Nottingham Forest

[RandoEFC+]

The last I'll say but this is the worst bit. If the entry point and scale of the breach add up to 6 points, and the scale of Forest's breach is significantly worse than ours, where the fuck did they get 10 or even 6 points from for us?

Based on this, Everton should have had 5 for the smaller breach at most. Then when the appeal panel found that Everton had actually acted in good faith throughout, we should have got the same -2 or at least -1 for mitigation and cooperation and ended up with a 3/4 point penalty. And that's being harsh on us! 10 points (and remember they briefed that they wanted 12) should never even have been mentioned.

Their breach is twice as big as ours in absolute terms and three times worse than ours in terms of by what percentage they breached their threshold of allowed losses. Their breach is also linked to spending on players whereas ours is largely linked to stadium expenses.

I can't see any defence of this inconsistency by the Premier League at all. None of it adds up. You can't apply a formula like this to one club that explains how they've ended up at their final conclusion and then not apply it to another. In a court of law, if two people commit the same crime and get slightly different sentences then you can argue it doesn't affect Person A at all what sentence Person B got but that doesn't apply when you're implementing inconsistent competitive sanctions to two different clubs competing in the same league against each other.

I sincerely hope that Everton are considering legal action over our first breach now. We've clearly accepted 6 points as the final penalty for our first breach on the understanding Forest would be getting at least the same (Everton will have known how extreme theirs is).

[Rick]

Why do the premier league do this to themselves? Clearly, Everton aren’t going to accept a lesser punishment being given out for the same crime. If they had just gave Forest 6pts you only have them to deal with, now you have both. 

[RandoEFC+]

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

Why do the premier league do this to themselves? Clearly, Everton aren’t going to accept a lesser punishment being given out for the same crime. If they had just gave Forest 6pts you only have them to deal with, now you have both. 

Even this is being generous when you account for their breach being almost twice as big as ours.

It's mystifying.

[Dan+]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Yeah I mean come on now. What the actual fuck is this? They gave us 10 points and reduced it to 6. Then Forest get 4 for a breach that's "77% worse than ours"?

This whole thing stinks (again). They're making it up as they go along. It should be an absolute scandal that these points penalties are getting applied when there's no published formula for working out how much.

Unless there's some seriously good mitigation from Forest then by this point I think Everton need to be considering legal action, even if we don't get a further points deduction.

Look at this from LAST MONTH as well .

There's a world where they throw all of these points deductions out IMO. Whoever signed all of this off needs the sack. They have made a right mess.

[RandoEFC+]

3 minutes ago, Dan said:

There's a world where they throw all of these points deductions out IMO. Whoever signed all of this off needs the sack. They have made a right mess.

It's getting to that point. All three decisions so far have objectively been completely made up. They have no idea what they're doing. 10 points for Everton was absolutely incredible. Reducing it to 6 was still harsh but it at least gave them the opportunity to restore some credibility. I think Forest should be docked 8 points based on our punishment when you look at the size of the breaches. 6 would have been questionable looking at the numbers but not scandalous. Giving them less than us for a larger breach has just destroyed any credibility in this process that they might have won back.

I fear that Everton as a football club don't have the backbone to do this but I think if they pursued proper legal action at this point you could see all of the punishments dished out over this period of time get nullified because of how inconsistent and amateurish the process has been at every turn.

What's worse is that the Premier League explicitly said all along Everton gained no sporting advantage from their overspend. It was a technical breach. Forest have spent over £35m past the threshold and it's entirely down to player trading. Even if ours was from spending on players too, it would be absolute madness for them to get a smaller penalty for a charge twice as bad. The fact we've got 6 points for a £20m technical breach and they've got 4 for a £35m breach that's helped them on the pitch, I can't get my head around it.

[Stan]

 

[Dan+]

16 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

It's getting to that point. All three decisions so far have objectively been completely made up. They have no idea what they're doing. 10 points for Everton was absolutely incredible. Reducing it to 6 was still harsh but it at least gave them the opportunity to restore some credibility. I think Forest should be docked 8 points based on our punishment when you look at the size of the breaches. 6 would have been questionable looking at the numbers but not scandalous. Giving them less than us for a larger breach has just destroyed any credibility in this process that they might have won back.

I fear that Everton as a football club don't have the backbone to do this but I think if they pursued proper legal action at this point you could see all of the punishments dished out over this period of time get nullified because of how inconsistent and amateurish the process has been at every turn.

What's worse is that the Premier League explicitly said all along Everton gained no sporting advantage from their overspend. It was a technical breach. Forest have spent over £35m past the threshold and it's entirely down to player trading. Even if ours was from spending on players too, it would be absolute madness for them to get a smaller penalty for a charge twice as bad. The fact we've got 6 points for a £20m technical breach and they've got 4 for a £35m breach that's helped them on the pitch, I can't get my head around it.

It's all so messy and so draining. Numbers plucked from thin air.

Luton fans will tell their grandkids about the time they survived on the last day of... the court hearing as Everton were deemed to not have complied with the investigation.

This isn't sport. It's a joke. Why are they doing this? That's what I want to really know.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

It's mystifying.

Have you considered that it might be because Everton are from Liverpool and the rest of the country hates Scousers?

[RandoEFC+]

11 minutes ago, Dan said:

This isn't sport. It's a joke. Why are they doing this? That's what I want to really know.

That's the worst of it. Nobody can describe in a sentence what these rules are supposed to achieve or prevent.

[Stan]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Have you considered that it might be because Everton are from Liverpool and the rest of the country hates Scousers?

I don't even think it's linked to this. 

[Lucas]

5 hours ago, Stan said:

Genuine question as I don't know Leeds' financial situation - are you at risk of a points deduction if promoted?

From what I know, we're fine.

But then we sold Phillips and Raphinha when we had to, to stay compliant.

And we've also had a takeover since so we're in a good spot.

If we both go up and you get a points deduction, I think that would suit us more. 

[MUFC]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Have you considered that it might be because Everton are from Liverpool and that scousers hate Scousers?

[Dan+]

2 hours ago, Lucas said:

From what I know, we're fine.

But then we sold Phillips and Raphinha when we had to, to stay compliant.

And we've also had a takeover since so we're in a good spot.

If we both go up and you get a points deduction, I think that would suit us more. 

 you think?!

I find it truly incredible how we've likely managed to pull off both breaking the rules and getting relegated.

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 hours ago, Stan said:

I don't even think it's linked to this. 

It’s seemingly illogical to find one breach to be substantially worse yet receives a less harsh penalty. It blows my mind there might be people more incompetent than PMGOL, but maybe that’s the case.

[Dan+]

I actually really rate their statement to be fair to them. Actually called out the Premier League and the essentially rigged sport. For once good on them.

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It’s seemingly illogical to find one breach to be substantially worse yet receives a less harsh penalty. It blows my mind there might be people more incompetent than PMGOL, but maybe that’s the case.

Yeah but it's not an anti-scouse thing is it? 

[RandoEFC+]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It’s seemingly illogical to find one breach to be substantially worse yet receives a less harsh penalty. It blows my mind there might be people more incompetent than PMGOL, but maybe that’s the case.

Everton got a very harsh punishment because they were essentially trying to "look hard" to stave off the potential independent regulator and keep the (gravy) train set to themselves. They might have reduced it to 4 instead of 6 after the public reaction of shock but they left it as 6 of the original 10 because they had to save face even though they'd realised they got it badly wrong.

Now they've realised the prospect of the league table getting changed after the season is over, because of their scheduling of Forest and Everton's appeals against this breach and our breach being a week after the season ended, will make them look even more like shit. There was a Premier League board meeting last week where clubs put pressure on the league to make sure things are resolved before then so that the table isn't changed after the last match. Suspect therefore that Forest have been given a lighter sentence to dissuade them from appealing. Many suggesting there's been an "under the table" agreement where instead of getting 6 or 8 points deducted then reduced on appeal that they've been given 4 now under the agreement they'll take it on the chin.

Obviously Forest might yet appeal which blows up this theory, but it's believable to me. It goes to show though that once again, the Premier League have put politics and perception ahead of sporting integrity and fairness and one club ends up getting treated less harshly than another. Yet again, wrong place wrong time FC are the party who suffer from it.

If we get anything more than 2 points for the second breach *at the absolute worst* I'm afraid it can no longer be rationalised in any other way than the Premier League having an agenda against Everton for some reason. I've avoided that conclusion where many other Blues haven't for months, even years, but the evidence just piles up.

[Dr. Gonzo]

9 hours ago, Stan said:

Yeah but it's not an anti-scouse thing is it? 

Makes more sense than “let’s give Forest a lighter punishment for a worse offense” - so I’ve got no clue.

If it’s not an anti-scouse thing it’s just bizarre.

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Everton got a very harsh punishment because they were essentially trying to "look hard" to stave off the potential independent regulator and keep the (gravy) train set to themselves. They might have reduced it to 4 instead of 6 after the public reaction of shock but they left it as 6 of the original 10 because they had to save face even though they'd realised they got it badly wrong.

Now they've realised the prospect of the league table getting changed after the season is over, because of their scheduling of Forest and Everton's appeals against this breach and our breach being a week after the season ended, will make them look even more like shit. There was a Premier League board meeting last week where clubs put pressure on the league to make sure things are resolved before then so that the table isn't changed after the last match. Suspect therefore that Forest have been given a lighter sentence to dissuade them from appealing. Many suggesting there's been an "under the table" agreement where instead of getting 6 or 8 points deducted then reduced on appeal that they've been given 4 now under the agreement they'll take it on the chin.

Obviously Forest might yet appeal which blows up this theory, but it's believable to me. It goes to show though that once again, the Premier League have put politics and perception ahead of sporting integrity and fairness and one club ends up getting treated less harshly than another. Yet again, wrong place wrong time FC are the party who suffer from it.

If we get anything more than 2 points for the second breach *at the absolute worst* I'm afraid it can no longer be rationalised in any other way than the Premier League having an agenda against Everton for some reason. I've avoided that conclusion where many other Blues haven't for months, even years, but the evidence just piles up.

Even if you get “just” 2 points deducted for the second breach, which covers the same time period as the first breach… so it’s weird it’s being considered separate… that’s 8 points deducted all season.

So twice as many for Forest’s breach for “2 breaches” that happened at the same time (so one breach) that they found to not be as bad as Forest’s breach.

Forest also hired an ex-ref to be a referee analyst (which by the way, lol… what is that? What’s the fucking analysis: “this ref is shite/bent” every week?) - they’ve got an alleged drug lord who allegedly had witnesses against him murdered. I’m not convinced even a 4 point deduction will be something they take lying down.

Everton should explore every legal avenue against the league that they can.

And if this is purely down to lack of competence I’ve got so many questions. But mainly: 1) what the fuck has happened to the UK since I left? 2) how have other leagues not caught up to the prem financially when it’s run like this?

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Makes more sense than “let’s give Forest a lighter punishment for a worse offense” - so I’ve got no clue.

If it’s not an anti-scouse thing it’s just bizarre.

Yep. Bizarre, confusing, mad, crazy, shite, weird, perplexing, illogical etc etc.

But anti-Scouse? Nope. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

21 minutes ago, Stan said:

Yep. Bizarre, confusing, mad, crazy, shite, weird, perplexing, illogical etc etc.

But anti-Scouse? Nope. 

Yeah sure, if you say so - but I’m pretty sure Geoffrey Howe would have said the same thing. But every option there isn’t really acceptable for a decision this impactful on multiple parties in an industry of this size and scale.

The league is honestly a joke. Richer than ever and with more resources than ever to improve football and they come off as just making stuff up as they go (at best)?

[Stan]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah sure, if you say so - but I’m pretty sure Geoffrey Howe would have said the same thing. But every option there isn’t really acceptable for a decision this impactful on multiple parties in an industry of this size and scale.

The league is honestly a joke. Richer than ever and with more resources than ever to improve football and they come off as just making stuff up as they go (at best)?

I know. I'm not saying it's acceptable? 

 

[Dave]

I honestly think when they set the PSR rules they never assumed clubs would come close to breaching it. Hence why we have a convoluted process when it comes to punishments.

These rules do need a massive rethink. If a club is building a new stadium or increasing corporate facilities for example, I don't see how that should contribute to PSR because the owners are making active efforts to ensure the club is sustainable long after they're gone.

[Dr. Gonzo]

21 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

I honestly think when they set the PSR rules they never assumed clubs would come close to breaching it. Hence why we have a convoluted process when it comes to punishments.

These rules do need a massive rethink. If a club is building a new stadium or increasing corporate facilities for example, I don't see how that should contribute to PSR because the owners are making active efforts to ensure the club is sustainable long after they're gone.

I think this is the best theory I've heard as to why these rules are interpreted the way they are. It was a massive oversight and I think it's a bit ridiculous to make a rule and never assume it would be broken, but that genuinely seems like the easiest way to explain why things are the way they are.

Like many things in football, I think it's something that needs big reform. But my worry about any reforms is I'm not sure the people we're trusting to come up with reforms have the track record of making positive changes.

[Stan]

Forest are appealing their deduction. Which makes me think their mitigation of co-operation will go?