Forest docked four points

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

Puts them just above the drop zone. Hard to avoid the conclusion that these punishments are designed to send a message but not do any actual damage.

Edit: @dylanisabaddog has pointed out that I wasn't quite right about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/nottingham-forest-docked-four-points-premier-league-financial-rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability

Edited March 18 by Robert N. LiM

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

Seems quite mild bearing in mind how far they went over the cap. 

I think it puts them a point behind Luton but Forest have a way easier run in. 

Everton face another points deduction for 2022/23 and Brentford are dropping like a stone with some tricky fixtures remaining so Luton and Forest could still get away with it. 

Edited March 18 by dylanisabaddog

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Seems quite mild bearing in mind how far they went over the cap. 

I think it puts them a point behind Luton but Forest have a way easier run in. 

 

Yes, you're right about this, thanks. Have amended my original post.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,731]

And the Luton fans go wild

[Google Bot 3,278]

It's ridiculous really as they've knowingly overspent floundering rules top buy themselves survival, and even then it was tight.

The fact that any business actively supports a model of going into debt should ring alarm bells, but it's just an accepted norm now. 

Joke of a system, with the money coming in to the game there's no excuse to not be self sufficient, The threshold across the total of multiple seasons therefore should be zero loss, otherwise it's forcing all other clubs to extend beyond their limits to compete and setting a bad example.

Who an earth thinks that losing £60m is acceptable to start with?

Whether you're paying 100m or 1m for a player, they're still the same player - it's nonsense as it's been allowed to be nonsensical.

I'd like to know outside of these points penalties what kind of money is kicked back to the prem league in fines and fees, there's nothing about that.

Sorry, but it just winds me up.

[Yellow Fever 3,792]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

It's ridiculous really as they've knowingly overspent floundering rules top buy themselves survival, and even then it was tight.

The fact that any business actively supports a model of going into debt should ring alarm bells, but it's just an accepted norm now. 

Joke of a system, with the money coming in to the game there's no excuse to not be self sufficient, The threshold across the total of multiple seasons therefore should be zero loss, otherwise it's forcing all other clubs to extend beyond their limits to compete and setting a bad example.

Who an earth thinks that losing £60m is acceptable to start with?

Whether you're paying 100m or 1m for a player, they're still the same player - it's nonsense as it's been allowed to be nonsensical.

I'd like to know outside of these points penalties what kind of money is kicked back to the prem league in fines and fees, there's nothing about that.

Sorry, but it just winds me up.

It does seem odd to continue to allow clubs to run up such losses at all  - If they should then get relegated anyway it places the clubs very financial survival at risk. 

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

To be fair to Forest there are mitigations - mostly the sale of Johnson to Spuds, which will have been taken into consideration.

Tbh it’s fair enough imo.  Yes supporters get hit but in broader context they have had an unfair benefit of breaking rules that others have abided by. 

[nutty nigel 7,537]

The PL is ridiculous but unfortunately wanting our team to win ultimately means we want to be in it. Even though some of us don’t want to be in it but want our team to win.

 

[Indy 3,300]

Everton now Forest, what ever happened to the 103 breaches by Man City? 

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

33 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

The fact that any business actively supports a model of going into debt should ring alarm bells, but it's just an accepted norm now. 

Yeah, exactly. Still bizarre to me that the term 'self-funding' somehow became something NCFC should be embarrassed about. Football in this country would be in much better health if all clubs were self-funding.

[Pyro Pete 1,897]

20 minutes ago, Indy said:

Everton now Forest, what ever happened to the 103 breaches by Man City? 

A more complex case.

Will probably see Man City relegated to the Greater Manchester under 12's league.

[ricardo 7,395]

They knew the rules and deliberately flouted them.

plenty good enough.

[ricardo 7,395]

I expect Everton will get at least another two or three also.

[TIL 1010 4,750]

Surprised it is only 4 points to be honest.

[Capt. Pants 4,244]

BBC says Forest likely to appeal as I'm sure Everton will should they get another deduction. The appeals process could take up until May 24th, which is 5 days after the season finishes! Shambles.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,764]

Just hope all of the points that are going to be docked all take place this season

...if the unthinkable happens and you know who goes up this season, you wouldnt want other teams being docked points next seas8n, giving them a lifeline...

[Capt. Pants 4,244]

I'm surprised it's only Everton and Forest (and Man City of course). What levels of corruption are happening to hide the other teams, or are things not as bad as we think?

 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,764]

1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

I'm surprised it's only Everton and Forest (and Man City of course). What levels of corruption are happening to hide the other teams, or are things not as bad as we think?

 

Well Forest were the only team who signed 25 players in one summer at the start of last season !, little wonder theyve been caught over spending

[Indy 3,300]

To be honest it’s all corrupt anyhow! You only have to look back over the years at the overspending and cheating going on without an eyebrow raised!

The little teams will always be punished for indiscretions but the big boys can do as they please!

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

Obviously outrageous that Chelski and Abu Citeh aren't getting punished, but it's a stretch to see Forest and especially Everton as 'little' teams. Really sick of Everton's protestations of harsh treatment in particular.

[Well b back 3,209]

24 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Well Forest were the only team who signed 25 players in one summer at the start of last season !, little wonder theyve been caught over spending

Villa must have been close to the mark season 1.

[canarybubbles 1,923]

Should have been more in my opinion. Luton, who have done everything right, will probably go down as a result of this decision. The PL stinks.

[KiwiScot 1,449]

C'mon plucky Luton!

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,764]

1 hour ago, canarybubbles said:

Should have been more in my opinion. Luton, who have done everything right, will probably go down as a result of this decision. The PL stinks.

Luton shouldnt be the beneficeries of misdemenours of previous seasons. It Leicester and Leeds who are the real victims of this cheating

[Virtual reality 712]

1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Obviously outrageous that Chelski and Abu Citeh aren't getting punished, but it's a stretch to see Forest and especially Everton as 'little' teams. Really sick of Everton's protestations of harsh treatment in particular.

Man City will be  getting punished. It appears the case is far more serious and complicated though 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

23 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Puts them just above the drop zone. Hard to avoid the conclusion that these punishments are designed to send a message but not do any actual damage.

Edit: @dylanisabaddog has pointed out that I wasn't quite right about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/nottingham-forest-docked-four-points-premier-league-financial-rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability

I find myself a little confused by this.

I confess to having a positive bias towards Forest, who I have always admired as a club. A coach from there was part of my football journey (and is now a senior FA coach educator for quite a few Premier League teams).

What Forest did might well be argued to be the only realistic way to break into the premier League - and out of the basement trapdoor and gulf between newly-promoted and functional at Premier Level. 

I of course fully understand what is called ‘financial doping’ in Europe - when teams use ‘unsustainable’ capitalist, artificial, state or gambled wealth - to outspend all rivals, and-or to gamble ‘tomorrow money’ on football.

However how exactly does one create a plausible strategy to stay up in the premier league with its wide disparity of resources and natural financial weight bias to present incumbents vs the newly-appointed?

1. Burnley this season, Norwich previously have tried Man City lite.

2. Sheff Utd, Luton, Burnley previously and others have tried physical spoiling and ****housery. 

3. Brentford have gone all-in on data, set pieces, limited weapons and algorithmic calculations. 

4. Forest,  Fulham, Wolves previously - and to a lesser or greater degree several others in hybrid format  - have simply thrown money at it year one and really replaced whole teams as fast as possible. 

Now my question is this: 

If there is financial imbalance and teams can massively outspend others through sheer size and commercial operations, how does restricting how Forest can compete year 1 address this?

Doesn’t it simply lead to existing large teams remaining large and dominant and making it near impossible to compete without doing what Forest did?

Thus is it really balancing competition or simply entrenching the status quo?

Is entrenching the status quo true competition then?

Parma 

Edited March 19 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[cornish sam 954]

 

22 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I find myself a little confused by this.

I confess to having a positive bias towards Forest, who I have always admired as a club. A coach from there was part of my football journey (and is now a senior FA coach educator for quite a few Premier League teams).

What Forest did might well be argued to be the only realistic way to break into the premier League - and out of the basement trapdoor and gulf between newly-promoted and functional at Premier Level. 

I of course fully understand what is called ‘financial doping’ in Europe - when teams use ‘unsustainable’ capitalist, artificial, state or gambled wealth - to outspend all rivals, and-or to gamble ‘tomorrow money’ on football.

However how exactly does one create a plausible strategy to stay up in the premier league with its wide disparity of resources and natural financial weight bias to present incumbents vs the newly-appointed?

1. Burnley this season, Norwich previously have tried Man City lite.

2. Sheff Utd, Luton, Burnley previously and others have tried physical spoiling and ****housery. 

3. Brentford have gone all-in on data, set pieces, limited weapons and algorithmic calculations. 

4. Forest,  Fulham, Wolves previously - and to a lesser or grater degree several others in hybrid format  - have simply thrown money at it year one and really replaced whole teams as fast as possible. 

Now my question is this: 

If there is financial imbalance and teams can massively outspend others through sheer size and commercial operations, how does restricting how Forest can compete year 1 address this?

Doesn’t it simply lead to existing large teams remaining large and dominant and making it near impossible to compete without doing what Forest did?

Thus is it really balancing competition or simply entrenching the status quo?

Is entrenching the status quo true competition then?

Parma 

The whole purpose of ffp rules are to entrench the status quo. The problem though is that if all of the clubs that got promoted went at the throwing money at it problem then they couldn't all succeed and the ones that failed and got relegated could be in serious danger of going into administration, so even though a few may have owners willing and able to suck up the loses, even those without would have to try and outspend the rivals. The knock on of that would also be driving up the prices of (relatively) mediocre players so that even going down into the championship the teams would feel the need to gamble in order to even try and compete to the playoffs without even having the chance to stay in the rich lists...

 

Much like democracy, FFP is the worst approach to protecting clubs from themselves, other than all of the other ones that have been tried (other than a salary cap but that's never going to happen)

[Ken Hairy 3,773]

All of a sudden Burnley see a bit of light

[RobJames 881]

3 hours ago, ricardo said:

They knew the rules and deliberately flouted them.

plenty good enough.

Quite right. You have people running these multi-million pound businesses.... hundreds of millions. So they are either incompetent, or they were 'chancing it' I tend toward the latter.

However, I would suggest the FFP is aimed at protecting the reputation of the PL, whereby the aim is to stop clubs ending up bankrupt after reckless spending. Something the phone waves on here would have us do.

As an aside what ever bias there might be, it does not relate to the size of the players as claimed. Little teams are not penalised. It is the club. An obvious distinction but one that seems to confuse a few.

To put it bluntly, the PL is fcked. Six or so clubs can guarantee European TV money and have an income of 4 or 5 times the other dozen or so. The latter's role is to give credibility to those top six ie  title, cup winners. It is pretty much a closed shop. Much as the last eight in the Champions League is.  When the other PL clubs finally grasp they are no more than 'cannon fodder' then we might see some change - until then Championship clubs will have their moment in the sun, deluding themselves they are challengers.

Look below us in the table and L1, and see how many were once 'challengers'

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

1 hour ago, cornish sam said:

 

The whole purpose of ffp rules are to entrench the status quo. The problem though is that if all of the clubs that got promoted went at the throwing money at it problem then they couldn't all succeed and the ones that failed and got relegated could be in serious danger of going into administration, so even though a few may have owners willing and able to suck up the loses, even those without would have to try and outspend the rivals. The knock on of that would also be driving up the prices of (relatively) mediocre players so that even going down into the championship the teams would feel the need to gamble in order to even try and compete to the playoffs without even having the chance to stay in the rich lists...

 

Much like democracy, FFP is the worst approach to protecting clubs from themselves, other than all of the other ones that have been tried (other than a salary cap but that's never going to happen)

I agree with all that. Yes, the current system tends to entrench the top teams in the Premier League, but scrapping whatever FFP is called now would also tend to entrench the sides that would have a chance of being promoted from the Championship and certainly then those that would have any hope of staying up.