Serial Whingers Notts Forest playtime, which we simply cannot accept.

[Premier ram]

6 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

😁

 

Come on Luton

[Comrade 86]

4 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

😁

 

One point off Luton who have Spurs and Arsenal in their next two whereas the Gumptards have palace and Fulham. If anyone is in a position to laugh it's the fat waiter. No way Luton outpoint Forest. 

[TuffLuff]

Just for comparison, we got -9 point for a £15m overspend over three years.

Forests breach essentially paid the vast majority for Gibbs-White who was a big reason to them surviving last year.

Unfortunately I think the judgement leads to more questions than answers, can’t see any of the relegated sides from last year being overly happy.

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, Shipley Ram said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/nottingham-forest-docked-four-points-premier-league-financial-rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability

 

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Trent Ender arrives home for tea with his sister : 

[JfR]

So having read through the decision, I think this works as a quick summary of why it was 4 points:

• Commission found that the "entry point" for any "significant" breach of the spending limits is 3 points
• In Everton's case this was increased up to 6 points for two aggravating factors: One being the scale of the breach (£19.5m, or 19% of their threshold), the other being that they had been found in their appeal to have supplied some "incorrect" information to the Premier League (which the Premier League originally presented as Everton "misleading" them. The finding of "incorrect" rather than "misleading" is important).
• In Forest's case, the aggravating factor was solely the scale of their breach, albeit this was both numerically and proportionally much higher than Everton's (£34.5m, or 57% of their threshold; alternatively, a breach 77% higher than Everton's).
• While the Premier League argued that this should correspond to a 5 point increase in the deduction, raising the points deduction up to a total of 8 points, the commission disagreed.
• This was in large part because the Premier League has no "fixed formula" for points deductions based on the size of a breach, and that an insolvency event would result in a 9 point deduction. There's a lot of explanation for why they came to this decision, but effectively, the commission concluded that, as Forest's breach was a "significant" breach not a "major" breach (i.e. one involving insolvency), the absolute upper threshold that any club who makes a "significant" breach would expect (without major and unusual aggravating circumstances) would be 8 points, as insolvency would represent the absolute worst case scenario for failing to adhere to profit and sustainability. They also concluded that Forest were unlikely to be the largest ever Premier League breach, and therefore they shouldn't be punished at the absolute highest end of the scale.
• Instead, the commission decided that the level of breach should correspond to a 3 point increase to the deduction, raising to total deduction to 6 points.
• Forest were found to have had two mitigating factors in their favour: that they admitted the breach early on, and that they complied with the Premier League. As such, the commission reduced their deduction by 2 points, taking the total deduction to 4 points.

So, basically, you can overspend by as much as you want in the Premier League, and as long as you don't do anything too egregious alongside it, you'll lose no more than 8 points.

[TINMANTED]

Will anything ever stick to the Teflon demis roussos,got to be complaints from other clubs.wheres curly and the cowboy when we need them

[TINMANTED]

7 minutes ago, JfR said:

So having read through the decision, I think this works as a quick summary of why it was 4 points:

• Commission found that the "entry point" for any "significant" breach of the spending limits is 3 points
• In Everton's case this was increased up to 6 points for two aggravating factors: One being the scale of the breach (£19.5m, or 19% of their threshold), the other being that they had been found in their appeal to have supplied some "incorrect" information to the Premier League (which the Premier League originally presented as Everton "misleading" them. The finding of "incorrect" rather than "misleading" is important).
• In Forest's case, the aggravating factor was solely the scale of their breach, albeit this was both numerically and proportionally much higher than Everton's (£34.5m, or 57% of their threshold; alternatively, a breach 77% higher than Everton's).
• While the Premier League argued that this should correspond to a 5 point increase in the deduction, raising the points deduction up to a total of 8 points, the commission disagreed.
• This was in large part because the Premier League has no "fixed formula" for points deductions based on the size of a breach, and that an insolvency event would result in a 9 point deduction. There's a lot of explanation for why they came to this decision, but effectively, the commission concluded that, as Forest's breach was a "significant" breach not a "major" breach (i.e. one involving insolvency), the absolute upper threshold that any club who makes a "significant" breach would expect (without major and unusual aggravating circumstances) would be 8 points, as insolvency would represent the absolute worst case scenario for failing to adhere to profit and sustainability. They also concluded that Forest were unlikely to be the largest ever Premier League breach, and therefore they shouldn't be punished at the absolute highest end of the scale.
• Instead, the commission decided that the level of breach should correspond to a 3 point increase to the deduction, raising to total deduction to 6 points.
• Forest were found to have had two mitigating factors in their favour: that they admitted the breach early on, and that they complied with the Premier League. As such, the commission reduced their deduction by 2 points, taking the total deduction to 4 points.

So, basically, you can overspend by as much as you want in the Premier League, and as long as you don't do anything too egregious alongside it, you'll lose no more than 8 points.

They are paving the way for city to get a lenient penalty

[Red_Dawn]

I think we've been incredibly lucky here. 

If we can't gain one more point than Luton by one point by the end of the season, that's out own fault and deserve relegation. 

Edited March 18 by Red_Dawn

[Crewton]

Not really much jeopardy overspending in the PL then is there?

[TaahnRam]

How laughable are forests mitigating factors?

Take your points and go quietly. If they appeal and fail they should get battered with another 4 for a frivolous appeal

Edited March 18 by TaahnRam

[Archie]

This doesn't seem right to me. I think the lawyers of Burnley, Luton, Brentford and even Everton should be rallying for this to be reviewed. 

Smelly fishy.

[Shipley Ram]

[Zag zig]

3 hours ago, MarsdenRam said:

Four is not enough for my liking. Forty maybe...

A point every £8.5m, one way of looking at it.

[angieram]

 

[Comrade 86]

7 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

No issues getting an entire pie into that cavernous cakehole.

And look at the state of the rest of them! Do they ban attractive fans at the shitty ground?

[JfR]

1 minute ago, Comrade 86 said:

No issues getting an entire pie into that cavernous cakehole.

And look at the state of the rest of them! Do they ban attractive fans at the shitty ground?

Pretty sure that's the Everton fans...

[Comrade 86]

8 minutes ago, angieram said:

 

So they get away with murder and whine about it. Ah well, looks like it'll be another year before they get relegated. Shame really.

[BPV]

So they cheated to get there, cheated to stay up and have been given the equivalent of a slap on the wrist for it.

Outrageous 

[Crewton]

15 minutes ago, angieram said:

 

Nothing like accepting your meager punishment gracefully is there?

No doubt they'll now "fully co-operate" with the EFL in respect of their breach of FFP for the seasons 18/19, 19/20, 20/21 & 21/22