Forest- possible points deduction

[Ginger Chimp]

This is the club that paid Jesse Lingard 200k a week

Ah, of course.

Now it all makes sense. Thanks.

 

[WickedWolfie]

This is the club that paid Jesse Lingard 200k a week

Excellent value for money, worth every penny lol.....

 

[Sussex Wolf]

This is the club that paid Jesse Lingard 200k a week

Which is a prime example of why they (the club) deserve no sympathy.

I doubt few football fans would defend FFP / PSR itself, and many will believe its authors are motivated as much by stopping another Man City developing than protecting clubs from poor owners. But whether we like it or not, rules are rules, and clubs sign up to them. Most clubs abide by them, even if they try clever strategies to mitigate their impact. Some clubs however, Everton and Forest in the Prem, Derby in the EFL, for example, appear to ignore them and hope/expect the authorities won’t punish them.

It’s not the fans fault their clubs act in this way, so I have a degree of sympathy for the fans. But let’s not forget some of those fans relished their club’s buying spree and even chanted about their wanton disregard for spending limits. I have no sympathy for their tears now. We suffered as fans last summer while the club sold players to stay inside PSR rules, and relations with the coaching staff crumbled. We were odds on for relegation when the season started. Did we have any sympathy from Forest or Everton or their fans? Did we hell.

 

[NottsWolves]

Let me get this right.

We took action to avoid falling foul of the rules and someone who did fall foul of the rules is suggesting that someone who didn't is a good defence strategy for themselves.

How, in any sane world, does that make any sense?

Baffling isn’t it!

I’m not sure what they were trying to suggest?

 

[Jefe]

Forest mention us in their defence to the PL, and say we would have breached the profit and sustainability rules too had we not sold Ruben Neves.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Well I'm more confused than ever as Madley's article in the Athletic seems to say that there isn't a harmonised period for PSR and clubs just do it according to their own accounting periods (usually ending May 31st or June 30th.

So selling Neves had nothing to do with 22/23 PSR. Which makes this season even more bizarre to me, as that's another £40m+ towards this season's allowed spending. He's still telling us we've got minimal wriggle room though. Absolutely bonkers.

 

[Skrilla]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1770075106041004239

Genuinely not sure who they could sell to generate a significant profit on what they paid for them. Probably the fat Brazilian they have at the back their fans always rave about?

I’d take Hudson-Odoi off their hands for a few million, would provide decent depth. Mind you, why help them when they’ve tried to drag us into their mess?

 

[hollo]

Murillo or gibbs white for 60 million

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Genuinely not sure who they could sell to generate a significant profit on what they paid for them. Probably the fat Brazilian they have at the back their fans always rave about?

I’d take Hudson-Odoi off their hands for a few million, would provide decent depth. Mind you, why help them when they’ve tried to drag us into their mess?

Not the first time Forest have moaned about Wolves. Stuff them.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Well I'm more confused than ever as Madley's article in the Athletic seems to say that there isn't a harmonised period for PSR and clubs just do it according to their own accounting periods (usually ending May 31st or June 30th.

So selling Neves had nothing to do with 22/23 PSR. Which makes this season even more bizarre to me, as that's another £40m+ towards this season's allowed spending. He's still telling us we've got minimal wriggle room though. Absolutely bonkers.

It’s easier not to get caught up in the detail! Frankly while the accounts are published and PSR rules also, I doubt anyone outside of the club and PL experts, really know the accurate situation. Even respected experts who break down the published figures always caveat their estimates with disclaimers and wide margins of error.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

I haven't really got too involved with this as once I knew we were ok I couldn't really give a stuff about Forest! However I've seen on the BBC site that any Forest appeal will be heard in mid- May, after the season finishes? How can that be right? I just thank **** we're not down in the relegation mire because it may go well into the summer before the 3rd relegated club is known, assuming Burnley and Sheffield are already gone.

 

[CelebrityWolf]

I haven't really got too involved with this as once I knew we were ok I couldn't really give a stuff about Forest! However I've seen on the BBC site that any Forest appeal will be heard in mid- May, after the season finishes? How can that be right? I just thank **** we're not down in the relegation mire because it may go well into the summer before the 3rd relegated club is known, assuming Burnley and Sheffield are already gone.

Further than that. A decision made in June lets say after an appeal, then the club that suffers from the appeal will challenge the ruling and so on. Genuine chance next season could be disrupted.

The elephant in the room here of course is Man City. They have broken rules but are allowed to continue to compete year on year because there are so many charges to work through. So we have a situation where one club gets punished while another continues to compete for doing many many more wrongs. This is going to get ugly unless it gets abolished asap.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

Further than that. A decision made in June lets say after an appeal, then the club that suffers from the appeal will challenge the ruling and so on. Genuine chance next season could be disrupted.

The elephant in the room here of course is Man City. They have broken rules but are allowed to continue to compete year on year because there are so many charges to work through. So we have a situation where one club gets punished while another continues to compete for doing many many more wrongs. This is going to get ugly unless it gets abolished asap.

Listening to a bit from Talk Sport on You Tube and they were saying the Premier League Clubs voted down any formalised structure to equate points deduction/financial fine with FFP overspend, preferring a Commission and appeals process. So if the whole thing degenerates into chaos and farce it could be said the Clubs have brought it on themselves? One interesting point on this, Forest did not vote on this as there were not in the Prem at the time!

 

[SuperGran]

Listening to a bit from Talk Sport on You Tube and they were saying the Premier League Clubs voted down any formalised structure to equate points deduction/financial fine with FFP overspend, preferring a Commission and appeals process. So if the whole thing degenerates into chaos and farce it could be said the Clubs have brought it on themselves? One interesting point on this, Forest did not vote on this as there were not in the Prem at the time!

Everton voted for it.

 

[Skrilla]

Murillo or gibbs white for 60 million

I’m not sure even Forest fans think MGW is worth anywhere near that now… seen a fair bit of criticism for him this season. Fair to say he’s still prone to the odd flick to an opponent!

 

[Frank Lincoln]

Further than that. A decision made in June lets say after an appeal, then the club that suffers from the appeal will challenge the ruling and so on. Genuine chance next season could be disrupted.

The elephant in the room here of course is Man City. They have broken rules but are allowed to continue to compete year on year because there are so many charges to work through. So we have a situation where one club gets punished while another continues to compete for doing many many more wrongs. This is going to get ugly unless it gets abolished asap.

I agree. Regardless of the number of charges, or the complexity of them, it is wrong that there has not been some decision made. If Manchester City are guilty then they should have points deducted.

The cynic in me says that those in power are worried it will affect who wins the premier league, so are holding back on making any decisions.

 

[theweave]

Further than that. A decision made in June lets say after an appeal, then the club that suffers from the appeal will challenge the ruling and so on. Genuine chance next season could be disrupted.

The elephant in the room here of course is Man City. They have broken rules but are allowed to continue to compete year on year because there are so many charges to work through. So we have a situation where one club gets punished while another continues to compete for doing many many more wrongs. This is going to get ugly unless it gets abolished asap.

That's not actually true. Man City have been accused, they haven't been proven to be guilty yet. Both Everton and Forest admitted to being guilty

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I agree. Regardless of the number of charges, or the complexity of them, it is wrong that there has not been some decision made. If Manchester City are guilty then they should have points deducted.

The cynic in me says that those in power are worried it will affect who wins the premier league, so are holding back on making any decisions.

The whole '115 charges so it's really complex' argument is doing my head in now. Bloody sort out a handful of the worst ones and see what happens.

 

[wolfslair]

This is the same for villa I think

Doesn’t the window only open in July though?

Prem clubs should refuse to sign anyone from these clubs in trouble IMO . Why help them

Maybe a 5 million bid for Mgw so they can say they assumed they would sell him for 250 million

You can agree a sale at anytime, you just cannot register the player till the next transfer window

 

[wolfslair]

Athletic article suggesting that Forest mention us in their defence to the PL, and say we would have breached the profit and sustainability rules too had we not sold Ruben Neves.

Apparently we are quite annoyed about this, as it is not true.

Libel?

So their defence is to cite a team who actually followed the rules and didn’t fail?

Wow…… the barrister who wrote their defence needs sacking and refunding their fees if that is accurate……

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

So their defence is to cite a team who actually followed the rules and didn’t fail?

Wow…… the barrister who wrote their defence needs sacking and refunding their fees if that is accurate……

Still finding it quite odd that according to what we're told, not only didn't we pass PSR by selling Neves, we couldn't have, as it was after the end of our accounting period, whereas they could have passed by selling Johnson. That's very odd to me!

 

[Frank Lincoln]

The whole '115 charges so it's really complex' argument is doing my head in now. Bloody sort out a handful of the worst ones and see what happens.

Which is what should have happened. Rightly or wrongly a lot of people (me included) are wondering whether Manchester City are being let off hook because of who they are.

 

[WolfLing]

Still finding it quite odd that according to what we're told, not only didn't we pass PSR by selling Neves, we couldn't have, as it was after the end of our accounting period, whereas they could have passed by selling Johnson. That's very odd to me!

Everyone assumed selling Neves was for FFP purposes, when the reality of it is, he had a year left on his deal and probably wasn’t going to sign a new one.

Plus, it’s worked out from a footballing perspective too!

 

[Minimalist]

Everyone assumed selling Neves was for FFP purposes, when the reality of it is, he had a year left on his deal and probably wasn’t going to sign a new one.

Plus, it’s worked out from a footballing perspective too!

It still helps with ffp even if it wasn’t technically essential at that exact moment. Still helps in the following cycles accounts.

It was reported that if Neves didn’t get a move he wanted he would have signed at least a year extension in order to protect the clubs investment; if true an extremely honourable thing to do.

 

[Thank you Sir Jack]

Which is what should have happened. Rightly or wrongly a lot of people (me included) are wondering whether Manchester City are being let off hook because of who they are.

Let's put it this way Frank. The panel will never find themselves running out of petrol and their houses will be so warm that they can be seen from outer space.
Just saying.....

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Everyone assumed selling Neves was for FFP purposes, when the reality of it is, he had a year left on his deal and probably wasn’t going to sign a new one.

Plus, it’s worked out from a footballing perspective too!

Well yes, I mean we all thought he was going 12 months previously and most thought 1 year meant we'd get £25m if we were lucky. However I'm sure there was plenty of discussion that selling him got us through PSR last season - which apparently turns out to be *******s. Also I'll never be glad he went, however much for!

 

[CelebrityWolf]

The whole '115 charges so it's really complex' argument is doing my head in now. Bloody sort out a handful of the worst ones and see what happens.

Seems they should have gone with a 'top ten' charges approach rather than 115. Ten they know can stick.

 

[Mugwump]

Forest complaining about us because we sold a player and followed the rules. I've heard it all now

 

[arctic rime]

Forest are a joke

 

[WW1963]

Forest and Everton won't hesitate to risk future points deductions if it means they think they can gain more points through doing so.

Unless

Punishments are greater for those who have been found guilty on previous occasions.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

That forest away game gets tastier season by season

April 13th

 

[Ercall Wolves]

That forest away game gets tastier season by season

April 13th

Yep tickets go on sale on Friday

 

[Thank you Sir Jack]

Forest complaining about us because we sold a player and followed the rules. I've heard it all now

I should imagine that relationship between the two boards is a little frosty. I wonder if Jeff will raise the issue when he goes into their boardroom for a cup of Darjeeling and a sticky bun.

 

[jrpb-3]

Baffling isn’t it!

I’m not sure what they were trying to suggest?

I guess the appeal is about reducing the punishment rather than saying they didn’t beech the regulations
The only thing I can think is they are suggesting they were trying to sell a player/ players like we did , but either sales didn’t go through or not for what they needed, e.g they were trying not to break the rules, and trying to show as an example of how sales would have made a difference I.e. if our sale(s) had not gone through we would be in the same position as them

 

[Ercall Wolves]

I guess the appeal is about reducing the punishment rather than saying they didn’t beech the regulations
The only thing I can think is they are suggesting they were trying to sell a player/ players like we did , but either sales didn’t go through or not for what they needed, e.g they were trying not to break the rules, and trying to show as an example of how sales would have made a difference I.e. if our sale(s) had not gone through we would be in the same position as them

They shouldn’t have put themselves in that situation
They know the rules and they broke them
IMO they have got off lightly with 4 points, it should have been 12 and any appeal holding it at 12
That’s a fair consequence and would stop clubs doing it

 

[jrpb-3]

They shouldn’t have put themselves in that situation
They know the rules and they broke them
IMO they have got off lightly with 4 points, it should have been 12 and any appeal holding it at 12
That’s a fair consequence and would stop clubs doing it

Agree. Just thinking of reasons they may be using us as an example in part of defense.

Different I agree and we actually did take required action. In terms of not putting themselves in that position, there’s also an argument that we shouldn’t have got ourselves into the position that we needed to sell so many in one window with no money to bring more in

Whether they intended to or not they did break the limits, so there needs to be a punishment of some sort or there is no point in having the regulations

 

[WickedWolfie]

Agree. Just thinking of reasons they may be using us as an example in part of defense.

Different I agree and we actually did take required action. In terms of not putting themselves in that position, there’s also an argument that we shouldn’t have got ourselves into the position that we needed to sell so many in one window with no money to bring more in

Whether they intended to or not they did break the limits, so there needs to be a punishment of some sort or there is no point in having the regulations

I think that the reality, which no PL club will admit, is that they all thought that the rules were toothless and wouldn't be enforced until they actually were for the first time.... Cue massive shockwaves...

 

[WKFWolf]

Leicester charged by the PL now as well. likely if they come up will already have a deduction

 

[Eastyorksyeltz]

Leicester charged by the PL now as well. likely if they come up will already have a deduction

What's the betting that Forest grassed them up?

 

[Starsky]

What an utter joke modern football is.