Shogun wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:10 pm
Forest's owner is mental tbf
There's a chance our appeal might relegate them (which would be funny)
Reduced to 6pts for the first breach... another 4pts for the second. Forest get 6 for their breach. We've still lost 10 but made some up on forest alone. And yes he's a fucking lunatic. Seems like they might sign about 5 this month
Meant to be after Sam Johnstone as well aren't they? The deals so far are all loans though aren't they, so possibly not a big initial outlay, it'll be when the obligation kicks in they might have trouble, presumably there will be conditions like them staying up etc.
Gash wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:18 pm
Meant to be after Sam Johnstone as well aren't they? The deals so far are all loans though aren't they, so possibly not a big initial outlay, it'll be when the obligation kicks in they might have trouble, presumably there will be conditions like them staying up etc.
Yeah they've just completed 1 with an option to buy that becomes an obligation if they stay up.
I do get a sense that the Premier League will reduce the points. Not because I am biased, but because it will put the league in a giant hole when it comes to sanctioning Forest. Maybe that's what they want to do, but it would be very controversial.
I don't understand how you could even try to rationalize 10 points, unless you have used some strange arbitrary figures, or have specific amounts of point deductions for each issue that you have been found guilty of.
For example, many have used the 6 points figure as a minimum. However, if the minimum sanction for breaching FFP is 6 points, and its a point for every £5m, then given we are £19m or so over, that would equate to 9 points, not 10.
Minimum = 6 points
£5m to £10m = 1 point
£10m to £15m = 1 point
£15m to £20m = 1 point
If you deducted a point from £0 to £5m, then the minimum is actually 7 points.
Therefore, are they saying that the minimum is actually 7 points, or that there was another point deducted for something else that we did?
If we are deducted 10 points, then Forest have to be deducted more given they have blatantly gone over FFP on solely transfers alone, and have clearly benefited from this on the field from avoiding relegation last season.
It is a cynical breach, and their only excuse for breaching is the fact that they didn't want to sell Johnson for less (again, to the vultures that are Spurs). That excuse has had a precedent set, and was already thrown out by the PL when we tried to use this on Richarlison.
I remain hopeful that the new independent panel can come to some sort of sense on the amount of points deducted and provide some logical explanation as to why the points figure has been given. If it remains as 10 points, then we at least deserve to know how that conclusion was reached and the calculation for it.
ALL very logical...but you missed one glaring fact...
We're dealing with the Premier League hierarchy who haven't got the foggiest idea what they're own rules are..how to interpret them and how to "ringfence" sanction limitations.
brap2 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:42 pm
Doesn't sound great like
There's a whole lot of words saying very little there. Not sure how you come to the conclusion of "doesn't sound great" unless you're arriving from an already accepted disposition.
Like, honestly, that fella's not said anything particularly informative at all. There's no insight into what our appeal is based on, and we know what it is. I reckon 99% of us here could provide a better summary than that waffle.
Jamokachi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:51 pm
There's a whole lot of words saying very little there. Not sure how you come to the conclusion of "doesn't sound great" unless you're arriving from an already accepted disposition.
Like, honestly, that fella's not said anything particularly informative at all. There's no insight into what our appeal is based on, and we know what it is. I reckon 99% of us here could provide a better summary than that waffle.
There is no reason why an appeal would be materially different considering by the end of the hearing Everton had admitted and agreed to the breach and the terms of the sanction.
It doesn't sound like good news but maybe I maybe I'm mishearing
brap2 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:55 pm
There is no reason why an appeal would be materially different considering by the end of the hearing Everton had admitted and agreed to the breach and the terms of the sanction.
It doesn't sound like good news but maybe I maybe I'm mishearing
Our appeal isn't about the charge and the outcome though (as far as I've deciphered), it's about the punishment.
Edit: We admitted to the charge prior to the initial hearing... so, yea, this chat is a load of waffle, because what we're arguing is not our guilt but how it's being punished. Unless I'm somehow waaaayyyy off here? But I don't think so?
Jamokachi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:13 pm
Our appeal isn't about the charge and the outcome though (as far as I've deciphered), it's about the punishment.
Edit: We admitted to the charge prior to the initial hearing... so, yea, this chat is a load of waffle, because what we're arguing is not our guilt but how it's being punished. Unless I'm somehow waaaayyyy off here? But I don't think so?
If our appeal boils down to "I know we agreed to sporting sanctions but not those ones they are mean" then we are cooked
brap2 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:22 pm
If our appeal boils down to "I know we agreed to sporting sanctions but not those ones they are mean" then we are cooked
We didn't agree to sporting sanctions tho. We admitted the charge without knowing what the punishment/sanctions would be, and our argument is that they're overly heavy handed, and contradictory to how the punishment of the charge was initially interpreted.
Jamokachi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:31 pm
We didn't agree to sporting sanctions tho. We admitted the charge without knowing what the punishment/sanctions would be, and our argument is that they're overly heavy handed, and contradictory to how the punishment of the charge was initially interpreted.
