Looking at how the owner and the club are behaving I wouldn`t be surprised if they negotiated 4 points for non appeal, but then appealed anyway.
I think our IC for the second charge said the Forest IC made a mistake, it should have been 8-2=6 rather than 6-2=4, all the legal guys I`ve listened to think if they do a recount they will get points added rather than removed and can see no mitigating grounds where points should be removed.
Unlike the Everton case where we got 1 point back for Co-operation AND the Ukraine war but Forest got 2 points back for co-operation. In the appeal if they give us the same co-operation as Forest and increase Ukraine war to 1 point, that means those 2 points should be coming back to us. In the interest of fairness.
I can see a world where we get 2 given back and Forest, especially after their media rampage on officials, get 2 more removed for the co-operation. On top of all that the PL are now investigating Forest for their tweets etc, there is rules in the PL handbook for points deduction for discipline breaches so they could be even more deducted. Remember Everton as a club wasn`t retweeting the corrupt stuff, it was all the fan groups.
I can see both appeals getting waived away. Best case being this ongoing dispute over interest accounting is brushed under the carpet so it doesn’t affect next season. We did breach again despite changing interest accounting, all ICs have said points deductions are a necessary deterrent. We got a lower charge due to some slight mitigation/co-operation, but also because we’ve already been punished. All other valid mitigations already in the bin after the first charge hearings.
This appeal IC will be asked to rule on the appropriateness of our second charge/penalty only. Even if everyone in the world accepted our first penalty is miles out of synch with Forests, I doubt they can massage our second deduction down to make amends for a completely different charge, and deductions given by 2 previous ICs. Thats not what they have been asked to judge.
Either our first charge is too high, or Forests is too low. End of story. Has to be one or the other. Ours is sadly fully locked in following the conclusion of the appeal. Therefor Forest's should be increased to 6. Cooperation is a necessity, not a mitigation or source of congratulations.
But no way will their appeal increase their deduction. Not a chance they will be that brave. Maybe if the PL had appealed their punishment first aggressively, but they bottled it and possibly hoped Forest would swallow it and go away. Completely pointless the PL saying how disappointed they were in Forests punishment during our second hearing. Should have been disappointed 5 minutes after Forests 4 points were announced and made it known, putting Forests appeal panel (rightly) under pressure.