Notts F & Everton admit to breaking rules and face points deduction

[Foxmeister]

Hopefully they'll both start on minus points next season.

[tom27111]

2 minutes ago, Foxmeister said:

Hopefully they'll both start on minus points next season.

 

No, big points deductions for this season.

 

If two of Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United stay up, that'll be hilarious. 

 

And make our job next year much easier, presuming we're promoted this season.

[sheffield_fox]

Points deductions for them next season would obviously be way better for us. But there's really no reason to expect that to happen. 

[Chelmofox]

1 minute ago, tom27111 said:

 

No, big points deductions for this season.

 

If two of Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United stay up, that'll be hilarious. 

 

And make our job next year much easier, presuming we're promoted this season.

The dream year would be Everton and Forest go down because of deductions, and then Brentford  

[Sly]

If I’m honest, I’m in two minds about it.

 

1. If they have the money, let them bloody spend it.

 

However, 

 

2. They knew the rules, even if they didn’t agree with them. 

[iancognito]

1 hour ago, Filberts lovechild said:

It 💯 shows what FFP was in fact created for! 10% stopping clubs going into Admin and 90% to preserve the hierarchy of the current “big 6”. Look at Newcastle now, must be so frustrating having all the money in the world but not able to spend it? Look at us, owner has deep pockets but we can’t sign players? Honestly as much as I’d like to laugh at Forest, this is taking a lot of enjoyment out of the sport - if owners want to spunk their cash, let them

Maybe but we spent 8 years carefully building a side capable of competing naturally in the Prem, selling one big name a year and recycling the cash for 2 or 3 player upgrades. Forest bought about 40 players in 2 seasons spent £160m and figured if they got far enough up the league a pts deduction wouldn't matter. It helped them get out of relegation trouble, just like Everton, and if they'd played by the rules last season might have been different.

 

 

 

[foxile5]

Flush that turd!

[Tuna]

54 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

No, big points deductions for this season.

 

If two of Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United stay up, that'll be hilarious. 

 

And make our job next year much easier, presuming we're promoted this season.

If Forest went down, they would have to start again, the mercenaries would leave. Can see them doing a Sunderland and going straight into league one.

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

This seems such a daft decision, why would they risk it given all the murmurings about Everton at the time?

 

 

Interestingly we sold Maddison in June for what we all thought was cheap.

 

Got a feeling we did it early and took a smaller fee to get it in the  22/23 accounts for FFP reasons.

[jonny_wright]

New tactic, spend frivolously on getting a quality side together, stay up and take the 10 point penalty…. It’s actually a better option than scrimping, getting relegated and doing it the hard way! 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

1 minute ago, coolhandfox said:

Interestingly we sold Maddison in June for what we all thought was cheap.

 

Got a feeling we did it early and took a smaller fee to get it in the  22/23 accounts for FFP reasons.

Not just a feeling but a fact!

[HighPeakFox]

29 minutes ago, jonny_wright said:

New tactic, spend frivolously on getting a quality side together, stay up and take the 10 point penalty…. It’s actually a better option than scrimping, getting relegated and doing it the hard way! 

Is this the financial equivalent of 'having a right to go down' when a defender breathes on you?

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Foxmeister said:

Hopefully they'll both start on minus points next season.

 

1 hour ago, tom27111 said:

 

No, big points deductions for this season.

 

If two of Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United stay up, that'll be hilarious. 

 

And make our job next year much easier, presuming we're promoted this season.

Why not both?

[Dahnsouff]

If Everton/Forest broke the rules, impose the allotted penalty, it should be a simple penalty, you broke the rules with bad accounting, lose 4/6/8/10 points, but keep it consistent.
Man City is obviously very different as it is not bad accounting, more so a very bad actor, complicit in seeking to actually circumvent the rules of a competition at many levels.

However,  like refereeing, I am not convinced the drama of these events is not a key part of this serialised fume circus.

[Denzel the fox]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

This seems such a daft decision, why would they risk it given all the murmurings about Everton at the time?

 

 

I can’t believe they are really using this as an explanation ……it’s like saying ok I went 35 in a 30 zone but then I drove at 40 in a 50 so by the end of the trip i was within the speed limit 

[moore_94]

I know quite a few of our most recent deals have been bad but bloody hell 

 

https://theathletic.com/5201583/2024/01/15/nottingham-forest-premier-league-charges/

 

By the time Forest signed Chris Wood and Jonjo Shelvey from Newcastle United last January, they knew the numbers contained all sorts of risks. They went ahead and did it anyway.

 

Wood signed on loan with a clause in his contract that triggered a £15m deal, on £100,000 a week, as soon as he was named in the matchday squad three times. Shelvey was given a two-and-a-half-year contract on roughly £75,000 a week and, within St James’ Park, the two transfers created something bordering on amazement. Put bluntly, they could not believe Forest thought it was good business.

[Torten]

9 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

I know quite a few of our most recent deals have been bad but bloody hell 

 

https://theathletic.com/5201583/2024/01/15/nottingham-forest-premier-league-charges/

 

By the time Forest signed Chris Wood and Jonjo Shelvey from Newcastle United last January, they knew the numbers contained all sorts of risks. They went ahead and did it anyway.

 

Wood signed on loan with a clause in his contract that triggered a £15m deal, on £100,000 a week, as soon as he was named in the matchday squad three times. Shelvey was given a two-and-a-half-year contract on roughly £75,000 a week and, within St James’ Park, the two transfers created something bordering on amazement. Put bluntly, they could not believe Forest thought it was good business.

This is exactly why those that decry the situation because of Forest ‘having a go’ is nonsense. This is atrociously poor business and they should be on their knees thanking FFP for potentially giving their owner pause to stop his ludicrously unsustainable strategy.

 

Multiple teams in recent times have shown that you don’t need to be massively gung ho in the transfer market to stay up after promotion. 
 

I don’t fully agree with the rules as they stand in regards to a level playing field and there should be some discussion around how FFP essentially cemented the status quo circa 2011 or whenever it was introduced. But I do believe part of it’s introduction was to stop madmen like the current forest owner financially running a club into the ground a la Portsmouth.

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Everton fans shouting the “don’t punish the fans” line, and although I understand - how else are you supposed to enforce FFP/PSR without unintentionally punishing the fans of the guilty club?

[fox_favourite]

14 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Everton fans shouting the “don’t punish the fans” line, and although I understand - how else are you supposed to enforce FFP/PSR without unintentionally punishing the fans of the guilty club?

Don't punish the fans should be aimed at the owners for not sticking to the rules. 

[when_you're_smiling]

21 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Everton fans shouting the “don’t punish the fans” line, and although I understand - how else are you supposed to enforce FFP/PSR without unintentionally punishing the fans of the guilty club?

I’ve not seen any mention that Everton were one of the clubs that voted for FFP to be implemented in the first place.

 

They wanted the laws in but then don’t want them to apply to themselves.

[foxes_rule1978]

3 hours ago, David Hankey said:

Fining these Clubs is meaningless. Points deduction is the only way forward.

 

I wonder if it is a question of the rules being too complicated or more a question of Clubs of flouting the laws and  trying to get away with it?

Agree totally, besides just straight relegating them, a points deduction is the only punishment which will ensure this isn’t repeated. Fines are useless on their own

[Bilo]

2 hours ago, jonny_wright said:

New tactic, spend frivolously on getting a quality side together, stay up and take the 10 point penalty…. It’s actually a better option than scrimping, getting relegated and doing it the hard way! 

Which is why I suspect Forest could get more than a 10 point deduction. So far as I understand it, the base deduction for a breach is 6 points and they go up incrementally from there depending on the severity of the breach. 

[UniFox21]

3 hours ago, Foxmeister said:

Hopefully they'll both start on minus points next season.

Hoping next season they're both in the championship

[UniFox21]

Hoping any appeal for forest is thrown out on the basis they had the ability to be within the limits of FFP and chose to not be, selling Johnson 2 months later. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Start Forest in the Premier League next season, then two months into it, relegate them.