Forest- possible points deduction

[Fenrir_]

Doesn’t the window only open in July though?

Window opens in June, and lasts 12 weeks

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.

PSR runs to 30th June. Clubs can have different accounting periods (like ours runs to end of May), but PSR runs to end of June so Neves' sale would have gone into 22/23 for PSR but 23/24 for Wolves' accounts

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

PSR runs to 30th June. Clubs can have different accounting periods (like ours runs to end of May), but PSR runs to end of June so Neves' sale would have gone into 22/23 for PSR but 23/24 for Wolves' accounts

See that's what I've been told before. But how does it go with Steve Madley's piece in the Athletic.

What do Wolves think?​

There was surprise and a little aggravation at Molineux to see Wolves drawn into the Forest case, given that club officials are adamant the sale of Neves had no bearing on them avoiding a PSR breach for the three-year period that ended last summer.

Wolves say that, while Forest choose to calculate their annual accounts to end on June 30, their own accounting periods run from June 1 to May 31. So they say the accounts for 2022-23, which had to be submitted to the Premier League in December to be checked against PSR rules, covered a period that ended more than three weeks before the Neves transfer.

 

[Pengwern]

I used to like Forest but now they have had a go at us as part of their defence and appeal, I want them relegated and Nuno should jump ship. They should be deducted even more points.

 

[CelebrityWolf]

And now Leicester being charged

So we won't know who is relegated or promoted at the end of this season. What a great idea this was.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

And now Leicester being charged

So we won't know who is relegated or promoted at the end of this season. What a great idea this was.

Not really. Leicester get promoted they will start with -9 points. Fair is fair

 

[WickedWolfie]

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

... and if they don't they likely face EFL charges....

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Not really. Leicester get promoted they will start with -9 points. Fair is fair

Why on earth should they get promoted

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Why on earth should they get promoted

To be fair, given what's happened with Everton, why on Earth should they have been relegated?

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

To be fair, given what's happened with Everton, why on Earth should they have been relegated?

Also valid. Relegate both

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Forest now refusing to sell Mgw and Murillo for less than 50m.

Mad

 

[WickedWolfie]

Forest now refusing to sell Mgw and Murillo for less than 50m.

Mad

What, for the pair???

If they mean each that's fine.... But if they then fail to meet FSP requirements they have no valid defence....

 

[Fenrir_]

See that's what I've been told before. But how does it go with Steve Madley's piece in the Athletic.

What do Wolves think?​

There was surprise and a little aggravation at Molineux to see Wolves drawn into the Forest case, given that club officials are adamant the sale of Neves had no bearing on them avoiding a PSR breach for the three-year period that ended last summer.

Wolves say that, while Forest choose to calculate their annual accounts to end on June 30, their own accounting periods run from June 1 to May 31. So they say the accounts for 2022-23, which had to be submitted to the Premier League in December to be checked against PSR rules, covered a period that ended more than three weeks before the Neves transfer.

Have to somewhat ignore clubs' official accounts for FFP/PSR purposes. Our submission in December would have included anything done in June 2023, and excluded the first month of our official accounts for 22/23

 

[Scallywolf]

Can someone explain to me why Forest, Everton and apparently Leicester City are being penalised, but Manchester City and Chelsea are (currently) not. Based on what’s happened (or may happen) to those first 3, the last 2 should be relegated if we are to understand the numerous rules they have broken.

Am I completely missing something or are the Premier League afraid of upsetting 2 members of the so called Big 6?

If this has been mentioned previously on this thread, I apologise, but, seriously, why is the Premier League dragging its heals in dealing with bloody Man City and Chelsea?

 

[kidder_wolf_II]

Can someone explain to me why Forest, Everton and apparently Leicester City are being penalised, but Manchester City and Chelsea are (currently) not. Based on what’s happened (or may happen) to those first 3, the last 2 should be relegated if we are to understand the numerous rules they have broken.

Am I completely missing something or are the Premier League afraid of upsetting 2 members of the so called Big 6?

If this has been mentioned previously on this thread, I apologise, but, seriously, why is the Premier League dragging its heals in dealing with bloody Man City and Chelsea?

The PL are not dragging their heals. The lawyers for the 2 clubs will be doing everything they can to drag this out.

Forest and Everton pleaded guilty. Msn City deny all 115 charges.

I hope when they finally get punished it’s relegation.

 

[Jawwfc]

Can someone explain to me why Forest, Everton and apparently Leicester City are being penalised, but Manchester City and Chelsea are (currently) not. Based on what’s happened (or may happen) to those first 3, the last 2 should be relegated if we are to understand the numerous rules they have broken.

I think the best description I've heard of this situation (may have been on here) Is that Everton/Forest's financial breaches are similar to a speeding ticket.... Man City have been accused of triple murder in financial terms. Its quicker to prosecute a speeding fine than multiple murders.

 

[thommo1984]

I think the best description I've heard of this situation (may have been on here) Is that Everton/Forest's financial breaches are similar to a speeding ticket.... Man City have been accused of triple murder in financial terms. Its quicker to prosecute a speeding fine than multiple murders.

The simpler way is to say, for the thousandth time, that they are completely different situations. Pretty simple!

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Have to somewhat ignore clubs' official accounts for FFP/PSR purposes. Our submission in December would have included anything done in June 2023, and excluded the first month of our official accounts for 22/23

Which is fine and sensible, but not what Madeley said, which implies that the Neves sale was irrelevant to passing the 22/23 PSR. I don't wish to be rude to him, but I can't help thinking that's come straight from the club. It would make far more sense if it's that way though, which is what I thought before I read his piece.

 

[Scallywolf]

The simpler way is to say, for the thousandth time, that they are completely different situations. Pretty simple!

OK, so you say they are completely different situations, but Man City have apparently broken over 100 of them.

For the thousandth and one time, can you explain each of those different situations. One of them must be Man City are one of the Big 6 and the others aren’t. Another one must be that the Premier League are afraid of Man City (and Chelsea) but not the other clubs who are being penalised. What about the other 99+ situations?

Sorry to be a pain, but I’m pretty simple.

 

[Axle]

I wonder how long it will be before a team is charged with FFP and they are given points by the FA because ‘they co-operated with the investigation fully and from the outset’?

It seems if you could do this early enough you could end up winning the league after 15 games of the season!

 

[Sergeant Hakeswill]

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.

Thats a great idea, we could do 10 charges per season for the next 10+ seasons and dock them 20 points per year for the next 10 years.

 

[JonahWolf]

OK, so you say they are completely different situations, but Man City have apparently broken over 100 of them.

For the thousandth and one time, can you explain each of those different situations. One of them must be Man City are one of the Big 6 and the others aren’t. Another one must be that the Premier League are afraid of Man City (and Chelsea) but not the other clubs who are being penalised. What about the other 99+ situations?

Sorry to be a pain, but I’m pretty simple.

Because Forest and Everton broke the rules, either straight away or eventually admitted they broke the rules, and their books reflect that they broke the rules to some extent or another.

City however, have accounts alleging they didn’t break any rules. They have income from all sorts of places to cover their expenditure, lots of Sponsorships from Abu Dhabi based businesses, that really help when you’ve got no real global following at the time and a massive wage bill.
Speaking of said wage bill, it’s also alleged that those same, or other affiliated companies (all with heavy links to, or under the direct control of, Sheik Mansur) paid managers and players ‘consultancy fees’. Quite what Roberto Mancini could teach an airline that was worth millions of pounds nobody knows.
These consultancy fees are of course nothing to do with City, and are definitely in no way topping up payments to first team staff so that the official club books are broadly in line with FFP.

So yes, it’s really annoying that it’s taking such a very long time, but it is a completely different situation. The PL are essentially accusing City of fraud, obfuscation and non-cooperation to attempt to hide that fraud, and as such, have to attempt to prove it.
There was nothing to prove for Forest and Everton, the numbers in their official accounts said they’d broken the rules. Even accounting for (pun intended) Everton squeezing, bending and stretching every rule and allowable loss to breaking point, they still couldn’t make them say they’d stayed within the limits.

It is complicated, but in some ways very simple.
Someone that knows they’re guilty, and doesn’t see any real way of getting out of it, pleads guilty and hopes to screw down the punishment.
The completely innocent or thoroughly guilty say ‘see you in court’.
Who does the latter sound like?

When it eventually gets to a hearing, that’s when you can decide if there’s a big 6 conspiracy.
Because if they genuinely can prove at least some of those charges, it really should be relegation/expulsion. More likely is, they won’t be able to properly prove any of it.

 

[CelebrityWolf]

Not really. Leicester get promoted they will start with -9 points. Fair is fair

So they can choose which season a team gets deducted points now? That sounds fair.

 

[kidder_wolf_II]

So they can choose which season a team gets deducted points now? That sounds fair.

Nope the Premier League clubs all agreed to fast track the punishment so the points deduction is given the following season. Now everyone may be screaming the points deduction should be given in the season of the breach but technically no club would gain an sporting advantage in the final year of the breach because you can actually sell a player a month after the season finishes to comply with ffp if you wish. The advantage always comes in the 4th year where the points are now being docked.

In Evertons first case the points deduction came a year later before the fast track agreement was made.

In Leicesters case because they are not a premier league club any punishment will have to wait until they are back in The PL.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

So they can choose which season a team gets deducted points now? That sounds fair.

Well they broke the Prem rules not efl

If they bottle promotion now, could get messy

 

[CelebrityWolf]

Nope the Premier League clubs all agreed to fast track the punishment so the points deduction is given the following season. Now everyone may be screaming the points deduction should be given in the season of the breach but technically no club would gain an sporting advantage in the final year of the breach because you can actually sell a player a month after the season finishes to comply with ffp if you wish. The advantage always comes in the 4th year where the points are now being docked.

In Evertons first case the points deduction came a year later before the fast track agreement was made.

In Leicesters case because they are not a premier league club any punishment will have to wait until they are back in The PL.

That doesn't make sense.

So Leicester broke the rules over the last 3 prem seasons right? So this season would be the punishable season? Forest broke the rules over two champo seasons and one prem season but get punished now, Leicester get punished next season??

Clubs are being punished for time included in the champo, why can't they be punished in the champo?

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

OK, so you say they are completely different situations, but Man City have apparently broken over 100 of them.

For the thousandth and one time, can you explain each of those different situations. One of them must be Man City are one of the Big 6 and the others aren’t. Another one must be that the Premier League are afraid of Man City (and Chelsea) but not the other clubs who are being penalised. What about the other 99+ situations?

Sorry to be a pain, but I’m pretty simple.

Read this article, sums it up pretty well.
Effectively what is difference, is it not just a case (as with Everton and Forest) that they breached the £105m (or £61m for Forest) PSR limit.

City have been charged with things like inflating commercial and sponsorship deals, making ‘off the books’ payments to coaches and players.

Nothing to do with being a Sky 6 club, it is literally more complicated and intricate in terms of prosecution

A comprehensive breakdown of Manchester City's 115 charges.

❌️ Charges Trial date set What this means for City

www.givemesport.com

 

[Saltyjim]

Leicester’s response to the charge brought against them is typically defensive. Conveniently ignores that these rules - which they would have voted for whilst in the EFL - were introduced to prevent clubs getting into financial strife and ending up in administration. As they did themselves about 20 years ago, thereby stiffing local suppliers and companies, amongst others, who ended up out of pocket. Leicester also pulled a fast one with over inflated sponsorship deals about 10 years ago. Ended up with a very hefty fine rather than points deduction but they can hardly paint themselves as victims.

 

[Fenrir_]

Which is fine and sensible, but not what Madeley said, which implies that the Neves sale was irrelevant to passing the 22/23 PSR. I don't wish to be rude to him, but I can't help thinking that's come straight from the club. It would make far more sense if it's that way though, which is what I thought before I read his piece.

Madeley doesn't know what he's on about. Neves went in June which 100% counts towards 22/23 PSR calculations so unless we were clear by at least £47m his sale was completely relevant

 

[WolfLing]

Forest now refusing to sell Mgw and Murillo for less than 50m.

Mad

The public nature of all this has devalued their players up to the end of June.

Clubs know they need to sell, otherwise they’re probably in the same situation they were in with Johnson.

Hold out until the end of the window and get a PSR breach, or sell for less before the end of June.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Madeley doesn't know what he's on about. Neves went in June which 100% counts towards 22/23 PSR calculations so unless we were clear by at least £47m his sale was completely relevant

See, no offence, but sometimes people on the internet post things with great confidence that are not correct, so can you show me this?

This is the PL handbook, seems to refer to accounting period, no July-June?

Profitability and Sustainability
E.49. Each Club shall by 31 March in each Season submit to the Board:
E.49.1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously
been submitted to the Board) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts and all information referred to in Rule E.4;
E.49.2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:
E.49.2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts and such form and including such detail as confirmed by the Board from time to time when Rule E.9 is
applicable; and
E.49.2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial
performance; and
E.49.3. if Rule E.50 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted
Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in Form 3A

 

[Fenrir_]

See, no offence, but sometimes people on the internet post things with great confidence that are not correct, so can you show me this?

This is the PL handbook, seems to refer to accounting period, no July-June?

Profitability and Sustainability
E.49. Each Club shall by 31 March in each Season submit to the Board:
E.49.1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously
been submitted to the Board) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts and all information referred to in Rule E.4;
E.49.2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall:
E.49.2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts and such form and including such detail as confirmed by the Board from time to time when Rule E.9 is
applicable; and
E.49.2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial
performance; and
E.49.3. if Rule E.50 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted
Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in Form 3A

Is that old though? Because now we know PSR submissions have to be done in December, not by the end of March

Personally in the past I questioned clubs having different accounting periods, suggesting that those with June 30th end dates had an advantage over those with May 31st end dates - as they could make late 'saves', makes sense that the PL would align everyone one way or another

And what's rule E9?!

(I'll have a look at it all later to see what I can find)

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Is that old though? Because now we know PSR submissions have to be done in December, not by the end of March

Personally in the past I questioned clubs having different accounting periods, suggesting that those with June 30th end dates had an advantage over those with May 31st end dates - as they could make late 'saves', makes sense that the PL would align everyone one way or another

And what's rule E9?!

(I'll have a look at it all later to see what I can find)

It's from the current handbook.
Rule E9 just refers to calculation of amortisation.

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/04/0910e1b3-f94a-41a5-9818-6e1b5c961a9a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_26.02.24-v3.pdf

 

[Scallywolf]

Read this article, sums it up pretty well.
Effectively what is difference, is it not just a case (as with Everton and Forest) that they breached the £105m (or £61m for Forest) PSR limit.

City have been charged with things like inflating commercial and sponsorship deals, making ‘off the books’ payments to coaches and players.

Nothing to do with being a Sky 6 club, it is literally more complicated and intricate in terms of prosecution

A comprehensive breakdown of Manchester City's 115 charges.

❌️ Charges Trial date set What this means for City

www.givemesport.com

Thanks for that. Much more understandable now.

There are actually 5 charges then, but there are 115 breaches within those charges.

Non compliance seems to be the main problem and not providing information.

Makes me think Man City have something(s) to hide!

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Leicester are being investigated for breaking the rules this season also so may have even more charges next season

 

[Bryce]

Not really. Leicester get promoted they will start with -9 points. Fair is fair

Should wipe the smug grin of Linekers mug then

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Should wipe the smug grin of Linekers mug then

Leeds can’t be far off it either

 

[Lincoln-Wolves86]

I’m glad Michael Branch scored that goal now. **** off Forest

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

I’m glad Michael Branch scored that goal now. **** off Forest

Akinbiyi gave them taste of their own medicine

 

[Superted]

Madeley doesn't know what he's on about. Neves went in June which 100% counts towards 22/23 PSR calculations so unless we were clear by at least £47m his sale was completely relevant

You're confusing the PSR submission deadline with the club's accounting deadline. They aren't necessarily the same. Basically a club has to get their accounts made up to their own deadline (in Wolves' case 31st May) then those accounts must be submitted for a PSR review by the Premier League by 30th June.

It's the most recent set of company accounts ending before the PSR deadline which are relevant. Neves' sale happened after May 31st so for PSR purposes it would be in the 23/24 accounting period not 22/23.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

You're confusing the PSR submission deadline with the club's accounting deadline. They aren't necessarily the same. Basically a club has to get their accounts made up to their own deadline (in Wolves' case 31st May) then those accounts must be submitted for a PSR review by the Premier League by 30th June.

It's the most recent set of company accounts ending before the PSR deadline which are relevant. Neves' sale happened after May 31st so for PSR purposes it would be in the 23/24 accounting period not 22/23.

I can't believe this is becoming so complicated.

To start with our accounting deadline is 31st May so that's easy.
Those accounts aren't submitted by 30th June, they don't get submitted until March of the following year (although I think it's earlier if they think you're sailing close to the wind!)
The question is whether the information submitted in March is just the accounts to May 31st, or does it include any transfers made in June.

I think you and Madeley are saying no, which means that different clubs are effectively operating under different rules.