I'm hearing that Forest have been docked four points.
Same here.
Everton are going to go mental, rightly or wrongly.
Play with fire....
Everton still have more points to be docked.
FA do not want Everton or Forest going down imo and have given them as lenient as they can to give them hope to stay up.
The prem is a money ball and they only want the biggest teams, doesn't pay for them to have a league Luton, Burnley and Sheffield in it.
Does feel like they're being very lenient with those who abuse PSR.
4 points seems very little, though that does put them in the relegation places and 1 pt behind Luton now.
I can't imagine it'll do anything more than possibly galvanise Forest into making up the difference, which kind of defeats the point.
Essentially PSR is and has been failing.
They have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
Quote from: Somerset Fulham on March 18, 2024, 02:41:53 PMThey have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
Exactly, how crazy is that?
Was there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
If a measley 4 points is the punishment let's go for broke.
Becoming more like spin the bottle. Where it lands nobody knows. Truth or dare. Dare you appeal or accept the truth of only 4 points deducted.
Then the appeal is heard when the season is over. There has to be a better way of doing things. This just makes the whole season a lottery and the Prem and its rules look foolish.
Have rules but find a way to make the whole implementation fairer and simpler.
Quote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Most likely, because Forest argued that the reason they were in breach was because they delayed the sale of Brenan Johnson until later in the summer transfer window so that they would achieve a higher sale price, but that fee was only counted in the following PSR year as a result.
Quote from: bencher on March 18, 2024, 03:15:49 PMQuote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Most likely, because Forest argued that the reason they were in breach was because they delayed the sale of Brenan Johnson until later in the summer transfer window so that they would achieve a higher sale price, but that fee was only counted in the following PSR year as a result.
Forest tried to do a deal with the Premier League that would allow them to do this. It feels a bit like saying to a traffic cop that you were thinking of driving below the speed limit in an hour or so.
Quote from: Somerset Fulham on March 18, 2024, 02:41:53 PMThey have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
I imagine they will retain their place in the Premier and start next season on -4
Will probably mean that whichever teams get relegated, will be on to their lawyers straight away! And I think they would be right too!
Really is a mess. They'd probably throw the book at FFC if we were in breach!
Quote from: bencher on March 18, 2024, 03:15:49 PMQuote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Most likely, because Forest argued that the reason they were in breach was because they delayed the sale of Brenan Johnson until later in the summer transfer window so that they would achieve a higher sale price, but that fee was only counted in the following PSR year as a result.
I've always found that defence (i.e delaying Johnson sale knowing it put them in jeopardy) bizarre. You can't, as a club, to break the rules claiming it was better for them to sell him outside the FFP deadline...weird
If they appeal, is there a chance the points deduction could be increased as well as decreased?
I assume they would have happily included all the funds into this season if the PL hadn't challenged last years figures. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt here and it (again) just highlights how flawed the administrative body of the PL is.
Quote from: Eton White on March 18, 2024, 03:41:37 PMIf they appeal, is there a chance the points deduction couod be increased as well as decreased?
Only decreased I believe
Quote from: JimOG on March 18, 2024, 03:39:34 PMQuote from: bencher on March 18, 2024, 03:15:49 PMQuote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Most likely, because Forest argued that the reason they were in breach was because they delayed the sale of Brenan Johnson until later in the summer transfer window so that they would achieve a higher sale price, but that fee was only counted in the following PSR year as a result.
I've always found that defence (i.e delaying Johnson sale knowing it put them in jeopardy) bizarre. You can't, as a club, to break the rules claiming it was better for them to sell him outside the FFP deadline...weird
I agree its absolutely laughable; they've either sold him by the relevant date or not - there's no grey area.
And when is the Man City case due to be heard? Will any point deductions be retrospective? Maybe cost them the Championship, only we don't get that result for a season or two? The cynic in me wonders if they will wait until City are storming away with the title, then hit them with an insignificant deduction.
Or are we supposed to forget all about it when we see how tough the authorities are on Forest and Everton?
Quote from: Rupert on March 18, 2024, 03:57:10 PMAnd when is the Man City case due to be heard? Will any point deductions be retrospective? Maybe cost them the Championship, only we don't get that result for a season or two? The cynic in me wonders if they will wait until City are storming away with the title, then hit them with an insignificant deduction.
Or are we supposed to forget all about it when we see how tough the authorities are on Forest and Everton?
There is supposed to be an announcement in June about when the trial will be heard
Quote from: Wolf on March 18, 2024, 03:53:10 PMQuote from: JimOG on March 18, 2024, 03:39:34 PMQuote from: bencher on March 18, 2024, 03:15:49 PMQuote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Most likely, because Forest argued that the reason they were in breach was because they delayed the sale of Brenan Johnson until later in the summer transfer window so that they would achieve a higher sale price, but that fee was only counted in the following PSR year as a result.
I've always found that defence (i.e delaying Johnson sale knowing it put them in jeopardy) bizarre. You can't, as a club, to break the rules claiming it was better for them to sell him outside the FFP deadline...weird
I agree its absolutely laughable; they've either sold him by the relevant date or not - there's no grey area.
Of course there are infinite shades of grey.
Real life isn't black and white so neither should the law that governs it be rigid or binary.
If you get done for dangerous driving having gone 5 mph over the speed limit at 1am and hit a cyclist who had no lights on, you wouldn't expect the same sentence as someone who's ploughed into a crowd of kids whilst high and doing 70mph outside a school at 3pm.
And to the post above that we should ignore FFP if the sanction is only 4pts, well if we just drove a coach and horses through the rules I expect we'd quite rightly get a much bigger sanction.
Fulham have been deducted 3 points for winning on Saturday
Quote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Sounds like they were given a 3 point deduction for breaking the rules in the first place, another 3 point deduction for the extent to which they broke the rules and then that penalty was reduced by two for the following mitigating reasons 1) "Forest admitted the Complaint in full at the first opportunity, and (2) has cooperated extensively with the Premier League before and during the disciplinary process."
So while Forest argued that the delay of the Johnson sale should be considered as a mitigating factor, the PL chose not to treat it as such.
Quote from: Somerset Fulham on March 18, 2024, 02:41:53 PMThey have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
Season finishes 19th May. If the appeal result is known 24th May, then that is only 5 days after the end of the season. Not great but far from disastrous either......
Four point is definitely a risk worth taking I'd say? If we had overspent and had 1-2 more top quality players in the squad, we might well have 10 points more than we have now, in which case even a deduction would see is still in the running for Europe.
Maybe all clubs should do it, and all start the season on minus 4?
In a way I think it's quite unfair. They'd have been within the limits if they sold Brennan Johnson earlier, but they hung on and got nearly £20m more for him. I don't think financial sustainability rules should be forcing clubs to make less money
On the other hand, they did buy about a thousand players, and have some dodgy dealings with the owner's other clubs, so I don't have that much sympathy
What about Chelsea ?
Quote from: Somerset Fulham on March 18, 2024, 02:41:53 PMThey have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
The season finishes on 19th May, but the actual season ends 1st June!
That is when the relegated sides must hand back their EPL membership cards.
I wonder if they turn up and the person at the EPL says "sorry, I've been told to cut this up in front of you" and bring out the big scissors and snip their card into little pieces?
::thumb::
COYW
All seems very unfair to smaller clubs.
Quote from: Fulham 442 on March 18, 2024, 02:43:55 PMQuote from: Somerset Fulham on March 18, 2024, 02:41:53 PMThey have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
Exactly, how crazy is that?
That really is stupid, we all want to know how this relegation battle is panning out week by week.
Forrest have been throwing money about wildly since their promotion,why has it taken for officials to act.
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 04:31:40 PMQuote from: Wolf on March 18, 2024, 03:53:10 PMQuote from: JimOG on March 18, 2024, 03:39:34 PMQuote from: bencher on March 18, 2024, 03:15:49 PMQuote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Most likely, because Forest argued that the reason they were in breach was because they delayed the sale of Brenan Johnson until later in the summer transfer window so that they would achieve a higher sale price, but that fee was only counted in the following PSR year as a result.
I've always found that defence (i.e delaying Johnson sale knowing it put them in jeopardy) bizarre. You can't, as a club, to break the rules claiming it was better for them to sell him outside the FFP deadline...weird
I agree its absolutely laughable; they've either sold him by the relevant date or not - there's no grey area.
Of course there are infinite shades of grey.
Real life isn't black and white so neither should the law that governs it be rigid or binary.
If you get done for dangerous driving having gone 5 mph over the speed limit at 1am and hit a cyclist who had no lights on, you wouldn't expect the same sentence as someone who's ploughed into a crowd of kids whilst high and doing 70mph outside a school at 3pm.
And to the post above that we should ignore FFP if the sanction is only 4pts, well if we just drove a coach and horses through the rules I expect we'd quite rightly get a much bigger sanction.
Fair point, but I would argue that a breach of £34.5m can be considered driving a coach and horses through it already.
Helps Brentford though - they look like they could lose every game to the end of the season and still stay up
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on March 18, 2024, 06:30:22 PMQuote from: Somerset Fulham on March 18, 2024, 02:41:53 PMThey have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
The season finishes on 19th May, but the actual season ends 1st June!
That is when the relegated sides must hand back their EPL membership cards.
I wonder if they turn up and the person at the EPL says "sorry, I've been told to cut this up in front of you" and bring out the big scissors and snip their card into little pieces?
::thumb::
COYW
I didn't know that I must admit. It makes the whole scenario even more insane though.
It is my guess they hope that Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United get relegated and that will avoid any difficult situations.
Interesting breakdown of the reasoning here for those with the inclination to read it...
https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/18/6614f2f9-6138-4d13-81c9-671130427c1c/Final-Award-The-Premier-League-and-Nottingham-Forest-745330876.1-.pdf
Essentially they were given a 3 point sanction which is the starting point for any "significant" breach, then 3 more points were added to the sanction given the large scale of the breach, then 2 points were deducted on account of them admitting the breach early doors and cooperation fully with the PL investigation, bringing the final sanction to 4 pts.
I think they'll struggle to get this reduced on appeal because it already takes into account various lessons learned from the Everton appeal.
Quote from: BestOfBrede on March 18, 2024, 03:25:26 PMQuote from: Somerset Fulham on March 18, 2024, 02:41:53 PMThey have two weeks to appeal this and then that appeal won't be decided upon until 24th May. The Premier League season finishes on the 9th May so Christ knows how that is going to work.
I imagine they will retain their place in the Premier and start next season on -4
Will probably mean that whichever teams get relegated, will be on to their lawyers straight away! And I think they would be right too!
Really is a mess. They'd probably throw the book at FFC if we were in breach!
Its already been deducted from them, but God knows what happens if they appeal is successful and they stay up as a result of it. Its going to be bedlam.
Quote from: bencher on March 18, 2024, 03:15:49 PMQuote from: btffc on March 18, 2024, 02:56:26 PMWas there an explanation why Forest got 4 and Everton have gotten 6?
Most likely, because Forest argued that the reason they were in breach was because they delayed the sale of Brenan Johnson until later in the summer transfer window so that they would achieve a higher sale price, but that fee was only counted in the following PSR year as a result.
That is absolute nonsense. That was a business decision. On that basis they should have waited a couple more years and got a better transfer fee.
Quote from: Free Elvis Hammond on March 18, 2024, 05:05:00 PMIn a way I think it's quite unfair. They'd have been within the limits if they sold Brennan Johnson earlier, but they hung on and got nearly £20m more for him. I don't think financial sustainability rules should be forcing clubs to make less money
On the other hand, they did buy about a thousand players, and have some dodgy dealings with the owner's other clubs, so I don't have that much sympathy
Not unfair at all. They cheated. Had they sold Johnson and some other players earlier, and had they not bought so many players they would not have cheated.
Complete nonsense at so many levels.
This is getting a bit like VAR - you don't know whether you have scored or not until some individual decides from miles away and takes forever . We could face fans not knowing ,after the last game of the season, whether they are saying up or going down. How can that be ? WTF is happening to the game ? What are fans to think or do in this day and age ? This is a step too far and I can only hope that any appeal has no impact on the relegation battle.
They knew the rules but continued to spend spend spend. We were all saying the same- how can they afford it. And now it transpires they couldn't. So tough sh1t.They cheated and hopefully will go down at the expense of Luton who's recovery story is motivating to all the smaller clubs
This is a complete fiasco and I feel story for Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United. Forest will appeal and likely get no points deducted and Everton will appeal the second offense and be given points because they tried very hard not to cheat.
I can't say I've got much sympathy for them. Reckless spending in all 3 windows since getting promoted
They point to the premier league stifling ambition but what they're doing is clearly spending without a plan, simply just trying to buy their way out of trouble every window. I'm not a huge of fan the FFP/PSR rules but without punishing clubs for being idiots Forest will just end up like Portsmouth.
Quote from: St Eve on March 18, 2024, 09:15:27 PMQuote from: Free Elvis Hammond on March 18, 2024, 05:05:00 PMIn a way I think it's quite unfair. They'd have been within the limits if they sold Brennan Johnson earlier, but they hung on and got nearly £20m more for him. I don't think financial sustainability rules should be forcing clubs to make less money
On the other hand, they did buy about a thousand players, and have some dodgy dealings with the owner's other clubs, so I don't have that much sympathy
Not unfair at all. They cheated. Had they sold Johnson and some other players earlier, and had they not bought so many players they would not have cheated.
It's crazy that they are trying to use the Johnson thing. End of the day they had him on top of all the over spending last year and he was vital in keeping them up. It's actually ridiculous that they had the 'get out of jail' option to sell him at the end of the season to just scrape into the green zone for the rules as they already spent the whole year benefiting from being over. The report also said that they knew full well they would be over last January and continued signing without selling in order to survive! Just for that I think they should have got the full 6 points as forget being helpful and complying now...they knew they were cheating and carried on so that isn't being compliant at all.
On the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair. The rules as they are however there and they knew they were breaking them. Although our allowable losses were more with only one year in the champ we adhered to the rules, spending less that established prem teams with higher allowable losses and finished 10th through excellent transfer management and Marco management. I do think this rule is unfair and should be scrapped but it is there and if I were Everton I'd be very annoyed with Forrest going nearly twice over what Everton did and getting 2 less points. They both should have had 6.
Quote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMOn the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair.
So you think a club competing in the Championship should have the same allowable losses, £35m, as a club competing in the Premier League club? Because that's what you're saying.
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 10:37:04 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMOn the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair.
So you think a club competing in the Championship should have the same allowable losses, £35m, as a club competing in the Premier League club? Because that's what you're saying.
Not said that at all. I said 'if you have been in the championship' not 'if you are in the championship'. A club competing in the championship should have championship allowable losses but we and Forrest have not been competing in the championship for the last two years. We've been competing in the prem and with one hand tied behind our backs. When you get into the prem it should be adjusted otherwise it's not a level playing field in the prem. It's hard enough surviving and promoted sides are already hindered by having way less income that established prem teams. To then restrict them even further by allowing them to lose less than the established prem teams even if their owner is willing to invest is just yet another way to keep the established teams where they are. Clubs in the same competition should be allowed the same allowable losses. I never said clubs competing in the championship should be allowed higher allowable losses.
Thankfully this is our last year with our hand tied behind our back for the three year period and we have managed through this handicap imposed by the rules quite masterfully.
Quote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 10:56:55 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 10:37:04 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMOn the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair.
So you think a club competing in the Championship should have the same allowable losses, £35m, as a club competing in the Premier League club? Because that's what you're saying.
Not said that at all. I said 'if you have been in the championship' not 'if you are in the championship'. A club competing in the championship should have championship allowable losses but we and Forrest have not been competing in the championship for the last two years. We've been competing in the prem and with one hand tied behind our backs. When you get into the prem it should be adjusted otherwise it's not a level playing field in the prem. It's hard enough surviving and promoted sides are already hindered by having way less income that established prem teams. To then restrict them even further by allowing them to lose less than the established prem teams even if their owner is willing to invest is just yet another way to keep the established teams where they are. Clubs in the same competition should be allowed the same allowable losses. I never said clubs competing in the championship should be allowed higher allowable losses.
Thankfully this is our last year with our hand tied behind our back for the three year period and we have managed through this handicap imposed by the rules quite masterfully.
But the difference only arises because the losses are assessed over a three-year period. PL clubs (whether established or newly-promoted) can lose £35m per season, Championship clubs £13m per season. So if you were a Championship club for two-thirds of the assessment period, it's pretty unavoidable that your aggregate permitted losses over those three years are going to be lower (£13m in your Championship season and £35m in your PL season). As I said, the only alternative is to say clubs competing in the Championship can also lose £35m per season. That's just maths.
Quote from: DevonFFC on March 18, 2024, 02:24:38 PMFA do not want Everton or Forest going down imo and have given them as lenient as they can to give them hope to stay up.
The P.L. don't hand out the punishment. (I don't think the F.A. have anything to do with this.) As I understand it, the P.L. allows an independent panel to decide upon the penalty to avoid accusations of bias or favouritism. Sky Sports did say, however, that the P.L. had wanted a (not-so-lenient) 8-point deduction.
Quote from: HV71 on March 18, 2024, 09:18:01 PMComplete nonsense at so many levels.
This is getting a bit like VAR - you don't know whether you have scored or not until some individual decides from miles away and takes forever . We could face fans not knowing ,after the last game of the season, whether they are saying up or going down. How can that be ? WTF is happening to the game ? What are fans to think or do in this day and age ? This is a step too far and I can only hope that any appeal has no impact on the relegation battle.
Bang on HV71. The game is going further and further away from the people it was designed for.
No sympathy for forest or Everton at all
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 11:13:58 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 10:56:55 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 10:37:04 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMOn the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair.
So you think a club competing in the Championship should have the same allowable losses, £35m, as a club competing in the Premier League club? Because that's what you're saying.
Not said that at all. I said 'if you have been in the championship' not 'if you are in the championship'. A club competing in the championship should have championship allowable losses but we and Forrest have not been competing in the championship for the last two years. We've been competing in the prem and with one hand tied behind our backs. When you get into the prem it should be adjusted otherwise it's not a level playing field in the prem. It's hard enough surviving and promoted sides are already hindered by having way less income that established prem teams. To then restrict them even further by allowing them to lose less than the established prem teams even if their owner is willing to invest is just yet another way to keep the established teams where they are. Clubs in the same competition should be allowed the same allowable losses. I never said clubs competing in the championship should be allowed higher allowable losses.
Thankfully this is our last year with our hand tied behind our back for the three year period and we have managed through this handicap imposed by the rules quite masterfully.
But the difference only arises because the losses are assessed over a three-year period. PL clubs (whether established or newly-promoted) can lose £35m per season, Championship clubs £13m per season. So if you were a Championship club for two-thirds of the assessment period, it's pretty unavoidable that your aggregate permitted losses over those three years are going to be lower (£13m in your Championship season and £35m in your PL season). As I said, the only alternative is to say clubs competing in the Championship can also lose £35m per season. That's just maths.
I don't see why when you get promoted the it can't just change to £35 million a season. So our allowable loss the year we went up was £13 million. As we were now promoted and playing in the prem that allowable loss for that year for the three year period rises to £35 million because we are in the prem to make it a level playing field. The maths is simple indeed...you just change the allowable losses for the three year period as soon as you are in the prem. If not you are at a significant disadvantage until your third year in the prem and the first two are hard enough to survive anyway as you try and build a prem team that can compete. If you are in the championship they stay as they are.
Quote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 08:32:58 AMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 11:13:58 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 10:56:55 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 10:37:04 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMOn the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair.
So you think a club competing in the Championship should have the same allowable losses, £35m, as a club competing in the Premier League club? Because that's what you're saying.
Not said that at all. I said 'if you have been in the championship' not 'if you are in the championship'. A club competing in the championship should have championship allowable losses but we and Forrest have not been competing in the championship for the last two years. We've been competing in the prem and with one hand tied behind our backs. When you get into the prem it should be adjusted otherwise it's not a level playing field in the prem. It's hard enough surviving and promoted sides are already hindered by having way less income that established prem teams. To then restrict them even further by allowing them to lose less than the established prem teams even if their owner is willing to invest is just yet another way to keep the established teams where they are. Clubs in the same competition should be allowed the same allowable losses. I never said clubs competing in the championship should be allowed higher allowable losses.
Thankfully this is our last year with our hand tied behind our back for the three year period and we have managed through this handicap imposed by the rules quite masterfully.
But the difference only arises because the losses are assessed over a three-year period. PL clubs (whether established or newly-promoted) can lose £35m per season, Championship clubs £13m per season. So if you were a Championship club for two-thirds of the assessment period, it's pretty unavoidable that your aggregate permitted losses over those three years are going to be lower (£13m in your Championship season and £35m in your PL season). As I said, the only alternative is to say clubs competing in the Championship can also lose £35m per season. That's just maths.
I don't see why when you get promoted the it can't just change to £35 million a season. So our allowable loss the year we went up was £13 million. As we were now promoted and playing in the prem that allowable loss for that year for the three year period rises to £35 million because we are in the prem to make it a level playing field. The maths is simple indeed...you just change the allowable losses for the three year period as soon as you are in the prem. If not you are at a significant disadvantage until your third year in the prem and the first two are hard enough to survive anyway as you try and build a prem team that can compete. If you are in the championship they stay as they are.
That wouldn't be a level playing field, though. Assuming the 13m and 35m thresholds are appropriate for the respective divisions, a newly-promoted Championship club would theoretically only have lost £26m in the last two seasons (13 + 13) whereas existing PL clubs will have lost £70m (35 + 35). So by giving them both a £105m three-year threshold, you're effectively giving the newly-promoted club £79m (13 + 13 + 79) permitted losses in the current season, whereas existing PL clubs only have another £35m (35 + 35 + 35).
Out of interest, if the newly-promoted club is relegated, what happens the following season? Normally their three-year allowance would then be £61m (13 + 35 + 13). What would happen under your model?
Neither Everton or Forest should have been deducted the points until the appeals process had been completed. It is not fair on other clubs who do not know where they stand. We could now have an end of season where Luton (for instance) stay up - but then get relegated if Forest are successful in their appeal. Plus of course, Everton are on another charge!
Should these clubs even be able to appeal? Why are there not clearly defined rules that define the specidic number of points deducted based on the scale of the breach? Otherwise how is there a deterrent?! Both have admitted the breaches, so deduct the points and let that be the end of it.
Personally, I think both Everton and Forest have got off lightly (so far). The 4 points deduction for Forest is not enough and their reason for appeal (that they need to delay the sale of Brennan Johnson until after the June deadline date) is pathetic! They signed 29 players in the 2022-2023 season - that is why they were sanctioned, and I would argue that they deserve more points to be deducted than Everton.
I can see that a business (any business) could make a loss due to restructuring or rebuilding etc but at some point that business needs to turn a profit. Allowing clubs to lose 35 million a season every season is at the root of why football is a mess.
Quote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMQuote from: St Eve on March 18, 2024, 09:15:27 PMQuote from: Free Elvis Hammond on March 18, 2024, 05:05:00 PMIn a way I think it's quite unfair. They'd have been within the limits if they sold Brennan Johnson earlier, but they hung on and got nearly £20m more for him. I don't think financial sustainability rules should be forcing clubs to make less money
On the other hand, they did buy about a thousand players, and have some dodgy dealings with the owner's other clubs, so I don't have that much sympathy
Not unfair at all. They cheated. Had they sold Johnson and some other players earlier, and had they not bought so many players they would not have cheated.
It's crazy that they are trying to use the Johnson thing. End of the day they had him on top of all the over spending last year and he was vital in keeping them up. It's actually ridiculous that they had the 'get out of jail' option to sell him at the end of the season to just scrape into the green zone for the rules as they already spent the whole year benefiting from being over. The report also said that they knew full well they would be over last January and continued signing without selling in order to survive! Just for that I think they should have got the full 6 points as forget being helpful and complying now...they knew they were cheating and carried on so that isn't being compliant at all.
On the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair. The rules as they are however there and they knew they were breaking them. Although our allowable losses were more with only one year in the champ we adhered to the rules, spending less that established prem teams with higher allowable losses and finished 10th through excellent transfer management and Marco management. I do think this rule is unfair and should be scrapped but it is there and if I were Everton I'd be very annoyed with Forrest going nearly twice over what Everton did and getting 2 less points. They both should have had 6.
Good Guardian piece on this point
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/supporters-should-blame-club-owners-not-the-rules-for-points-deductions
I'm not saying Forest have recklessly thrown money around for years, but they are still paying the awful Harry Arter's wages after signing him for reputedly £5M in September 2020 and playing him 15 times across four seasons.
Such is the state of the current Everton/Forest fiasco that once the fate of Burnley and Sheffield has been determined then the third relegation place should be decided by a home and away playoff between them.
Failing that there should be a duel at ten paces between the respective managers ,the choice of weapons being determined by the toss of a coin, and only toffees or arrows ( of non-Sherwood manufacture ) being allowed. My money would be on Sean Dyche although VAR could pull him up for turning too quickly to fire.
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 08:54:55 AMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 08:32:58 AMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 11:13:58 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 10:56:55 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 18, 2024, 10:37:04 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMOn the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair.
So you think a club competing in the Championship should have the same allowable losses, £35m, as a club competing in the Premier League club? Because that's what you're saying.
Not said that at all. I said 'if you have been in the championship' not 'if you are in the championship'. A club competing in the championship should have championship allowable losses but we and Forrest have not been competing in the championship for the last two years. We've been competing in the prem and with one hand tied behind our backs. When you get into the prem it should be adjusted otherwise it's not a level playing field in the prem. It's hard enough surviving and promoted sides are already hindered by having way less income that established prem teams. To then restrict them even further by allowing them to lose less than the established prem teams even if their owner is willing to invest is just yet another way to keep the established teams where they are. Clubs in the same competition should be allowed the same allowable losses. I never said clubs competing in the championship should be allowed higher allowable losses.
Thankfully this is our last year with our hand tied behind our back for the three year period and we have managed through this handicap imposed by the rules quite masterfully.
But the difference only arises because the losses are assessed over a three-year period. PL clubs (whether established or newly-promoted) can lose £35m per season, Championship clubs £13m per season. So if you were a Championship club for two-thirds of the assessment period, it's pretty unavoidable that your aggregate permitted losses over those three years are going to be lower (£13m in your Championship season and £35m in your PL season). As I said, the only alternative is to say clubs competing in the Championship can also lose £35m per season. That's just maths.
I don't see why when you get promoted the it can't just change to £35 million a season. So our allowable loss the year we went up was £13 million. As we were now promoted and playing in the prem that allowable loss for that year for the three year period rises to £35 million because we are in the prem to make it a level playing field. The maths is simple indeed...you just change the allowable losses for the three year period as soon as you are in the prem. If not you are at a significant disadvantage until your third year in the prem and the first two are hard enough to survive anyway as you try and build a prem team that can compete. If you are in the championship they stay as they are.
That wouldn't be a level playing field, though. Assuming the 13m and 35m thresholds are appropriate for the respective divisions, a newly-promoted Championship club would theoretically only have lost £26m in the last two seasons (13 + 13) whereas existing PL clubs will have lost £70m (35 + 35). So by giving them both a £105m three-year threshold, you're effectively giving the newly-promoted club £79m (13 + 13 + 79) permitted losses in the current season, whereas existing PL clubs only have another £35m (35 + 35 + 35).
Out of interest, if the newly-promoted club is relegated, what happens the following season? Normally their three-year allowance would then be £61m (13 + 35 + 13). What would happen under your model?
Firstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Anyone know when Man City will be punished?
Quote from: JimOG on March 19, 2024, 10:45:15 AMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 18, 2024, 09:55:32 PMQuote from: St Eve on March 18, 2024, 09:15:27 PMQuote from: Free Elvis Hammond on March 18, 2024, 05:05:00 PMIn a way I think it's quite unfair. They'd have been within the limits if they sold Brennan Johnson earlier, but they hung on and got nearly £20m more for him. I don't think financial sustainability rules should be forcing clubs to make less money
On the other hand, they did buy about a thousand players, and have some dodgy dealings with the owner's other clubs, so I don't have that much sympathy
Not unfair at all. They cheated. Had they sold Johnson and some other players earlier, and had they not bought so many players they would not have cheated.
It's crazy that they are trying to use the Johnson thing. End of the day they had him on top of all the over spending last year and he was vital in keeping them up. It's actually ridiculous that they had the 'get out of jail' option to sell him at the end of the season to just scrape into the green zone for the rules as they already spent the whole year benefiting from being over. The report also said that they knew full well they would be over last January and continued signing without selling in order to survive! Just for that I think they should have got the full 6 points as forget being helpful and complying now...they knew they were cheating and carried on so that isn't being compliant at all.
On the flip side this allowable losses being less if you have been in the championship is just plain unfair. The rules as they are however there and they knew they were breaking them. Although our allowable losses were more with only one year in the champ we adhered to the rules, spending less that established prem teams with higher allowable losses and finished 10th through excellent transfer management and Marco management. I do think this rule is unfair and should be scrapped but it is there and if I were Everton I'd be very annoyed with Forrest going nearly twice over what Everton did and getting 2 less points. They both should have had 6.
Good Guardian piece on this point
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/supporters-should-blame-club-owners-not-the-rules-for-points-deductions
Yeah pretty much exactly what I've been saying. It is a very credible argument to say that it is not fair that promoted clubs are not allowed the same losses as their prem counterparts but with the rules in place you can't just break them when other like Bournemouth and us are sticking to them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sport/football/article/nottingham-forest-risk-points-deduction-sell-stars-6l50dk97f
Forest will likely need to make 30m in profit by June 30th to avoid more points deductions next season. They could try and wait again but their mitigation request on the Johnson transfer was rejected and then they'd be dealing with being a repeat offender so decent chance there could be some good deals to be had if they are forced to sell.
I'd be looking at Murillo if Tosin doesn't sign or if he does sign and Diop wants out. Elanga and Hudson-Odoi have also been good when I've watched them.
Quote from: btffc on March 19, 2024, 02:10:48 PMhttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/sport/football/article/nottingham-forest-risk-points-deduction-sell-stars-6l50dk97f
Forest will likely need to make 30m in profit by June 30th to avoid more points deductions next season. They could try and wait again but their mitigation request on the Johnson transfer was rejected and then they'd be dealing with being a repeat offender so decent chance there could be some good deals to be had if they are forced to sell.
I'd be looking at Murillo if Tosin doesn't sign or if he does sign and Diop wants out. Elanga and Hudson-Odoi have also been good when I've watched them.
A cut price MGW to play in the #10 role would be a decent investment
Quote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 01:59:02 PMFirstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.
Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.
Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 03:40:41 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 01:59:02 PMFirstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.
Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.
Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.
Quote from: FFC1987 on March 19, 2024, 04:43:38 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 03:40:41 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 01:59:02 PMFirstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.
Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.
Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.
There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 04:52:35 PMQuote from: FFC1987 on March 19, 2024, 04:43:38 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 03:40:41 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 01:59:02 PMFirstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.
Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.
Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.
There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.
I'm almost certain that's not correct. The argument that teams that abuse the system in the championship, but get promotion, has never resulted in punishment, unless they get relegated in due course? At least, that's what was constantly reported when say, Bournemouth, completely abused it many seasons ago.
Maybe I'm wrong but has anyone upon promotion, been handed punishments for things done in championship?
Quote from: FFC1987 on March 19, 2024, 04:58:24 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 04:52:35 PMQuote from: FFC1987 on March 19, 2024, 04:43:38 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 03:40:41 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 01:59:02 PMFirstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.
Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.
Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.
There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.
I'm almost certain that's not correct. The argument that teams that abuse the system in the championship, but get promotion, has never resulted in punishment, unless they get relegated in due course? At least, that's what was constantly reported when say, Bournemouth, completely abused it many seasons ago.
Maybe I'm wrong but has anyone upon promotion, been handed punishments for things done in championship?
Well taking one of your examples, Bournemouth, they were fined
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 03:40:41 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 01:59:02 PMFirstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.
Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.
Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.
As per my comments there shouldn't be a mitigation for Forrest with the rules as they are as that wouldn't be fair on us and Bournemouth who stick to them.
Anyway fair play mate. Let's just agree to disagree on this one! Lol
To be fair I hope it stays as is now. Despite me agreeing it is unfair on promoted clubs from a Fulham perspective we are through that from this summers transfer window which gives us a massive advantage over Leeds and Leicester or whoever comes up so long May the unfairness continue to help us avoid relegation ever again! Lol
Quote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 05:16:17 PMQuote from: FFC1987 on March 19, 2024, 04:58:24 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 04:52:35 PMQuote from: FFC1987 on March 19, 2024, 04:43:38 PMQuote from: Angus Telford on March 19, 2024, 03:40:41 PMQuote from: Drewry66 on March 19, 2024, 01:59:02 PMFirstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.
Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.
This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.
Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.
In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.
Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.
Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.
Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.
There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.
I'm almost certain that's not correct. The argument that teams that abuse the system in the championship, but get promotion, has never resulted in punishment, unless they get relegated in due course? At least, that's what was constantly reported when say, Bournemouth, completely abused it many seasons ago.
Maybe I'm wrong but has anyone upon promotion, been handed punishments for things done in championship?
Well taking one of your examples, Bournemouth, they were fined
I'm just looking at it and it does look like fines can be pushed but points deductions and embargo's can't unless the premier league body agrees to it. Which feels strange as the Bournemouth fine feels well understated considering the losses they were making.
