Financial Fairplay Investigation - 2025 Nobody in Breach

[Kerryblueboy]

Meanwhile city sit back with all their charges letting their lawyers do the work while the smaller clubs get fucked over

[Bluedylan1]

Tbh I couldn't give a fuck about Forest. They're a nasty club. Their chairman has trafficked heroin, they were singing ''same old scousers always cheating'' to us earlier in the season, they've indulged in tragedy chanting multiple times, and if you see some of the comments about people from Liverpool (and other places) on their main forum, it's pretty distasteful stuff.

Would love to see them relegated. Moody city, nasty football club.

[brap2]

So the ultimate bottom line seems to be :

They got more for their breach, with no aggravating factors despite continued spend.

We got less for our breach, but much more aggravating factors, in particular with misleading info supplied. (Not including the 4 removes for Bad Faith).

So - is it actually our own club has fucked us over trying to be clever?

Personally I'm saying - yes.

[777Kidnappings]

Meanwhile city sit back with all their charges letting their lawyers do the work while the smaller clubs get fucked over

Good on them. Ffp isn't fair anyway, they are the only team stopping Liverpool and the premier league will be desperate for them not to win the league. Hope they win everything every season.

[TheRam]

Tbh I couldn't give a fuck about Forest. They're a nasty club. Their chairman has trafficked heroin, they were singing ''same old scousers always cheating'' to us earlier in the season, they've indulged in tragedy chanting multiple times, and if you see some of the comments about people from Liverpool (and other places) on their main forum, it's pretty distasteful stuff.

Would love to see them relegated. Moody city, nasty football club.

Their owner is a scumbag who has all kinds of allegations against him and risked the future of the club by spending recklessly when they came up.

This narrative of them being punished for trying to compete is rubbish.

Fuck them, and fuck that fat scumbag who owns them.

[Paddockoldie]

If you only get 4 points for massively overspending, why wouldn't city et al do it, knowing they'll win the points back with ease with the quality they can afford... rigged game

[Toffee1]

[Paddockoldie]

Bottom line is the players will decide our fate. The points are there to win and get safe. We can't impact the system, so we need to take responsibility for what we do. I expect wins, no excuses

[AjaxAndy]

So the ultimate bottom line seems to be :

They got more for their breach, with no aggravating factors despite continued spend.

We got less for our breach, but much more aggravating factors, in particular with misleading info supplied. (Not including the 4 removes for Bad Faith).

So - is it actually our own club has fucked us over trying to be clever?

Personally I'm saying - yes.

If the system was fair maybe that'd be an argument, but it's not imo.

They've over spent by nearly double what we did but only received the same 6 points we got, which calls in to question how these things are worked out. You can't have one team breaking the rules by double another club and both receiving the same punishment or there's no reason to not just double down and break by whatever amount you fancy.

They've been given a reduction based on being open and honest, but at the same time knew they were going to breach, didn't give a fuck and used the Johnson sale as justification even though the extra amount they received for him by delaying the sale was only about half of what they went over anyway. So I genuinely don't see how that's in any way a mitigating factor for reduction.

We've obviously been sly and shady but I don't believe the system is fair or that if we'd been more open and honest it'd have been any different. I mean we got a 10 point deduction initially because they wanted to make a statement... We could have been as honest and open as Forest and we'd have still been screwed.

The system is fucked, we might be victims of our own mismanagement but we're also victims of a poorly implemented system that lacks any form of consistency or logical application.

[Shogun]

They got 3 points for their breach. We got 6 points for ours. Am I being dumb or is that not what it says in the reports?

[bigmanbob]

Not sure this one can be put on us TBH

[Goaljira]

To be fair by the punishment we got they've got off very lightly. An appeal probably should make it worse

Its not about them, its about the same message will apply to our hearing and punishment too, so how much do you want to risk it?

[Goaljira]

They got 3 points for their breach. We got 6 points for ours. Am I being dumb or is that not what it says in the reports?

3 points for breach, 3 points for level of breach, less 2 points because they've been seen as fully helpful.

We got 10 points with no basis given for workings, then got told on appeal its 6pts minimum for any breach and that there was no deduction for co-operation as thats the least that the PL can expect from all clubs.

Its a fucking joke.

[Cozzie]

Didn't the club say in their statement for the first punishment that they will be watching in future the punishments of other clubs and seeing how they fair.

Again you would like to think we could or should use this going into the second charge.

[superpull]

They got 3 for the breach, we got 6. (that is the "extra 3" that their IC mentioned initially that I couldnt make sense of at the time).

We got +4 based on the "every £5m over" line. (even though we didnt hit the 4th £5m and it means 0-£5m is counted, which means it was 7 points for a breach). Our mitigation was thrown out as we were acting in bad faith.

They got +3 based on severity (not linked to a per £ punishment) and a minus 2 for cooperating.

So, our appeal/this new IC has changed the following rules:
- 3 points to start
- severity is no longer linked to £5m
- We cooperate and you get 2 knocked off


So it all depends on what our overspend is, doesnt it:
Less and it is 2 (3 plus 1 minus 2) or 3 points (3 plus 2 mins 2).
Same then it is 4.
More and it is up to 7 points (9 max minus 2 for cooperating).

Our appeal is over and ICAS cant help as we all agree we were guilty. We can't appeal the appeal.