biziclop wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 8:00 pm
Yeah, if they thought "this would prove we're on top of this and we don't need an independent watchdog sorting our horrendous mess out", they're not exactly making a case for that, are they.
It would probably be less egregious to just draw who gets relegated out of a hat, as a live TV event, because at least that way all clubs have the randomness of chance to save them rather than the unknowable whims of a group of randos, operating in the shadows, at the behest of someone who looks like an understudy from a Gold Blend advert in the 90s.
In this appeal they state minimum 6 points for any PSR breach.
They also reject all of our cases for appeal.
The club at the time of second charge said : we've had to submit this now even though the books might change based on the outcome of the appeal.
If cases are rejected the books are the same, and if the prem found us over on that basis, then we have breached again and are surely looking at a minimum 6.
Obviously that's me taking a few leaps of logic and the process so far hasn't exactly been the most logical, so honestly god knows.
brap2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:18 pm
Think that is worrying me is :
In this appeal they state minimum 6 points for any PSR breach.
They also reject all of our cases for appeal.
The club at the time of second charge said : we've had to submit this now even though the books might change based on the outcome of the appeal.
If cases are rejected the books are the same, and if the prem found us over on that basis, then we have breached again and are surely looking at a minimum 6.
Obviously that's me taking a few leaps of logic and the process so far hasn't exactly been the most logical, so honestly god knows.
This. And the fact that this appeal.has told the next commission what not to explicitly say in the two grounds for appeal that were upheld so that they wouldn't be used again.
I think the fact that we've lost more in FY23 than FY22 is going to cost us.
Goaljira wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:38 pm
This. And the fact that this appeal.has told the next commission what not to explicitly say in the two grounds for appeal that were upheld so that they wouldn't be used again.
I think the fact that we've lost more in FY23 than FY22 is going to cost us.
Yeah feel like after reading bits of the prem report I feel even worse than I did before we got points back!
Did you see the bit regarding transfers / buying players where they quoted Moshiri's evidence in which he said he had to spend to "replace the nonexistent midfield"
Quite a few people seem to be offering the fact Forest were in the football league for two of the three years as some kind of justification. Am I reading that right?
Because the rules are more stringent and it reduces the £105m significantly for each of the 3 years not in the prem.
brap2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:49 pm
Yeah feel like after reading bits of the prem report I feel even worse than I did before we got points back!
Did you see the bit regarding transfers / buying players where they quoted Moshiri's evidence in which he said he had to spend to "replace the nonexistent midfield"
I didnt pick up on that bit, but I did pick up on them throwing out his argument that he'd have lent the money interest free if we'd not had the stadium, but they showed that he had always left some interest paying loans since he took over. Which doesn't at all sound like paying some dubious company money for no reason, and definitely nothing to do with money laundering at all.