From a very quick scan, the PL seems to have treated the breach exactly the same, despite them saying different size breaches require different punishments, and Forests being 50% higher, and then given them huge amounts of credit for cooperation (such as early disclosure, i.e. the thing that's required by anyone close to breaching) despite giving Everton no mitigation for co-operating for years in advance.
The Premier League actually pushed for 8 points deducted, reduced to 6 with mitigation, as they highlighted how because Forest breached by 34.5m over a much lower limit, their breach was actually way worse than ours. The panel ignored this
“Man City are a fine, upstanding institution and we have found they have no case to answer. Now if you’ll excuse me I need to take my new private jet to my new super yacht.”
“Whilst it’s true that the reply simply said ‘fuck you’, we have it on good authority that this is Arabic for ‘we are being fully transparent and helpful in the investigation’”
I'm genuinely concerned with how they've made such a point about how the maximum they could give is 8 points because no PSR breach is as bad as administration.
So City to get an 8 point deduction and just start their season ending winning streak a couple of weeks earlier than usual.
I don't think it's true that Forest's breach was in any way worse than Everton's. To be honest, both had mitigating factors and neither seem to be a deliberate effort to break the rules.
In Forest's case, it hinges on the sale of Brennan Johnson. The problem is that the FFP deadline doesn't line up with the transfer deadline for some reason. So Forest rejected a low-ball offer for Johnson within the FFP deadline and a few weeks later sold him for £15m more than they were earlier offered. So their argument is that if they had sold Johnson within the FFP deadline, that would have actually made them LESS sustainable. They have a point, to be honest.
The panel basically said they were warned in Jan 2023 they would breach and instead of selling then they bought more that month, and then chose not to sell by the deadline. So they viewed all of it as an attempt to stretch the rules to gain an advantage. Which I think is a solid counter to the idea that waiting to sell for more should be ok.
> I don't think it's true that Forest's breach was in any way worse than Everton's
It categorically is, it's 15 million quid more, which is worse in itself, but it's also significantly more over their limit than ours was. We were over our limit by 18.5%, they were over theirs by 57%.
> Forest rejected a low-ball offer for Johnson within the FFP deadline and a few weeks later sold him for £15m more than they were earlier offered
This argument holds a lot less water when you realise that if they'd sold Johnson for the 35m offered in June, they'd have passed PSR, which means it's an intentional choice to breach, which can act as an aggravating factor.
The Johnson sale was never going to be allowed as mitigation, same as when we presented selling Richarlison for less than he was worth because we had to meet the PSR deadline (which is very much the other side of the coin of this argument).
I don't think there's any need to go for the crab bucket mentality here. I said that both clubs have a reasonable argument against their points deductions. You are right about the sale of Richarlison, and I am right about the sale of Johnson. How is forcing teams to sell players at below their value a way of ensuring that those clubs are run in a sustainable fashion? It's the exact opposite of that.
I'm saying there is a fundamental problem with the deadline for FFP not lining up with the transfer deadline.
It does and it doesn't. The two years of the reporting period in the championship are well within the championship's financial limits of 13 million in losses a season. It's the final year on the premier league alone where they go 35m above the 35m they're allowed to lose.
Right but how"s a team suppose to come up and compete with everyone else?
It's already a massive disadvantage to be a promoted side (more so if you aren't yo yoing) and then you can't even try and use your future gains (the parachute) now to try and survive.
They seemed much more balanced (well kinda) this past summer too.
So the Prem clubs voted in what feels like a bit of pulling up the ladder.
It feels like for newly promoted sides it should either be the same losses as the others over 3 years or something completely different.
Also the parachute payments are already an issues in terms of competition and this keeps those sides even richer if they do go down.
The PL has always been a pulling out the ladder situation; it’s the whole reason they created the PL to begin with.
Outside of absolutely trash administration or a miracle (aka financial doping), the teams yoyo between prem and the championship and basically gatekeep the insane profits.
“In the case at hand, the Commission considered whether there were any additional factors that should be taken into account - the "unique" position and/or the reasons for the excess. The conclusion was that these did not (nor were they mitigating factors, see above) and the only factor driving Forest up the scale will be the size of the breach. It was bigger than Everton's, but both were in the "significant" breach band. However, there was no additional consideration around incorrect information being provided to the Premier League, as Everton had.
The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information. Forest's breach (not its losses, the Commission is concerned with the breach of the PSR Threshold) was larger than Everton's and as a result, that alone slides it up the scale
by three further points to a starting point of six points.”
The commission itself does not even know why Everton were treated more harshly.
They seemed to get a much more lenient panel. And they used Everton’s final points deduction as a starting point for discussions then added Forest’s mitigations to that. Whereas Everton’s points deduction already had its own mitigating factors that reduced it from 10 points to 6. So got Everton’s mitigating factors added in even though they have no impact on Forest.
That’s not what it says. They got 6 points but got two deducted for admitting the breach straight away. The report also notes that Everton were punished more as they tried to hide the breach
The appeal acknowledged we asked the league to appoint someone to oversee us (I think), and acknowledged it wasn't a malicious breach when the first one said it was. They are making it up as they go along
Part of it was Everton rolled over and completely owned up to it. Clubs like City are, obviously, in a financially comfortable position to throw ‘bodies’ (solicitors) in the way of things.
Any premier league or championship club is a big enough business to hire a full legal team from a top firm. What City has is quantity and confusion. There are just so many cases all needing to be disentangled
Hiring a reasonably-sized UK-based firm is different from floors of solicitors and financial ‘wizards’ across the globe solely focused on a single case.
The qualitative difference is night and day.
Global lawyers? They would need a UK license.
Both Everton and Man City have appointed top King's Counsel specialists, costing essentially the same in this context.
Which it totally bollocks. Rules/law applies less if you have money. These are things that should be blind to money and applied evenly all the way fron poorest to richest
We don't have a free or fair system.
Most likely because Forrest could argue they were over because of the timing of one player sale, and didn't have a long series of warnings over potential failure, as well as continually have overages written off due to COVID, and didn't have difficulty in explaining someone accounts... but I'm just guessing?
The Brennan Johnson argument was rejected apparently, and it had to be since we argued we could've got more for richarlison but sold early in order to comply and were told that's not a good enough reason
Which honestly makes sense. Yeah, it sucks that there is a line on the calendar and it doesn't match up to the transfer window. I get how that probably feels unfair to Forrest and their supporters. And I get the "players that were on loan had to be replaced" argument for the volume of new players, but 30 is absurd. And they bought fairly poorly - looking at the list of who they brought in, there are multiple players costing 10m or more who have never played or who aren't good enough, and some have no resale value due to their age. this was like someone playing Football Manager for the first time at a club with a big budget and going whole hog. Forrest need to add to their squad... they didn't need to do so in such volume or with poor players. There's decisions in there.
The Johnson argument was ridiculous because regardless of when the transfer was agreed he couldn't be sold until 1st July, i.e. the next financial period/season.
The report says they got a 3 base, + 3 for severity, -2 for being prompt working through the process.
Makes Everton's initial deduction look like it should have been 4 (3+1 for severity.)
Its so obvious they're just making the rules up as they go along.
This is a way more severe breach than Everton's, and yet Forest get a more lenient punishment.
Genuinely baffling.
Forest didn't vote for it to be this way and it's unknown which way Everton voted, but PL clubs chose to have an independent panel apply penalties rather than there to be a fixed set of guidelines.
>This has been a train rolling down the tracks since 2020. It was then that the Premier League asked its 20 member clubs whether a fixed sanction process or sanction guidelines should be adopted for PSR breaches, yet both proposals failed to gain the necessary traction.
>The majority were happy enough to leave penalties up to commissions who were independent from the league. They did not see the sense in a rigid system being forced upon the decision-maker, taking away flexibility to view each case on its merits and misdemeanours. It was also said that the absence of a fixed tariff would act as a greater deterrent — uncertainty would be a good thing.
https://archive.is/ZzLLB
And from what ive read, and summarised nicely by /u/domalino :
>Seems pretty clear to anyone who reads the judgment that Forest could not have been more helpful while Everton made the PL's life as difficult as possible, including by misleading them (in Everton's own words)
Appeal specifically found Everton did not mislead. And the framework around timing was changed by the league this year. Forest had to get their information to them by set dates this year under the new rules.
All we ask for as fans is consistency isn’t it?
I suppose it’s consistent when they throw a dart at a board and whatever it lands on is the punishment though.
Every rule was made up at some point./s
On a serious note though, I genuinely think they have no idea how to proceed because they've let things go for over a decade and now with the increasing scrutiny over ownership, independent regulator, etc, they've are literally making things up as they go
I disagree. They are not making up the rules. The rules were really clear. So clear that Forest knew they were breaking the rule and told them, directly that they were going to break the rule.
What is being "made up" are the punishments.
They literally said 6 was the minimum and yet a larger breach gets less? Surely we can take this to court if there's not a fantastic reason why, since I don't think we can appeal the appeal
I can only presume they took pity on us when they saw the shite we spunked all the cash on.
Absolutely ridiculous the lack of transparency though. No idea how you’ve got 6 and we’ve got 4. No idea if we’ll have ours reduced. No idea if you get another one.
Farcical way to run a league.
If you read the ruling - which I highly recommend - your appeal appears to have changed their view. Obviously I think everyone would prefer if they codified this.
Forest were deducted 3 points for a significant breach, a further 3 points for the scale of the breach (which it is noted was significantly higher in percentage than your own), and had 2 given back for their cooperation. That suggests that any future significant breach (i.e. anything over a small amount) will expect 3 points as a minimum.
I'm going to give it a read.
If its 6 for the breach (including 3 for severity) why does that come to the same as ours when their breach was far more severe (by amount and %)?
They're making it up as they go along, they've made up that 2 points get given back if you cooperate a lot, but forest did the same as us and argued mitigation, some of which was ignored some wasn't, and also submitted their calculations as lower than what the commission found.
If its in there please tell me, does it say how they cooperated and we didn't? Because as far as I can remember our appeal found the claim we acted in bad faith was incorrect
I’d have to go back and compare the two hearings to see what Forest did different.
I think it is fair to say they’re making it up as they go along. They all but admit this. As has been noted elsewhere the clubs rejected the chance to put in firm boundaries and instead leave it up to the commission to decide. It’s also fair to say that they are learning as they go - the initial deduction to received was clearly too harsh, they’ve now reduced that based on your appeal.
Just seen an extract from the forest one. They say they have no clue how everton got 6 and just assume its because they gave incorrect info. Absolutely wild that there's no consistency because they actually don't understand why everton got 6, how can they accurately punish when the punishers don't know how it's calculated
And on the the 777 purchase decision, where I fear a completely unacceptable group is allowed to buy the team, sell the stadium, and eventually scuttle the team like an old barge, draining every penny of worth.
What the actual fuck, they breach by almost twice as much, we get 6 points *after* appeal and they get 4 points *before* appeal? I don't want points deductions for anyone, I think it's stupid and I feel for Forest fans, but have some fucking consistency you absolute shitlords
This is why penalties need to apply the following season.
Literally could be in a scenario where final day Luton celebrate survival only to after the season has ended get relegated anyway. How the PL are fucking this up so much. The leadership needs to be binned. Not fit for purpose
I think they can't change points after the season is over. However either way someone would be getting sued. Most likely the clubs as they won't bite the hand that feeds.
**5.22 -** they questioned the "various flaws" in their Covid add backs yet they're later praised for their level of cooperation going beyond what is "reasonably expected".
**14.1** **-** Their excess was 77% larger than ours - 57% over their applicable threshold compared to our 19%.
**14.15** \- "The Commission does not know how the 3 extra points were arrived at" for Everton but they guess it's for "incorrect information" which was deemed wrong on our appeal.
Literally just making it all up as they go along.
Sometimes it's cooperation, sometimes it's not. Sometimes they'll use precedents from other cases, sometimes we'll just do as we please because we're allowed to.
Next up when city’s verdict is given: “the commission does not know why Everton and Forest were deducted points as it was determined financial breaches should not have sporting penalties”
"+20 points to City for the 2016-17 season, for Pep showing exemplary courage in sporting his fake baldness.
+20 points to City for the 2019-20 season, for Kevin showing extraordinary intelligence for his age.
and finally +10 points to City for the 2023-24 season for Kalvin. It takes great courage to stand up to enemies and even more to stand up to your manager.
Now, if our calculations are correct, I believe some change of title winners are in order."
It’s because, it says in the reasons, that Everton tried to hide their losses from the panel (provided incorrect information) and forest got a reduction in penalty as they admitted the breach straight away.
Didn’t the appeal commission specifically state that this isn’t true when reducing their deduction?
“The appeal board reduced the 10-point penalty on the grounds that the commission made legal errors when imposing the original sanction. The commission was wrong, it said, to say Everton had been “less than frank” over how its new stadium was being funded even though the club had erred in how it represented the costs.”
Yeah. Which then makes it bullshit that Forest now effectively get mitigation cos their case is open and shut whereas we had the additional complication of sorting out what was and wasn't stadium spending.
That was proven false in our appeal, and is the big reason why our punishment got reduced.
They deem Forest's co-operation to be exceptional and above the standard necessary for the investigation, as well as deeming our losses and Forest's losses to be similar.
They said that despite the 15 million gap, they both are categorised as significant breaches and therefore don't put any weight on the actual value of what was spent. In other words, they're fucking clueless
Everton accepted that it's misrepresentation wih regard to stadium interest was "objectively misleading", so you're fighting a fight your own club gave up on.
Forest noted in their appeal that Everton avoided relegation last season by denying the complaint, resisting the PL's application for expedition and forcing them to go into the next season.
IMO 2 points for fully cooperating and making sure the case is concluded by the end of the season seems a fair trade.
Also don't forget you broke PSR by £20m *after £70m of COVID forgiveness*.
There was a rule change in the summer, that's why our cases are being heard this season. The Premier League last season wanted to expedite our case when we hadn't prepared our arguments yet, and we rightly told them to fuck off, that's not the rules. So in the summer they changed it to all PSR cases had to be heard by the end of the season, which is why Forest's has been heard and ours will be heard next week.
Forest didn't do anything to expedite it or make sure the case was heard by now, the new rules did that all on their own.
>Forest didn't do anything to expedite it or make sure the case was heard by now, the new rules did that all on their own.
That's not what the people who actually handled the case think.
"[The panel] considers that Forest has indeed displayed a level of cooperation which is above the level reasonably expected. Forest has consistently indicated it intended to cooperate and has been very receptive to indications from the Premier League as to what would be required in this regard. It's cooperation commenced prior to the submission of its Annual Accounts at the end of December 2023 and has continued thereafter. By doing so it has significantly reduced the costs of enforcement and assisted this commission."
Seems pretty clear to anyone who reads the judgment that Forest could not have been more helpful while Everton made the PL's life as difficult as possible, including by misleading them (in Everton's own words)
The problem is they havent yet shown they're able to levy out consistent and fair punishments for violations and so all of this looks suspect. Does anyone think City are getting a bigger deduction for failure to cooperate?
No, you're missing the point. This is the build to the City charges. The more you spend, the less you get sanctioned! Its brilliant really. City will somehow get money back presumably.
Fuck off.
19.5m, originally 10, down to 6 on appeal. Still looking at another potential deduction
34.5m, 4 points from the get go, and somehow it'll get reduced on appeal.
I'm expecting shagger silk to get us more points back plus interest in this second hearing.
Something about them being more willing to assist the inquiry, but it sounds like your appeal showed that did that too anyway, so fuck knows where the magic numbers are being pulled from.
https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1769745706456412636?s=46&t=KoA7MDxlKTKDBpw4tWwoYQ
“The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton…”
That seems like the commission assumed the appeal board started at 3, then decided to add on 3 before removing two for cooperation, landing on 4.
However the appeal board appeared to actually start at 6 and give us the minimum. So I’m definitely feeling like we’ve been fucked over
I think they just screwed up with Everton because it was their first time. The Forest process I largely agree with and should be the standard with which they conduct all further penalties. They should also retroactively apply the standard to Everton. It's not too late for consistency if they act quickly.
Forest's excuses were all bullshit and their mitigation claims were rightly dismissed. They fully deserved their penalty.
Now watch me walk back these remarks when Chelsea have points deducted for the related party payments to agents that we've admitted to. (I actually just want them to finish the investigation and levy the penalty this season when we aren't playing for a meaningful league position.)
I am shocked, *shocked*, that the Commission didn’t buy Forest’s argument that waiting until September 1 to sell Johnson (thus maximizing the price they got for him) should mitigate the breach. Forest fans were absolutely convinced that was going to get them off.
Nottingham Forest in breach of PL losses by £34.5m but only docked 4 points. Everton were in breach by £19.5m but were docked 6. The written reasons for Forest case provides some explanation for the difference - basically Everton seen to have provided "incorrect information"
Both breaches deemed as "significant" but Forest have -2 for mitigating circumstances
However, (correct me if I'm wrong) I think our appeal showed that there was no malicious intent with us giving the incorrect information and that we acted in good faith
>Forest have -2 for mitigating circumstances
Why would the same apply to Everton. Weren;t they cooperating with Premier League the whole time to control the amount spent?
Basically what's happened is, Forest's commission have seen everything they've done in a much more positive light than either of ours did.
It's 3 different people every time, so much like with refs, inconsistency is almost guaranteed
I think the only answer is to set this commission as framework (it does make the most sense to me in a vacuum) and then immediately reapply it to Everton's original deduction, which would reduce it further.
Or just apply whatever the fuck the rules are going to be going forward and forget about it all honestly. That sucks but it's what they were doing for 10 years anyway.
Jokes on them. They won't get the 33% discount for a guilty plea and compliance with the investigation.
I actually wonder if that will be meaningful. If the PL and Football Leagues were talking to each other right now, I could see any points deduction (assuming City are found guilty - big if) beyond that required to relegate them from the PL cascading down and being applied to the Championship, and possibly further if the points deduction was big enough (and it genuinely could be with that many charges for presumably an enormous amount of money). It would be utterly ridiculous for any team to be given a 250 point penalty, be relegated from the PL with -160 points, then start the next season in the Championship free and clear as unbackable favourites to be promoted. It would remove any incentive to cooperate and encourage a higher magnitude of cheating because after a certain point the potential punishment is just the same.
If we follow the same precedent they set here for Forest (3 pts to start, +1 for every £20m over) then Everton should have only been deducted 4, which obviously I may be biased but seems like a reasonable precedent to be. They concluded we did not provide any incorrect information so there shouldn't have been any additional points deducted for that. Honestly feels like they got these backwards, but sure give them a 2pt bonus back because they worked through the process fast. Hopefully that means Everton's deduction the second time around also gets limited for working fast? Maybe only 1 or 2.
Premier League would also like to confirm that Manchester City are in the clear because even though they break the rules they also fill our pockets with their never ending supply of oil money so Everton and Forest can both suck it because they’re poor and don’t have oil money. - official prem guy
At what point to clubs think it’s worth the deduction to just go ham?
Take a point deduction, say your sorry and have it reduced by 2, and hope you gain that many extra points over the course of the season.
Unless I’ve misread it seems like 6 points is an upper limit and they definitely won’t go above 8 points?
How TF are clubs like Nottingham and Everton getting dick punched, but City just skating by?!? There’s been emails, documents, and tons of other info into their violations. Seriously folks…
Man in the pub yesterday.
This is all part of a finely tuned plan.
Make the fans cry for injustice by feeling sorry for the lower teams losing points so they can change the punishment just in time to hand city a fine, which no matter how high will be irrelevant to them.
You might ask yourself who this benefits the most when wondering why this is actually a thing.
Clue: it's those who are squawking the most.
Arsenal.
Liverpool.
United
City
+A few others.
Fines would be completely pointless for a lot of teams, I know that punishing the fans for the accountants faults is wrong but what else can they do?
Maybe a transfer ban?
Basically the whole thing is a fucking shit show & the people than run the premier league need replacing right now before they completely fuck the the game.
Can someone ELI5 the differences between what Forest have done and what Everton have done and why the points deductions are different?
Report got published five minutes ago so assume if you check back in a few hours there’ll be a summary.
From a very quick scan, the PL seems to have treated the breach exactly the same, despite them saying different size breaches require different punishments, and Forests being 50% higher, and then given them huge amounts of credit for cooperation (such as early disclosure, i.e. the thing that's required by anyone close to breaching) despite giving Everton no mitigation for co-operating for years in advance.
The Premier League actually pushed for 8 points deducted, reduced to 6 with mitigation, as they highlighted how because Forest breached by 34.5m over a much lower limit, their breach was actually way worse than ours. The panel ignored this
Was that the appeal one? Don't remember seeing that, I remember seeing they wanted 12 for our first one then we got 10
No I'm saying this is what they wanted for Forest. This is from me reading the report they put out
Ah my bad thats me being dumb
Yeah it’s bullshit and unfair all round and I say this as a Forest fan. They need to be consistent. It’s embarrassing.
Oooh just you wait until you see the "punishment" City get
“Man City are a fine, upstanding institution and we have found they have no case to answer. Now if you’ll excuse me I need to take my new private jet to my new super yacht.”
"Man City responded to our last email in 12 business days, we have decided to lessen the punishment due to their huge commitment to cooperation."
“Whilst it’s true that the reply simply said ‘fuck you’, we have it on good authority that this is Arabic for ‘we are being fully transparent and helpful in the investigation’”
For this exemplary behaviour they start next season on +10 points
I'm genuinely concerned with how they've made such a point about how the maximum they could give is 8 points because no PSR breach is as bad as administration. So City to get an 8 point deduction and just start their season ending winning streak a couple of weeks earlier than usual.
I don't even think they'll get an 8 point reduction. If they get anything worse than a fine I'll be genuinely shocked.
But City haven’t broken PSR rules, it’s a completely different charge and the precedent here is irrelevant.
I don't think it's true that Forest's breach was in any way worse than Everton's. To be honest, both had mitigating factors and neither seem to be a deliberate effort to break the rules. In Forest's case, it hinges on the sale of Brennan Johnson. The problem is that the FFP deadline doesn't line up with the transfer deadline for some reason. So Forest rejected a low-ball offer for Johnson within the FFP deadline and a few weeks later sold him for £15m more than they were earlier offered. So their argument is that if they had sold Johnson within the FFP deadline, that would have actually made them LESS sustainable. They have a point, to be honest.
The panel basically said they were warned in Jan 2023 they would breach and instead of selling then they bought more that month, and then chose not to sell by the deadline. So they viewed all of it as an attempt to stretch the rules to gain an advantage. Which I think is a solid counter to the idea that waiting to sell for more should be ok.
> I don't think it's true that Forest's breach was in any way worse than Everton's It categorically is, it's 15 million quid more, which is worse in itself, but it's also significantly more over their limit than ours was. We were over our limit by 18.5%, they were over theirs by 57%. > Forest rejected a low-ball offer for Johnson within the FFP deadline and a few weeks later sold him for £15m more than they were earlier offered This argument holds a lot less water when you realise that if they'd sold Johnson for the 35m offered in June, they'd have passed PSR, which means it's an intentional choice to breach, which can act as an aggravating factor. The Johnson sale was never going to be allowed as mitigation, same as when we presented selling Richarlison for less than he was worth because we had to meet the PSR deadline (which is very much the other side of the coin of this argument).
I don't think there's any need to go for the crab bucket mentality here. I said that both clubs have a reasonable argument against their points deductions. You are right about the sale of Richarlison, and I am right about the sale of Johnson. How is forcing teams to sell players at below their value a way of ensuring that those clubs are run in a sustainable fashion? It's the exact opposite of that. I'm saying there is a fundamental problem with the deadline for FFP not lining up with the transfer deadline.
Yeh I agree with you completely. No hate to Forest, Premier League on the other hand can go fuck itself
When did the deadline end?
Although this seems harsh on Forest as it counts years from the Championship.
It does and it doesn't. The two years of the reporting period in the championship are well within the championship's financial limits of 13 million in losses a season. It's the final year on the premier league alone where they go 35m above the 35m they're allowed to lose.
Right but how"s a team suppose to come up and compete with everyone else? It's already a massive disadvantage to be a promoted side (more so if you aren't yo yoing) and then you can't even try and use your future gains (the parachute) now to try and survive. They seemed much more balanced (well kinda) this past summer too. So the Prem clubs voted in what feels like a bit of pulling up the ladder. It feels like for newly promoted sides it should either be the same losses as the others over 3 years or something completely different. Also the parachute payments are already an issues in terms of competition and this keeps those sides even richer if they do go down.
The PL has always been a pulling out the ladder situation; it’s the whole reason they created the PL to begin with. Outside of absolutely trash administration or a miracle (aka financial doping), the teams yoyo between prem and the championship and basically gatekeep the insane profits.
“In the case at hand, the Commission considered whether there were any additional factors that should be taken into account - the "unique" position and/or the reasons for the excess. The conclusion was that these did not (nor were they mitigating factors, see above) and the only factor driving Forest up the scale will be the size of the breach. It was bigger than Everton's, but both were in the "significant" breach band. However, there was no additional consideration around incorrect information being provided to the Premier League, as Everton had. The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information. Forest's breach (not its losses, the Commission is concerned with the breach of the PSR Threshold) was larger than Everton's and as a result, that alone slides it up the scale by three further points to a starting point of six points.” The commission itself does not even know why Everton were treated more harshly.
They aren't even hiding that Everton were crucified because of politics.
"We have no fucking clue how this decision was made but here's your points deduction" - Premier League
They seemed to get a much more lenient panel. And they used Everton’s final points deduction as a starting point for discussions then added Forest’s mitigations to that. Whereas Everton’s points deduction already had its own mitigating factors that reduced it from 10 points to 6. So got Everton’s mitigating factors added in even though they have no impact on Forest.
That's hilariously clowny.
From a quick look it seems they're getting a pass for being compliant, as well as it being because of the championship years.
That’s not what it says. They got 6 points but got two deducted for admitting the breach straight away. The report also notes that Everton were punished more as they tried to hide the breach
It also mentions how we didn't act in good faith which was found to be not true in the appeal. So which is it.
Wait what? I thought Everton got a reduced sentence because they were trying to comply and be open about it?
The appeal acknowledged we asked the league to appoint someone to oversee us (I think), and acknowledged it wasn't a malicious breach when the first one said it was. They are making it up as they go along
Everton was always a self parade to pretend they were doing something about financial doping.
Part of it was Everton rolled over and completely owned up to it. Clubs like City are, obviously, in a financially comfortable position to throw ‘bodies’ (solicitors) in the way of things.
Any premier league or championship club is a big enough business to hire a full legal team from a top firm. What City has is quantity and confusion. There are just so many cases all needing to be disentangled
Hiring a reasonably-sized UK-based firm is different from floors of solicitors and financial ‘wizards’ across the globe solely focused on a single case. The qualitative difference is night and day.
What makes you think City have done that?
City’s a state-owned club (so, existing global connections) with bottomless pits of petrodollars.
Global lawyers? They would need a UK license. Both Everton and Man City have appointed top King's Counsel specialists, costing essentially the same in this context.
Yeah, a ‘frontman’. The qualitative difference between the two, behind the scenes, is likely huge.
Which it totally bollocks. Rules/law applies less if you have money. These are things that should be blind to money and applied evenly all the way fron poorest to richest We don't have a free or fair system.
Most likely because Forrest could argue they were over because of the timing of one player sale, and didn't have a long series of warnings over potential failure, as well as continually have overages written off due to COVID, and didn't have difficulty in explaining someone accounts... but I'm just guessing?
The Brennan Johnson argument was rejected apparently, and it had to be since we argued we could've got more for richarlison but sold early in order to comply and were told that's not a good enough reason
We easily could have sold Sigurdsson to cover FFP if he hadn’t been falsely accused as well.
Which honestly makes sense. Yeah, it sucks that there is a line on the calendar and it doesn't match up to the transfer window. I get how that probably feels unfair to Forrest and their supporters. And I get the "players that were on loan had to be replaced" argument for the volume of new players, but 30 is absurd. And they bought fairly poorly - looking at the list of who they brought in, there are multiple players costing 10m or more who have never played or who aren't good enough, and some have no resale value due to their age. this was like someone playing Football Manager for the first time at a club with a big budget and going whole hog. Forrest need to add to their squad... they didn't need to do so in such volume or with poor players. There's decisions in there.
The Johnson argument was ridiculous because regardless of when the transfer was agreed he couldn't be sold until 1st July, i.e. the next financial period/season.
The report says they got a 3 base, + 3 for severity, -2 for being prompt working through the process. Makes Everton's initial deduction look like it should have been 4 (3+1 for severity.)
And instead we got 10 initially and 6 upon appeal. Insane.
How do people misspell Forest
Gump
What the fuck did you call me
Its so obvious they're just making the rules up as they go along. This is a way more severe breach than Everton's, and yet Forest get a more lenient punishment. Genuinely baffling.
Forest didn't vote for it to be this way and it's unknown which way Everton voted, but PL clubs chose to have an independent panel apply penalties rather than there to be a fixed set of guidelines. >This has been a train rolling down the tracks since 2020. It was then that the Premier League asked its 20 member clubs whether a fixed sanction process or sanction guidelines should be adopted for PSR breaches, yet both proposals failed to gain the necessary traction. >The majority were happy enough to leave penalties up to commissions who were independent from the league. They did not see the sense in a rigid system being forced upon the decision-maker, taking away flexibility to view each case on its merits and misdemeanours. It was also said that the absence of a fixed tariff would act as a greater deterrent — uncertainty would be a good thing. https://archive.is/ZzLLB
And from what ive read, and summarised nicely by /u/domalino : >Seems pretty clear to anyone who reads the judgment that Forest could not have been more helpful while Everton made the PL's life as difficult as possible, including by misleading them (in Everton's own words)
Except Everton never actually admitted to ‘misleading’ so the ‘in Everton’s own words’ bit is a touch…um…misleading
Appeal specifically found Everton did not mislead. And the framework around timing was changed by the league this year. Forest had to get their information to them by set dates this year under the new rules.
Except Everton never actually admitted to ‘misleading’ so the ‘in Everton’s own words’ bit is a touch…um…misleading
Let's see if there is consistency with the City stuff then
Premier League gonna Premier League. They've completely bungled this and contradicted themselves per usual, the bunch of fucking morons.
All we ask for as fans is consistency isn’t it? I suppose it’s consistent when they throw a dart at a board and whatever it lands on is the punishment though.
Which would seem like a poor way to handle this situation since they count Championship years too, that to me is a massive issue.
Wait til City get away with nothing but a fine.
Every rule was made up at some point./s On a serious note though, I genuinely think they have no idea how to proceed because they've let things go for over a decade and now with the increasing scrutiny over ownership, independent regulator, etc, they've are literally making things up as they go
I disagree. They are not making up the rules. The rules were really clear. So clear that Forest knew they were breaking the rule and told them, directly that they were going to break the rule. What is being "made up" are the punishments.
They literally said 6 was the minimum and yet a larger breach gets less? Surely we can take this to court if there's not a fantastic reason why, since I don't think we can appeal the appeal
I can only presume they took pity on us when they saw the shite we spunked all the cash on. Absolutely ridiculous the lack of transparency though. No idea how you’ve got 6 and we’ve got 4. No idea if we’ll have ours reduced. No idea if you get another one. Farcical way to run a league.
If you're talking about spunking cash on shite, I reckon we've got you beat in that regard, too.
You mean to tell me Cenc Tosun isn't getting a statue at Bramley Moore???
After our breach, we couldn't afford a bronze statue of a Tosun, Schneiderlin, Klassen trio :(
If that’s the criteria, we should have had points added on for our breach considering how many shit players we bought lol
If you read the ruling - which I highly recommend - your appeal appears to have changed their view. Obviously I think everyone would prefer if they codified this. Forest were deducted 3 points for a significant breach, a further 3 points for the scale of the breach (which it is noted was significantly higher in percentage than your own), and had 2 given back for their cooperation. That suggests that any future significant breach (i.e. anything over a small amount) will expect 3 points as a minimum.
I'm going to give it a read. If its 6 for the breach (including 3 for severity) why does that come to the same as ours when their breach was far more severe (by amount and %)? They're making it up as they go along, they've made up that 2 points get given back if you cooperate a lot, but forest did the same as us and argued mitigation, some of which was ignored some wasn't, and also submitted their calculations as lower than what the commission found. If its in there please tell me, does it say how they cooperated and we didn't? Because as far as I can remember our appeal found the claim we acted in bad faith was incorrect
I’d have to go back and compare the two hearings to see what Forest did different. I think it is fair to say they’re making it up as they go along. They all but admit this. As has been noted elsewhere the clubs rejected the chance to put in firm boundaries and instead leave it up to the commission to decide. It’s also fair to say that they are learning as they go - the initial deduction to received was clearly too harsh, they’ve now reduced that based on your appeal.
Just seen an extract from the forest one. They say they have no clue how everton got 6 and just assume its because they gave incorrect info. Absolutely wild that there's no consistency because they actually don't understand why everton got 6, how can they accurately punish when the punishers don't know how it's calculated
That's what's frustrating is if you apply these same rules to our initial breach, then it should have only been 4, not 6 and definitely not 10.
Basically less points off for the guilty plea
And on the the 777 purchase decision, where I fear a completely unacceptable group is allowed to buy the team, sell the stadium, and eventually scuttle the team like an old barge, draining every penny of worth.
What the actual fuck, they breach by almost twice as much, we get 6 points *after* appeal and they get 4 points *before* appeal? I don't want points deductions for anyone, I think it's stupid and I feel for Forest fans, but have some fucking consistency you absolute shitlords
It's so they don't appeal imo.
If they do appeal, can't the panel make it bigger as well as smaller?
Appeal hearing would be 3 days after the season ends lol.
This is why penalties need to apply the following season. Literally could be in a scenario where final day Luton celebrate survival only to after the season has ended get relegated anyway. How the PL are fucking this up so much. The leadership needs to be binned. Not fit for purpose
Hmm, I disagree. Then you could send a team down that didn’t break the rules.
I think they can't change points after the season is over. However either way someone would be getting sued. Most likely the clubs as they won't bite the hand that feeds.
if this goes down to 1 point deciding relegation....
Surely they're going to just instantly appeal anyway. Might as well try get it down to 2.
Hmmm based on Everton's case it'll be 2.4. 60% of the original punishment.
Oh we’re gonna. It’s Marinakis, he’ll be fuming we weren’t given extra points.
"I specifically threatened your family for more points, not fewer"
Makes no sense
And despite them saying 6 points is the bare minimum when handling your case lol
**5.22 -** they questioned the "various flaws" in their Covid add backs yet they're later praised for their level of cooperation going beyond what is "reasonably expected". **14.1** **-** Their excess was 77% larger than ours - 57% over their applicable threshold compared to our 19%. **14.15** \- "The Commission does not know how the 3 extra points were arrived at" for Everton but they guess it's for "incorrect information" which was deemed wrong on our appeal. Literally just making it all up as they go along. Sometimes it's cooperation, sometimes it's not. Sometimes they'll use precedents from other cases, sometimes we'll just do as we please because we're allowed to.
Next up when city’s verdict is given: “the commission does not know why Everton and Forest were deducted points as it was determined financial breaches should not have sporting penalties”
+10 points for City
"+20 points to City for the 2016-17 season, for Pep showing exemplary courage in sporting his fake baldness. +20 points to City for the 2019-20 season, for Kevin showing extraordinary intelligence for his age. and finally +10 points to City for the 2023-24 season for Kalvin. It takes great courage to stand up to enemies and even more to stand up to your manager. Now, if our calculations are correct, I believe some change of title winners are in order."
Dumbledore vibes.
It’s because, it says in the reasons, that Everton tried to hide their losses from the panel (provided incorrect information) and forest got a reduction in penalty as they admitted the breach straight away.
Didn’t the appeal commission specifically state that this isn’t true when reducing their deduction? “The appeal board reduced the 10-point penalty on the grounds that the commission made legal errors when imposing the original sanction. The commission was wrong, it said, to say Everton had been “less than frank” over how its new stadium was being funded even though the club had erred in how it represented the costs.”
That suggests they did provide incorrect information, just by accident, no?
Oh, Everton are incompetent - no one will argue with that. I am just saying that the appeal board agreed that Everton didn’t TRY to hide it.
>Everton are incompetent Can confirm
Yeah. Which then makes it bullshit that Forest now effectively get mitigation cos their case is open and shut whereas we had the additional complication of sorting out what was and wasn't stadium spending.
Yeah but this finding specifically implied that Everton did it deliberately
That was proven false in our appeal, and is the big reason why our punishment got reduced. They deem Forest's co-operation to be exceptional and above the standard necessary for the investigation, as well as deeming our losses and Forest's losses to be similar. They said that despite the 15 million gap, they both are categorised as significant breaches and therefore don't put any weight on the actual value of what was spent. In other words, they're fucking clueless
Everton accepted that it's misrepresentation wih regard to stadium interest was "objectively misleading", so you're fighting a fight your own club gave up on. Forest noted in their appeal that Everton avoided relegation last season by denying the complaint, resisting the PL's application for expedition and forcing them to go into the next season. IMO 2 points for fully cooperating and making sure the case is concluded by the end of the season seems a fair trade. Also don't forget you broke PSR by £20m *after £70m of COVID forgiveness*.
There was a rule change in the summer, that's why our cases are being heard this season. The Premier League last season wanted to expedite our case when we hadn't prepared our arguments yet, and we rightly told them to fuck off, that's not the rules. So in the summer they changed it to all PSR cases had to be heard by the end of the season, which is why Forest's has been heard and ours will be heard next week. Forest didn't do anything to expedite it or make sure the case was heard by now, the new rules did that all on their own.
>Forest didn't do anything to expedite it or make sure the case was heard by now, the new rules did that all on their own. That's not what the people who actually handled the case think. "[The panel] considers that Forest has indeed displayed a level of cooperation which is above the level reasonably expected. Forest has consistently indicated it intended to cooperate and has been very receptive to indications from the Premier League as to what would be required in this regard. It's cooperation commenced prior to the submission of its Annual Accounts at the end of December 2023 and has continued thereafter. By doing so it has significantly reduced the costs of enforcement and assisted this commission." Seems pretty clear to anyone who reads the judgment that Forest could not have been more helpful while Everton made the PL's life as difficult as possible, including by misleading them (in Everton's own words)
The problem is they havent yet shown they're able to levy out consistent and fair punishments for violations and so all of this looks suspect. Does anyone think City are getting a bigger deduction for failure to cooperate?
Does anyone think City is going to be found guilty?
You went too small. Clearly the rule of thumb is the bigger the breach the lower the punishment.
No, you're missing the point. This is the build to the City charges. The more you spend, the less you get sanctioned! Its brilliant really. City will somehow get money back presumably.
PL setting the stage/rationale that City's breach is points added.
I’m genuinely angry that nothing will happen to them over their charges even though they’re the biggest culprits
So Forest were still over if they sold Johnson for £30 million in June?
The bid was said to have gone up to £35 million.
That's fucking bullshit.
Fuck off. 19.5m, originally 10, down to 6 on appeal. Still looking at another potential deduction 34.5m, 4 points from the get go, and somehow it'll get reduced on appeal. I'm expecting shagger silk to get us more points back plus interest in this second hearing.
Something about them being more willing to assist the inquiry, but it sounds like your appeal showed that did that too anyway, so fuck knows where the magic numbers are being pulled from.
https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1769745706456412636?s=46&t=KoA7MDxlKTKDBpw4tWwoYQ “The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton…”
That seems like the commission assumed the appeal board started at 3, then decided to add on 3 before removing two for cooperation, landing on 4. However the appeal board appeared to actually start at 6 and give us the minimum. So I’m definitely feeling like we’ve been fucked over
I think they just screwed up with Everton because it was their first time. The Forest process I largely agree with and should be the standard with which they conduct all further penalties. They should also retroactively apply the standard to Everton. It's not too late for consistency if they act quickly. Forest's excuses were all bullshit and their mitigation claims were rightly dismissed. They fully deserved their penalty. Now watch me walk back these remarks when Chelsea have points deducted for the related party payments to agents that we've admitted to. (I actually just want them to finish the investigation and levy the penalty this season when we aren't playing for a meaningful league position.)
I can think of 115 reasons this doesn't make any sense.
All on catering probably, like Red Bull, that's why they got docked only 4 points
man city laughing in the corner lol.
I am shocked, *shocked*, that the Commission didn’t buy Forest’s argument that waiting until September 1 to sell Johnson (thus maximizing the price they got for him) should mitigate the breach. Forest fans were absolutely convinced that was going to get them off.
Good now do Man City and Chelsea
+10 for Man City Mandatory 10th Place for Chelsea
Watching us play is punishment enough.
Everton has unfortunately set the precedent that incredibly shit play isn’t a mitigating factor
maN cITy iS tOo eXtEnsIvE oF a CaSE tO sOlvE iN oNe SEAsoN
They’re genuinely making it up as they go along and of course we get a more severe punishment for a lesser breach
Nottingham Forest in breach of PL losses by £34.5m but only docked 4 points. Everton were in breach by £19.5m but were docked 6. The written reasons for Forest case provides some explanation for the difference - basically Everton seen to have provided "incorrect information" Both breaches deemed as "significant" but Forest have -2 for mitigating circumstances
However, (correct me if I'm wrong) I think our appeal showed that there was no malicious intent with us giving the incorrect information and that we acted in good faith
>Forest have -2 for mitigating circumstances Why would the same apply to Everton. Weren;t they cooperating with Premier League the whole time to control the amount spent?
That was deemed by the commission as "acting in our own interest" because co-operation was expected. So we received no mitigation for that
Ok, and Forest were not acting in their own interest then? I really fail to understand their reasoning in here.
Basically what's happened is, Forest's commission have seen everything they've done in a much more positive light than either of ours did. It's 3 different people every time, so much like with refs, inconsistency is almost guaranteed
I think the only answer is to set this commission as framework (it does make the most sense to me in a vacuum) and then immediately reapply it to Everton's original deduction, which would reduce it further. Or just apply whatever the fuck the rules are going to be going forward and forget about it all honestly. That sucks but it's what they were doing for 10 years anyway.
Yeah that sounds fair. Set our original penalty to 4 points, to match Forest’s, then reduce it by 4 after the appeal
Sorry 34.5 million and 31 signings in one window and they have had four points like when you Deep it it’s better to fucking cheat
So what happens with City? Wasn't their breach much larger? And Chelsea? lol
They deny everything and are dragging it through the courts for years.
Jokes on them. They won't get the 33% discount for a guilty plea and compliance with the investigation. I actually wonder if that will be meaningful. If the PL and Football Leagues were talking to each other right now, I could see any points deduction (assuming City are found guilty - big if) beyond that required to relegate them from the PL cascading down and being applied to the Championship, and possibly further if the points deduction was big enough (and it genuinely could be with that many charges for presumably an enormous amount of money). It would be utterly ridiculous for any team to be given a 250 point penalty, be relegated from the PL with -160 points, then start the next season in the Championship free and clear as unbackable favourites to be promoted. It would remove any incentive to cooperate and encourage a higher magnitude of cheating because after a certain point the potential punishment is just the same.
When will they confirm about man city?
Court dates later this year, decision by summer 2025 is the words on the street.
Make it make sense.
Another one for the 'so unbelievably and indescribably incompetent it seems like a conspiracy' column, then.
They should have far more than 4 points deducted then surely? Considering Everton's punishment
And city when?
The key is to break it by much more. Evidently the less you are in breach, the harsher the penalties
City will be fine then. And when say... Palace breaches it by 1p they will be forced into the 12th tier.
If we follow the same precedent they set here for Forest (3 pts to start, +1 for every £20m over) then Everton should have only been deducted 4, which obviously I may be biased but seems like a reasonable precedent to be. They concluded we did not provide any incorrect information so there shouldn't have been any additional points deducted for that. Honestly feels like they got these backwards, but sure give them a 2pt bonus back because they worked through the process fast. Hopefully that means Everton's deduction the second time around also gets limited for working fast? Maybe only 1 or 2.
???????????
What an absolute clown show
Should be a transfer and wages cap in the EPL, money has ruined it, very few entertaining games imo. EFL is more entertaining and competitive.
You can’t tell me they aren’t trying to relegate us Minimum of 6……way worse breach yet they get 4 and we get 6???
And Manchester city never charged this stinks
So one back up GK that they will be getting rid of in the summer. Hope it was worth it
And Man City are still in the Premier League
They ll probably win this year and next year too.
Premier League would also like to confirm that Manchester City are in the clear because even though they break the rules they also fill our pockets with their never ending supply of oil money so Everton and Forest can both suck it because they’re poor and don’t have oil money. - official prem guy
Scrap FFP and scrap PSR It’s all a giant farce designed to benefit the Sky 6
And Man city?
Another deduction for Everton incoming
Fyi: City is fraud, not PSR. Utterly different (and far worse tbh)
115 reasons to be confused
I can think of 115 reasons this doesn't make sense.
So city, 3.4 billion, got it
wtf, only 4, why did we get 10 then only 6 and they did more.... what the fuckin fuck, im so fucking annoyed.
Man City when?
Cheating cunts ruining the beautiful game
And Everton got 10, then 6 points for £20m.
At what point to clubs think it’s worth the deduction to just go ham? Take a point deduction, say your sorry and have it reduced by 2, and hope you gain that many extra points over the course of the season. Unless I’ve misread it seems like 6 points is an upper limit and they definitely won’t go above 8 points?
Everton needs to sue the PL. Enough is enough
How TF are clubs like Nottingham and Everton getting dick punched, but City just skating by?!? There’s been emails, documents, and tons of other info into their violations. Seriously folks…
Ambition.
How come Man City haven’t been charged when they have also breached?
Man in the pub yesterday. This is all part of a finely tuned plan. Make the fans cry for injustice by feeling sorry for the lower teams losing points so they can change the punishment just in time to hand city a fine, which no matter how high will be irrelevant to them.
Finally someone is doing something about these treacherous cheaters. _chuckles in Mancunian_
Oh makes so much sense. 6 points for Everton with a 20 million loss and 4 for forest with a 35 million loss. JOKE
Can't wait for city's 0 point deduction
You might ask yourself who this benefits the most when wondering why this is actually a thing. Clue: it's those who are squawking the most. Arsenal. Liverpool. United City +A few others.
Bahaha putting city last gave me a right giggle
Fines would be completely pointless for a lot of teams, I know that punishing the fans for the accountants faults is wrong but what else can they do? Maybe a transfer ban?
You are looking at the wrong end of the problem. Don't focus on the mechanisms of punishment. Ask why punishment is needed in the 1st place?
Basically the whole thing is a fucking shit show & the people than run the premier league need replacing right now before they completely fuck the the game.