FFP charges? | Page 76 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

Puts them one point ahead of us....now it's our turn (and their second turn)

Does this effectively mean that it is likely 6 points will be the maximum punishment for us?
 
Fulhamred said:
this surely means we can't get more than 6 either and everton will get more..
Click to expand...

You'd think it certainly rules out us getting anything near 10.

Based on this ruling my instinct is that if we get a deduction it will be around 3 points but that's obviously guesswork, and I'm sure would be subject to an appeal.
 
AdebolaCornflakes said:
You'd think it certainly rules out us getting anything near 10.

Based on this ruling my instinct is that if we get a deduction it will be around 3 points but that's obviously guesswork, and I'm sure would be subject to an appeal.
Click to expand...
I'm still thinking whatever we get might be suspended due to our mitigations, first season in prem etc., but you'd expect Everton to get at least the same again if not more for a second offence, really who knows.
In many ways it really isn't worth the effort of speculating because none of us have the faintest idea how this is going to play out, just wish they'd get on with it.
These things move so slowly its pathetic really, not to mention unfair as we don't know where we need to be aiming for safety other than get as many points as possible, but if we new where we were it might affect our tactical approach to games
 
So if that’s the case - we have a mini shoot out between us and Luton - I think we’ll pick up more points than them
 
Polly 433 said:
Palace owner makes valid point about P&S being more about ensuring the big clubs remain on top. Forest need to keep that fire burning and ensure the IC feel the heat.
Click to expand...

Imo forest have been clever to keep fairly quiet. let's see what happens. my guess is 2pts even tho I don't think we should get anything.
 
Good article on the Athletic about it. Suggests we are prepared for anything up to 3 points with 3 being the threshold at which we may appeal.

The article talks about how we have kept quiet and haven’t tried to rally MPs and reporters.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Maybe it's just that Palace know they're likely to be up next.
I don't know, but these statements are usually just self interest.
Click to expand...
Palace owners want to spend but they aren’t allowed to. That seems to be the motivation.

I agree as well. As long as owners don’t saddle the clubs with debt then they should be allowed. Yes there should be a top line but that top line should create a level playing field. Unfortunately it’s a closed shop and that’s how the bigger clubs like it.
 
Basha73 said:
Good article on the Athletic about it. Suggests we are prepared for anything up to 3 points with 3 being the threshold at which we may appeal.

The article talks about how we have kept quiet and haven’t tried to rally MPs and reporters.
Click to expand...
I think the PL would love us not to appeal but of course it’s up the IC to set the penalty. I think we will get 3 and we will accept it. I then expect Everton to get another 2 and also accept it.
 
Depending how games go, a small penalty might as well be a big one. Either club could appeal. The only way the PL can be sure the line in the sand re budgets remain and the season not turn in to farce is for both clubs to receive a suspended points total. Both clubs would accept, the PL save face and the season finishes on the football field. Anything else runs the dilemma of either the PL lose what little power they have and/or one of the clubs appeal. They may have little to lose.

The remaining clubs will feel vindicated in stance, the only clubs that lose out are the three who finish bottom. Leics and Leeds look likely to return so unlikely to take a case to court. Everything resets for next season. I wonder how independent is the independent panel.
 
Much of the medias take and lack of sympathy for Forests case is the signing of 42 players over two windows. That sometimes mention without the signing of players we would have started the season with 12 recognised players and the quality needed addressing. They focus on the 42 as if it was profligate. Little is mentioned on how many were loans, frees or under £5m. Of the bigger money signings Frueler has been resold at a small loss, Mangala at a probable large profit. All the other big money signings could be argued to have added value. Awoniyi, Danilo, Murillo, MGW, Williams etc.
 
Polly 433 said:
Much of the medias take and lack of sympathy for Forests case is the signing of 42 players over two windows. That sometimes mention without the signing of players we would have started the season with 12 recognised players and the quality needed addressing. They focus on the 42 as if it was profligate. Little is mentioned on how many were loans, frees or under £5m. Of the bigger money signings Frueler has been resold at a small loss, Mangala at a probable large profit. All the other big money signings could be argued to have added value. Awoniyi, Danilo, Murillo, MGW, Williams etc.
Click to expand...

Agree. there is no case to answer about forest being sustainable based on squad value. forcing teams to sell players for less or docking them pts doesn't come across as sustainable but does feed the fire that the rules are designed to support the 'big' clubs
 
Polly 433 said:
Much of the medias take and lack of sympathy for Forests case is the signing of 42 players over two windows. That sometimes mention without the signing of players we would have started the season with 12 recognised players and the quality needed addressing. They focus on the 42 as if it was profligate. Little is mentioned on how many were loans, frees or under £5m. Of the bigger money signings Frueler has been resold at a small loss, Mangala at a probable large profit. All the other big money signings could be argued to have added value. Awoniyi, Danilo, Murillo, MGW, Williams etc.
Click to expand...

42 signings was ridiculous though. Even if we started off with no players in the squad we would only need 25 plus maybe 5 under 21 players. I really don't see why we signed Bowler and Hui-Jo simply to just loan them out again. Several of the others were replacements because the initial signings appear not to be up to it. Richards hasn't appeared once for us has he ? O'Brien, Bade, Shelvey, Lingard, Biancone, Kanuric, Ayew etc The fact we had Johnson, Yates, Worrall and McKenna should have reduced it by a few more too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.