6 + 2 Point Deductions

[blulouie]

Ala Forest the prem wanted 6 -2 again ... without an expensive appeal ... lucky them - I heard the prem wanted 12 of us originally & we got -2 again = 10 we appealed dropped to 6 - with another one pending in the same era / - they are making it all up as they go along ....

They wanted 8 for Forest mate it was the IC that decided 6 minus 2.
It was 8 the Prem wanted.

 

[b-rad]

They wanted 8 for Forest mate it was the IC that decided 6 minus 2.
It was 8 the Prem wanted.

Prem wanted 8 as a starting point, but also wanted it reduced "materially" because Forest were very nice.

 

[blulouie]

Prem wanted 8 as a starting point, but also wanted it reduced "significantly" because Forest were very nice.

That's what I said mate

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Everton's deduction was changed because the commission got things wrong. It doesn't mean Forest's initial punishment should be compared to it, because their commission's judgement should be correct. The journalist is absolutely correct in saying the difference is six points and four points.

The unfairness of the original ten point penalty and its impact is another matter.

Changes things if they appeal, and stories of an under the table deal not to appeal are false. Then it probably is fair enough to compare pre-appeal deductions, 10 v 4.

Driving me bonkers tbh, but it’s true that we had to pay thousands to get the baseline charge lowered thus benefiting all future penalties (not many obviously), whilst spending months artificially lower in the table with the pressure that brings.

 

[Victus]

You've lost me mate.

Why? Our case was given a 10 point penalty reduced to 6. Forest was given 6 reduced to 4.

 

[arch stanton]

The act going through parliament this week is if any club in the premiership overspends on turn over the fine will be only 10% = a club like United is only a 65 million fine = peanuts to rich owners .... they pay more than that for one star player plus his wages ....

so that makes a points penalty even more harsh and disproportionate

 

[Evertonthat]

Changes things if they appeal, and then stories of under the table deal not to appeal are false. Then it probably is fair enough to compare pre-appeal deductions, 10 v 4.

Driving me bonkers tbh, but it’s true that we had to pay thousands to get the baseline charge lowered thus benefiting all future penalties (not many obviously), whilst spending months artificially lower in the table with the pressure that brings.

If they do appeal, does that mean that they're nor being quite so nice anymore? They got an extra -2 for rolling over and doing as they're told. If they appeal and cause the embarrassment of not knowing who's relegated at the end of the season, then surely they'd get the extra 2 point reduction removed.

 

[Simon Buttle]

They wanted 8 for Forest mate it was the IC that decided 6 minus 2.
It was 8 the Prem wanted.

The more you read/hear, our approach to the first hearing sounds as though it was incredibly amateur probably topped off with Moshiri's "We needed a new midfield" line. We really are an accident waiting to happen at times.

 

[Victus]

I do wonder what this 'exceptional cooperation' was for Forest and what colour the envelope was that it came in from their murdering druglord owner.

 

[RD2910]

Changes things if they appeal, and stories of an under the table deal not to appeal are false. Then it probably is fair enough to compare pre-appeal deductions, 10 v 4.

Driving me bonkers tbh, but it’s true that we had to pay thousands to get the baseline charge lowered thus benefiting all future penalties (not many obviously), whilst spending months artificially lower in the table with the pressure that brings.

Appeals should only change things if there is something wrong with the judgement though, people are referring to the appeal like it automatically gets points off. Our original ten point penalty can't be used as a precedent or a point of comparison because it's been proved to be wrong.

Any deal between the PL, Forest and the commission agreeing not to appeal would be scandalous in all honesty.

 

[RD2910]

Why? Our case was given a 10 point penalty reduced to 6. Forest was given 6 reduced to 4.

So it's six points vs four points then. Those reductions are for completely different reasons.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Would love to pin that Stefan down and fart inn his eye ball.

I don't even know who Stefan is but I'm keen for you to do it, too.

 

[WestStandLower]

It’s pure guesswork because we don’t know the scale of the breach. The talk seems to be it is a good bit less than the previous one but we don’t know.

That’s important because this decision introduces a concept of “minor breaches” which are less than tens of millions although it doesn’t set an exact number. It suggests that needn’t be a points deduction. It’s interesting that they go into this when it’s not relevant to this case.

But if our breach falls into this minor category it does raise the possibility of a lesser punishment than a points deduction. But we don’t know the numbers.

Frankly, we shouldn’t be in significant breach territory. We had 40m to play with, our comparable PSR number from the year previous year was 10m. If we’re over 40m by a lot it’s unbelievable

The only way it can be read is that minor breeches fall between £15 million and £105million ( adjusted depending on time in PL within any 3 year rolling period) the “ significant territory seems to be when clubs are charged as opposed to just providing information and even then using the Forest Written reasons as a guide the IC don’t seem to be in a position to differentiate between the sum over £105 million be it £10 million or 10% over or £220 million and 125 or whatever % over which is maddness

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Our case v theirs.

I think it might be 10 - 4 from the first judgements put against us and forest, mate.

We had to go to appeal to get the initial judgement reduced to 6. They have only just received their first deduction and haven't been to appeal.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]