Nottingham Forest deducted 4pts.

Athers said:
Nottingham Forest was only £3.6m above the PSR limit, wich is £35m.

Didn’t they buy Josh Bowler from us for around that price? Our key player that they immediately loaned out and never kicked a ball for them.

Oh dear. What a shame 😏
Click to expand...
Where is Josh?
 
cside said:
I have no idea how Forest have gone from charged, to assessed, to punished in three months, while we have been waiting for the assessment of City's irregularities for two seasons now.
Click to expand...
Champions League standard lawyers. 😁
 
cside said:
I have no idea how Forest have gone from charged, to assessed, to punished in three months, while we have been waiting for the assessment of City's irregularities for two seasons now.
Click to expand...
It’s the sheer size of their charges, 112 (I think) compared to the 1 for Forest.

Their level of punishment is going to be detrimental to the future of the Premier League, if it’s not harsh enough then the likes of Chelsea, City, Newcastle and Man Utd will run riot over the so called Financial Fair Play.
 
Which drops Forest into the relegation places. Four points above the Clampets who are five points behind Luton. Burnley could survive but they would have to hit some sort of form. A good win against Brentford was a start.
 
Forest could have sold Brennan Johnson before the FFP deadline.

They would have been compliant if they had.

Instead they held on, got £15m more for him but have been penalised 4 points.

Good business if you can deal with the 4 point deduction and stay up.

Hope they don’t though. They went into the EPL with lots of neutral goodwill and have pissed it right up the wall
 
TangerineTom said:
It’s the sheer size of their charges, 112 (I think) compared to the 1 for Forest.

Their level of punishment is going to be detrimental to the future of the Premier League, if it’s not harsh enough then the likes of Chelsea, City, Newcastle and Man Utd will run riot over the so called Financial Fair Play.
Click to expand...
Why did you mention Man Utd?
 
I have sympathy with Forest as a newly promoted club. Only Bournemouth and Fulham were less overspent ( and they both had parachute payments) , all the other Premier clubs were more in deficit than Forest , but because they were established Premier clubs they are not troubled . It’s unfair against newly promoted clubs .
 
For all those conspiracy theorists, it turns out that the initial penalty for Forest was 6pts as it is for Everton. It was reduced by 2 pts as mitigating factors discounted the penalty. In other words, Forest owned up and didn’t contest it in the manner £1bn debt ridden Everton fought it.
 
I just do not understand the level of these punishments. There appears to be no correlation whatsoever. There seems to be a view that these irregularities are less serious than going into administration. Are they really less serious though? Financial mismanagement is financial mismanagement whatever way you look at it. In some ways an automatic nine point deduction would provide a consistent approach and possibly more of a deterrent. What on earth might happen to Man City though if they are found guilty of 120 counts of mismanagement? Demote them to the National League perhaps similar to what happened with Rangers.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Possibly because manure under the glaziers have been involved in some deeply nefarious financial shenanigans.
Click to expand...
Hasn't that been more to do with the Glaziers syphoning off money though? As far as I'm aware it hasn't been for falsifying income and setting up bogus sponsors to allow greater spending power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top