• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Financial Fair Play (FFP)

Project Zeus

Project Zeus

Steve Chettle
Brian Fantana said:
I’ve read the full report now.

4pts to me is fair and shouldn’t be appealed.

We only got mitigation based on early notification/plea and excellent co-operation and that’s saved us two points from being a full six.

Our other mitigations are crap, particularly when our finance guy Bonser notified the club in Sept 2022 and then again in Dec 2022 that we would breach unless we sold.

We instead spent more in January and left the Johnson sale too late. They’ve decided we ended up having sporting advantage for the entire 2022/23 season.

Take the -4pts, and try and win a few games.
Click to expand...

The whole "sporting advantage" angle is completely devalued by the fact that we were allowed to lose £39m less than every other PL club. And that's without the fact that we were also the only club who hadn't competed in the Premier League recently and needed to buy a PL squad. We wouldn't have breached if their rules actually encouraged fair sporting integrity.

It basically boils down to how unfair the rules are versus our conscious breaking of those rules.

Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk
 
E

EmmersonForest4

Steve Chettle
UnFrustratedRed said:
Ok, but some of the personal stuff is just not acceptable. The level of vitriol towards the owner is, in my opinion, unwarranted. As Mr Blonde has said, let's hope he learns from this mistake, and hopefully everyone can get behind him, Nuno and the players for the rest of the season.
Click to expand...
I apologise for calling him a buffoon but the whole situation is stupid which is why I describe he was a buffoon because he acted in a way that was extremely stupid. Its a basic error that I dont expect of an owner and a board. Its so poor and very disorganised. he deserves that type of ire. That is personal jibes its the facts. I have in fairness offered redemption and forgiveness in my post. I dont want him gone I want him to make it better.
 
Quntib Hollox

Quntib Hollox

Jack Armstrong
Flaggers said:
I note that the person who has evidently been fired over this debacle is the bloke who updates the club website.

You'd think something like this might warrant a note on the news page by now, wouldn't you.

But as of 16:43 there is nothing.
Click to expand...
1710780768501.gif
 
Y

YellowBelly Red

Viv Anderson
andyjm1983 said:
Think we should be happy with 4 points deduction
Click to expand...
I'm happy with that outcome.

We can argue about how loaded and how farcical that the rules may or may not be, but rules are rules and we broke them.

I just want people that are paid a hell of a lot more than me, to own the situation and get things right going forward.

Other clubs can do it and I'd like to think success starts with being a well run outfit.
 
HBB

HBB

Jack Burkitt
Brian Fantana said:
Unless I’m misreading the report the fact we could have sold Brennan to Atletico Madrid for €50m on the 30th June and been compliant is somewhat annoying.
Click to expand...
They made an offer but that was qualified by them having to sell a player and other sell-on clauses - we used this as part of the mitigation argument but the PL said that the fact we didn't take it further was evidence that that we didn't do ALL we could to sell before the key date and was part of them throwing out alot of the BJ argument, same with Brentford's low ball bid, had we gone back on their 3rd offer and tried to raise it by a few million that would have equalled the breach amount then the "near-miss" argument might have been more reasonable.
 
Last edited:
E

EmmersonForest4

Steve Chettle
Project Zeus said:
The whole "sporting advantage" angle is completely devalued by the fact that we were allowed to lose £39m less than every other PL club. And that's without the fact that we were also the only club who hadn't competed in the Premier League recently and needed to buy a PL squad. We wouldn't have breached if their rules actually encouraged fair sporting integrity.

It basically boils down to how unfair the rules are versus our conscious breaking of those rules.

Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The rules are shite and we didnt gain a sporting advantage morally but that is no excuse to what we did. You cant use "I dont like the rules they are unfair" as an excuse. As I said we should accept our punishment like men and take it on the chin. Than we should than be proactive in getting some of these silly rules changed. There is only one direction the blame should be aimed at and its the board. I agree with posters to now get behind us and of course I will it makes no sense to wallow in rage especially when we are playing however LTLF is my release of frustration. The players and board arent here and I want to converse with fellow reds to see how they are feeling. Of course I will back the team in whatever games they play.
 
E

EmmersonForest4

Steve Chettle
HBB said:
They made an offer but that was qualified by them having to sell a player and other sell-on clauses - we used this as part of the mitigation argument but the PL said that the fact we didn't take it further was evidence that that we didn't ALL we could to sell before the key date and was part of them throwing out alot of the BJ argument, same with Brentford's low ball bid, had we gone back on their 3rd offer and tried to raise it by a few million that would have equalled the breach amount then the "near-miss" argument might have been more reasonable.
Click to expand...
To be honest its a laughable argument. Why are we in a position that we have to sell a player to pass? That is the opposite of sustainability. Every club sells players to get by. However they dont rely on selling a player after they have splurged all their dough. Brighton buy within limits than sell big than go again. Its the complete different way round to us. Brighton do it sustainably.
 
Shearstone

Shearstone

Misses the champ
REDDERS78 said:
Where does the 1-3 come from? Is it not exactly the same offence as they were previous sanctioned for?
Click to expand...
The commission couldn't understand why the initial judgement had added 3 points to Everton. As such operating on the rules demonstrated on our commission. There would be set to a minimum 3 points. Their breach was significantly lower than ours last season and you would assume it is somewhat lower for this season. Particularly with how much bleating Everton fans have been doing about injustice and the Gordon sale.

As such I see its unlikely they will get the extra 3 points we got. Add that to the potential for mitigation via co-operation, that is how I came up with 1-3 points.

Now you could argue and I imagine Evertons lawyer will having seen today's judgement. That 6 points for their first breach was unfair and Everton could end up with no further charge. Arguing 3 for the first and 3 for the second would be fair.

However I suspect that is unlikely.
 
M

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
Flaggers said:
I note that the person who has evidently been fired over this debacle is the bloke who updates the club website.
Click to expand...

The Social Media manager was on a secondment to CFO so it's no surprise he's gone because of today's news.
 
C

Cloughie1975

John Robertson
shearstone said:
The commission couldn't understand why the initial judgement had added 3 points to Everton. As such operating on the rules demonstrated on our commission. There would be set to a minimum 3 points. Their breach was significantly lower than ours last season and you would assume it is somewhat lower for this season. Particularly with how much bleating Everton fans have been doing about injustice and the Gordon sale.

As such I see its unlikely they will get the extra 3 points we got. Add that to the potential for mitigation via co-operation, that is how I came up with 1-3 points.

Now you could argue and I imagine Evertons lawyer will having seen today's judgement. That 6 points for their first breach was unfair and Everton could end up with no further charge. Arguing 3 for the first and 3 for the second would be fair.

However I suspect that is unlikely.
Click to expand...
I think the Everton 2nd deduction is likely to be quite low as you say.
 
Monkman

Monkman

Grenville Morris
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom