Financial Fair Play (FFP)

Shearstone

Shearstone

Full fledged Atheist.
We pretty much lost the appeal when it was decided appeals in the EPL are not rehearing of the case just looking for fundamental errors made in the initial judgement.

As there was nothing to force the initial commission to consider it, the appeal was thrown out.

A basic summary anyway from me, a very hungover man.

Time to move on.
 
Notcher

Notcher

Steve Chettle
Project Zeus said:
Bias would be the rules being weighted against a club like Forest.

Conspiracy would be the PL or Commission secretly plotting to ignore applying the rules to Forest specifically.

Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It wouldn't have to be against Forest specifically. It doesn't have to be specially "against" one party, simply leaning it "for" one or more parties would meet the threshold.

In his own words he said there was "bias towards the big clubs". By definition that means you are knowingly acting with a clear intent.
 
Quntib Hollox

Quntib Hollox

Jack Burkitt
Shearstone said:
Here's the judgement.

Just about to read it myself, apologies if already posted.
Click to expand...
Browsing through that the clubs grounds for appeal were a bit weak and focused entirely on the timing of the BJ sale and it not being treated as mitigation that the club intended to sell him but just held out to meet our valuation.
Why did they not query the changes to include promotion bonuses in PSR calculations which may have changed the breach level from severe to minor.
No wonder we didn’t get any points back.
 
Robertson

Robertson

Grenville Morris
Quntib Hollox said:
Browsing through that the clubs grounds for appeal were a bit weak and focused entirely on the timing of the BJ sale and it not being treated as mitigation that the club intended to sell him but just held out to meet our valuation.
Why did they not query the changes to include promotion bonuses in PSR calculations which may have changed the breach level from severe to minor.
No wonder we didn’t get any points back.
Click to expand...
Starting to think Nick De Marco might be a bit shit. The way around all this stuff is obviously to cook the books and hope for the best. Seems to work for everyone else.
 
Arsebishop Desmond TwoTwo

Arsebishop Desmond TwoTwo

Touching Cloth
All this confirms to me is that the shemales - Michelle Obama and Taylor Swift - are those that really hold the power at PL HQ.

Richard Masters is a puppet and they bend him, shape him . . . anyway they want him . . . to orchestrate their control in the shadows.

I call on Forza Garibaldi to create a tifo calling this out v Chelsea.
 
Colbackstreet Boys

Colbackstreet Boys

Jim Brennan
bearwood red said:
My final comments on all this PSR stuff, because I’m bored of reading all the misinformed nonsense by people who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about.

1. This is a pseudo-legal process, conducted by experienced KCs, independent of the PL.
2. Their only concern (rightly) is whether the PL’s rules, that all 20 teams signed up to, have been followed. Whether those rules are fair or not is not their concern.
3. We breached the rules and did not have a compelling enough case to convince the original commission that we were not culpable for that breach.
4. We also, not that surprisingly, were unable to demonstrate to the panel that the original commission were flawed in any of their judgements (compare with Everton appeal where they pointed out that their sanction was higher than you get for administration)
4. Given the lack of structured rules on penalties, precedent from previous cases is key. Therefore, they will have wanted to make sure the wording of the written reasons is completely watertight before publishing.
5. Point 4 is probably why it has taken so long - it has nothing to do with corruption, the PL hating us, or Sky wanting an exciting end to the season. It just takes time to draft and review the written reasons. Spouting these conspiracy theories just makes us sound stupid and pathetic.
6. The Manchester City case is way, way bigger and more complicated. It threatens to re-write the last 15 years of the Premier League, came to light because of illegally obtained information (wiki leaks) and probably has geopolitical implications as well. It is no wonder it is taking a long time, but I’m confident the truth will come out eventually, they will be punished, and it is likely to be big.
7. The whole PSR regime is unfair and biased in favour of the big clubs. And the enforcement regime is a complete mess. Both need a complete rethink to provide a better balance between protecting supporters from reckless owners and ensuring fair competition. Protecting the status of the big clubs should not be the objective or the consequence of the regulations.

That’s it. I’m done.
Click to expand...
Well said. Agree entirely. I'm just relieved this is all wrapped up now.

Using the language of conspiracy or corruption to describe bias, cock up and incompetence is not helpful or warranted, and makes the club sound unhinged. There is a huge difference between corruption and bias, cock up and incompetence.

The only way to make sense of this whole debacle is to not view it through a binary lens and be willing to hold multiple statements as true simultaneously. The truth is multifaceted and multilayered.

The truth as I see it:

- the rules by which we are being judged are unfair, biased towards a certain tranche of clubs either by accident or design and by definition have failed given they are being discontinued;
- these same rules were voted on by all 20 Premier League clubs and the authorities can only enforce the letter of what is in front of them, with very little precedent to go on.
- Consequently, the rules have been enforced imperfectly and at times arbitrarily but on reflection probably fairly, and in our case possibly quite leniently;
- we knowingly and avoidably broke them and our mitigating arguments were demonstrably weak, even to the untrained eye, hence failed appeal;
- irrespective of the rules' fairness, it is hard to argue that our punishment warranted and consistent given what has come before and what has come since.

It is possible for all of these things to be true at the same time, even the picture it paints is messy and doesn't fit a simple narrative. I understand why some people find it hard to accept, but the truth is never simple.

Now the process is finished, as fans and stakeholders the question then becomes one of who should be held responsible for the mess, or for want of a more direct word, blamed. The Premier League? The 'big six'? The Independent Commission? The Government? All have to shoulder at least a portion of the blame for the mess for sure. But in terms of who is the most culpable, we should ask ourselves which entity had the most agency and control to avoid this happening. I have said this before and will say it again, but for me, the answer the senior management and ownership of Nottingham Forest Football Club. No one else. They had all the time, knowledge and resources to stop this from happening. They didn't. They have failed in their most important and basic duty: the long-term stewardship and sustainability of the club and business. Blaming the league and giving oxygen to overtures about corruption or otherwise is just a waste of energy and counterproductive.

Once the season is over and (hopefully) we are safe, we have to hold them to account in the strongest terms possible. What has been allowed to transpire is absolutely unacceptable.

P.S. The only thing I would push back on slightly in your original post is the Man City case - you are right that its a very complicated case and will take longer than ours but for the sake of the league's integrity I think they need to start expediting the process, its starting to feel like an excuse and for three clubs to be hit with serious points deductions before they've even had a hearing is becoming more and more difficult to accept. They are also on course to win their second title since the charges were brought against them.
 
D

Dynamo71

A. Trialist
Shearstone said:
Here's the judgement.

Just about to read it myself, apologies if already posted.
Click to expand...

For anyone who can be arsed at this point (because we have been shafted) and as far as I can see, a large discussion is how near a miss was selling Johnson when we did. Sheffield Wednesday apparently avoided more severe punishment by selling their stadium to their owner 17 days later than the deadline.
According to the panel, we didn’t try hard enough to sell Johnson earlier.

What they are saying is

It’s ok to fiddle your accounts by selling stuff to yourself
It’s not ok to try to be financially prudent AND try to be competitive at the same time.

Its ok to be late paying if you’re not threatening the established order
It’s not ok to be late paying if you’ve bought a lot of players and made some clubs nervous

Points deduction are not governed by regulations rather the whim of the panel on the day.

Once the end of the season was done, in all honesty selling Johnson on 1/9 should be as good as selling him on 1/5. It’s not a sporting advantage really is it. If it is that bad, then give Sheffield Utd the three points we won in the first day and give us then other point back. That’s fair then!

Forest didn’t or weren’t allowed to reference the massive elephants in the room of Citeh or Chelsea.

In summary, PSR as we all knew is only there to keep us down and at heel.

Man City and Chelsea will never be dealt with while I have a hole on my arse.

Move on and get what we need then stick it to them next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Robertson

Robertson

Grenville Morris
Colbackstreet Boys said:
Well said. Agree entirely. I'm just relieved this is all wrapped up now.

Using the language of conspiracy or corruption to describe bias, cock up and incompetence is not helpful or warranted, and makes the club sound unhinged. There is a huge difference between corruption and bias, cock up and incompetence.

The only way to make sense of this whole debacle is to not view it through a binary lens and be willing to hold multiple statements as true simultaneously. The truth is multifaceted and multilayered.

The truth as I see it:

- the rules by which we are being judged are unfair, biased towards a certain tranche of clubs either by accident or design and by definition have failed given they are being discontinued;
- these same rules were voted on by all 20 Premier League clubs and the authorities can only enforce the letter of what is in front of them, with very little precedent to go on.
- Consequently, the rules have been enforced imperfectly and at times arbitrarily but on reflection probably fairly, and in our case possibly quite leniently;
- we knowingly and avoidably broke them and our mitigating arguments were demonstrably weak, even to the untrained eye, hence failed appeal;
- irrespective of the rules' fairness, it is hard to argue that our punishment warranted and consistent given what has come before and what has come since.

It is possible for all of these things to be true at the same time, even the picture it paints is messy and doesn't fit a simple narrative. I understand why some people find it hard to accept, but the truth is never simple.

Now the process is finished, as fans and stakeholders the question then becomes one of who should be held responsible for the mess, or for want of a more direct word, blamed. The Premier League? The 'big six'? The Independent Commission? The Government? All have to shoulder at least a portion of the blame for the mess for sure. But in terms of who is the most culpable, we should ask ourselves which entity had the most agency and control to avoid this happening. I have said this before and will say it again, but for me, the answer the senior management and ownership of Nottingham Forest Football Club. No one else. They had all the time, knowledge and resources to stop this from happening. They didn't. They have failed in their most important and basic duty: the long-term stewardship and sustainability of the club and business. Blaming the league and giving oxygen to overtures about corruption or otherwise is just a waste of energy and counterproductive.

Once the season is over and (hopefully) we are safe, we have to hold them to account in the strongest terms possible. What has been allowed to transpire is absolutely unacceptable.

P.S. The only thing I would push back on slightly in your original post is the Man City case - you are right that its a very complicated case and will take longer than ours but for the sake of the league's integrity I think they need to start expediting the process, its starting to feel like an excuse and for three clubs to be hit with serious points deductions before they've even had a hearing is becoming more and more difficult to accept. They are also on course to win their second title since the charges were brought against them.
Click to expand...
Some good level headed points. The only thing I would add is that yes, we broke the rules and got punished, but if we stay up for a third season, the club might well consider it to have been worth it. Who knows, they might even make a good chunk of the money they’ve spent so far back.
 
Captain Sinister

Captain Sinister

Senior doom Monger
tomw94 said:
Pretty much the commission is standing by the fact that making as much profit on a player is not as important as staying within their rules and timelines, even if it is financially beneficial for the club.
View attachment 39035
Click to expand...
The statement is Alice in Wonderland!
The rules are to ensure clubs are managed within Profit and Sustainability rules.
Encouraging a club to sell an asset at sub-market value to achieve compliance is a bizarre position that is completely at odds with clubs ensuring they are sustainable.
If that is now a "binding priciple" it means that the clubs able to afford a player will bid low because the "rules" are interpreted that every club at risk of breaching the rules must indulge in asset fire sales before the 30th June cut-off date.
 
Flaggers

Flaggers

May not be the best moderator on LTLF, but he's...
LTLF Minion
bearwood red said:
My final comments on all this PSR stuff, because I’m bored of reading all the misinformed nonsense by people who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about.

1. This is a pseudo-legal process, conducted by experienced KCs, independent of the PL.
2. Their only concern (rightly) is whether the PL’s rules, that all 20 teams signed up to, have been followed. Whether those rules are fair or not is not their concern.
3. We breached the rules and did not have a compelling enough case to convince the original commission that we were not culpable for that breach.
4. We also, not that surprisingly, were unable to demonstrate to the panel that the original commission were flawed in any of their judgements (compare with Everton appeal where they pointed out that their sanction was higher than you get for administration)
4. Given the lack of structured rules on penalties, precedent from previous cases is key. Therefore, they will have wanted to make sure the wording of the written reasons is completely watertight before publishing.
5. Point 4 is probably why it has taken so long - it has nothing to do with corruption, the PL hating us, or Sky wanting an exciting end to the season. It just takes time to draft and review the written reasons. Spouting these conspiracy theories just makes us sound stupid and pathetic.
6. The Manchester City case is way, way bigger and more complicated. It threatens to re-write the last 15 years of the Premier League, came to light because of illegally obtained information (wiki leaks) and probably has geopolitical implications as well. It is no wonder it is taking a long time, but I’m confident the truth will come out eventually, they will be punished, and it is likely to be big.
7. The whole PSR regime is unfair and biased in favour of the big clubs. And the enforcement regime is a complete mess. Both need a complete rethink to provide a better balance between protecting supporters from reckless owners and ensuring fair competition. Protecting the status of the big clubs should not be the objective or the consequence of the regulations.

That’s it. I’m done.
Click to expand...
Re 3: That the promotion bonus and COVID losses status was only communicated to the club at the (comparatively) last minute I'd suggest lends an air of "not as culpable as eg Everton"

Re 4: that doesn't make the 10 points applied to Everton - 10 points entirely born out of the written rules - wrong . It makes the penalty for administration wrong by virtue of being inadequate.
That shouldn't affect an independent panel whose remit it to ensure that the rules as written have been followed. By following the rules the Everton commission determined that 10 points was the appropriate sanction for the offences.
But for some reason, it did...
 
Marvin Eaglecock

Marvin Eaglecock

Freelance hell raiser
point 52

" is undermined by the fact that on 21 and 24 July 2023 the Club rejected two offers for less than the £40m price for which Player A was ultimately sold to Tottenham Hotspur."

1. 21 and 24 July are both after the cut off date of 30 June
2. Wasn't it £47+M?

So much for attention to detail...

Reminds me of an EL claim we had when a worker poured LPG over his own hands, the "expert" witness claimed he had been exposed to a temperature of -400°C whereas anyone with O level physics will know that's impossible.
 
Indored

Indored

First Team Squad
So, this saga is done and dusted.

Lets crack on and get back to the football which is the main drive of supporting a football team.

@Battered Sausage,
Please start the Chelsea matchday thread where we can start to make noise about picking up the necessary point (s)

Onwards and upwards :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom