Nottingham Forest handed four-point deduction

Saying that, they were also reporting the death of King Charles and a child who was abducted by aliens and turned into a fish finger!

Marvellous thing t'internet is.

Andy (5) – The Guardian reckons Forest will be appealing, so will probably get a reduction. I doubt we will be dealt with leniently or even proportionately, so I expect another points deduction (which we will have to appeal). Whole thing stinks to high heaven.

This verdict of a 4-point deduction for Forest ignores precedent altogether. It appears as though each independent commission (and indeed appeals panel) is free to decide on a punishment as they see fit.

This is an absolute disgrace. There can be no sporting integrity when independently appointed commissions and appeals panels are given free rein to dream up sanctions.

We should tell the Premier League to fook off, we will not accept any more off-the-cuff justice from them.

And now we wait for our fate to be decided behind closed doors with no accountability. What a farce, disgrace, cock-up – add your own adjective.

Our former chairman, the board, and our soon-to-be not-owner have a lot to answer for but will answer for nothing. Some of them won't even answer pertinent questions. Great eh?

If Forest do appeal, that will tell us that no agreement was reached, if an agreement was offered, and therefore I think 4 points stinks as it states a minimum of 6 that was set out for breaching in our appeal.

I can only assume Forest get just 1 extra point taken which represents its 1 year in the Premier League rather than 3.

Either way, it stinks! I am now preparing for us to have our 4 points taken back off us. (3 for a breach and 1 for the new financial year we haven't already been punished for!)

At our appeal they said that 6 points was the minimum and sufficient sanction for breaching the rules.

Why have Forest got off with 4 points then?

But there is no consistency.

Making up as they go along.

Seems the independent panel isn't so independent after all.

Allegedly they were over by more than us so how it's not a minimum of 6 points is beyond me.

I guess we will have to wait to see the report and what mitigation they have allowed before rioting on the streets.

Can I hold out with the faint hope that the real number is 6 points? Although futile really as they probably do a targeted press release to certain media outlets before disclosing it on their website, despite wot it sez in their bloody handbook.

So corrupt.

No wins in the league this year is atrocious.

If nothing gets done, I'd rather we refuse to play the Red Shite in any title showdown and take the relegation and administration if it fucked up the Premier League and the title race.

Imagine the complete chaos we could cause on the back of it and bring Premier League corruption to every front page and news channel across the world!

I'd much see us start again than continue with this shit show & 777 debacle still to come!

Grow some balls, Everton, for once.

But knowing our clowns, we'll accept whatever they throw at us.

Farcical, corrupt, inept, inconsistent.

Forest overspend by £34.5M yet only four points. How can that be right?

The Premier League are Corrupt as Fuck!

So their breach was larger than ours while we were forced to accept a lower fee for Richarlison on the final day of the 2021-22 financial year when we could have held on for two months for possibly another £2M.

This is crap.

Well, if there was any doubt about there being an agenda, this confirms there is.

Can't our buffoons see this?

This is ridiculous.

Right now, I'm in two minds about renewing my season ticket. This is just fucking terrible.

And where does not complaining appear in the rules for dispensation...

Get the Premier League Corrupt sheets out again.

It makes no sense whatsoever. How is that fair? It stinks, and totally shows the Premier League have an agenda against Everton. We have to fight this.

And the Premier League are making sure of that as well.

I get the feeling this will be the same with these independent committees!

"So, how many points then?" "2?"
"4?"
"6?"
"Don't know. How many did Everton end up with?"
"Sod it, 4's in the middle. Drink?"

Cut to Sky Sports News…

We should be straight in saying we want the same or less and points back.

It may be, as said above, only 1 point over the 3 as only their first year in the Premier League?

But it all seems very odd to put it mildly. Stinks of corruption once again.

Or am I losing the plot with all this carry on that has, and continues to, play out in front of our very eyes. Is football going to disappear from view, only to be played on a computer screen with its own Fantasy Football League to avoid corruption?

I just feel brain-dead with it all. Sorry for the Armageddon attitude.

When we got 4 points back, it was due to two circumstances which the appeals panel looked on as in our favour, but I can't remember what they were.

Was one of them the fact that we co-operated with the Premier League? And if not, then surely we should get 2 points back for this alone.

They were aware of this lower limit and yet signed loads of players nonetheless.

Leicester will be docked if they get promoted. Villa and Newcastle can't spend a bean next year unless they sell their best players to the elite.

Meanwhile, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd, and Liverpool can continue to pick the best players from their rivals. Surely that's not right in a sporting environment!

The whole thing stinks.

It is quite obvious that a Premier League appointed committee have not got a clue, or any sort of direction of what the punishment should actually be, and at what level they should be enforced.

And they claim they run the best league in the world… just glad they don't run my financial institution.

Oh look — a flying pig!

Forest:
+3 points for the breach
+3 points for the scale of the losses
-2 points for acting in good faith

Everton:
+3 points for the breach
+3 points for the scale of the losses
+4 points for acting in bad faith (returned on appeal)

Forest's excess losses were 77% greater than ours.
Forest's excess losses gave them a clear sporting advantage (player recruitment), whereas ours did not.

This is a disgrace.

This latest situation raises more questions than answers. The Premier League can't be that stupid not to realise this.

Just shows how excessive our fine was in the first place and even more so with the 6 points.

Forest have bought 40 players. We have had to sell our best players over a period of time under the eye of the Premier League. Yet we are again on the shitty end of the stick.

I honestly thought Forest would get 10 points and have to appeal but that logic doesn't apply here, does it?

Mad situation which is ruining the game. The new PSR will hide behind Uefa's rules which, surprise, surprise, enforces the elite even more so. Why even bother watching anymore?

The Premier League should sit down with representatives of Premier League clubs and sort this mess out, as they are bringing the game into disrepute and should be made accountable for that.

Depends on Luton, we have to go to their joint bearing in mind then have won twice at Goodison. Still got Liverpool to play and away at Gunners. Our impotent strikeforce is going to have to start scoring and Dyche to work out better attacking options.

I hope the many that clapped Chairman Bill are happy!!

Lovely — let's all go and have a nice cup of tea!

Absolute feckin' disgrace the Premier League is.

"It will be 4 points; however, if you decide to appeal, it will be 6 points; which is it to be?"
"We'll take the 4. How will you explain it?"
"We will say you co-operated fully at all times."

Everton were accused of not being open and honest but then that was renounced on appeal. So why wasn't it 4 points for us too?

Can't take much more of this but that's what they want, methinks.

Also, this isn't a civil court where you can get a more lenient sentence for being cooperative. This is a commission that decides if you broke the 3-year spending rule and administer the punishment having heard any mitigating circumstances.

Everton broke the rules by £19.5M and subsequently got a 10-point deduction, and Forest transgressed the rules by £34.5M and have been deducted 4 points. Now whether one club was more helpful than the other shouldn't come into it, these cases are purely and simply about clubs overspending the allotted amount.

So, if one overspends by £15M more than the other, its obvious the punishment has to be greater — not less, or am I missing something?

Bear in mind the first panel added extra points to us because our loss was so "excessive," whilst Forest's was actually larger.

But, how can you have any consistency if three random Tom, Dick and Harry characters are thrown together and told to resolve something based upon vague suggestions of what punishments could or should be? Wouldn't it make more sense to at least have the same panel hear each case?

We've now had successive panels say they are not sure why the previous panel did what they did. That in itself is problematic. Maybe the next random trio will decide to award Man City extra points for pain and suffering.

The whole thing is a farce and the end of the season is going to drag on into the summer with lawsuits around not just who is going down but, on the other side of the equation, who is coming up – since Leeds and Leicester are also in violation.

Which funnily enough ties in with rumors last week that Forest would be docked 4 points rather than 6 if they promised not to appeal. Interesting.

Are they waiting as long as possible to announce what was obvious as soon as Moshiri announced the deal with 777 Partners – that they cannot possibly be approved as suitable owners – in the hope that we will be driven into administration?

If it's 6 points deducted for 3 years worth of financial over-spending and we have already been charged for 2 of the current 3 years that are being looked into, then that's a 2-point deduction. Take away the 2 points for acting in good faith and we should be deducted 0 points at the latest hearing. Why bother with it?

Good luck to Forest, they obviously had better people fighting their case than we did. They don't seem to have picked up the phone to ascertain what the Board at Everton thought was the best course of action.

Full list of FFP charges against Manchester City

The Forest appeal board stated that they did not understand why the Everton breach got the increase from 3 to 6 points!!!!

Now if that is not fucking corruption at the highest order, I really don't know what is.

Based on the complete lack of transparency and baseline drawn from the Everton commission, surely there now has to be some sort of legal action the club can take to at least reduce the 6 points to 3 points?

Either way it's bullshit. Forest shouldn't be getting a deduction at all, same as we shouldn't.

Either way, it obviously benefits us so at least there's a silver lining.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Grant #64 "Why didn't we get 6 points returned at our appeal, as we must have acted in good faith, if we were found not to have acted in bad faith?" [My emphasis]

Have a look at para 131 of the report from the Committee hearing. Hardly an endorsement of acting in good faith.

Forest had a £34.5M overspend on a threshold of an allowed £61M overspend.

When you consider our £19.5M overspend on an allowed £105M is nowhere near the Forest figures.

The whole thing is a complete corrupt and incompetent farce.

The Forest commission stated that they did not know how the Everton commission arrived at 6 points rather than 3.

These arseholes are totally independent of each other, making the rules up as they go along

If we didn't act in good faith, why did we get the 4 points returned that were originally taken away due to acting in bad faith?

I'll have a look at the bit you mentioned in the report.

God, I can't bear these scumbags, they have ruined our season.

The lack of a framework means they're quite literally making this up as they go along.

They also considered the delayed sale of Brennan Johnson as a mitigating factor - our sale of (or lack of) player X was not allowed in mitigation.

It's utter bullshit. Neither team should have a points deduction.

Surely, the MPs are loading ammo at this point. They are out of control and are damaging the collective reputations of the teams they purportedly serve. Get yer shinpads, Rabinowitz!

So what if we didn't co-operate as the Premier League wanted? I thought it was up to them to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that we murdered their rules. We employ a top-grade brief (Simpsons Lionel Putts) when we needed to get a proper street fighter brief and shake the shit out of the Premier League.

Tell them to fuck off and that all punishments to be put on the back boiler until the murderous regimes case in Manchester is resolved. Threaten them with court and get rid of Putts.

Danny, you are looking for consistency. We got it with this punishment. The Premier League management is consistent with their corruption. Proven times over and they portray it, week-in & week-out, with their VAR shite.

Rant over.

We got 3 (breach) + 3 (scale), so the Premier League proposed 3 (breach) + 5 (scale) = 8 point deduction for Forest.

Commission opined that some of Everton's 6-point deduction may also have reflected some censure for our “misleading” the Premier League with “incorrect” information, so arriving at a “starting point” of 6 points for Forest also could be squared with their higher financial breach.

From here, then apply 2 points of mitigation for “early plea/ exceptional cooperation' – this recommended by the Premier League and agreed by the Commission.

It is now clearly evident that they are lying in our faces.

It's another made-up number, applying made-up rules, by a kangaroo court employed to keep the big ‘Shitty Six' in place so they don't kill the goose laying the golden egg in the ‘global' market.

I feel sorry for the Forest fans, they have been shat on, while we are being flushed away by the Premier League.

Scream and shout loud about it, the Premier League are untouchable, it seems.

Then they go on to say that timely cooperation by Forest earned them a discount.

Why no mention at all of intent to breach the rules ?!

Surely this blatant breach (not selling Brennan Johnson through choice) deserves a more stringent sanction than ours! Especially considering we took action – against economic sense – and fire-saled Brazil's No 9, Richarlison.

“One thing that feels conspicuously absent is whether or not this is considered a deliberate breach or not, which is an important point given the one that wasn't deliberate seems to have incurred a stronger penalty?”

In contrast, it may be that Forest saw the sense in quietly admitting their guilt in the hope of avoiding a harsher penalty.

And let's see if the sporting advantage they have gained comes to pass with either Origi or Wood scoring the winner when we meet after the ref gives them an unfair advantage from a dropped ball to even things out.

Small enough to give them a chance to stay up. Small enough that Luton, Burnley & Sheffield don't kick up a fuss. A small enough difference that gives us a better chance of staying up. They also know we are rudderless and less likely to kick up a fuss. Then they change the rules in the summer.

It's all about the deal rather than any form of justice. Let's see if anyone appeals or goes to court. That's when the real fun starts.

1) Do we have any further route for appeal for the first points deduction? Did we ever confirm we wouldn't be taking it further?

2) When do we find out about our second case?

3) Do we join forces with Forest and go together or have they thrown us under the bus in their comments?

Used as a means of looking and acting strong in the face of rule-breaking, we have intentionally been made an example of.

Admitting you broke the rules should not diminish the fact that, as stated in our case, 6 points is the minimum amount for any breach. It was clearly stated – and cooperation or not should make no difference, the precedent had been set by the Premier League.

By rights, the Premier League should appeal the decision as too lenient, because this decision makes a mockery of the way we have been treated.

It leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the Premier League are seeking to relegate us. In the light of this decision, should they impose any further points sanction of similar or more than Forest, there is then no doubt of this conclusion.

'Corrupt' is too nice a compliment when used in conjunction with the Premier League. This decision is the most damaging not for forest or Everton, but for the Premier League itself.

The absence of any reference framework had caused the league to be held in disrepute, a laughing stock, where no one is laughing. Now it can only be seen for what it is. Corrupt.

Of course in light of the new financial rules to be introduced, we should actually thank Man City for their endeavors in highlighting just how much work the Premier League has done to improve the financial status of all clubs.

I could actually almost believe that myself if I didn't realize what sarcasm was.

They don't seem to realise that the “product” will wither and die if there's no competitiveness and fans start switching off from going to the game or watching.

What happened to Man City and their 100+ charges? What happened to the huge, massive debts Chelsea and Man Utd are carrying? What about Liverpool hacking the Man City scouting network? And what the fuck happened to the Sly 6 clubs that wanted to break away and join the so-called Super League?

One rule for the rich and one for the poor.

Then again it's an “ independent commission” so he's not involved. 🤥

I have watched, maybe 3 games all season and if this blue card shite comes in, it'll be down to zero.

The Forest decision has ensured that a new football regulator will be appointed. Masters should be sacked. But unless we get points on the table, the Premier League will endeavour to ensure we are playing in the Championship next season. A nod and a wink to the relegated clubs last season...

To be fair, the Premier League argued for an 8-point deduction for Forest, based on what we got and the fact that Forest's breach was hugely more. The commission then applied a 6 point deduction to forest, reduced to 4 due to their co-operation (which was apparently above and beyond what would normally be expected).

They also said that they had no idea why Everton ended up with the 3 additional points deduction, above the 3 for the initial breach. You couldn't make this stuff up!

So what's to stop a rich benefactor coming along and spending a billion pound in one summer on players, admit it, and take a 4-point hit?

I also think they have given us 4 points back on appeal because they knew we had another charge to answer.

Like others have said, the continuous slow speed that the Premier League are moving at with regards to deciding wether to accept 777 Partners is also very, very concerning, and is also designed to keep a lot of pressure on Everton Football Club.

Everton have been given a bigger points deduction than Forest, even though they have had to appeal to get back 4 points? Incredible.

I now expect Everton to lose no more points for the second charge which still doesn't sit right, in fact it still stinks. But it will make it easier for the Premier League when they bring in the new rules in August. These will ease the pressure on future spending by clubs and the big fish will not face the charges Everton and Forest have faced. Other clubs who risked facing charges have been frightened by what happened to us and Forest and have taken PSR very seriously.

It's made them look incompetent or vindictive. Take your pick..

I rarely watch the “Super Sunday” borefests and hardly ever the tedious Champions League.

The romanticism has gone out of the game. They've killed the giant killers in cup competitions. Ossified the league to the benefit of the few over the many, and manipulated the rules to their own benefit.

Am I pissed off? You'd better believe it.

They spent more time talking about Everton with Forest more or less telling the commission Everton were let off lightly.

It seems the commission were made up of Forest season ticket holders. Talk about sympathising with them is an understatement.

They haven't got a clue why Everton's initial 3 points was upped to 6.

Our commission will surely totally ignore the double jeopardy approach. As a minimum, we can expect 3 points as the 3 year rule will be the only thing considered — not the fact 2 of those years will have been included in our last case.

Really, what an absolute farce. We are totally at the mercy of whatever 3 halfwits are set to adjudicate our case.

There has to be some sort of appeals body we can go to after this nonsense.

We initially got 10 points and 4 back after appeal. Forest initially getting 4 points says a lot about how the Premier League view Everton.

And what symmetry that they drew Man Utd to virtually ensure an all-Manchester final – cue more discussion about the Wembley of the North.

How can you get 2 points more, for over-spending while building a new stadium vs a club that overspent on players actually on the pitch???

One of the men, allegedly on the original panel, successfully defended West Ham, and got them a fine, rather than a points deduction. This was years ago, when they without doubt gained a massive sporting advantage by fielding two ineligible players.

They should have been deducted points, which would have sent the Hammers down; they received a fine instead, meaning Sheffield Utd got relegated instead.

The original panel actually gave Everton a 10-point deduction, which can only mean that the Premier League have got it in for our football team.

Premier League rules explicity prevent clubs going to the CAS, so it would have to be an English law court.

But we both know it won't happen. We are a soft touch and have been for years.

The points deduction for a breach now seems to be 3 points, with Forest receiving an additional 3 points due to the scale of their breach. This was then reduced to 4 points due to their mitigation (of co-operation above and beyond what was required).

The problem is, we received 6 points and even the Forest commission were at a loss to explain how we got an additional 3 points deduction above the breach!

So much for their cooperation.. didn't Everton say the same thing? Interesting to note a bit of snarkiness do the premier league think we should just roll over and take it?

"Forest respectfully notes in this regard that Everton appears to have avoided the prospect of relegation during the 2022/23 season by reason of initially denying the Complaint brought against it, and taking various points, including resisting the Premier League's application for expedition, such that the first instance proceedings against it could not be determined until November 2023. The need for swift decision making to assist the integrity of the Premier League means that clubs that co-operate should be significantly rewarded to incentivise others to do so and deter those who seek to delay or disrupt proceedings brought against them."

I just have a short answer to this.

It is now quite obvious to any normal person that these commissions are not working on anything other than "feelings". No standards and the Everton precedent has been totally ignored by the Forest Season Ticket Holders Panel of their commission.

As this decision is so far off kilter to the Everton precedent, will the Premier League now appeal this decision and ask an appeal panel to adjudicate the Forest decision based on the Everton precedent?

The Premier League rules aren't worth the paper they're written on. And plucky little Everton needs to get tough instead of pant sniffing these odious creatures.

Everton's overspend which was half that of Forests, was accounted for against the new stadium build. Yet we get 6 points they get 4 points... laughable.

Doing this in the beginning of the second of a 3-week break is telling, somewhat like a Friday night news dump to get out ahead of a bad story.

However, what is clear is that we have a negative spend of £70M in the last three seasons. That comes from forced sales of Richarlison and Gordon which left us much, much weaker from an attacking perspective (and largely explains, along with the Sigurdsson situation, our lack of goals).

Forest meanwhile have recklessly spent the best part of a quarter of a billion in the same period – very definitely to gain an advantage over relegation rivals last season.

The unfairness stinks. And let's remember that our original penalty was 10 points and seemingly very grudgingly reduced to 6 (as though we should be grateful for the return of 4).

Forest meanwhile get a lesser punishment? It is extremely hard to fathom logically.

Personally, I believe that there is an agenda to get us out of the Premier League and there have been for a few years now really extraordinary decisions which no longer seem to be a coincidence.

Hopefully we come through our next round of possible deductions relatively unscathed because, as shit as this is, we should stay up as things currently stand.

Everyone in the relegation battle (Brentford, Everton, Forest, Luton, Burnley and Sheff Utd) is in horrible form. It is hard to see any of these clubs getting more than about 8 or 9 points from the remaining 9 or 10 games. Based on the current form of each club, we could stay up with as little as about 33 points.

The worry of course is whether the Premier League continues with the vindictive agenda and robs us of some of the points it's only recently given back.

Now on to my other point. Someone try to tell me now that the Premier League are not corrupt, vindictive and/or trying to remove Everton from the Premier League.

Wasn't it stated at our appeal that 6 points would be the correct and justified punishment for breaching PSR? But a club that is by admission almost twice as much as Everton in breach of these rules is now docked 4 points.

This lesser punishment is justified by the independent panel because Nottm Forest admitted the breach and worked with the investigation openly and honestly. Didn't Everton do this during our own investigation before receiving a 10-point deduction, ultimately reduced to 6 points on appeal?

If Forest have any nous, of course they will appeal. 4 points could and likely will be reduced to 3 or maybe even 2. Can anyone see an appeal panel looking at this as saying, "Hold on, surely this should be raised to 6 to match the precedent set." I didn't think so.

The Man City shambles runs on and on with the club impeding investigation knowing rules are changing to suit them and the other Premier League favourites.

Skip forward a season and we could see Leicester in the same situation as they were likely in breach prior to going down.

The whole thing really does just smack of at best incompetence and at worst corruption by the Premier League.

As things stand, we can be fairly certain of a further 6-point deduction at least, so we're effectively a few points from safety going into the home stretch.

Hard to be positive about our prospects from this point, on and off the field. Let's hope things start going our way soon.

Despite this, the Premier League state that, due to Forest cooperation, they only get 4 points deducted.

So basically it comes down to perceived integrity, not facts.

I've read they were £34.5M over versus our £19.5M, yet the above is true? We also sold Richarlison at a lower price than we'd wanted to sell him at in order to satisfy PSR, yet we're in breach? We were also not allowed to use Player X's lack of a sale in mitigation? Make it make sense.

Also, each panel is different and coming to different conclusions based on opinions. Again, not facts. Seriously?

I mean definitively… Or doesn't it matter because it's meltdown time regardless of facts?

I used to watch everything, all the cup games, any league games, Europe, even whatever foreign fare was served up on Channel 4.

Over time, it has been on the wane, and this season I have only watched Everton and even then most of their games have been shown on the USA channel which I do not have, as opposed to Peacock, on which most EPL games are shown.

Also, I have been at work when Everton have ben playing. So pretty much I have seen about 4 Everton games all season in their entirety, the highlights of the remainder that we didn't lose… and that's my lot for football watching.

"We are sentencing you to life," says the judge. "However, because you showed us where you buried each one of your 17 student victims and took us to where you kept all your knives and torture equipment, we have decided to reduce it to 100 hours of community service in a university of your choosing. Court adjourned!"

https://www.premierleague.com/news/3936397

What with the Forest points deduction and the 777 approval (or not as the case may be), we now await the Premier League having a second bite of the cherry to come soon, I have changed my mind.

And who is to blame for our predicament? None other than previous Chairman Bill (deceased) and his henchman Moshiri.

Whilst, in the occasional word he had for us, which wasn't very often, he said that all was well with the Premier League and we were closely cooperating with them in everything we did. He must have seriously upset and frustrated Masters & Co for them to go after us the way they have.

To be honest, I am disgusted with them and I, like many fans, have gone off football (and the money that goes with it and what it has done to our game).

I haven't gone off Everton but wish we would grow a pair and tell them all how it really is rather than just accepting everything that is thrown at us. Probably too late for that now and I'm getting too long in the tooth to do anything about it anyway.

Maybe we won't be relegated. Maybe we will end up with 777 Partners and they won't be too bad. We will get shut of Monaco Moshiri and the world will be a better place once Masters & Co are replaced by a Government Commission.

No harm in an old man dreaming is there?

Spoiler now ----- Uncle Alisher Usmanov is a different kettle of fish and he won't be got rid of until he has got his money back.

Now we hear that the Premier League "recommended" 8 points be given to Forest. The Premier League have consistently argued that there be no mitigating circumstances and that the only thing that should be considered is a points deduction. No fine, no transfer embargo, points only.

Points just for the fact that the nominated threshold is broken and additional points based on the excess. That being the case, why did the Premier League recommend Forest get less than us whilst having a greater overspend?

I greatly look forward to the Premier League appealing this decision and have the Forest decision altered to reflect the Everton precedent.

I also look forward to hearing that the club is exploring all possible legal channels to appeal our points decision in the light of the Forest decision.

The Highland League is looking more appealing every week.

And yet they fully co-operated. How does that work?

Are the powers that be deliberately pissing off the fans of the "small clubs" (what a giveaway that was, by the way), so we'll tell the Sly Six to sod off and good riddance.

Let us be victims no more. Do it on the pitch and forget Forest.

In short, they have used a different criteria for its sanction and have stated they have no idea why Everton were treated differently in getting an additional 3 points deduction for a breach.

Forest, despite admitting the breach and cooperating fully with the commission, are fuming at the severity of the 4 points whilst pointing out that Everton avoided relegation last season by not admitting its breach. (It was referred to a commission at the end of March last year! Despite also working with the Premier League.)

The stated benchmark for breaching PSR of 6 points has been ignored by the Forest commission and no points deduction has been given for the size of the breach either. In short, this commission have not worked to the same precedents set by the last one.

Also, tell Usmanov he's getting fuck-all money back. I think the government should step in and sell Everton as they did with Chelsea.

But think about this, Forest and ourselves could be relegated while Man City might win the league or even a treble. How is that rational?

If they deduct more points from us, the club should seek an immediate court injunction freezing all games until every club has their case heard. That'll sort out things pretty quickly!

The rules are not fit for purpose and there's clearly no proper framework for sanctions in the event of a breach. We should also try to get Parliament involved again and get Masters before the committee – under oath this time.

Remember, this corrupt bastard is still holding the ownership test card up his sleeve with a further 9-point deduction in the event we somehow escape relegation under the PSR rules.

Maybe someone should take a leaf out of the Godfather's book and make Masters an offer he cannot refuse.

Stuff the Premier League, Moshiri and 777 decisions. Win 5 games and it won't matter what they do. Come on, Blues.

Excellent. New strikers all round. I'll have two.

3 points for a breach
3 points for the breach being in the 'significant' band
-2 points for early plea and 'exceptional cooperation'

Ours is a little less clear. We got:

3 points for a breach
3 points for a combination of the breach being in the 'significant band' plus aggravating factors (ie, telling porkies)
0 mitigation allowed

The rules and punishments are at least getting a little clearer.

I won't attempt to read the Echo's website (it's impossible with the ads) but that's not the conclusion I come to when reading the report.

They've used the same criteria. They've just taken the model that the scale of breaches is banded, ie, they've put ours and Forest's in the same 'significant' band. Both commissions were keen to avoid a points-per-pounds model.

They didn't say that they didn't know why we got an extra 3 points. That's a misrepresentation. They said that the 3 points must have included aggravating factors.

Also, to be clear... they didn't accept the Johnson mitigation. The only accepted mitigations were their early plea and their 'exceptional cooperation'.

Thanks for the citation.

Read it and it seems Forest were down for a 6-point deduction but had it reduced to 4 points as reward for complying early with the investigation and with accurate information.

We did the complete opposite so got whacked.

I haven't yet read their 5f2-page report on the Premier League website. But when this is the biggest football issue of the day, it's pathetic how the Premier League bury it on their website, leading instead on "Premier League weekend review".

As if deducting points was some kind of weekly occurrence. Err, hang on, perhaps it might become that.

The Premier League didn't have to give the go-ahead for Everton's transfers. They told us we could proceed at our own risk – remembering that we were forecasting compliance with the rules based on our dodgy numbers.

We worked with the Premier League to try to fudge numbers in our favour. That's not cooperation.

I don't really see how anyone can argue that we were trying to act prudently when it comes to financials. I mean, the current situation is a direct consequence of poor management.

The club is up for sale and the only buyers probably don't have the money. The club is a financial disaster.

He played 89 minutes of that game. They therefore gained a clear sporting advantage by not selling him by the deadline and allowing him to play that season.

How that is not considered an aggravating factor in the commission's report is beyond me.

That isn't what happened though. We were initially docked 10 points which was reduced to 6 points on appeal.

There was no actual breakdown of how the points were calculated at neither the initial hearing nor the appeal.

How on earth do they even stay in the league once this eventually gets resolved?

Out of their 100+ charges there must be at least a few that have 'conferred a sporting advantage'. Those, plus aggravating factors, must have them in serious trouble.

1. 0 points deduction + 777 approved

2. 0 points deduction + 777 knocked back

3. 6 points deduction + 777 approved

4. 6 points deduction + 777 knocked back

They say hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

I am not quite sure which is the “best” and which is the “worst.”

Actually I think Andy's suggestion @ 134 and Christine's @ 139 is the best way forward for us. It is down to the players, manager and us now. We are on our own.

Earlier today, I was reading a Man Utd fanzine in which City are referred to as The 115s.

I would suggest it is a term we should start using.

They assume "some part" of the additional 3 points must be due to incorrect information. Section 14.15 Page 47

The panel's calculation based on their interpretation of a point every £6.5M moved the Forest deduction up to 8 points (the 3 points for a breach and 5 points for the overspend).

This should have realised an 8-point deduction for Forest. From 8, we get to 4. Diabolical. They should have imposed the decided 8 points and let Forest appeal as we did.

We had no mitigating circumstances at the original case allowed, Forest did.

Any deduction for Forest should only be applied after appeal.

Forget the original 10-point deduction. They refused the Premier League's proposed scaling and just came up with a number of points. That was overturned at the appeal in favour of taking some basis from the EFL's guidelines.

The appeal commission stated (across a ludicrous number of paragraphs) that we had been deducted 3 points for the breach, plus 3 points for the breach being significant. With modest credit for trend and modest aggravation for being misleading.

People seem to think the Forest Commission were saying that Everton shouldn't have got an extra 3 points (along the lines of "see, they didn't even know why we got them").

That's not what was said.

The appeal commission said we got the additional 3 points for the significance of the breach, noting modest credit for an improving trend and modest aggravation for providing misleading information.

Forest's Commission has interpreted that as meaning that some element of that 3 points therefore relates to the aggravating factors.

They've then offset any component that might have related to aggravation as being covered by the fact that Forest's breach amount was larger.

Your interpretation could be right; however, the Forest Commission, as you can see by their report, spent much time referring to the Everton charge and appeal.

They quote numerous facts and decisions made. It seems to me quite strange that, when it comes down to the final decision, they are unable to be specific.

Just to repeat. They comment, based on the Everton decision, a quite reasonable decision of issuing Forest with an 8-point deduction and then wishy-wash it down to 4 points. That never happened at our hearing.

Like us, Forest should have pinned their hopes on a reduction at appeal.

I see it has been confirmed that not only do Forest have the right of appeal – so indeed do the Premier League.

The Premier League have a week to announce their intention to go to appeal on the grounds of leniency. Seeing their recommendation of 8 points has been halved before any Forest appeal has been heard, I fully expect Masters to instruct his legal team to appeal. (Pigs might fly but we can only hope…)

Brennan Johnson played for Forest against Sheffield Utd on Friday 18 August, a game Forest won 2-1 with Johnson playing the full 90 minutes. He was sold to Spurs on 1 September, for a fee significantly higher than they would have got had he been sold prior to 30 June.

Forest knew what they were doing, ie, trying to get a bigger fee for Johnson, and knowing full well they would be in breach of PSR. There was therefore a sporting advantage gained by Forest as a consequence of their actions, and there should have been a further points deduction for that.

And yet they get 2 points knocked off due to their co-operation from the outset of their case. What an absolute farce and it just shows how corrupt the Premier League are.

While watching, I said to my wife, "Do you notice that every 'crime fella' has a Scouse accent? In every movie, the Scouse accent is for the crime people, the drug dealers, prostitutes, "Northerners" etc. It's never for the good guys."

I swear to the Almighty above, this decision smacks of sticking it to the 'Northerners'. What little I do know about this odd and pervasive "trope" – or dare I say prejudice – seems to be everywhere if you pay attention enough to it.

We broke the rules. No one is claiming we shouldn't receive some type of punishment. But can the Premier League simply apply equal justice when levying judgements? Nowhere does this math add up.

And the Scouse folk are the ones taking the beating. You know why? Because I'm convinced those posh twats, to steal an English phrase, want to flex their muscle. And in their arrogance, they look to a whipping boy they feel they're above.

You know the ones... the crime people, the drug dealers, the prostitutes, the "Northerners".

Just like in the movies.

These fuckers are condescending elitists, and they need a class "beneath them" to fuck, just so they can feel the thrill of power.

I'm honestly beginning to believe the above, and I don't care who thinks I'm nuts or whether it's immediately discounted because of my nationality.

This situation is fucking gross.

Dear Premier League,

Please publish strict guidelines to points deductions, and not leave it up to a "panel" to simply willy-nilly decide upon. You run a professional league, not a weekend neighbor and friend golf tournament.

Doing so will help people like myself who dive into some weird-ass conspiracy wormhole due to your completely illogical and disjointed thought process, coming to the conclusion you're all a bunch of prejudiced cunts.

Thank you in advance.

Makes you wonder for a second if this is to make the product an exciting relegation battle with 2 massive clubs in the mix?

I will wait a couple of seasons when the dust settles with Chelsea and Man City judged before I reflect on this momentary ridiculous theory.

Gave me a laugh on a day of anger!

Everton should get a bye based on this decision, since the two periods run into one another, but will probably get some type of points deduction.

The harm has been already done to Everton with the first decision, which is so long ago now.

I think the context of the 8-point deduction was that it should be the maximum (barring very extreme aggravating factors) as a result of insolvency typically being benchmarked at 9 points. I don't see any other reference to 8 points.

That was as a direct result of our appeal. The original commission got that one wrong in handing down a 10 point penalty – the punishment couldn't be worse than the punishment for doing something worse.

As for the decisions never quite being specific – I suspect that's legal professionals taking the view that it is not for them to write the rules. It is for them to interpret them and use relevant context and precedent where the situation allows.

The fact that the decisions are near intelligible points to how badly the Premier League screwed up the whole PSR process. And the fact that the clubs approved the rules tells me that they never really thought they would come to anything.

The Premier League are now, of course, changing the rules to align with Uefa. Basically acknowledging that they can't manage this. (Although it's concerning that Uefa is seen as a high mark of competence compared to the Premier League!)

Shambles, the whole thing – the Premier League yes but also let's not forget the idiots who have been running our club for the last 8 years and that they are pretty much asleep at the wheel right now.

No, Jamie you're not going nuts.

I've been saying that for months now, ever since we got the 10 points deducted. What are we paying a top brief for? Get an injunction into the courts now to stop all points deduction until we get the following:

(1) We get clarity on the points deducted for breaches;
(2) Clarity on points deducted above the threshold;
(3) What is 'co-operation'? Is it buying Masters & Co a few bevvies???
(4) Above all, get the Man City breaches finalised before this season is done.

They've taken the view that you can't deduct them points for being over the limit and then go and deduct them more points for every decision that took them over the limit.

Instead, they got punished for a significant breach. Then they put the Johnson argument forward as mitigation and it was rejected, ie, it was factored in and the Commission reached the same conclusion that you did – they deserved to be punished for that decision.

Not that it's anywhere in this report, but I do suspect they took some leniency on Forest given the absurdity of the rules for promoted clubs. I don't see how promoted teams with a low squad value, and without the revenue that PPremier League teams have been generating for years, can be expected to stay up without spending.

The Commission said they didn't factor that in as the rules are the rules – I call bullshit.

And the Government has just announced the Regulator role will be introduced into law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68602074

I give you Trump, Putin and Johnson as examples of people with very similar mindsets to the so-called Premier League vindictive buffoons.

Some Yank Tory once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.'"

I often wondered about this - is it nine or eleven words, seeing how "I'm" is a contraction of "I am"?

Either way, no regulator is going to make a difference in this situation. I'd eat my hat, chop off a finger, and move to a commune if that ever happened. Not a chance.

Para 9.18 also makes the point about breaches not being seen in terms of an absolute number (£) but being banded into "minor", "significant" and "major". They see Forest's losses as "significant" like Everton's.

As I say, I'm not arguing in support of the Commission, merely pointing out their reasoning.

At Clause 14.12, the Commission rejects the Premier League's proposal that a formula should be used because it "does not allow for a consideration of the contextual background". I think we can infer from this that the Commission were lenient for the reasons you suggest.

The appeal commission found that the original commission was wrong to effectively adjudicate that we had not upheld the requirement to act in good faith. The appeal commission's decision there was purely on the basis that we hadn't been charged with breaking that rule in the first place!

I'm not sure it positively impacted our penalty and it was still made clear that we had misled the PL. It was an aggravating factor. Incredibly the club claimed our conduct as mitigation!

After all, that was the gist of Kenwright's much publicised fatuous claim wasn't it, that he knew the answer to EVERY football problem?

Scandalous, but way too many of us swallowed it for decades despite his gruesome self-serving ineptitude, in direct rejection of those of us who illustrated his perpetual malfeasance on TW.

Kenwright and, and he was his choice, Moshiri, are Toffee destroyers for many years to come.

And of course there are other issues that have got us where we are.

PSR penalties have screwed us, but PSR rules may just have put the handbrake on Moshiri's lust for taking risks with our club. It might be the thing that stopped him from taking us under.

That's not saying the PL have done a great job, far from it. But it's hard to deny any allegation that Everton Football Club was not financially prudent under Moshiri.

Bill, logically then, when we're gone, do the authorities then look to the next-longest-standing club (Villa??) and get rid of them? And then the next-longest-standing club (say, Spurs) and get rid of them? and so on?

Everton 121 seasons

Aston Villa 110 seasons

Them 109 seasons

Arsenal 107 seasons (most unbroken run without relegation)

Manchester United 99 seasons

Manchester City 95 seasons

Tottenham come in 8th with 89 seasons. Chelsea joint with them.

When are the Government going to get actively involved and hold the self-regulating, self-licking monster accountable.

At the moment, they are just making it up as they go along and it is the players and supporters who suffer.

I don't mind if clubs have broken the rules and get punished, but it seems ambiguous. Certainly the way punishment is dished out.

When are they going to finally address the Chelsea and City cases?

Before he goes, I'd like this Masters character to sit next to me at a match. Although he seems more comfortable hugging Klopp.

That is actually what Everton should do. But throughout they have done nothing. It was pressure from other parties that enabled the KC to get anything, not anything that Everton did.

The whole thing has continued as a sham with this Forest Commission and the fact that Everton, again charged, do not know the outcome. As for the whole compensation thing already announced as being considered while for Man City nothing is happening.

It makes you wonder why Everton have been so meek throughout. The meek do not inherit the earth, they get trampled into it. But maybe there have been ulterior motives by Moshiri and his backers all along. rather than running a football club.

It has also materialised that the threat of sanctions was a myth. since the £200 million sponsorship deal was uncovered by the Premier League during the appeal as having no legal existence. It was put forward as a reason for a funding shortfall collapse by Everton.

There is one thing you can be sure of is that Moshiri is not sitting in any office in Liverpool. He probably doesn't even have a office there..

They're miles away from us or even 3rd mate. To echo Rob H, big club my arse!

“The meek do not inherit the earth, they get trampled into it.”. Short-term point of view, that, in my opinion; I have no doubt they will inherit the earth. 😉

Like others, I really can't be arsed watching any football apart from my regularly unpleasant dose of Everton - watched religiously when possible in the forlorn hope of seeing a resurrection (apt at this time of year).

Christ, we can't even seem to find a metaphorical spoonful of sugar to help with the medicine we're being dished up. But one can continue to hope.

It's that, that kills you! The hope.

For the Forest and Everton investigations it requires the chronology of events (written time line) quoting evidence, which is written in a concise way instead of these long documents such as Everton's original judgment and appeal judgment, and Forest's judgment, and then compare and contrast. Then moving on to the actual judgments as the important points are lost in the detail.

Please remember that Kenwright said we did so but he was NOT one to tell it how it was. Take whatever was said therefore with a huge pinch of salt.

"the fact of the matter is that somehow the F.A. have an agenda against Everton FC", I think it's not the FA, it's the Premier League who are out for Everton.

Many on here have put the evidence together and the motive is also obvious. Everton were the biggest name against the European Super League.

The "Big 6" are gagging for it, and they control the Premier League. I am and always have been particularly suspicious of our well-run (commercially and competitively) nearest neighbours who would love Liverpool to be a one-club city.

We remain the fourth most successful English Football team. Until the end of the season anyway. We are also one of the most enduring. They must hate Man City for crashing the party. But against them they are powerless.

To rub salt in the wound, they come from Manchester. Would that the Arab money could have gone elsewhere… Villa, Leeds, Nottingham.

They would love their two biggest and shiniest brands, Man Utd and Liverpool, to be one-team cities. Apart from London of course.

I hope we remain a thorn in their side and we do that on the pitch.

The whole thing is a total joke and exposes Premier League incompetence.

Which would you all prefer: 4 points during the season in question or 6 points in the season after?

This is why I never put any money into the bucket to help the miners of Cotgrave years after they had turned their backs on their own striking Yorkshire miners, the greedy self-centered bastards.

Not sure if their supporters will be welcome at Goodison after their chants at the away game. Wonder what the headline for that game will be? "Battle of the Premier League accused – get your tickets today!"

I am sure Everton will want this sorted before the end of the season, and hopefully whatever judgement is made, it doesn't put us in the bottom 3 with just a handful of games left.

2 points is substantive for what is at stake for the bottom teams: 6 potentially, and should only be granted on appeal. Outrageous.

I believe the rules require the independent commission to consider mitigation and to amend the punishment accordingly if they feel so compelled.

I have seen nothing that would suggest this activity is restricted only to the appeal.

It is a short-term view.

Maybe we should counter-mitigate and point out that Forest are run by a shipping magnate experienced in complex commercial deals whilst our transgressions were committed whilst under the control of a triumvirate consisting of the worst theatrical impresario since Max Bialystok, an over-promoted schoolmarm, and the only Chartered Accountant who appears to suffer from dyscalculia.

Everton should be taking the Premier League to court for slander, they worked alongside the Premier League with the books scrutinised, the Premier league advised the sale of a player, we did that.

They then asked about an interest payment, which was pointed out to be for the new stadium, nothing was wrong due to nothing being in writing or rulings about loans for a new stadium having to count alongside P&S. However, 6 months later, the Premier League then amended the ruling so that interest payments had to be included.

While we are at it, I would send a clear message to Forest as well for using Everton as scapegoats. to try and get a lesser punishment.

The only thing I will guarantee is talk sport will set an An Evertonian up, with Simon Jordan waiting to first humiliate the guy, then stick the boot in on the club.

It certainly is Everton v the rest of the world.

"John,
I believe the rules require the independent commission to consider mitigation and to amend the punishment accordingly if they feel so compelled."

This is correct in principle but mitigation is for substantive issues and not for perceived as being good.

Re: "I have seen nothing that would suggest this activity is restricted only to the appeal."

The facts are Forest got 6 points deducted but a third were returned, apparently for stopping the need for an investigation. Context: this is not a Criminal Court where defendant could get 1/3 off a prison sentence which deprives of liberty, for pleading guilty.

This so-called Independent Commission has allowed 2 points back to Forest where any such appeal has appellate powers to award and 2 points is the difference between relegation and £2 million each Premier League position.

I haven't even bothered commenting until now, but it's wound me up so much. Can you overspend by £100M, own up, comply, and get 4 points deducted? Might be worth it?

Incomprehensible, unjust, imbalanced, unfair, disparate… I could go on!! Who's sitting at Premier League HQ thinking this has all gone well?

They did note that aggravating factors could take a team beyond the 8 point maximum.

Mind you they also noted that future commissions were not bound by any of this.

Personally, I don't criticise the commissions. They deal with what is in front of them and I think they've been fairly even handed.

The first didn't consider the EFL guidelines or incompatibility with existing PL frameworks. They didn't actually have to, but we showed that they should have. The last two Commission reports have been pretty fair - though I still think they went looking for ways to be lenient on Forest given the absurdity of the PL's rules for promoted clubs. That leniency might have been worth a point and came in when they 'banded' the breaches and assumed ours had some element of aggravation.

The interesting bit now is how a Commission deals with the next rolling period. We were the test case for a PSR deduction and it's taken 2 subsequent commissions to provide any kind of clarity on punishment - we're now going to be the test case for a subsequent charge. The wording to date indicates that it should be a lesser charge, but nothing is set in stone.

Taking the 100M blowout example it wouldn't feel right to deduct 8/9 points in a first charge (maybe even reduced to 6/7 for an early plea) and then just take 1-3 points in subsequent years.

“It's also important to remember that we're not talking about Everton starting from a position of being £20M over, they were £250M over and were then put back from there. There were allowable adjustments that brought them back further and they put in every single opportunity, and it was their calculations, it was Everton's calculations, Everton advanced their own case and Everton's own calculations brought them £20M over, not the Premier League's calculations.”

Or is that what made you do it???

For the first breach, Everton's initial calculations had them showing a total loss for the period of £87.1M — well under the £105M threshold.

The Premier League rejected a number of key exclusions Everton had claimed that resulted in this figure that was well below and compliant with the PSR theshold, and they went ahead and charged Everton with a breach.

Here's where Everton I think made the biggest mistake by not sticking to their guns: They reassessed their calculation going into the first hearing, and admitted a breach of £7.9M.

By the conclusion of the first hearing, Everton were still arguing that, by their calculation, the breach was only £9.7M over.

That was given short shrift by the commission, who said the unallowable losses were £124.5M, which was £19.5M over the limit. The commission's number — not Everton's.

To be fair that does get kind of lost in all this. I don't know what we lost over 3 years but I'm guessing it's a scary number and points further to our recklessness.

Mind you, the Premier League takes the view that, if someone is willing to fund our allowable losses, then so be it. Likewise if someone is willing to fund up to £105M, that's okay.

Actually, that reminds me that, even if we lost less than the cap, the league would still ask for Moshiri's guarantee (or whatever term they used). Would Moshiri actually give that nowadays?

I was about to add "roll on football matches" but this is a bit more interesting than actually watching us play. And we've gained twice as many points through debating PSR sanctions in the last month than we have got through matches.

I'm going to have to revert to roots. Simon Jordan is an egotistic self-appreciating prize bellend.

Apologies for not being more constructive.

Whether Everton's figure of overspend was correct or not, we failed to convince the original commission that our figures were correct. There have been many inconsistencies between the ruling that Everton received compared to Forest's ruling.

Even the Premier League advised the commission that they wanted Everton to be given a 12-point deduction for a £19.5M breach, yet only recommended that Forest should get an 8-point deduction.

Even if you ignore any mitigation, surely the question should be asked of the Premier League why they recommended a 4-point differential deduction.

The whole point of P&S was to punish teams who had an overspend above the £105M over a 3-year period, Forest overspent the allowance by £34.5M and Everton by £19.5M.

So how an independent commission can rule the team that broke the rules by a larger amount get a lesser point deduction is just wrong in anybody's eyes.

Whether our KC will bring this up at our next hearing, I don't know, maybe we should tell the Premier League that, if we are given another points deduction,we will appeal.

Also, should we receive another points deduction, we will also take action through the civil court as we don't trust the fairness or transparency of the Premier League commission.

The last thing the Premier League would want is for any appeals which would mean a judgement would be made after the season has finished and it would make the Premier League a laughing stock.

Other than that, Jordan reminds me of the type of dodgy geezer who hung around the bar in the Winchester Club in Minder.

They wanted us punished hard. The appeal commission flagged the inconsistency with their own frameworks.

They did want Forest to be punished more heavily than us exactly because their breach was higher. Though they also considered they should then get a reduction for their cooperation.

They might as well ask me my prognostication but I'm not a self-serving egotist who helps promote click bait. I'm boycotting Everton NewsNow from now on and ignoring any speculation from people who claim to be in the know. It's too annoying.

The league asked for an 8 point deduction for Forest, because you only get 9 points for going into administration, is what I've read this week, but they allegedly asked for a 12 point deduction for Everton, who ended up losing 10 points, which was more than you get for going into administration. (I have only read what has been written in the press, though Ernie)

We had a ten point deduction hanging over us for around 4 months, and although we got some back on appeal, this must have still created a lot of extra pressure for our players to deal with, and now we are waiting again.

How Forest, got off six points lighter than Everton, just doesn't make sense, imo.

There's a lot there, mostly retelling what we know in the way that you do each day… but with slight colouration from your own perspective — which is fine — certainly much more welcome than the nonsense I find myself getting annoyed with when I see Jerome has posted!

Even the Premier League advised the commission that they wanted Everton to be given a 12-point deduction.

This is a commonly held view in the Everton fanbase and I believe it stems from what was a supposed leak before the hearing was complete. If it were true, I would expect it to feature in the first hearing Decision Report.

If it does, I can't find it.

What it does say, when describing the EFL sanctioning guidelines is "The starting point is a sanction of 12 points" [§84]

It goes on to describe the proposed Premier League formula: 6 points for a breach, plus 1 point for every £5M over. So, 10 points for Everton. It was never 12 points. That was made up by journo hacks.

In context, the Premier League's recommendation of 8 points deducted from Nottm Forest comes after the Everton Appeal, which features strongly throughout the Forest Decision Report.

In that context, the 'modified' Premier League formula becomes: 3 for a breach plus 5 points for the size of the breach (1.77 times bigger than Everton's): hence 8 points.

Yes, it's inconsistent because the Premier League abandoned their original formula, which would have seen Forest getting 6 + 7 = 13 points deducted… but that was never going to fly this time around because the principle had been set in the Everton Appeal that the sanction should not exceed the 9-point penalty for Insolvency.

The whole point of P&S was to punish teams who had an overspend above the £105M over a 3-year period.

That's not quite correct; in fact the Decision Reports veer away from punishment per se and restate the four-point purpose of PSR:

“(i) to punish the club for the breach,

(ii) to vindicate other clubs which had not engaged in conduct that breached the P&S Rules,

(iii) to deter future breaches of the P&S Rules, whether by the relevant club or

other clubs; and

(iv) to restore/preserve public confidence in the fairness of the EFL competition [which] necessarily incorporates the aim of ensuring that the competition is in fact fair.”

Now the last point is a total joke, as we all know, but it's clear from reading the Decision Reports that they are very keen to underline (ii) and (iii). The whole nonsense about Forest getting Brownie points for playing nice was explicitly requested by the Premier League — no doubt to discourage Everton's more combative approach and lay some groundwork by which Man City can be ultimately castigated.

(Why they have failed to do something about Man City already given the severity of charges in comparison with this paltry Everton and Forest stuff is another enduring mystery... but to do anything meaningful – points deduction, expulsion – without a hearing or court case of some form would arguably have been worse.)

The administration thing is a bit of a red herring. It's quite possible that a club could be docked 10/12 points if their PSR was say £80/100 million above the current £105 million limit.

The Premier League asked for an 8-point deduction for Forest because Everton had been deducted 6 points, albeit, on appeal, and the Premier League felt that as Forest's breach was greater their points deduction should reflect this.

The Independent Commission disagreed.

Should I take your first line as a criticism as you say that I was retelling what we know as I apparently do everyday. Whether that is a hint not to post each day or I should post posting what apparently everybody knows.

I also went on to say the reason P&S was introduced was to punish teams who had an overspend of £105m over a 3 year period. you say that's not quite correct, yet in quoting what they are trying to do.

(1) to punish the club for the breach

So where do I differ from their first rule.

The Forest judgement says that they were going to adopt the same starting point but then didn't for some reason.

I wonder if the Premier League will also appeal, on the basis that the wrong [lower] starting point was used.

The primary, in fact only real reason for the 2-point mitigation was for exceptional co-operation. The Premier League itself asked the commission to record exactly what this involved in detail, 'pour encourager les autres'.

One can debate whether we co-operated as much but having read both reports, I'd say we definitely didn't, certainly not from the outset. It can be noted that both parties issued a point statement in coming into the appeal which endorses the co-operation. It may have also helped Forest that they could at least call on their former CEO as witness whereas we couldn't/didn't.

There is nevertheless a certain amount of 'making it up as they go along' because, even in this case, given there is no clearly qualified sanction protocol, it becomes subjective. So whether 2 points is too much – or too little – for exceptional co-operation is moot and one to debate. It's worth reading the report because despite all the emotions around this, doing so does give a bit of perspective on the various aspects.

I don't think there's much doubt that Forest co-operated much more fully with the Premier League than Everton.

Whilst the reduction for co-operation is certainly a moot point, Forest successfully argued that there were precedents elsewhere in sport to support such a reduction.

The Premier League largely accepted Forest's argument.

I should perhaps have been clearer regarding your second point as your retelling here omits a key word that had triggered me in the original @222:

The whole point of P&S was to punish teams

So punishment is not the whole point, as you stated; at best, it's one of four points.

For posters who are clearly struggling with the inconsistent punishments being discussed here, I think due consideration given to the other two points I quote, especially the element of deterrence, might help them understand the difference a little bit more.

The IC were always going to go easy on Forest no matter what their circumstances were.

The IC were always going to go hard on Everton no matter what our circumstances were.

If you can't see that the Premier League have deliberately targeted Everton you live in cloud cuckoo land.

Do we really need to go over every little single point that makes you think a points deduction is somehow the right punishment when I know absolutely 100% if the club had been one of the 'big 6' and had committed the same breach a points deduction would never in a million years have been mentioned.

I'm sure I read that the Premier League wanted to dock Forest 8 points because you get docked 9 points for going into administration. Even though they initially wanted a 12-point deduction for Everton.

The Forest judgement says that they were going to adopt the same starting point but then didn't for some reason.

Wow! That is a pretty seeping summation of something like 70% of the extensive deliberations in the Decision Report which seem to ponder endlessly on the question of "starting point"… before finally going for 3 points.

It's not the same as the original Premier League submission in Everton's hearing, which proposed 6 points. But that was superseded by the Everton Appeal, which effectively set the "starting point" at 3 points.

This is what Andy Burnham would no doubt call "making it up as they go along". I think I'll put up some quotes from him as a new thread.

"In their letter to the [1st] Everton Commission, the Premier League said that, although they didn't have hard and fast guidelines, their 'expected' punishment, would be 6 points for the fact of breach, plus 1 point per £5 million over the limit. Our overspend was £19.5 million – hence 4 additional points, which is how they got to 10. The Forest judgement says that they were going to adopt the same starting point but then didn't for some reason."

My reading of para the Forest report (notably para 9.20) is that the Forest Commission agreed with the Appeal Board in Everton's case (entry point for a significant breach – 3 points before mitigation / aggravation; etc etc).

Then, we are stoking up the barbecue, when our red shite neighbour leans over the fence and says, "Fuck me, mate, you're not going to like this…"

Pretty much the same point, I think.

I'll keep it simple.

Pitchforks at Paddington.

Protest at Bournemouth.

All depends on our 2nd breach now: starting point 3; more if significant overspend (?); less for good behaviour and hopefully double jeopardy.

Come on down Mr Rabinowitz..!

"A lot of people going into a lot of detail."

We can't have that, Danny!

This is about the interpretation of a private club's rules, but it's being hijacked by a legal profession more used to point scoring than point deductions.

If millions are at risk because of interpretation, then the verdict of any such independent commission that can potentially cause the death of a club referencing justice in a courtroom gone, then any such retort must be through CAS.

Allowing one party to use case law to prosecute rules, not laws, crosses the line in my opinion; therefore either it's not allowed or it should be tried in a proper court of appeal.

VAR has been ruined by way of too many subjective decisions being given without any real explanation whatsoever, which leaves most people feeling that they make a lot of it up as they go along, and this is exactly how I feel about the (disproportionate) punishments that have been dished out to both Everton and Forest.

It doesn't mean we haven't been lucky though because, if we had received this punishment last season or the season before, we would have already been relegated now!

The reference in Section 14 seems to actually reject the idea of using the specific approach in criminal law cases which were actually cited by Forest, because that would lead to less than whole points being deducted or added.

If I read the report correctly.

Newsflash: The Big 6 played out the biggest conspiracy in footballing history – solely to serve their collective interests and screw the rest – the ubiquitous 14. Fact! – It Happened!!!

Are you with me so far? Okay, then I'll continue.

Which club fronts up the resistance to the Big 6 Conspiracy? You guessed it — Everton. Punishment for the Big 6 – relatively minor cost penalty. Fast forward to the first club to be sanctioned – against the backdrop of the Man City and Chelsea cases, and Man Utd's multi-millions of debt. Yes, you've guessed it – that upstart of a club, Everton. 'The Hollywood of the North', they said! I ask you!

Years of structured financial favoritism loaded in favor of the Big Six and obvious for all to see. So the Premier League requires a 'Patsy' to present as an example to the Government to base a defense against independent regulation. Once again – Everton are the natural choice.

Oops, perhaps a 10-point deduction was too severe? Never mind, we can reduce it, but up it again on the re-run (and they will, no doubt).

What about Forrest? Oops again. . . Never mind, ignore the well-established legal principle of precedence – 4 points will work. Oh, and don't forget, thank them for cooperation – no appeal guaranteed.

And just to ensure the scenario plays out, let's deploy VAR more creatively… How about old Everton – most penalties awarded against and the least penalties awarded for in the same season. Almost statistically impossible… give them one or two in the run-in. They will be so out of practice, they will have forgotten how to take them anyway! Brilliant.

Last but not least. What about these crafty new owners? They could be tricky dickeys… That affiliated club business plan system could be dangerous and they seem to have lots of money, so let's stall on that. But, haven't they already been cleared fiscally? No big deal, stalling, is workable, and if we do it long enough, might even put those bloody Evertonians out of business once and for all. Imagine, Liverpool v Man Utd, the derby of the North, I can see it now.

Here is the kicker, we need to renew the Man Utd stadium… No problemo, the Government will weigh in on that. Job done.

Erm, what about that Man City case? Why are you so bloody negative? That will roll on for years – long after we have dispensed with FFP.

Now that's what I call a sweet deal. A bit conspiratorial but sweet… Think of the wealth creation for Manchester and the North… You can bank winning an election with a strategy like that.

But what about that new stadium on the bank on the Mersey? It's only Everton and those pesky Evertonians. A generation or so and they will become Redshites, how ironic that would be. Imagine the value in keeping them Northerners entertained!

That a private members club can threaten the very existence of a member with a "We can punish you how we wish" clause in its rules is inappropriate for the size of the business it now operates in and cannot be allowed such power.

Idiots like Simon Jordan can rant about "themselves the rules, you signed up for them" but it doesn't mean the rule is right, fit for purpose or rigid. Circumstances impact rules, war, pandemics and stupid ownership… but laws have not been broken.

People talk about corruption because the word is as much about power than money, too much power in any walk of life leads to the misinterpretation of a principal, for vested interests.

The prosecution of rules should be in context to the transgression, the resultant impact of any decisions and the intent and purpose of the prosecutor. Put simply: What went wrong? Why did it go wrong?? What do we do to fix it???

The reality is, any interpretation of blame, like truth, depends on who holds the power.

Unfortunately, going back to Moyes, we have rolled over to them. Just think of nice guy Jags being super matey in the tunnel at every big game we ever had.

I get that but the very fact is it was used to make reference to any leniency in sentencing, in mitigation by Forest citing case law and indeed, leniency was shown as a result of the admission of guilt upfront as a context of reduction, hence mitigation.

My point is, the whole approach is akin to a pseudo-legal prosecution rather than applying rules that fit the operating environment. The application of rules is becoming the prosecution of rules in such a way that CAS cannot be excluded.

Whatever happens next, I think they must now realise that giving Everton what still seems like a very disproportionate points deduction was the beginning of the end for “the immobiliare” — aka the Premier League!

Michael was right in pointing out that a lot of what I/we are saying, has come from the newspapers/clickbait websites, rather than the enquiry. I suppose this is what is driving me crazy right now because I've been waiting for a decision on whether 777 Partners are going to be allowed to purchase Everton. I read last Friday, that a decision was imminent and would be given early this week, and I've been waiting that much, I've had a permanent headache for the last 24 hours.

Never trust the newspapers, I should know!

Teams cut adrift play for pride 11 vs 11, but this would be something else and nothing to do with football at all, just the whim of a bent administration making up the rules, moving us up and down the table.

I'm not sure that I'd be upset if we threw in the towel; you can only be expected to take so much. I wonder what the Premier League punishment is for not fulfilling a fixture? They probably don't know either.

Best wait until the Arsenal game if we have to put this cunning plan into effect.

The club couldn't be held accountable for not fulfilling their fixtures because the dispute would be between them and the Premier League. I think George Eastham did that in the early sixties over the maximum pay limit.

Just thinking like… (And I don't want some of you clever guys saying that they are already on strike!)

Our so-called “big six” were party to those meetings. From what I have read each of those clubs were fined a total of about £3.5M each. Apparently less than each of their weekly wage bills.

Premier League Big Six punishment exposed – Compare that to PSR/FFP Everton and Forest

Everton have committed the crime of losing something like £135M of their own money. That should be punishment enough. But no – they threaten the very existence of one of its founder members with these points deductions and dragging out the approval of the sale of the club.

And yet they use language like “fairness” and “acting in good faith”. What a load of twaddle. They should hang their heads in shame – hypocrites.

Off topic I know but still...

Perhaps the BBC are simply being sensitive to Richarlison's health issues.

After that, only if the 2 thresholds of minimum participation and a majority in favour of action are achieved, would they then be able to announce industrial action for which they must give the employer a minimum of 2 weeks notice.

Furthermore, the employer could then instigate the new minimum service level law whereby they could deem which employees are required to work regardless of the ballot result.

I think this is another debate all together…