18/03/2024 266comments  |  Jump to last

Nottingham Forest have been docked four points by the Premier League following an independent commission into their breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules, becoming the second club behind Everton to fall foul of the top flight's spending limits.

The East Midlands club admitted to breaching the permitted threshold for the 2022-23 season by £34.5m, a full £15m more than Everton's breach from the previous financial year for which the Blues were initially deducted 10 points, later reduced to six.

However, the three-person commission that ruled on Forest's breach accepted two of that club's claims to mitigation, specifically that they "(a) admitted the complaint in full at the first opportunity, and (b) cooperated extensively with the Premier League before and during the disciplinary process."    

The ruling means that Nottingham Forest drop into the relegation zone below Luton Town, four points behind Everton who remain in 16th and are subject to a second independent commission of their own.

Article continues below video content

Forest are said to be considering an appeal into their sanction which must be lodged within seven days and heard by 15 April, while a verdict on Everton's second PSR breach is expected by 8 April.

All appeal processes must be wrapped up by 24 May to enable the Premier League to finalise the 20 clubs that will compete in the top flight in the 2024-25 season.


Reader Comments (266)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Alan J Thompson
1 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:02:54
Given there is still at least Man City to come it would be interesting to know how much Forest overspent compared to us and how 10- then 6- and now 4-point deductions were arrived at and if there is any correlation?
Stu Gore
2 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:08:19
So….. it isn't 6 minimum then? Just a badge check – like VAR?
Rob Halligan
3 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:10:15
This has not yet been confirmed, but Sky Sports News think it will be 4 points.
Brian Harrison
4 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:13:01
I haven't seen how much their overspend was, but I can only guess it was less than half of our £19.5M overspend.
Andy Finigan
5 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:13:28
I think this was on the cards in conjunction with us receiving either 2 points or a fine.

I think our club probably know our punishment and both clubs have agreed the sanctions in order that there won't be an appeal… but we will see.
Colin Glassar
6 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:15:06
Confirmed on Twitter.

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.

Steve Cotton
7 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:16:23
I saw somewhere today that Forest had a £172M spend for 2022-23 so it's unlikely to be less than our £19.5M figure.
Peter Mitchell
8 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:16:35
Not sure how this can be justified, but I guess we will read the verdict with interest.

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.

Michael Lynch
9 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:18:22
We've been fucked over yet again.
John Raftery
10 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:19:05
It will be interesting to see how the panel came to 4 points and what mitigating circumstances were taken into account. On the face of it, they appear to have got off lightly.
Danny Baily
11 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:25:28
Our appeal verdict was based on the EFL precedent of 3 points for a breach and a further 3 points for significant excess losses. On that basis, the sanction imposed on Forest should have been one of either 3 or 6 points depending on the severity of the excess losses, or 7 or 10 points if they were deemed to have acted in bad faith.

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.

Paul Hewitt
12 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:26:53
It's 4 points so they won't appeal.
Bobby Mallon
13 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:26:55
Fucking disgraceful.

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

Jack Convery
14 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:27:14
Only 4 points. Why?

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?

Andy Finigan
15 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:27:49
Paul @8

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.

Jamie Morgan
16 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:33:57
Danny I agree with you. The appeal process was 3 points for a breach of any kind and a further 3 for excessive losses.

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!)

Michael Lynch
17 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:34:09
I just don't understand this.

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?

Danny O’Neill
18 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:36:33
I personally don't want to see any club deducted points.

But there is no consistency.

Making up as they go along.

Jay Harris
19 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:36:36
Scapegoats doesn't even cover half of it.

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.

Ian Jones
20 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:45:35
The main thing to take away from this is that none of us probably have any idea what the rules are, how much Forest are in breach, and how the punishments are meted out.
Michael Kenrick
21 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:49:49
Still nothing on the Premier League website, where this shit is supposed to be posted.

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.

Anthony A Hughes
22 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:50:41
The main thing for me is for us to start winning football matches and get some points on the board and get away from what's going to be a proper pile-up at the bottom of the table.

No wins in the league this year is atrocious.

Colin Davidson
23 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:51:09
This is truly scandalous and a beyond a joke. Every high profile Evertonian should be shouting "Corruption" from the rafters.

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!

Paul Hewitt
24 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:54:36
BBC saying 4 points. Disgrace.
Paul Hewitt
25 Posted 18/03/2024 at 14:58:05
I'd be telling the Premier League that if they even take 1 point off us, we will drag this season out as long as we can and take them to court.

Grow some balls, Everton, for once.

Neil Carter
26 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:01:37
Please can someone explain the Premier League punishment protocol without using the word 'corrupt'?
Les Callan
27 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:11:42
Spot on, Paul.

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

Graeme Dodd
28 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:14:40
It is a 4-point deduction for Forest just so they can give us the same 4 for our second breach and nicely get it back to the total of 10 that they gave us in the first place.

Farcical, corrupt, inept, inconsistent.

Rob Halligan
29 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:16:00
Now confirmed on Sky Sports News: 4 points it is.

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

The Premier League are Corrupt as Fuck!

John Raftery
30 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:20:51
Forest breached the limit by £34.5M. Their exceptional cooperation and the Brennan Johnson transfer appear to have been accepted as mitigation.

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.

Paul Hewitt
31 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:22:41
So a war that cost us tens of millions couldn't be used as mitigation. But forest can.
Brian Harrison
32 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:23:40
Just been confirmed that Forest's overspend is £34.5M and the reason the Premier League have been more lenient is because they say, from Day 1, Forest cooperated with the Premier League.

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

Les Callan
33 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:24:47
John @30.

Can't our buffoons see this?

This is ridiculous.

Michael Lynch
34 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:25:52
The reasoning is beyond belief. Surely even our weak, pathetic club will make a fuss about this?

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

Les Callan
35 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:28:14
Hear, hear, Michael @34.
Steve Cotton
36 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:30:03
When we were both charged about 7 weeks back, they were saying on the Nottm Forest forum that they were told that not making a fuss and accepting the points would help with leniency; if that's true, were we told the same thing?

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

John Raftery
37 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:30:33
This stinks. It makes the Russian Judiciary seem fair and transparent.

Get the Premier League Corrupt sheets out again.

Christy Ring
38 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:36:49
Forest were £34.5M above the threshold, we were £19.5M above, so how were we deducted 6 points and Forest only 4 points, having overspent by £15M more???

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.

Paul Hewitt
39 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:39:55
Fight it — we don't have a board to fight it.

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

Duncan McDine
40 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:43:04
The decision on our 2nd breach will have to wait until a few days after the season ends, so they can make sure to remove just enough points to relegate us.
John Raftery
41 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:45:13
Chair of a Forest Supporter group reckons the 4 points deduction was at the lower end of what they expected. He doesn’t think they will appeal.
Adam Carey
42 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:47:13
Did anyone watch the social experiment on Channel 4 where they had 2 juries for a trial? The idea was that the jury system is not fit for purpose, and at the end they backed it up with each jury coming to a different judgement. Both jury judgements were influenced by strong characters in the 12, and fickle arguments. Effectively the abstainees just bowed to the majority.

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

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

Cut to Sky Sports News…

43 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:50:29
We should be straight on to our solicitors to get straight onto this, their breach was greater but they get less than 50% of our initial penalty.

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?

Neil Copeland
44 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:50:47
The only reasoning that I think makes any sort of sense is that for 2 of the 3 years in question, Forest were in the Championship and this has been taken into account.

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

Ted Roberts
45 Posted 18/03/2024 at 15:53:58
Just picking up on a comment made by Alan #1 that “Given at least Man City to come” — I just wonder with all the hype about the relegation battle that will ensue with regards to appeals for the deductions, if it's taken this long to reach a verdict on one breach, I find it highly unlikely that Man City's 115 breaches will be resolved in this millennium, and therefore if they do win the Premier League title this season, will it be all pomp and ceremony for them when they do and all this farce fritters into oblivion when the rules get changed?

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.

Rob Halligan
46 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:01:33
Forest were initially given a 6-point deduction, reduced to 4 as they co-operated with the Premier League from the outset.

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.

Ray Robinson
47 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:02:42
It should make no difference that a lower limit applied to Forest because they were in the Championship for two seasons.

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

Rob Dolby
48 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:08:54
What a shambles this is. We get docked 10 points for a £19.5M overspend with a further charge. Forest get 4 points for a £34.5M overspend.

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.

Rob Dolby
49 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:11:23
Bill Gall
50 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:11:50
Wonder if the Premier League have one of them devices that they use in Bingo to call numbers and fill it with 20 2-point balls, 12 4-point balls, and 8 6-point balls, start it up, and see what number ball comes out, and that is your punishment.

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.

Phil (Kelsall) Roberts
51 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:22:18
If we have and Forest have got a reduction for co-operating, then will Man City get an extra penalty for not co-operating??

Oh look — a flying pig!

Danny Baily
52 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:23:28
What an utter disgrace. They have had 2 points removed from the sanction for acting in good faith (early plea, exceptional cooperation). Despite the commission acknowledging that they ignored the warning from their own Finance Director in January 2023 and added to their squad (14.23).

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

+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.

Rob Dolby
53 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:25:13
I am not one for wanting clubs punished for stuff like this as, if the owners stand guarantor for the money, then the club won't go under as a consequence and clubs can maybe challenge the elite?

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?

Mal van Schaick
54 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:27:01
This system is so far out-of-date in terms of finance, turnover and spending power of Premier League clubs.

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.

Pat Kelly
55 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:28:50
Forest will get 6 points back on appeal.
Joe McMahon
56 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:31:00
Absolutely stinks doesn't it. Forest will probably finish above us still.

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!!

Robert Jones
57 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:31:14
So, having read the ruling, it seems Forest were as stupid as Everton in breaching the threshold (including providing dodgy information), but they were 'very nice' and so that reduced the penalty by 2 points.

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

Phil Smith
58 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:32:00
Hahaha, so they will probably take the 4 points back again that they just gave us back.

Absolute feckin' disgrace the Premier League is.

Jack Convery
59 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:44:16
I suspect a deal has been done here:

"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.

Brian Harrison
60 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:46:13
This is what happens when you tell clubs they will be punished if they overspend over a 3-year period but don't stipulate what the punishment will be.

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?

Kieran Kinsella
61 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:46:32
So three different "Independent" panels all with entirely different interpretations of what violations are, how severe they are, and what the punishment should be.

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.

Kieran Kinsella
62 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:54:01
Forest got 2 points back for supposedly quickly admitting the crime and co-operating. If they then appeal, wouldn't that mean those 2 points should be added back?

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.

Ian Pilkington
63 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:54:44
Even more scandalous is the Premier League's continued deliberation over the (non-) suitability of 777 Partners as owners.

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?

Grant Rorrison
64 Posted 18/03/2024 at 16:58:59
Since when do you get 2 points back for acting in good faith? 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?

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?

Christopher Timmins
65 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:06:19
Next up is the 777 decision, it will be far more significant than our next points deduction which will be minimal if any at all.

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.

Rob Halligan
66 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:09:00
Here's a link to all of Man City's charges…

Full list of FFP charges against Manchester City

John Keating
67 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:10:48
So it has now come out that the Everton breach incurred 3 points, the rest based on the magnitude of the breach and the fact we "complained"

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?

James Marshall
68 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:10:54
I read their over spend was only £3m hence the lower deduction. Also they'd spent some of the time in the Championship not the Premier League.

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.

Kevin Molloy
69 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:11:54
So we got fined 10 points for spending fuck all over the last five years. Forest spend £200M in 9 months, and get a 4-point fine.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Brent Stephens
70 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:17:44
I'm as peeved as anybody else but let's not start to rehash "misunderstandings"...

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.

John Keating
71 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:24:16

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

Grant Rorrison
72 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:25:04
Brent @70.

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.

Kevin Molloy
73 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:28:01
They will give us another four now, when we should be getting less cos we're getting charged with the same crime twice over in different seasons.

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

James Marshall
74 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:29:15
Our appeal report states that the minimum deduction should be 6 points. It's written down.

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.

Pat Kelly
75 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:31:16
Rabinowitz out!
Ian Wilkins
76 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:33:35
Forest got 6 points, reduced to 4 points, for acting in good faith and full compliance, referencing Everton's failure to do so.
Dale Self
77 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:39:47
I cannot believe they are set to take action as the season ends. The Premier League just put themselves in a bad position to defend their process which will be required in the appeals.

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!

Pat Kelly
78 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:42:03
Cheer up, for fuck's sake! This points deduction nonsense will soon pale into insignificance when the 777 Partners house of cards collapses and we end up in administration.
Brent Stephens
79 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:43:11
Grant #72 - sorry, Grant, the original Commission found lack of good faith but the Appeal hearing dismissed that. My bad.
Grant Rorrison
80 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:44:10
That's alright, Brent.
Andy Crooks
81 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:44:22
Was dreading this outcome, then Pat @75 makes me laugh. Top post!
Sean Kelly
82 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:48:04
Typical Everton this. We blame everyone but ourselves.

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.

Donal Armani
83 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:48:13
Soooo, the Premier League actually made the case at the hearing that Forest's breach was worse than Everton's and warranted a bigger deduction than ours.

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.

Soren Moyer
84 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:49:47
"In cutting Everton’s deduction by four, they also argued that “six points was a minimum but sufficient” penalty for PSR breaches."

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

Kevin Edward
85 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:52:18
The sport as a competition is truly gone for good now.

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.

Iain Crawford
86 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:53:36
I can't understand this decision: Forest overspend by £34.5M and get 4 points deducted. Everton overspend by £19.5M and get 10 points deducted.

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?”

Charles Ward
87 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:53:49
From memory, didn't our previous administration bluster that they would fight the charges and then further down the line lay down without a fight leading to a kickback from the Premier League?

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.

Liam Mogan
88 Posted 18/03/2024 at 17:58:38
This news has been reported by BBC correspondent Nick Mashiter, which is beyond parody.
Paul Tran
89 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:01:06
Like I said about the delay a couple of weeks back, this is the face-saving deal they put together. Forest get a smaller penalty than Big Bad Everton.

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.

Trevor Tannenbaum
90 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:07:53
This is just ridiculous and I have some questions:

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?

Christine Foster
91 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:08:41
If there was any doubt that Everton FC has been used as a scapegoat to be made an example of, then this decision has laid the truth bare.

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.

Dale Self
92 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:09:07
Good stuff, Paul. I feel better after reading that.
Christine Foster
93 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:24:07
Given that Man City have not acted in good faith by admitting any charges, the league must be requesting expulsion and demanding they are demoted and stripped of any titles, reported to the police for criminal fraud, but wait, aren't they vying for this season's FA Cup? Oh and Premier League?

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.

Colin Glassar
94 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:29:24
An absolute travesty. This is the latest play by a corrupt, inefficient organisation who is in the back pocket of the Sly 6.

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.

Pete Neilson
95 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:32:50
I wouldn't look for logic where there is none. Maybe it just depends on how many glasses of port Richard Masters has quaffed (lenient) or his mood as his gout plays up (harsh).

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

96 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:33:58
Fans are already turning their backs,

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

Christine Foster
97 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:39:09
Everton FC, whose fans have shamed the Premier League with constant visible protests that the club has failed to curb, who have made the league synonymous with the term 'corruption', we deem that you are to be deducted a further 6 points for any reason we see fit.

I see the club being hit with a further 6 pointer, then it goes to appeal post season end, when they know how many points are required to send us down and act accordingly.

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...

Peter Mitchell
98 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:39:17
Pete (95),

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!

Craig Harrison
99 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:39:48
So the punishment for breaking PSR now appears to be 6 points. But if you cooperate, you'll only be deducted 4 points.

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?

Tony Abrahams
100 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:40:13
I genuinely can't see the justification in giving Forest a more lenient points deduction than Everton, and would be very surprised if this could be justified in a court of law?

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.

Dave Abrahams
101 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:45:01
This just doesn't seem right, one club getting less of a penalty for committing a breach that was financially worse than the club with the higher penalty.

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.

Christine Foster
102 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:47:11
Tony, Everton have been given a bigger points deduction than Forest despite having had a smaller breach than them.

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

Colin Glassar
103 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:47:25
Anonymous @96, I now pick and choose carefully which games I watch. I obviously watch Everton as much as possible despite it being, oftentimes, a chore and nerve-wracking.

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.

John Keating
104 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:50:04
Jesus! That report is unbelievable!

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.

Phillip Warrington
105 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:53:52
The Premier League initially suggested Forest should "before mitigation" be docked 8 points, with a reduction to 6, because of this breach being 77% larger than in Everton's case.

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.

Charles Ward
106 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:59:19
Colin - at least Coventry are keeping a modicum of the giant-killing myth going.

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

Ian Bennett
107 Posted 18/03/2024 at 18:59:27
How can we get 2 points more deducted, yet Forest over spent by £15M more than us?

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???

Tony Abrahams
108 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:04:07
I think we have already seen how vindictive the Premier League have been towards Everton, Christine, and it's now also becoming very clear that they are also completely incompetent.

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.

Nick Page
109 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:06:08
Court of Arbitration for Sport. Right now. Go
Peter Mitchell
110 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:12:48
Nick (109),

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

Les Callan
111 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:13:49
I'm with you, Nick, irrespective of what the Premier League rules say.

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

Les Callan
112 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:14:58
Well let’s go through the English courts then.
Peter Mitchell
113 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:18:40
Craig (99),

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!

Christine Foster
114 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:22:14
"We were extremely dismayed by the tone and content of the Premier League's submissions before the Commission. After months of engagement with the Premier League, and exceptional cooperation throughout, this was unexpected and has harmed the trust and confidence we had in the Premier League."

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.

Ed Prytherch
115 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:25:21
The story in the Echo says that Everton dodged relegation last season by using delaying tactics whereas Forest came clean immediately, hence the difference in punishments.
Pat Kelly
116 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:25:32
With a tainted, absent and disinterested owner, and prospective owners about as straight as a corkscrew, we are the ideal whipping boy for the Premier League.
John Keating
117 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:27:16
Everton and Forest can appeal their decisions.

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?

Nick Page
118 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:32:13
“The Premier League rules”? Are you serious??? 6 clubs formed a breakaway league and got fined just about nothing (did they ever pay)?

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.

Philip Bunting
119 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:32:35
So Forest's overspend, which was twice Everton's and was money used to buy upwards of 40 players, gave them a sporting advantage on the pitch.

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.

Dale Self
120 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:34:30
An apology if anyone posted this above, I'm lazy, but the timing of the announcement does not signal confidence, does it?

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.

Robert Tressell
121 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:37:46
Most of us (myself included) are commenting without really understanding the rules and precisely what Everton and Forest have each done in relation to those rules.

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.

Steve Dowdeswell
122 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:38:38
First, let me state that I don't want any club trying to compete to receive a point deduction for trying to survive and compete in the Premier League.

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.

Jack Convery
123 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:40:04
How can a team have 2 lots of punishment in one season – how fair is that?
Danny Baily
124 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:42:58
It's corrupt. There's not a great deal we can do, other than pick up a lot of points from the remaining games (relative to our current standing) and hope it's enough to avoid relegation.

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.

James Marshall
125 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:46:43
Forest deliberately didn't sell Brennan Johnson so as to make more money on him, knowing they'd be in breach as a result.

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?

Barry Rathbone
126 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:49:56
Beyond the tribal gnashing of teeth, does anyone actually know what's gone on here?

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

Kieran Kinsella
127 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:51:31

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.

Jack Convery
128 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:54:51
Can you imagine the Forest Panel deciding the punishment of a serial killer?

"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!"

Charles Ward
129 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:55:29
Barry, the full report is available here:


Peter Hodgson
130 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:57:31
This is mind-boggling. Even though there has been much talk of the Premier League being corrupt, I haven't been one to fully sign up to that idea, until now that is.

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.

John Keating
131 Posted 18/03/2024 at 19:59:35
I might be wrong but I seem to recall the Premier League "recommended" we receive a 12-point deduction. This was "totally ignored" by our "independent" commission and 10 points given.

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.

Paul Tran
132 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:00:40
I won't comment on this beyond my comment #89, though it's telling that after a weekend of fabulous, exciting FA Cup football, the Premier League rears its ugly head with its miserable incompetence and financial illiteracy.

The Highland League is looking more appealing every week.

Jack Convery
133 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:02:46
The Premier League cost us at least £20M by forcing us to sell Richarlison by 30 June 2022. Yet Forest deliberately ignored the Premier League and waited until the end of the summer window to maximise the fee they wanted for Brennan Johnson.

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.

Andy Crooks
134 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:02:49
If the coach and players do what they are capable of, all this is irrelevant. They have it in their hands to rid us of "crisis club Everton" headlines.

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

Christine Foster
135 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:06:06
Barry, the Echo has a good synopsis on its site regarding the 52-page report from the commission.

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.

Bobby Mallon
136 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:10:48
We really should take the Premier League to court. Oh and where the fuck is that Russian loving prick Moshiri??? He fucking needs a good slap around the chops.

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.

Gerry O’Riordan
137 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:10:51
Don't even try and understand the two reports, there is no consistency in the penalties applied to both clubs.

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!

John Kavanagh
138 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:11:15
We could try to put a stop to this crap straight away by seeking an injunction pending a full judicial review, citing that the ban on using the CAS precludes us from going through the normal sporting channels in an attempt to seek justice.

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.

Christine Foster
139 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:12:06
Okay, Everton. The only way out of this is to win games.

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

Stu Gore
140 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:12:31
So, really… we can spend what the fuck we want providing we say so, and say sorry, and accept our punishment like a good little football club?

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

Pat Kelly
141 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:17:03
Someone needs a good slap around the head. And I don’t mean Patterson.
Ernie Baywood
142 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:23:38
I've now read the commission's report. Forest got:

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.

Ernie Baywood
143 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:31:44
Christine 135,

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'.

Paul Hewitt
144 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:32:02
We worked with the Premier League for over 18 months, they had to give the go-ahead on transfers. How's that not be cooperative?
Will Mabon
145 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:33:23
Aggravating factor = being Everton.
Tony Abrahams
146 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:38:09
Barry @126, I think the final paragraph, written by James @125, makes a lot more sense than anything else, unfortunately mate.
Barry Rathbone
147 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:47:53
Charles @129,

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.

Mike Owen
148 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:48:04
Jeez! I've only just seen who was on the Premier League panel that only docked Forest 4 points: Robin Hood, Little John and Maid Marian.

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.

Ernie Baywood
149 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:49:46
Paul 144,

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.

Chris Leyland
150 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:50:23
One thing no one has pointed out is that Forest not selling Johnson by the PSR deadline also allowed them to play him against Sheffield Utd in a game they won 2-1.

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.

Neil Copeland
151 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:51:38
Ernie 143 & 143,

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.

Ernie Baywood
152 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:53:55
The big question hanging over all of this is Man City.

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.

Laurie Hartley
153 Posted 18/03/2024 at 20:58:44
Brace yourselves for another clobbering this week boys and girls. I see 4 possible scenarios:-

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.

Mike Owen
154 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:00:01

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.

John Keating
155 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:06:52
Actually, Ernie, the Forest Commission did indeed say that they did not know how the Everton appeal board arrived at the extra 3 points.

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.

Ernie Baywood
156 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:11:07
Neil, they might not have put it in a table as Forest's Commission did, but it is in there.

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.

Billy Bradshaw
157 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:18:28
What a scary thought, asking Dyche to knock us 5 wins out.
Ernie Baywood
158 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:19:46
John, I was clarifying the way that statement is being used by our supporters.

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.

Neil Copeland
159 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:32:12
Ernie, thanks for the clarification.
John Keating
160 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:36:51

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…)

Rob Halligan
161 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:44:42
Chris # 150. Spot on about Brennan Johnson.

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.

Jamie Crowley
162 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:45:58
I'm watching this Netflix show called The Gentlemen. It's outstanding, directed by Guy Ritchie, who's brilliant. My wife and I started watching it this weekend.

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.

Jason Li
163 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:50:14
In The Running Man, sn old Arnie movie, the sport had the broadcasters mix it up to make it more exciting by introducing unknown elements.

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.

John Keating
164 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:51:28
Nice one, Jamie!

Gave me a laugh on a day of anger!

Jerome Shields
166 Posted 18/03/2024 at 21:53:11
There is no logic to this at all. It just looks like some type of deal. Everton kept waiting and the original 10-point deduction for Everton was a shambles.

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.

Ernie Baywood
167 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:14:32
John 160,

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!)

Andrew Bentley
168 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:16:07
Hmmm, Everton receive initial 10-point deduction, reduced to 6 points on appeal… Forest get 4 points for a more significant breach than ours… This smells like giving us 4 points so that we end up with the original 10 points again to get us relegated.

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.

Jeff Spiers
169 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:19:56
Jamie, these pricks will always have a class beneath them. Been going on hundreds, if not thousands of years.

No, Jamie you're not going nuts.

Sean Kelly
170 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:22:43
Bobby @136,

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.

Ernie Baywood
171 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:29:14

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.

Charles Ward
172 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:47:34
For all of those pinning their hopes on a Government-appointed Regulator, just look at what a good job the Environment Agency are doing at keeping our rivers clean.

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


Don Alexander
173 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:54:08
Jamie (#162), you've stated the obvious on all self-regarding charlatans, dangerously and deliberately devoid of morals, to the huge personal cost of perfectly innocent "lesser" people by way of their subversive policies.

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

Jamie Crowley
174 Posted 18/03/2024 at 22:55:25
Charles, spot on.

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.

Brent Stephens
175 Posted 18/03/2024 at 23:02:25
Andrew #168, I'm not arguing in support of the Commission, merely pointing out their reasoning, when I make the following points. In the Forest case, the Commission state (para 9.17) that there is a risk in focusing completely on the amount of any breach in isolation - they argue that context is also important (reason for the excess spend and the "uniqueness" of Forest).

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.

Paul Callaghan
176 Posted 18/03/2024 at 23:05:29
Ernie (#171)

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.

John Flood
177 Posted 19/03/2024 at 00:29:41
I have just read the report regarding Nottingham Forest’s points deduction, and I have to say I am amazed. Let me be clear, both Everton and Forest should not receive any points deduction as the rules are clearly not fit for purpose, which is why they are being changed in the summer, BUT once we got our (appealed) 6 points deduction confirmed, then Forest needed to receive a consistent punishment for their breach of the PSR limit. Forest’s breach at £34M compared to Everton’s £19.5M is significantly higher, and furthermore their breach is entirely to do with transfer spending whereas Everton’s was clearly to do with other factors,. This would suggest that Forest’s punishment if anything should be at least the same or greater than Everton’s, yet they have received 2 points less! Forest’s legal team have made a big deal about Everton not acting in good faith in their hearing, arguing that because Forest have done so they therefore should receive a lesser punishment. That is all well and good, but one of the two items we actually won at the appeal was that we had actually acted in good faith, so it appears that this fact has been ignored!
I don’t believe in conspiracies, but I have now given on any natural justice as they are clearly making it up as they go along. I now expect us to get hit with other 6 points deduction, Forest get theirs reduced to 2 on appeal, all whist Man City keep kicking the can the road and never see any sort of hearing, and Chelsea never even charged.
Ernie Baywood
178 Posted 19/03/2024 at 00:36:37
John, we weren't shown to have acted in good faith.

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!

Derek Thomas
179 Posted 19/03/2024 at 01:19:30
Premier League in - still making it all up as they go along Shocker.
Ed Prytherch
180 Posted 19/03/2024 at 02:08:44
Our problem is that our net spend on player transfers for the 4 years 17/18 - 20/21 was 210.5 M, an average of 52.6M/year. We borrowed at high interest rates to cover that expenditure and we now are stuck with recurring interest payments. Those payments are included in the P&L calculation. We had a net negative spend of -59M for 22/23 and 23/24 and a net spend of 6.8M in 21/22 which puts us at net -50M for the past 3 seasons. So yes we spent much less than Forest these past 3 seasons but what we did before that is a millstone around our neck and is what could push us into administration.
Don Alexander
181 Posted 19/03/2024 at 02:22:37
As I've said before, it's almost as if Masters and co recently phoned Kenwright to establish just how to put themselves in order, and then bizarrely enact it all against US.

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.

Ernie Baywood
182 Posted 19/03/2024 at 02:46:39
Correct Ed. And of course the real issue is that we bought so poorly that resale hasn't been a great option.

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 Gall
183 Posted 19/03/2024 at 04:06:42
Regardless of the remarks from a previous and since diseased Chairman, the fact of the matter is that somehow the F.A. have an agenda against Everton F.C. that we are not aware of.
The only thing that I can think of is Everton are the longest standing Club in the Premier and First Division. I may be wrong as I have not checked this out thoroughly but I think I read it somewhere.
Brent Stephens
184 Posted 19/03/2024 at 05:31:57
Bill #183 "the F.A. have an agenda against Everton F.C... The only thing that I can think of is Everton are the longest standing Club in the Premier and First Division."

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?

Alastair Donaldson
185 Posted 19/03/2024 at 06:17:38
"Wow just wow", as one (not be named) German Kuntz would say...
Danny O’Neill
186 Posted 19/03/2024 at 06:29:05
Top 6 in that respect Brent & Bill, to date:

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.

Jerome Shields
187 Posted 19/03/2024 at 07:17:25
Sean #170

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..

Mark Murphy
188 Posted 19/03/2024 at 07:24:57
Spurs, Brent?? … Spurs??

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

Brent Stephens
189 Posted 19/03/2024 at 07:34:59
Mark, I wasn't being serious!
Laurie Hartley
190 Posted 19/03/2024 at 07:45:10
Jerome #187,

“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. 😉

Kim Vivian
191 Posted 19/03/2024 at 08:33:03
I totally get all this wailing and gnashing of teeth but I just wish we could get on and accrue sufficient points to keep us up and let the PL people do what they fucking like. That would be the biggest two fingers we could send them. Forest can rot in in Championship or lower for all I care.

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.

John Wilson
192 Posted 19/03/2024 at 09:03:08
I remember a legal book, actually the "Legal System," by a Hart and the author, at section on judges, says that they decide what they want and then decide excuses for it, which is rather a more shocking view than any idea judges support justice and fairness. This is not about judges but a panel that comes together on production of a sanction, against Everton - the Premier League precedent, or this Forest which current judgment is based on Everton's appeal rather than Forest having to appeal. In a way this is a type of binding precedent in that the precedent case Everton and its floating panel's appellate judgment decides the sanction (punishment) and mitigation (merits/ good reasons for lowering sanction), though Forest's seems to have a new type of mitigation, for "pleading guilty" earlier in addition to making evidence of its guilt available, though there is no precedent for Forest getting 2 points returned. The closest analogy is criminal trial costs and offering to plead guilty saves that and to get time off sentence. This floating justice panel that come together afresh then goes straight to punishment for Forest conceding guilt and dealing with sanctions and the plea of Forest's guilt then mysteriously grants 2 points points back. Perhaps Hart, to return to said book on the legal system, could never predict a pseudo legal system that the Premier League operates in, that floats on sanction: points and what is and is not a sporting sanction, the new type of MITIGATION, if it is that, for pleading guilty.

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.

Peter Hodgson
193 Posted 19/03/2024 at 09:39:06
Paul @144.

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.

Ian Wilkins
194 Posted 19/03/2024 at 10:22:29
Though they are doing their utmost to justify a lower sanction for Forest ( admitting guilt, supplying accurate information etc), it’s hard to swallow and in truth doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is where Mr Rabinowitz comes in surely. A super silk, now with the benefit of a further judgement, he must be able to rip this to shreds.
We should now not only have a very strong case for the 2nd charge, we should behind the scenes be asking the right questions about the comparable first charge outcomes with appropriate legal recourse threat.
This is his moment to shine….
Dave Abrahams
195 Posted 19/03/2024 at 10:30:45
Peter (193) The “evil” that men do lives after them.
Les Callan
196 Posted 19/03/2024 at 11:11:59
Ian @ 194. You are so right, and I admire your optimism …….but I'll be amazed if our “super brief” does anything at all inspiring.
Joe Green
197 Posted 19/03/2024 at 11:42:21
Bill @ 183

"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.

Paul Hewitt
198 Posted 19/03/2024 at 11:46:20
Everton's next case will be heard next week. With the result the week after.
George Stuart
199 Posted 19/03/2024 at 12:17:22
I'm pretty certain, based on no evidence, that the reason the Premier League have it in for us is the fact we're the thorn in the side of the Big 6.

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.

Karl Masters
200 Posted 19/03/2024 at 13:56:04
Kieran Kinsella @61 sums it up perfectly.

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

Ed Prytherch
201 Posted 19/03/2024 at 14:04:44
If we had received a 4 point deduction at the end of last season then we would have been relegated.

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

Tony Abrahams
202 Posted 19/03/2024 at 14:17:46
I thought Forest were a bit naughty bringing that up.

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.

Peter Mills
203 Posted 19/03/2024 at 14:20:54
Rules that have been put in place supposedly to protect the existence of great sporting institutions are being used to potentially kill one.
Bill Gall
204 Posted 19/03/2024 at 14:21:49
What a coincident the 2 weeks I have booked to come back home, the first game on 20 April is against Forest.

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!"

Brian Harrison
205 Posted 19/03/2024 at 14:28:38
I wonder what deal the Premier League will offer Everton if Forest decide not to appeal? The very last thing the Premier League will want is for Everton to appeal and the judgement not to be made till after the season is over.

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.

John Wilson
206 Posted 19/03/2024 at 14:54:40
I'll put it another way, Forest's panel provided judgment and appeal in one, hence the 2 points back to help them decide not to appeal.

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

Michael Kenrick
207 Posted 19/03/2024 at 14:58:21

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.

Jerome Shields
208 Posted 19/03/2024 at 16:53:40
Laurie #190,

It is a short-term view.

Charles Ward
209 Posted 19/03/2024 at 17:10:36
Forest were quick to bring us into their mitigation…

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.

Brian Wilkinson
210 Posted 19/03/2024 at 18:50:21
How can they justify 4 points for Forest before even an appeal, a few of us might have thought 6-8 points, likely to be dropped to 4 after an appeal, not an opening of just 4 points.

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 Wilson
211 Posted 19/03/2024 at 19:04:11
Michael at 207:

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.

David West
212 Posted 19/03/2024 at 23:01:16
So this is the Premier League saying if you (Everton) would have just admitted your failings and did as we said, you would have got 4 points – not 6!

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?

Les Callan
213 Posted 19/03/2024 at 23:13:40
And no one at the club seems to give a monkeys David !
Ernie Baywood
214 Posted 20/03/2024 at 00:49:43
David, if a Commission were to follow the approach taken with Forest then they'd consider a 100M breach as "Major" and I would think that's another 3 points... taking them to 9. Or maybe 8 if they argued to keep it under the administration deduction.

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.

Laurie Hartley
215 Posted 20/03/2024 at 04:04:00
I wonder what our current Profit and Loss statement is looking like for this season? I imagine we are paying a fair chunk of change in interest on our numerous loans.
Jerome Shields
216 Posted 20/03/2024 at 08:00:14
Simon Jordan, former Crystal Place Chairman, on TalkSport yesterday:

“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.”

Michael Kenrick
217 Posted 20/03/2024 at 11:27:57
God only knows why you feel the need to re-spout shite that Simon Jordan comes out with but hopefully most Evertonians know that this is factually wrong, Jerome.

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.

Charles Ward
218 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:07:38
Simon Jordan is typical of the renta gob mentality that’s part of the problem - see also “Carra and Nev”.
Ernie Baywood
219 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:13:36
I'm assuming Jordan is talking about our total losses... not just our non-allowable losses. So stadium, Covid losses, everything.

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.

Brent Stephens
220 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:23:33
Jerome #216 - what's the point of your post? What's your conclusion? So what?
Danny O’Neill
221 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:26:20
I can't listen to TalkShite.

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

Apologies for not being more constructive.

Brian Harrison
222 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:30:12
Michael @217,

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.

Iain Johnston
223 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:32:36
Don't be shy Danny, say what you feel mate, get it out it'll do you good. Cathartic even, beats paying a shrink!
Charles Ward
224 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:36:16
I think Danny meant to call Jordan a self-aggrandising bellend.

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

Ernie Baywood
225 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:38:39
Brian, the simple answer to that is that there was a benchmark that was set between those two hearings. That naturally changed what the Premier League could reasonably request.

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.

Ray Robinson
226 Posted 20/03/2024 at 12:48:22
The number of times I've read opinions offered by Simon Jordan, Wyness, Kieran Maguire etc, who claim to be wiser than the rest of us but who in actual fact know sweet FA, is becoming exceedingly annoying.

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.

Tony Abrahams
227 Posted 20/03/2024 at 13:28:33
You have written a lot of good stuff Ernie, but I’m not sure about this post@225 though mate.

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.

Barry Rathbone
228 Posted 20/03/2024 at 13:36:20
Reading the potential prosecutions of chels, city and others if we drop out of the prem then playing in the lower divisions could be a doozey.
Christy Ring
229 Posted 20/03/2024 at 13:44:55
Ray#226 Listening to the so called expert on everything football Simon Jordan, justifying our punishment, and saying we deserve it. Isn't it ironic he was chairman of Crystal Palace and had to walk away from the club after driving them into administration in 2010, some expert.

Michael Kenrick
230 Posted 20/03/2024 at 13:58:05
Brain @222 (and Tony @227),

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.)

Brendan McLaughlin
231 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:10:49
Tony #227,

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.

Andy Crooks
232 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:13:32
Charles Ward, brilliant post @209.
Brian Harrison
233 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:18:33
Michael 230

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.

Nicholas Ryan
234 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:21:40
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 £19.4 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.

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

Mark Taylor
235 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:33:16
So having skimmed through the commission report, I would summarise as follows. The new precedent is what happened to us at appeal. 6 points, assuming a 'serious breach' as both were.

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.

Brendan McLaughlin
236 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:47:08
Mark #235,

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.

Michael Kenrick
237 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:55:47
Sorry, Brian, that was my own personal sensitivity to repetition, with a perhaps unreasonable expectation to see something fresh from our posters.

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.

Charles Ward
238 Posted 20/03/2024 at 14:57:42
Again, from memory, when the original charges were first announced, we had the usual bluster from the Greatest Ever Evertonian saying we'd fight the Premier League to the bitter end, only to meekly cave in, no doubt increasing their perceived view of the financial chicanery he and the oligarch's familiar were engaged in.

Jim Wilson
239 Posted 20/03/2024 at 15:10:58
To sum up

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.

Tony Abrahams
240 Posted 20/03/2024 at 15:26:13
Thanks for pointing that out about a red herring, Brendan, although it wasn't before Everton got punished.

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.

Michael Kenrick
241 Posted 20/03/2024 at 15:28:16
Nicholas @234,

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.

Brent Stephens
242 Posted 20/03/2024 at 15:38:33
Nicholas #234,

"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).

Andy Crooks
243 Posted 20/03/2024 at 15:44:37
Imagine sitting at home on a nice sunny day, content that Everton, and we, are safe. We have already secretly enjoyed the teary-eyed kid in the Palace Hat gurning his lamps out on the last day of the season. (Somehow better if it's a Geordie, but hey…)

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…"

Brent Stephens
244 Posted 20/03/2024 at 15:45:10
Apologies I was writing my post at #242 without realising Michael had already responded to Nicholas #234.

Pretty much the same point, I think.

Danny O’Neill
245 Posted 20/03/2024 at 15:48:04
A lot of people going into a lot of detail.

I'll keep it simple.

Pitchforks at Paddington.

Protest at Bournemouth.

Ian Wilkins
246 Posted 20/03/2024 at 16:25:46
Our 1st breach: 6 points is not going to change. Same for Forest, I think: an appeal would be futile, their mitigation has been accounted for, their 4-point deduction is set.

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..!

Brent Stephens
247 Posted 20/03/2024 at 16:36:53
Danny #245

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

We can't have that, Danny!

Christine Foster
248 Posted 20/03/2024 at 16:43:00
Common sense and the last vestiges of integrity flew out of the window when, after reading Forest's report (twice cause I must be stupid, will never get those two hours back in my life...) only to find that the debate with the commission had referenced criminal court guidelines on sentencing with respect to admitting guilt.

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.

Tony Abrahams
249 Posted 20/03/2024 at 16:45:41
If enough people go into enough “detail”, then hopefully someone at the Premier League,can read this thread, pick out the best bits, and then give us a detailed account of why there seem to be so many inconsistencies.

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!

Brent Stephens
250 Posted 20/03/2024 at 17:00:19
Christine, in Section 10 of the Forest report, the reference to criminal law seems to be made only to support the idea of a higher or lower sanction depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances. That seems reasonable??

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.

William Cartwright
251 Posted 20/03/2024 at 17:21:04
Conspiracy Theory. Two words that, somehow get ridiculed to be unreasonable and are only uttered by fully paid-up members of the Raving Loony Party.

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!

Christine Foster
252 Posted 20/03/2024 at 17:29:19
Tony, as we are now embroiled in the legal interpretation of the scope, intent and appropriate vindication, one has to say the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

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.

Andy Crooks
253 Posted 20/03/2024 at 17:30:06
William, we haven't "fronted up" to the Big Six.

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.

Christine Foster
254 Posted 20/03/2024 at 17:46:23
Brent 250,

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.

Brent Stephens
255 Posted 20/03/2024 at 17:58:37
Christine, let’s just hope for consistency at least when our latest lynching takes place.
Tony Abrahams
256 Posted 20/03/2024 at 19:13:35
The punishment has felt snide-like since the day it was announced, Christine, with a feeling that there has also been an ulterior motive, to punish either Everton, or possibly the people who silently own Everton.

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!

Jim Wilson
257 Posted 20/03/2024 at 19:40:20
Well said, William Cartwright!
Kevin Edward
258 Posted 20/03/2024 at 20:35:01
If we get another significant points deduction and look doomed to go down, then how can the club be expected to fulfill the remaining fixtures with 100% dedication?

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.

Charles Ward
259 Posted 20/03/2024 at 20:37:18
Three points and 3-0 to the opposition?

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

Les Callan
260 Posted 20/03/2024 at 20:44:31
Putting my trade union hat on, why don't the players declare an industrial dispute? They could have a ballot and vote to strike every Saturday and Sunday until the Premier League sort out Man City.

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!)

Laurie Hartley
261 Posted 20/03/2024 at 21:12:25
The plan to form a super league by 14 club must have been developed at “behind closed doors” meetings by the owners and officials of those clubs.

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.

Tony Abrahams
262 Posted 20/03/2024 at 21:16:50
That last paragraph is such a perfect description, Laurie.
Peter Gorman
263 Posted 20/03/2024 at 21:20:26
For anybody who still doesn't think they're out to get us, I've just read an article on the BBC about Richarlison's mental health struggles in which they describe him as "the former Watford player".

Off topic I know but still...

Brendan McLaughlin
264 Posted 20/03/2024 at 21:28:50
Peter #263,

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

John Flood
265 Posted 20/03/2024 at 22:05:46
Les (260), putting your trade union hat on, you will know that under UK employment law, the officially recognised trade union would have to formally declare a dispute with their employer (which in the player's case has to be the club), then provide the employer with the numbers and locations of their members, and then carry out an independently verified postal ballot for a minimum period of 2 weeks.

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…

Shane Corcoran
266 Posted 20/03/2024 at 22:37:09
Peter, you must've got so excited by this evidence of… I'm not sure what, that you couldn't read the very next paragraph where it stated the word Everton.

Peter Gorman
267 Posted 21/03/2024 at 19:28:32
Shane, my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I hope you were able to go to bed without worrying.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW

© ToffeeWeb