miles
@WeAreTheFSA.

“The regulator must be given the power to impose a financial settlement in the interests of the sustainability of the game as a whole. It is far too important to be left to the squabbling between the vested interests of the richest club owners.”PL says: “We agree it is vital that clubs are sustainable, remain at the heart of their communities and that fans are fundamental to the game. But PL warns: “Mindful that the future growth of the Premier League is not guaranteed, we remain concerned about any unintended consequences of legislation that could weaken the competitiveness and appeal of English football.”

That last sentence from the PL

Pissin myself here.

 

[PITA]

What is the chant about scabs that is made against the Nottingham clubs?

The miner's strike from the early 80s. Nottingham miners (not all) broke the strike and did Thatcher's bidding.

 

[PITA]

For me, the scary thing is that the PL recommended a 12 point deduction for us when they knew full well that Forest breach was more than ours and still recommended a lesser punishment to them.

They only made that recommendation after we were finally given 6 points.

 

[PITA]

I’m sympathetic to Forest in this case, because it shows how ridiculous and anti-competitive PSR rules are.

Reporting deadlines should be in line with transfer windows, otherwise if clubs are forced to sell players early and probably lose out on income, it shows how PSR is less about economic sustainability and more about weakening smaller clubs, forcing them to sell star players at knock-down prices.

Yes, it's not rocket science.

 

[ETID]

Sixty-five pages to read, is it worth it ?

No

 

[Joey66]

West Ham Chiarman upset over the bill already

 

[matty1878]

West Ham Chiarman upset over the bill already

everyone can be but it’s us been used again

and is possibly a massive boot
in our survival

 

[ForeverEverton]

 

[PITA]

There is a belief amongst a fair number of Evertonians, warranted I believe, that if we were to get relegated that the club would go into freefall.
Everything about this club reeks of misery and dejection.
Other than supporters, there is no one fighting our corner. No rallying cry, no galvanising statement (which is what Forest have done), we have nothing.
I would rather we went down fighting than feebly accepting what some chinless bellwhiffs have decided.
I mean the whole club, supporters to players to tea ladies. If only we had someone to go on the front foot.

Forest can afford to be the big 'I am' because they won't appeal (given they got off lightly) so can't be punished any more. We have got to box clever because we have another points deduction looming. They might be worrying that a wrong word now will lead to a higher penalty.

 

[Jarvick]

The PL don't have the 'bandwidth'.

In other words they can only commit resources to so much at a time.

Same with 777 going on and on and on.

Appreciate your thoughts. It's not really the PL however, it's an independent commission and presumably the persons on the commission are not the same as those that heard the Forest case, nor the same as those that heard the first charge against the club. Just saying, the appeal decision came out on 26 February, it seems like they could have planned ahead rather than waiting for several weeks to elapse.

 

[PITA]

Haha, fair. However the verdict agrees and explicitly states their breach was 77% worse than ours.

If you can spend 35m over and 19m over and you get the same points... well that's a farce isn't it? People have no disincentive to not splurge more/buy another player. And it's worse than 16m difference, it should be seen in percentage terms not % over your allowed threshold. It's the same as another mainstay premier league team spending 55m over the threshold and still getting the same points deduction as we did at 19m.

Agreed, like most on here, however there is no definition of 'significant' so they do what they want.

 

[matty1878]

Forest can afford to be the big 'I am' because they won't appeal (given they got off lightly) so can't be punished any more. We have got to box clever because we have another points deduction looming. They might be worrying that a wrong word now will lead to a higher penalty.

forest have a chairman and a board and money

 

[matty1878]

and that’s city and chelsea laughing at not getting touched