Breaking Notting Forest docked 4pts and now

In Bottom 3:



Nottingham Forest have been docked four points for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

An independent commission found Forest's losses to 2022-23 breached the threshold of £61m by £34.5m.

The immediate loss of points means they drop below Luton Town into the Premier League's relegation zone.

Forest are the second top-flight team to be penalised for PSR breaches after Everton lost 10 points in November, which was reduced to six on appeal.

Forest, who are likely to appeal against the ruling, had a hearing on 7-8 March.

Premier League clubs can lose £105m over three seasons - £35m per campaign - but Forest's maximum loss was only permitted to be £61m because they spent two years of the assessment period in the Championship.

The commission found Forest demonstrated "exceptional cooperation" with the Premier League during the process.

The league's rules state any appeals process should "conclude no later than and if possible some time before 24 May" - five days after the season finishes.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Makes me wonder how effective this is as a deterrent because having cheated to get into the premier league they’ve had a couple of years prem money and if they do get relegated they’ll have three years worth of parachute payments to reinvest that others won’t have.

Compare this to the clubs that work within the confine of the rules that will never be able to compete financially

Makes me wonder how effective this is as a deterrent because having cheated to get into the premier league they’ve had a couple of years prem money and if they do get relegated they’ll have three years worth of parachute payments to reinvest that others won’t have.

Compare this to the clubs that work within the confine of the rules that will never be able to compete financially

I agree and ironically had this conversation earlier...

Forest are an example of a club living within its owner's means but being caught out by rules designed to stop tbe ne'er-do-wells gambling their clubs very existence...

Our club is another with an owner who could, in theory if not in practice, finance a promotion push by gambling his own money rather than putting the club into genuine danger of closure...

For me, that has been proven; but I'm no longer sure he (Vincent Tan) would even if he could...

Makes me wonder how effective this is as a deterrent because having cheated to get into the premier league they’ve had a couple of years prem money and if they do get relegated they’ll have three years worth of parachute payments to reinvest that others won’t have.

Compare this to the clubs that work within the confine of the rules that will never be able to compete financially

I agree and ironically had this conversation earlier...

Forest are an example of a club living within its owner's means but being caught out by rules designed to stop tbe ne'er-do-wells gambling their clubs very existence...

Our club is another with an owner who could, in theory if not in practice, finance a promotion push by gambling his own money rather than putting the club into genuine danger of closure...

For me, that has been proven; but I'm no longer sure he (Vincent Tan) would even if he could...

Sven, he can't.

Makes me wonder how effective this is as a deterrent because having cheated to get into the premier league they’ve had a couple of years prem money and if they do get relegated they’ll have three years worth of parachute payments to reinvest that others won’t have.

Compare this to the clubs that work within the confine of the rules that will never be able to compete financially

I agree and ironically had this conversation earlier...

Forest are an example of a club living within its owner's means but being caught out by rules designed to stop tbe ne'er-do-wells gambling their clubs very existence...

Our club is another with an owner who could, in theory if not in practice, finance a promotion push by gambling his own money rather than putting the club into genuine danger of closure...

For me, that has been proven; but I'm no longer sure he (Vincent Tan) would even if he could...

Sven, he can't.

Ffp or whatever it's called is out of date as wages & fees gone up considerably since it was brought in and hasn't changed to reflect this.... now the big clubs want it changed to income based to suit them and no one else! example is ncastle they are richest club in world but will be unable to use that wealth if new rules come in... top 6 dont want anyone to interfere with their cartel in champions league ..... other thing is clubs like man c are hoovering up all young talent around the world to put in their academies because when they turn professional any fee paid when sold is 100% used against ffp .... forest miscalculated this with Johnson and went over limit hence punishment.

Makes me wonder how effective this is as a deterrent because having cheated to get into the premier league they’ve had a couple of years prem money and if they do get relegated they’ll have three years worth of parachute payments to reinvest that others won’t have.

Compare this to the clubs that work within the confine of the rules that will never be able to compete financially

After a club is relegated to the English Football League (EFL), they receive payments from the Premier League on a structured basis over the following seasons: in their first year in the Championship, they receive 55% of what they would be given within the Premier League's per club basic TV money deal. Then in the second year following relegation, they receive 45%, and if the club in question was in the Premier League for more than one season before being relegated, they'll also get 20% in the third year.

The current system was introduced for the 2015/16 season, replacing a similar system that has been tweaked over the years (before this restructuring, payments were spread over four years). Crucially, if a club achieves promotion back to the top division during the parachute payment period, the club no longer receives parachute payments, as they will once again have the financial benefits of being in the top flight.

Paragraph one is my whole point.

A club exceeds their spending limit to gain promotion and benefits from higher income in the prem (in forests case 2 years) then a points deduction leading to relegation.

As a result, for the next two/three years they still have their normal income but it’s now boosted with the parachute payments.

This in turn gives them an advantage over other championship clubs who have stayed within their spending limits because they’re able to finance another promotion push with the parachute payments.