Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[S1DDO]

The club needs to get a grip and start living within its means 

[Guest glasgowfox]

Help me out here guys.  Genuine question and if I have got mixed up I put it down to my age.  How can forest be investigated and punished in the same season and Everton were investigated and punished the next season?  Apologies if I am missing something or was it Everton playing delay tactics to stay up 

[UniFox21]

4 minutes ago, glasgowfox said:

Help me out here guys.  Genuine question and if I have got mixed up I put it down to my age.  How can forest be investigated and punished in the same season and Everton were investigated and punished the next season?  Apologies if I am missing something or was it Everton playing delay tactics to stay up 

Rules were changed regarding punishment timescales 

[Lionator]

I think the last 3 paragraphs of the forest statement are very strong. And one which we should also get behind.

 

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

[Guest glasgowfox]

4 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Rules were changed regarding punishment timescales 

Thanks mate....to our disadvantage unless I am missing something....there's a surprise 

[Matt]

If I were Forest i'd appeal whether I felt there was reason for appeal or not on the basis:

• You have nothing to lose; There is no threat of further punishment should an appeal be thrown out
• Just so that it makes the PL look even more of a farce than it already is, that relegation placings would be undecided after the season had finish.

I believe Forest have 7 days to appeal? I'd leave it until the final hour of those 7 days also.

 

I'll go back to when the Greedy Six escaped no real punishments, there was alot made of "you can't dock points, it just punishes the fans", "you can't put asterisks throughout the league", but it's ok now?

 

Furthermore, alot is being made that charges, sentences and punishments are to be served in "real time", within the seasons, regardless of how many charges Man City have got against them they were the first to be flagged up, there is still no punishments against them.

 

I'm all for punishments if there is wrongdoing but i'm also all for integrity and transparency across the board.

 

Edited 18 March by Matt

[coolhandfox]

19 minutes ago, glasgowfox said:

Help me out here guys.  Genuine question and if I have got mixed up I put it down to my age.  How can forest be investigated and punished in the same season and Everton were investigated and punished the next season?  Apologies if I am missing something or was it Everton playing delay tactics to stay up 

Because they learnt from the Everton debacle and speed up the process.

 

Everton still to face charges for the 22/23 same as Forest

[Guest glasgowfox]

Just now, coolhandfox said:

Because they learnt from the Everton debacle and speed up the process.

 

Everton still to face charges for the 22/23 same as Forest

Not because Everton are a bigger club then....ffs (not aimed at you btw).

[coolhandfox]

Just now, glasgowfox said:

Not because Everton are a bigger club then....ffs (not aimed at you btw).

Nope, just the league getting their act together with a quicker process.

[Saxondale]

Re. The Dirty Forest: I think the club’s reaction is characteristically classless. They seemed to think that the fact the held out to get more money for Brennan Johnson is a legit excuse - of course it is not. They need to suck it up, as will we if we find ourselves in a similar situation.

 

They had a couple of Forest fans on Radio 5 earlier, who were actually both spot on: the rules are unfair and wrong, but the club is also wrong for breaking the rules.

 

It’s necessary to separate the two issues: 1) Are the rules fair (spoiler: no they are not) and 2) Did the club (be it Forest, Leicester, Everton or whoever) break those rules.

 

Clubs that have broken the rules can expect to be punished. Separately, they should be lobbying for reform - as should we the fans.

[iancognito]

2 minutes ago, glasgowfox said:

Not because Everton are a bigger club then....ffs (not aimed at you btw).

No, basically Everton's first punishment is from when the rules were based across a 3 year financial period. Their possible second deduction (and the one Forest got today) relates to last season when the rules were changed to allow earlier punishment for breaches by changing the accounting period.

[HybridFox]

Love the victim narrative on East Midlands Today. Seem to think it's unfair 

Edited 18 March by HybridFox

[Bazly]

Whoever agreed to these rules were in the pockets of the leading clubs hell bent on bolting on their future invincibility built on past spending sins, both Chelsea and Man City were both relegation fodder teams back in the not too distant past days. But, they are locked in now while any teams remotely attempting a tried and tested means of the fast cash fuelled rise get crashed and burned.

[iancognito]

1 minute ago, HybridFox said:

Love the victim narrative on East Midlands Today. Seem to think it's unfair 

Of course. It's taken a quarter of a century to get their darlings back in the big league, last thing they want is to lose that again. Anne Davies was an up & coming newsreader when Forest were last in the Premier League.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

27 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I think the last 3 paragraphs of the forest statement are very strong. And one which we should also get behind.

 

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

They bought 500 players in one pre season of course they were butt fvcking the system 

 

points deduction is far too lenient

 

on an aside I get where any club outside the greedy 6 is coming from as clearly ffp etc have been brought in to keep the status quo for the greedy 6

 

remember these parasite clubs were trying to break away. They should be forever tarnished imho 

[Hitesh]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Bout' time the top level of the game went pop.

 

Don't think i'd shed a tear.

 

Non league is far more enjoyable anyway.

 

Would be great if they restarted all leagues, a random allocation of all pro players to clubs and then played out a seasons worth of games randomly drawn out to determine the league structure for the following season. Then put in a max spend on transfers and salaries.

 

All tickets sold for £15 per game

 

Do a draft style for new players coming up via a newly formed regional academy system.

 

Clubs can have a max 5 foreign players, 3 in the starting 11 - like the 90s Italian/Spanish football. 

 

TV revenue distributed evenly across 100 clubs (5 leagues of 20) with parachute payments to those relegated to non league.

[Guest glasgowfox]

12 minutes ago, iancognito said:

No, basically Everton's first punishment is from when the rules were based across a 3 year financial period. Their possible second deduction (and the one Forest got today) relates to last season when the rules were changed to allow earlier punishment for breaches by changing the accounting period.

Thank you

[Lambert09]

1 hour ago, Saxondale said:

Re. The Dirty Forest: I think the club’s reaction is characteristically classless. They seemed to think that the fact the held out to get more money for Brennan Johnson is a legit excuse - of course it is not. They need to suck it up, as will we if we find ourselves in a similar situation.

 

They had a couple of Forest fans on Radio 5 earlier, who were actually both spot on: the rules are unfair and wrong, but the club is also wrong for breaking the rules.

 

It’s necessary to separate the two issues: 1) Are the rules fair (spoiler: no they are not) and 2) Did the club (be it Forest, Leicester, Everton or whoever) break those rules.

 

Clubs that have broken the rules can expect to be punished. Separately, they should be lobbying for reform - as should we the fans.

I don’t fully agree. On paper, rules are rulesZ 

 

But FFP as supposedly introduced to protect clubs from themselves. But then it’s punishing a club for getting as much money for its asset as possible. 
 

Forest were naive, foolish and brazen in the way they operated. But in that one argument I think they are correct. Clubs shouldn’t start needing to sell assets on the cheap  just to hit deadlines that part is just adding to the cartel that is the premier league 

Edited 18 March by Lambert09

[iancognito]

Worth remembering that the PL didn't just lump these rules on the clubs, the clubs voted for them. In much the same way as they rejected the EFL deal last week, they all decided these rules and this sort of accounting period & punishments were better. I think PSR sucks but the clubs wanted it this way.

[BertFill]

1 hour ago, S1DDO said:

The club needs to get a grip and start living within its means 

Yes, like all the other clubs do!

[JJD_LCFC]

58 minutes ago, David Lowe said:

I disagree because every case is different so it can’t be as black and white as that. Not all charges are just to do with losses. All cases can be appealed and taken to the independent committee if it is thought a deduction is wrong.

Thank you for your comment and never an issue to disagree. That is why we are on a forum so we can discuss differing opinions. (I hope we see this more )

 

My personal opinion, due to FFP being introduced is that all clubs have to make sure they stay within the set parameters. If you spend above that then there should be a consequence. Otherwise bringing FFP is pointless. 

 

The 115 charges for Man City are not all related to losses, but Everton and Forest both were due to breaking the rules of FFP. According to reports, Forest would have stayed within the limits if they sold Brennan Johnson by the deadline. However they got 15 million more to sell on deadline day. It's not easy for the clubs as everyone would have taken the extra 15 million. But then they broke the rules and deadline set by FFP. 

 

We have apparently overspent and will be the next club to be charged. If we broke the rules we should get the same punishment. 

 

All I will say it that as FFP is brought in they need to set clear parameters and consequences. 

 

I certainly agree it is not easy. They need to be specific on the losses and have clarity -  do they relate solely to on the field losses (ie new players, wages, staff etc)

Or does the loss include the cost of a new stadium or training ground as well. Either way it is difficult. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KFS]

Something I think a lot of people are missing is that there is a factor here around using finances to get ahead. We factually didn’t in the year of our ‘breach’ - we got ****ing relegated  

 

That’s surely worth 2 less points in the deduction at least. 

[ronnup]

We can live with 4 points 

[JJD_LCFC]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Photo or we don’t believe you’re really in Jamaica !

Yes, I have lived here for 3 and a half years now. 

This was our training session Friday morning. Coach for a team called Mount Pleasant Academy. 

 

Hope all is well,

 

[chuck'em]

6 minutes ago, JJD_LCFC said:

Thank you for your comment and never an issue to disagree. That is why we are on a forum so we can discuss differing opinions. (I hope we see this more )

 

My personal opinion, due to FFP being introduced is that all clubs have to make sure they stay within the set parameters. If you spend above that then there should be a consequence. Otherwise bringing FFP is pointless. 

 

The 115 charges for Man City are not all related to losses, but Everton and Forest both were due to breaking the rules of FFP. According to reports, Forest would have stayed within the limits if they sold Brennan Johnson by the deadline. However they got 15 million more to sell on deadline day. It's not easy for the clubs as everyone would have taken the extra 15 million. But then they broke the rules and deadline set by FFP. 

 

We have apparently overspent and will be the next club to be charged. If we broke the rules we should get the same punishment. 

 

All I will say it that as FFP is brought in they need to set clear parameters and consequences. 

 

I certainly agree it is not easy. They need to be specific on the losses and have clarity -  do they relate solely to on the field losses (ie new players, wages, staff etc)

Or does the loss include the cost of a new stadium or training ground as well. Either way it is difficult. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It just shows how the rules are actually working in the opposite way to which they are sold to the fans. 

 

If you want a system to stop clubs spending too much and live within their means that's great. Surely in that case then a club holding out for, and receiving an extra £15m when selling an asset is only helping them to do that. They could have sold earlier and potentially not breached the rules, but that obviously then has a knock on effect to how competitive they can be moving forward. 

 

The rules are anticompetitive and the only purpose they really serve is to widen the gap between the top 6 and every single other club in the country.