Chrysalis Posted 17 March Share Posted 17 March (edited) Managed to read the article now, it wasnt what I was expecting after how much it got hyped up. Edited 17 March by Chrysalis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 18 March Author Share Posted 18 March (edited) Forest get four points, but likely to appeal: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/nottingham-forest-docked-four-points-premier-league-financial-rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Edited 18 March by ClaphamFox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieADZ Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March looks like forest will have 4 points deducted then 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K789 Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 2 points after appeal then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKCJ Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March **** modern football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolucklcfc Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March Watch us get 12. Only benefit to this is hopefully we can use them as a debating point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 4 points What's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose2010 Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March Likely to get reduced to two. Almost worth just spending what you want! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 18 March Author Share Posted 18 March (edited) 15 minutes ago, goose2010 said: Likely to get reduced to two. Almost worth just spending what you want! If we're charged, I've no doubt we'll be arguing that if we hadn't imposed an effective transfer embargo on ourselves in the summer of 2022, we'd likely still be in the PL now. Edited 18 March by ClaphamFox 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxile5 Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 18 minutes ago, AKCJ said: **** modern football. I think when you say screw modern football you're actually meaning screw the Premier League. There was a chap on TalkSport a while back who pointed out just how embarrassing the Premier League has become and he was so on the money it was painful. Foreign fans must look on and laugh at : The inability to get VAR right in any way shape or form. It isn't just for a few bits or bobs here and there it's a total inability to use it efficiently. The money awash throughout. It's not really a sporting competition anymore - perhaps in a nominal sense. But it's become more of a financial playing field with Premier League teams seeking to ringfence and protect their bank balances. Why the hell would they want that competition played out in a football match!? The ownership. I'm aware other foreign leagues have foreign owners but I can't think of another foreign league where there aren't any national owners of the clubs in their top division. The community element. You know who has more influence of what is happening in the Premier League than the match going fans? The fans of Africa/Asia/South America. These are lucrative markets by comparison. The points deduction situation. The chap who spoke on TalkSport said it a lot better than I am about to but he was right - we're supposed to be the global standard and we're meting out point punishments and appeals mid-season. The impact of this on the league and teams is significant. It also speaks to an ad-hoc management of the league. The transparent rule massaging for the elite. It's obvious. It's clearly obvious. It's like the financial doping of Barcelona and Madrid. Painful to watch. All of the things that made the Premier League great are dead or dying and in its place we've just got a horrible garbled mess of avarice. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 6 Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March I don't think the rules, as they are currently, work. It imposes some really odd things around selling academy players being so lucrative - which seems wrong. And I don't really know how you combat some of it either...keep your assets by offering good contracts but screw yourself on the wagebill, or don't offer new contracts and lose the players for cheap/free. You'd basically need to consistently buy great talent at cheap prices, and sell them on for good profit, while also bringing through great academy players to make money. It's just not possible. Might as well assign league positions based on turnover from the last financial year. Having said all that it does feel like signing more than the number of players you can have in a squad probably does show recklessness. I'm not just saying this due to them being rivals, but it feels like whatever rules are in place should be there to stop some of the behaviour that has gone on at Forest. Not sure 4 points will do it. Feel like spending caps make more sense, but then I guess financial loopholes will be found anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelmofox Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 24 minutes ago, Fox92 said: 4 points What's the point. Seems they are picking numbers where the team are likely to stay safe. That makes them 1 point from safety and i would still bet on them scraping though it. 6 points would have made it that little bit harder. Knowing our luck next season is the one where the PL don't care and are willing to go harder on clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March If the breaches are the same as what Everton did, why is it only 4? And did they not accept the charges, so what's the appeal for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVFox Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March On one hand, hilarious to see Forest losw 4 points. On the other, with that logic, we are likely On for a 10 to 12 deduction ourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 18 March Author Share Posted 18 March Just now, LVFox said: On one hand, hilarious to see Forest losw 4 points. On the other, with that logic, we are likely On for a 10 to 12 deduction ourself. How did you figure that out? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniFox21 Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March Interesting point from Henry Winter, if the appeal takes long, we could be into summer before finalising the relegation places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVFox Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said: How did you figure that out? Forest are being done for 1 year in the PL, it was quite well reported that their punishment will be reduced because of that. Simple fag packet equation that if they are doing 4 points for 1 year in the PL, they may do 12 for a whole 3 year period. (Although Everton does counter that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breaker7 Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March (edited) 5 minutes ago, LVFox said: On one hand, hilarious to see Forest losw 4 points. On the other, with that logic, we are likely On for a 10 to 12 deduction ourself. Why would ours be 2.5/3x more than Forest's? I thought we may have only breached for 1 year of the 3 in question (which is the same as them isnt it ?) - others have said seems like ours will be 10 pts, just have no idea why !! ANSWERED ABOVE - THANKS ! Edited 18 March by breaker7 Answered same second I posted ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxdiamond Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 38 minutes ago, Nolucklcfc said: Watch us get 12. Only benefit to this is hopefully we can use them as a debating point Yeah 12 for us increased to 14 after appeal. Apologies for cynicism 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March Forest’s defence that they made an extra £17.5m by delaying the sale of Brennan Johnson is far less arbitrary and nonsensical than FFP itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 18 March Author Share Posted 18 March 2 minutes ago, LVFox said: Forest are being done for 1 year in the PL, it was quite well reported that their punishment will be reduced because of that. Simple fag packet equation that if they are doing 4 points for 1 year in the PL, they may do 12 for a whole 3 year period. (Although Everton does counter that) It doesn't work like that. First, Forest aren't getting done for one year - they're getting done for the three year period up to June 30 2023. You don't get penalised for one year only. Second, you haven't factored in the level of breach, nor whether any sporting advantage was gained. We don't know what level our breach will be (if indeed there is one) and, unlike Everton and Forest, we were relegated at the end of the three-year period, so did not gain a sporting advantage. I'll be astonished if ours is more than Forest's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 5 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said: Yeah 12 for us increased to 14 after appeal. Apologies for cynicism No apology is needed here, we are notorious for somehow being the exception to rules in a negative manner. I was expecting at least 10 to be honest, regardless of which division we start in next season. If that were the Premier League, we would need to be around the same level as a top-10 team last season to beat relegation and get to the magical 40 points. We managed 34 last season and 52 the season before where we finished 8th. Will make for an interesting season no doubt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVFox Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March 2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: It doesn't work like that. First, Forest aren't getting done for one year - they're getting done for the three year period up to June 30 2023. You don't get penalised for one year only. Second, you haven't factored in the level of breach, nor whether any sporting advantage was gained. We don't know what level our breach will be (if indeed there is one) and, unlike Everton and Forest, we were relegated at the end of the three-year period, so did not gain a sporting advantage. I'll be astonished if ours is more than Forest's. You make some really good on level of breach etc. I don't quite buy the sporting advantage argument, all because you cheat and still suck, doesn't mean you should be punished less than those who do it successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 18 March Author Share Posted 18 March 5 minutes ago, Bryn said: Forest’s defence that they made an extra £17.5m by delaying the sale of Brennan Johnson is far less arbitrary and nonsensical than FFP itself. Their argument is actually a good one. if the aim is to help clubs achieve sustainability, it obviously makes more sense to wait a while and get a lot more money for a player than sell him on the cheap. Selling Johnson for less may have helped them to meet PSR rules but would have been worse for their sustainability because it would have brought in a lot less money. The rules are daft, which is why they're being scrapped. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 18 March Share Posted 18 March Ours is imminent too. We are genuinely going to be the biggest losers in this because Everton and Forest both have the luxury of Burnley, Sheffield United and Luton being in the league, as well as each other having deductions. We'd go up and probably be the only ones, with nowhere near as bad competition. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts