Forest- possible points deduction

This seems to be a really stupid move as they have actually admitted a breach. By admitting the breach it’s automatically a 3 point deduction. So the appeal is just for 1 point.
More likely it’s to buy time to see what happens with Everton and how the season progresses.
 
GIF by Regal
 
QB Wolf said:
I was thinking more of Morgan from Boro in Jan.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was on Forest, these threads do wander about a bit!

Villa looks mad, but then people on here have been telling us they're going to be in breach of PSR ever since we got promoted. Often looking at transfers rather than accounts. Increasingly I think it's impossible to tell who is in breach even from the accounts.
 
I can only think they’re appealing in the hope that the uncertainness affects the Luton/Everton/Brentford teams, not knowing how many points Forest have got.
 
Ginger Chimp said:
Saying on the radio, this morning, that it's a risky move. They could be docked additional points for a "frivolous appeal".
Click to expand...

I doubt it would be considered “frivolous” in of itself, especially as Everton successfully appealed their punishment, but then Forest do have form for making unsubstantiated claims, so maybe that might have an impact in considering whether there are “reasonable grounds” for them to appeal?
 
Ginger Chimp said:
I doubt it ... that will be viewed (you would have thought) in a very bad light.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but does that stop them doing it? I'd imagine natural justice might suggest that you can withdraw an appeal. Where's @WickedWolfie when you need him? As far as I can see they don't have any real grounds for appeal in the first place, they're just saying the same things that they said originally.
 
SingYourHeartsOut said:
Maybe so, but does that stop them doing it? I'd imagine natural justice might suggest that you can withdraw an appeal. Where's @WickedWolfie when you need him? As far as I can see they don't have any real grounds for appeal in the first place, they're just saying the same things that they said originally.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the rules around FSP appeals are - l did a little searching but there is precious little published. In general legal appeals are on procedural grounds or sentencing related and are not an opportunity to introduce new evidence. What l did find, and hadn't seen before, is that Everton's appeal against the initial punishment was successful at least in part because the PL interpretation was harsher than that which the EFL had applied.
 
Last edited:
I’d have thought that as Forest “cooperated and pleaded guilty early” that they can only appeal against the severity of the sentence.

And as most people think that they got off lightly, they are on shaky ground.

I wonder if an appeal panel can increase the punishment?
 
topcat99 said:
I’d have thought that as Forest “cooperated and pleaded guilty early” that they can only appeal against the severity of the sentence.

And as most people think that they got off lightly, they are on shaky ground.

I wonder if an appeal panel can increase the punishment?
Click to expand...
Apparently, they can (in certain circumstances)
 
Wolf316 said:
Let’s hope so.
Click to expand...
they should . Otherwise teams will appeal for the sake of it. Their Good Behaviour should be removed for sure, so add 2 points on now. As that goes if they appeal

Same if you appeal a speeding fine, you pay the full amount. If you accept and pay early you pay half.

Should be the same. Same for a red card, if you lose appeal risk an extra game
 
greco wolf said:
they should . Otherwise teams will appeal for the sake of it. Their Good Behaviour should be removed for sure, so add 2 points on now. As that goes if they appeal

Same if you appeal a speeding fine, you pay the full amount. If you accept and pay early you pay half.

Should be the same. Same for a red card, if you lose appeal risk an extra game
Click to expand...
Far too logical
 
The whole thing is crazily complex. It should be a simple salary cap, that can be quickly checked and punished. I hope these cases are the death knell for the present scheme.
 
topcat99 said:
I’d have thought that as Forest “cooperated and pleaded guilty early” that they can only appeal against the severity of the sentence.

And as most people think that they got off lightly, they are on shaky ground.

I wonder if an appeal panel can increase the punishment?
Click to expand...

Yes, but if Forest comply fully with the appeal process then any amendment of their deduction can be thereafter deductified if that deductificating is warranted by those they're compliacatering with.

 
Sussex Wolf said:
I doubt it would be considered “frivolous” in of itself, especially as Everton successfully appealed their punishment, but then Forest do have form for making unsubstantiated claims, so maybe that might have an impact in considering whether there are “reasonable grounds” for them to appeal?
Click to expand...
I'm wondering what punishment Forest would have thought appropriate to their breach - By appealing, they think 4 points is too much.

So for argument sake, if they were docked 2 points, would that have been fair 'appropriate' punishment in their eyes?

Personally I think not - I think if they were handed 1 point they would still appeal - hence the frivolous appeal sentiment.

I also agree with others on here that this is a stall/delay to see how the season pans out.
 
wwbug said:
The whole thing is crazily complex. It should be a simple salary cap, that can be quickly checked and punished. I hope these cases are the death knell for the present scheme.
Click to expand...
I think it will be. The thing is half the league aren't really operating under these rules, as they have to pass the UEFA rules that are much stricter. So much as everyone moans it protects the Big 6, in fact when the PL conform to those itlltget even harder.
 
Hixon Wolf said:
I'm wondering what punishment Forest would have thought appropriate to their breach - By appealing, they think 4 points is too much.

So for argument sake, if they were docked 2 points, would that have been fair 'appropriate' punishment in their eyes?

Personally I think not - I think if they were handed 1 point they would still appeal - hence the frivolous appeal sentiment.

I also agree with others on here that this is a stall/delay to see how the season pans out.
Click to expand...

If it is deemed a frivolous appeal, then the points deduction should be increased.
 
SingYourHeartsOut said:
Are the grounds for appeal given anywhere?
Click to expand...

Well….. it turns out MGW saw the financial
People at wolves admit over a coffee in Starbucks to submitting fraudulent books, then how the orchestrated to intercept the real forest ones in an oceans 11 style heist and replaced with the false ones that got them the fine….

The eluded to us in the defence….. now we know why!!!

He sees everything!!!!!
 
Hixon Wolf said:
I'm wondering what punishment Forest would have thought appropriate to their breach - By appealing, they think 4 points is too much.

So for argument sake, if they were docked 2 points, would that have been fair 'appropriate' punishment in their eyes?

Personally I think not - I think if they were handed 1 point they would still appeal - hence the frivolous appeal sentiment.

I also agree with others on here that this is a stall/delay to see how the season pans out.
Click to expand...

Your last paragraph is spot on.

But the PL know that (for example) Forest get relegated by 1 point, and then on appeal get a point back to keep them up on GD, that the relegated club would take them to the High Court and fast.

It’s a mess. Partially caused by the appeal process falling outside of the season.
 
According to 5 Live earlier, if their appeal is successful, then it can only be reduced to a 3 point deduction. If unsuccessful then the deduction could be increased, but this is felt to be less likely, and most likely the four point deduction will be upheld.
 
wwbug said:
The whole thing is crazily complex. It should be a simple salary cap, that can be quickly checked and punished. I hope these cases are the death knell for the present scheme.
Click to expand...
What can be hidden is ‘out of book’ payments from elsewhere in an owners financial empire that can be used to top up salary or pay agents fees, etc
 
Sussex Wolf said:
According to 5 Live earlier, if their appeal is successful, then it can only be reduced to a 3 point deduction. If unsuccessful then the deduction could be increased, but this is felt to be less likely, and most likely the four point deduction will be upheld.
Click to expand...
Who actually said that though? Seems like waffle to me. I mean in my mind they think they have some grounds for appeal (not that they sound very good) so either they get rejected and it stays the same, or they get accepted and it gets reduced. I know some people will think they could have the 2 points for cooperation reinstated, but I think that's contrary to natural justice as they're allowed an appeal.

I guess there's huge / no pressure though by the time it's announced as all that will matter is where they are relative to the dotted line!
 
Villa's own published finances for the last four seasons read as:-

22/23 - £119mill loss
21/22 - £400k profit
20/21 - £37 mill loss
19/20 - £99 mill loss

£155mill losses over the last three year period. £136mill losses over the the three year period before that.

Those losses are allowing them to have Duran come on as back-up to Watkins rather than 2 18 year olds.

They add the words "we are under FFP" but the numbers suggest in just one year they blew the £105mill losses allowed, let alone across multiple three year periods.

They published those numbers yet where is the punishment?
 
Jd132 said:
Villa's own published finances for the last four seasons read as:-

22/23 - £119mill loss
21/22 - £400k profit
20/21 - £37 mill loss
19/20 - £99 mill loss

£155mill losses over the last three year period. £136mill losses over the the three year period before that.

Those losses are allowing them to have Duran come on as back-up to Watkins rather than 2 18 year olds.

They add the words "we are under FFP" but the numbers suggest in just one year they blew the £105mill losses allowed, let alone across multiple three year periods.

They published those numbers yet where is the punishment?
Click to expand...
In this Ordinary World, Villa could have spent more and bought two Duran's or alternatively a Rio. Their players looked Hungry (un)like the Wolf(s). The Wild Boys from Wolverhampton didn't look like winning Save a Prayer and The Reflex of RAN was sadly lacking while a View to a Kill(ing) of the Villa quickly disappeared. So, we just have Careless Memories of this Notorious match, but there will be a New Moon on Monday and we can look forwards to the next match.
Is There Something I Should Know?
 
Boss Hogg said:
What can be hidden is ‘out of book’ payments from elsewhere in an owners financial empire that can be used to top up salary or pay agents fees, etc
Click to expand...
I suppose anything can be hidden under any scheme. In a way that is why my feeling is only debt should be banned.
 
SingYourHeartsOut said:
Who actually said that though? Seems like waffle to me. I mean in my mind they think they have some grounds for appeal (not that they sound very good) so either they get rejected and it stays the same, or they get accepted and it gets reduced. I know some people will think they could have the 2 points for cooperation reinstated, but I think that's contrary to natural justice as they're allowed an appeal.

I guess there's huge / no pressure though by the time it's announced as all that will matter is where they are relative to the dotted line!
Click to expand...

It was the commentator when they were getting ready for the Forest game. Said it three times over the course of 5 mins and in a very matter of fact way like he knew for certain. I couldn’t find reference to it anywhere else.

He didn’t talk about the risk of the penalty being increased, but that’s reported by almost all the newspapers who have commented. Most say it’s a remote risk, but not impossible. I guess the point is that there is a calculated deduction based their overspend, which they are not challenging. That’s 6 points based on PL guidance for this accelerated process - 3 points for any overspend + another 3 for the amount they overspent. They got a 2 point reduction for their openness and help. I guess that 2 point reduction is now potentially at risk for appealing.

Their appeal appears based purely on the circumstances of their promotion. They’re saying that because they didn’t expect to get promoted that season, they were not as prepared for it and hence needed to spend more. Ok as far as it goes, but most promoted clubs which are not simply returning PL clubs could say that, and it doesn’t explain buying so many players they couldn’t stuff them all in their squad, or paying wages they couldn’t afford. It was simply poorly managed, and I cannot see any appeal being successful on that score. It’s reported their view is that it’s worth a shot even if they don’t expect success, and if so, that could be termed frivolous and cause for an appeal to increase their deduction.
 
Sussex Wolf said:
It was the commentator when they were getting ready for the Forest game. Said it three times over the course of 5 mins and in a very matter of fact way like he knew for certain. I couldn’t find reference to it anywhere else.

He didn’t talk about the risk of the penalty being increased, but that’s reported by almost all the newspapers who have commented. Most say it’s a remote risk, but not impossible. I guess the point is that there is a calculated deduction based their overspend, which they are not challenging. That’s 6 points based on PL guidance for this accelerated process - 3 points for any overspend + another 3 for the amount they overspent. They got a 2 point reduction for their openness and help. I guess that 2 point reduction is now potentially at risk for appealing.

Their appeal appears based purely on the circumstances of their promotion. They’re saying that because they didn’t expect to get promoted that season, they were not as prepared for it and hence needed to spend more. Ok as far as it goes, but most promoted clubs which are not simply returning PL clubs could say that, and it doesn’t explain buying so many players they couldn’t stuff them all in their squad, or paying wages they couldn’t afford. It was simply poorly managed, and I cannot see any appeal being successful on that score. It’s reported their view is that it’s worth a shot even if they don’t expect success, and if so, that could be termed frivolous and cause for an appeal to increase their deduction.
Click to expand...
Cheers. My thoughts are

The basis of the appeal seems basically nonsense.

The PL shouldn't be offering an appeal (no doubt that's legally needed) but doing it as if the appeal itself might look like non-cooperation (admittedly they did set that ridiculous precedent on the red card situation).

The way they've done it after the end of the season when surely they could at least have shaved off a week somewhere is pathetic.

It does all seem to leak like a sieve, so although the journalists shouldn't have any clue, maybe they do. I was told about the 10 to 6 reduction quite confidently by a guy who is low in the chain, but said it was common knowledge.
 
SingYourHeartsOut said:
Cheers. My thoughts are

The basis of the appeal seems basically nonsense.

The PL shouldn't be offering an appeal (no doubt that's legally needed) but doing it as if the appeal itself might look like non-cooperation (admittedly they did set that ridiculous precedent on the red card situation).

The way they've done it after the end of the season when surely they could at least have shaved off a week somewhere is pathetic.

It does all seem to leak like a sieve, so although the journalists shouldn't have any clue, maybe they do. I was told about the 10 to 6 reduction quite confidently by a guy who is low in the chain, but said it was common knowledge.
Click to expand...
The 10 to 6 reduction was an open secret for months - before the original deduction was even made official.
 
Sussex Wolf said:
It was the commentator when they were getting ready for the Forest game. Said it three times over the course of 5 mins and in a very matter of fact way like he knew for certain. I couldn’t find reference to it anywhere else.

He didn’t talk about the risk of the penalty being increased, but that’s reported by almost all the newspapers who have commented. Most say it’s a remote risk, but not impossible. I guess the point is that there is a calculated deduction based their overspend, which they are not challenging. That’s 6 points based on PL guidance for this accelerated process - 3 points for any overspend + another 3 for the amount they overspent. They got a 2 point reduction for their openness and help. I guess that 2 point reduction is now potentially at risk for appealing.

Their appeal appears based purely on the circumstances of their promotion. They’re saying that because they didn’t expect to get promoted that season, they were not as prepared for it and hence needed to spend more. Ok as far as it goes, but most promoted clubs which are not simply returning PL clubs could say that, and it doesn’t explain buying so many players they couldn’t stuff them all in their squad, or paying wages they couldn’t afford. It was simply poorly managed, and I cannot see any appeal being successful on that score. It’s reported their view is that it’s worth a shot even if they don’t expect success, and if so, that could be termed frivolous and cause for an appeal to increase their deduction.
Click to expand...
So why aren't Luton in the same mire? I hardly imagine that they expected to go up last season...

Trees argument is utter tosh.
 
If Forest had any sense, once all this furore is done they’d be sacking their accountants and finance people. They’re making the club a laughing stock.
 
JadeWolf said:
If Forest had any sense, once all this furore is done they’d be sacking their accountants and finance people. They’re making the club a laughing stock.
Click to expand...
That does, of course, assume that Trees, to be polite, rather eccentric (other terms could be applied lol) owner took the blindest notice of those individuals.
 
Seeing the side we put out tonight I do wonder if we'd been better over-spending thus having a full and decent squad and copping for a 4pt deduction? I expect we could have been on 50pts+ - 4 pts = 46pts, 3 better than where we are now. I wonder if playing by the book really is ****ing stupid?
 
northnorfolkwolf said:
Seeing the side we put out tonight I do wonder if we'd been better over-spending thus having a full and decent squad and copping for a 4pt deduction? I expect we could have been on 50pts+ - 4 pts = 46pts, 3 better than where we are now. I wonder if playing by the book really is ****ing stupid?
Click to expand...
If we’re going to play that game, I’d rather look at the numpties at VAR who have cost us about 10 points. We’d be competing for Europe and have played by the rules.
 
JadeWolf said:
If we’re going to play that game, I’d rather look at the numpties at VAR who have cost us about 10 points. We’d be competing for Europe and have played by the rules.
Click to expand...
We can do nothing about VAR but if clubs are going to be penalised say 2, 3 or 4 pts many may say, **** it, we'll take the hit and not worry so much about the over-spend, provided it is within a reasonable amount. Hard to blame them if they take that attitude esp when you see how our season is turning out by following the rules. I agree VAR has ****ed us as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom