The NSNO Everton Forums

Gary1878 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 4:22 pm Where is this from mate? I feel lost.

Section 14.15 of the report on Forest's deduction. There's link to it on the PL website https://www.premierleague.com/news/3936397

I am morbidly curious to see just how few points will equal survival this season. My Fulham supporter buddy keep saying Brentford are in trouble - but shit, even if they lose out (unlikely) they are on 26 and not facing any charges. Who's going to catch them? Nobody at the arse end of the table can do the square root of fuckall.

Anybody got a handle what they mean by our 3 extra points?

Does that mean we think we got 9 instead of 10? Or that we were reduced from 10 to 9 and so currently have 3 more than they've just given forest?

Or, and I may be catastrophising here - is this "extra 3" they are talking about something to do with them knowing about our current case before it's been published?

The whole report and charges use Everton as a precedent. We were the guinea pig.

Forest have successfully argued that their case was somehow not quite as bad as ours, and apparently co-operation is worth 2 points.

No way should Forest appeal that. They have got away with it big time.

This is total bullshit that Forest have got a smaller deduction than we have yet are further over the limit. I'd be getting a lawyer to look into this immediately.

777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 3:38 pm Didn't the first commission find we were dishonest and the 2nd 1 find we weren't or am I making that up.

Clearly you are correct, yeah this finding for forest implies they were honest and got 2pts back , where they state we were dishonest. We have got to be all over this .

Forest have got away with it and still put out a fuming statement. Compare this to our "We're please with the 6 points" cowardly statement after the appeal.

---

36 minutes ago
Club News

CLUB STATEMENT
By NFFC

Share

Nottingham Forest is extremely disappointed with the decision of the Commission to impose a sanction on the Club of four points, to be applied with immediate effect.

Notwithstanding our disappointment, we thank the Commission for agreeing to deal with this matter on an expedited basis. The Club considers it to be essential for the integrity of the league to have charges resolved in the season in which they are issued.

We were extremely dismayed by the tone and content of the Premier League’s submissions before the Commission.

After months of engagement with the Premier League, and exceptional cooperation throughout, this was unexpected and has harmed the trust and confidence we had in the Premier League.

That the Premier League sought a sanction of eight points as a starting point was utterly disproportionate when compared to the nine points that their own rules prescribe for insolvency.

We were also surprised that the Premier League gave no consideration at all to the unique circumstances of the Club and its mitigation. In circumstances where this approach is followed by future PSR commissions, it would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for newly promoted clubs without parachute payments to compete, thus undermining the integrity and competitiveness of the Premier League.

Whilst the Premier League may have called into question the Club’s business plan, the Club maintains that it responsibly balanced compliance with PSR with important investment into the squad to give us the ability to compete in the league for the first time in over 20 years.

Even after the Club had missed the PSR reporting deadline, it still took steps to ensure Brennan Johnson was sold before the end of the transfer window. That was a clear demonstration of our respect and support for PSR.

The Commission's decision raises issues of concern for all aspirant clubs. The player transfer market is a highly specialised trading environment that cannot be compared to the sale of normal products and services.

There will be occasions when a player transfer cannot be completed in the first half of a transfer window and can only be completed at the end of that window. This should not be a reason for the condemnation of a club. For this not to be recognised by the Commission or the Premier League should be a matter of extreme concern for all fans of our national game.

Of wider concern for all aspirant clubs is the disturbing effect this decision will have on the operation of the player trading model. This is the only model by which clubs outside of the small group at the very top end of the Premier League can realistically advance up the football pyramid.

The rationale of the Commission is that clubs should only invest after they have realised a profit on their player development. This reasoning destroys mobility in the football pyramid and the effect of the decision will be to drastically reduce the room for manoeuvre for all such clubs, leading to the stagnation of our national game.

We believe that the high levels of cooperation the Club has shown during this process, and which are confirmed and recorded in the Commission's decision, were not reciprocated by the Premier League.

This is the problem with not having the rules and the tariffs all written down and codified before you begin to apply the process. There's no established tariff and each Independent Commission is a different group of people making a different decision.

It's like trying two people for a similar murder, not having a minimum sentence in place and one gets 4 years and the other gets 10.

It's actually crazy how badly this has been handled by the Prem. Surely we have to threaten to take this to court? This ''inconsistency'', to put it mildly, is directly endangering the existence of the club.

Yeah, the more you think about it the more it's bull shit.

The only positive is surely we can use this particular outcome to our advantage if we are docked more than 4 when they got 2 less for a higher breach.

Weren't we found to have been misjudged? We were the only club to admit the offence, so how can we seemingly getting punished for not being upfront? Absolute bunch of wankers the prem.

Also. I thought the outcome of our appeal meant the minimum was supposed to be 6 from here on in.

They’ve got us squarely lined up for another 6 off then

This is what I was thinking. Super silk needs to be looking at getting the 2nd charge completely thrown out.

When are they doing us then, we both got charged on the same date and it's a completely different IC then surely soon.

Me too think it will be 6 but knocked down to this *3pts that's being bandied about.

I don't mind Forest club statement tbh . Cleaely points out how P&S only benefits the big 6

But there's was all player transfers wasn't it so going all FM can't really complain.

Cozzie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:13 pm

This is what I was thinking. Super silk needs to be looking at getting the 2nd charge completely thrown out.

We've not confirmed Super Silk for the second charge. Availability was still to be confirmed due to his busy schedule.