Notts F & Everton admit to breaking rules and face points deduction

[shen]

2 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

it’s still giving out that false hope isn’t it? 

Its worse for the punished teams who don't know if they're in deep trouble or not.

I don't see the false hope being a factor, no. Maybe for the fans, but not the players or staff. That would be really unprofessional.

[weller54]

On 24/02/2024 at 19:44, Daggers said:

He also pushed Brexit so he could profit. Man’s a complete cvnt. 

Right up there with that Wetherspoons c**t!!!..

Absolute cretins!

[RonnieTodger]

Reckon Forest will get 6pts reduced to 3. Based on nothing.

[Raj]

By the end of all this fiasco Forest and Everton will be awarded points 🙄

[Fear Of The Fox]

I'm curious to see what's the legal ground behind this. Does anyone have the full appeal decision? Did Everton present new evidence or it's just a decision of judge's discretion? 

 

[notnow john]

10 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

I'm curious to see what's the legal ground behind this. Does anyone have the full appeal decision? Did Everton present new evidence or it's just a decision of judge's discretion? 

 

Also who was the appeals panel, Bernstein and Burnham?

[cruzFOX]

It’s all a complete farce 🤣

[Sly]

Still a joke. 
 

Either implement the rules correctly, Or just scrap them. 

[Wymsey]

7 minutes ago, Sly said:

Still a joke. 
 

Either implement the rules correctly, Or just scrap them. 

Hope Everton weren't bribing/threatening anyone involved in the final decision to come to the conclusion..

[Jattdogg]

Salary caps needed period.

[KansasFox]

42 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Salary caps needed period.

Everton relegation needed, period.

[fox in the sox]

14 hours ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

I'm curious to see what's the legal ground behind this. Does anyone have the full appeal decision? Did Everton present new evidence or it's just a decision of judge's discretion? 

 

They thought that only 7 of the 9 reasons given for the deduction were valid. One of these was that they did  not agree that Everton hadn’t cooperated fully.

[David Lowe]

I can’t understand the argument for the second charge that they have already been punished for 2 years of it. It is based on 3 year cycles, in the fourth year they offended again.

[UniFox21]

Listened to the finance expert of talksport earlier; basically described every "big name" arguing about the charge (Burnham etc) all had no impact at all. Report listed that the impact on fans of Everton was basically worthless given they weren't allowed to hear from fans of clubs actually relegated due to their cheating 

[Trent Steel]

On 26/02/2024 at 16:35, Super_horns said:

Saw this elsewhere regarding Forest .

 

This from Martin Ziegler of the Times on Forest
“ Nottingham Forest’s disciplinary hearing for breach of the Premier League financial rules will be on March 7 and 8 - outcome by April 8.
Points deduction looks certain”.

Forest owners/board pushing for the points reduction at start of next season, will probably get it too

[Ric Flair]

Some captivating replies to this who have soon flipped the narrative now that we've seemingly breached PSR too. 😂😂😂

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Some captivating replies to this who have soon flipped the narrative now that we've seemingly breached PSR too. 😂😂😂

Until we get the PSR numbers and see our argument, we could still have a case. We could rightfully argue that their "cheating" cost us position prize money, relegation, millions in sponsorship, millions on player negotiations etc, if our loss is at a certain amount. Obviously, we have  little case if it's gigantic. 

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Until we get the PSR numbers and see our argument, we could still have a case. We could rightfully argue that their "cheating" cost us position prize money, relegation, millions in sponsorship, millions on player negotiations etc, if our loss is at a certain amount. Obviously, we have  little case if it's gigantic. 

I read somewhere that our breach for 2020-23 is thought to be 'significant', putting it in the same category as Forest's and Everton's. Our plea for mitigation is likely to largely come down to the fact that we gained no sporting advantage over the period by virtue of getting relegated at the end of it. I've no idea how much ice this will cut with the panel that reviews our case, but hopefully they will at least consider it.

[Chelmofox]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

I read somewhere that our breach for 2020-23 is thought to be 'significant', putting it in the same category as Forest's and Everton's. Our plea for mitigation is likely to largely come down to the fact that we gained no sporting advantage over the period by virtue of getting relegated at the end of it. I've no idea how much ice this will cut with the panel that reviews our case, but hopefully they will at least consider it.

I suppose the case will be that we had planned the sales of Fofana and Madders at the end of the season (before the cut off). The Fofana situation with Chelsea meant the squad was weakend and we may have felt we could have got more for him at the end of the season (although he got injured for Chelsea!) and getting relegated meant we were low balled for Madders.  Fact that only one summer signing (quick purchase to replace Fofana) should work in our favour but then we have those signings in the January window.

 

But, that all falls apart if there is a significant breach projected even if we had stayed up. Madders only had 1 year left on his deal so was never going for 70-80 mil. There would have to be a plan that showed that we were much closer if we had stayed up.

 

Who knows. No matter what it feels a little bleak without the actual information.

Edited 27 March by Chelmofox

[ClaphamFox]

8 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

I suppose the case will be that we had planned the sales of Fofana and Madders at the end of the season (before the cut off). The Fofana situation with Chelsea meant the squad was weekend and we may have felt we could have got more for him at the end of the season (although he got injured for Chelsea!) and getting relegated meant we were low balled for Madders.  Fact that only one summer signing (quick purchase to replace Fofana) should work in our favour but then we have those signings in the January window.

 

But, that all falls apart if there is a significant breach projected even if we had stayed up. Madders only had 1 year left on his deal so was never going for 70-80 mil. There would have to be a plan that showed that we were much closer if we had stayed up.

 

Who knows. No matter what it feels a little bleak without the actual information.

If we get promoted, I'll be surprised if our deduction from the PL is more than Everton's. Minus six points will make life harder but not impossible. The question then is whether the EFL try to impose a further deduction if we also breach for this season. If they do, they will be breaking with precedent - previously, clubs that have been promoted to the PL while breaching in the EFL have only received financial penalties. But I wouldn't put it past them to try to make an exception for us. 

Edited 27 March by ClaphamFox

[Babylon]

21 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I read somewhere that our breach for 2020-23 is thought to be 'significant', putting it in the same category as Forest's and Everton's. Our plea for mitigation is likely to largely come down to the fact that we gained no sporting advantage over the period by virtue of getting relegated at the end of it. I've no idea how much ice this will cut with the panel that reviews our case, but hopefully they will at least consider it.

It's classed as "Significant" if it's above £15m. So it could be £15.1m, which, if say we lost a sponsor worth £11m, £5m of position money, you could account for it being down to them. Will be interesting to see our argument (although we'll only see that when they judge on it). 

 

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Until we get the PSR numbers and see our argument, we could still have a case. We could rightfully argue that their "cheating" cost us position prize money, relegation, millions in sponsorship, millions on player negotiations etc, if our loss is at a certain amount. Obviously, we have  little case if it's gigantic. 

If its less than £35m then we'd have to question why wasn't Barnes sold earlier and similarly why Maddison was sold early on the cheap if we weren't able to comply.

[Babylon]

11 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

If its less than £35m then we'd have to question why wasn't Barnes sold earlier and similarly why Maddison was sold early on the cheap if we weren't able to comply.

Well firstly (If it's below that), then we probaby thought we had a good argument. Secondly, you can't force sales through. For Maddison, see one and two... perhaps that's the only person interested, and we wanted to get our team together asap. 

 

It's probably more anyway. 

Edited 27 March by Babylon

[Ric Flair]

30 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Well firstly (If it's below that), then we probaby thought we had a good argument. Secondly, you can't force sales through. For Maddison, see one and two... perhaps that's the only person interested, and we wanted to get our team together asap. 

 

It's probably more anyway. 

Of course, anywhere in the ball park of £10-20m there's quite possibly view points that we have complied depending on what we've valued allowable deductions at. 

 

But equally it's difficult to plan to comply right at the last minute by forecasting x amount of sales. We've seen already that part of this difficulty we've got in will be impacted by sales that never happened for players that then ran their contracts down etc.