NFR Forest

[Drewry66]

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

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.

[Angus Telford]

On 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.

[Drewry66]

On 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.

[Angus Telford]

On 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.

[Arthur]

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 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.

[ianthailand]

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.

Bang on HV71. The game is going further and further away from the people it was designed for.

[hovewhite]

No sympathy for forest or Everton at all

[Drewry66]

On 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.

[Angus Telford]

On 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?

[Lordedmundo]

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 Ronic]

   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.

[JimOG]

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

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

[Wolf]

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.

[Grassy Noel]

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.

[Drewry66]

On 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.

[Black and White Town]

Anyone know when Man City will be punished?

[Drewry66]

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

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.

[btffc]

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.

[Deeping_white]

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.

A cut price MGW to play in the #10 role would be a decent investment

[Angus Telford]

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.

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.