should we appeal

[chandos9]

Wow, calling me out specifically there.

Have you got anything to back that up?

Such as a post where I mention him by name or reference his supreme skill at winning these cases? Or express confidence we will win specifically because of him?

Or a post where I actually use the words "it is under control"?

I'll wait

There you go.

FFP charges?

I don't think Villa postponing the start of their redevelopment is PSR related. More likely to do with the Council situation

forums.vitalfootball.co.uk

Sorry you had to "wait", I was doing something more interesting than responding to your idiotic challenges.

 

[paz1967]

Everton appealed and got points back rather than further deductions so there is precedent.

Any system that punishes people for appealing is ultimately designed to rubber stamp corruption.

Some won't be happy until there are only 6 teams in the entire football league and won't that just be a joy.

i dont agree. this isnt the prem making the decisions is it? they report the crimes but its independants that make the decisions. therefore its neutral and an appeal in theory should be able to make a punishment more or less if what we want if fairness.
not to mention our breaches were twice the amount of Evertons and we got less points. total logic suggests we could get more points penalised and based on only evertons case we got off light

 

[paz1967]

I have only read the judgement once, but I cannot see any grounds for an appeal.

This looks like a total lack of understanding of the rules and gross incompetence; and the usual suspects have their fingerprints all over it.

It makes you wonder what kind of position Chairman Tom is in; he was adamant as recent as last Monday that everything would be fine.

hes here to line his pockets on development, doubt he has an actual insight into our finances personally

 

[Ingy]

Doesn't have to be if we manage it well. That's why we need a few options to sell

60m plus add ons for Murillo to Man City or Liverpool would work as plan A for me

But be prepared to replace and sell MGW or Awoniyi if needed

How much would we get for Clattenburg chap?

 

[Pope John XXIII]

There you go.

FFP charges?

I don't think Villa postponing the start of their redevelopment is PSR related. More likely to do with the Council situation

forums.vitalfootball.co.uk

Your "smoking gun" evidence is me saying "I'd be very concerned if he had been prepping at the last minute".

Are you for real? That's actually all you've got? Did you actually feel embarrassment when you typed that out?

So, to summarise; I never said we would win because of him, I never said he was some brilliant lawyer and I don't think I ever actually made mention of him at all other than in this completely innocuous and reasonable post that you are trying to gaslight us with.

Sorry you had to "wait", I was doing something more interesting than responding to your idiotic challenges.

You made the unsolicited mention of me dude, wrongly accusing me of holding an opinion I never voiced.

 

[chandos9]

Your "smoking gun" evidence is me saying "I'd be very concerned if he had been prepping at the last minute".

Are you for real? That's actually all you've got? Did you actually feel embarrassment when you typed that out?

So, to summarise; I never said we would win because of him, I never said he was some brilliant lawyer and I don't think I ever actually made mention of him at all other than in this completely innocuous and reasonable post that you are trying to gaslight us with.



You made the unsolicited mention of me dude, wrongly accusing me of holding an opinion I never voiced.

I would have thought any normal person would have read that post as meaning what I said (though not your characterisation of what you say I had said).

Anyway, a lot of this is on Da Marco. He has been advising fir a long time, his ridiculous submissions were wrong, and he has posted the club's statement on his Twitter. His Twitter had also told us that he had been moving house and hanging around at QPR on the night before he was representing Forest (which is what I commented on, and you challenged). All of that is consistent with complacency, and Firest now have four points less.

For whatever reason, you regularly contest what I say, and then when I justify by reference to what you have actually said, or the impression that it creates, you then say that you had said something different.

And still what you are saying on this topic is weong. Even the day before yesterday, you were suggesting that both the Independent Commission and the Premuer League were conspiring against Firest, the former because their lenghty and closely reasoned decision came out the Minday after Forest drew with Luton Town, the inference being that they had corruptly changed their decision in the light of that result, and the latter, just because like many regulatory and prosecutorial organisations, that they sought serious punishment for serious breaches of the rules.

Maybe if you thought more and said less you would not spend your time in petty arguments on here.

 

[Fulhamred]

I would have thought any normal person would have read that post as meaning what I said (though not your characterisation of what you say I had said).

Anyway, a lot of this is on Da Marco. He has been advising fir a long time, his ridiculous submissions were wrong, and he has posted the club's statement on his Twitter. His Twitter had also told us that he had been moving house and hanging around at QPR on the night before he was representing Forest (which is what I commented on, and you challenged). All of that is consistent with complacency, and Firest now have four points less.

For whatever reason, you regularly contest what I say, and then when I justify by reference to what you have actually said, or the impression that it creates, you then say that you had said something different.

And still what you are saying on this topic is weong. Even the day before yesterday, you were suggesting that both the Independent Commission and the Premuer League were conspiring against Firest, the former because their lenghty and closely reasoned decision came out the Minday after Forest drew with Luton Town, the inference being that they had corruptly changed their decision in the light of that result, and the latter, just because like many regulatory and prosecutorial organisations, that they sought serious punishment for serious breaches of the rules.

Maybe if you thought more and said less you would not spend your time in petty arguments on here.

My reading of the transcript made us look a little amateur and not what i would expect from this "expert"


We use the BJ theory and then reveal we rejected the £42.5 bid which would have meant we were ok. If that had then failed we would have had some real proof we had tried to sell him.

Somewhere along the line it's not been presented as throughly as it should have been...

 

[weejockmcplop]

Could we not have asked Brennan to say there's no way he would have agreed personal terms with Brentford because he didn't want to go?

 

[Pope John XXIII]

I would have thought any normal person would have read that post as meaning what I said (though not your characterisation of what you say I had said).

You are being staggeringly kind to yourself here Chandos

Anyway, a lot of this is on Da Marco. He has been advising fir a long time, his ridiculous submissions were wrong, and he has posted the club's statement on his Twitter. His Twitter had also told us that he had been moving house and hanging around at QPR on the night before he was representing Forest (which is what I commented on, and you challenged). All of that is consistent with complacency, and Firest now have four points less.

I have no skin in the game when it comes to DeMarco one way or another, having never made any statements either in support or criticism of him.

However, given you tell me at the end of this post to think more and speak less, perhaps you might take your own advice?

The club appear to have admitted the charge immediately and pursued a strategy of cooperation which has won 2 precious points back. Who are you or I to say that another strategy would have won more, having neither legal training nor been there?

I mean, every point of our mitigation has been dismissed by the premier league and then the commission. Neither of us has the legal training to be able to say what alternative points of mitigation should have been put forward? I personally cannot think of anything else we could have argued in mitigation beyond what was put forward. Can you? And do you have the legal expertise to know if that would fly?

For whatever reason, you regularly contest what I say, and then when I justify by reference to what you have actually said, or the impression that it creates, you then say that you had said something different.

I don't know what the balance of unsolicited posts starting with me or you is. Certainly I've responded recently to a fair few where you have referenced me in a negative way out of the blue or quoted something else I've said. When I had a scan through your posts I was quite surprised by how many recently had been about me or aimed at me. Not sure I really understand the obsession.

And still what you are saying on this topic is weong. Even the day before yesterday, you were suggesting that both the Independent Commission and the Premuer League were conspiring against Firest, the former because their lenghty and closely reasoned decision came out the Minday after Forest drew with Luton Town, the inference being that they had corruptly changed their decision in the light of that result, and the latter, just because like many regulatory and prosecutorial organisations, that they sought serious punishment for serious breaches of the rules.

I might be guilty of occasionally conflating the commission and the Premier League, but my suspicions are very much about the Premier League. I have no idea how Independent the Commission really is. If it is as independent as our governmental regulators such as Ofsted, not very.

The fact is, the club have released a statement clearly saying more or less everything I have suspected on here; that they feel the Premier League have prosecuted this case with undue prejudice. They have detailed some of the evidence that makes them think so, and alluded to the tone and content of their submission, which neither of us has seen.

Clearly the club have long suspected the same thing that I have long suspected.

The fact is also that they have breached their own rules in terms of when these findings are released, unless this was given to the club on Friday. That may be the case.

Oh, and I personally wouldn't normally do this but the next time you decide to respond to me by pointing out a spelling mistake I've made, have a look at your own posts and remember how easy it is to make a mistake typing quickly on a phone with autocorrect not always giving you what you want

Maybe if you thought more and said less you would not spend your time in petty arguments on here.

I would say a far higher proportion of your posts are instigating petty arguments than mine are in participating in them. I am far from the only poster on here who as called you out on your nasty, bitter sniping at other posters.

 

[chandos9]

You are being staggeringly kind to yourself here Chandos

I have no skin in the game when it comes to DeMarco one way or another, having never made any statements either in support or criticism of him.

However, given you tell me at the end of this post to think more and speak less, perhaps you might take your own advice?

The club appear to have admitted the charge immediately and pursued a strategy of cooperation which has won 2 precious points back. Who are you or I to say that another strategy would have won more, having neither legal training nor been there?

I mean, every point of our mitigation has been dismissed by the premier league and then the commission. Neither of us has the legal training to be able to say what alternative points of mitigation should have been put forward? I personally cannot think of anything else we could have argued in mitigation beyond what was put forward. Can you? And do you have the legal expertise to know if that would fly?


I don't know what the balance of unsolicited posts starting with me or you is. Certainly I've responded recently to a fair few where you have referenced me in a negative way out of the blue or quoted something else I've said. When I had a scan through your posts I was quite surprised by how many recently had been about me or aimed at me. Not sure I really understand the obsession.


I might be guilty of occasionally conflating the commission and the Premier League, but my suspicions are very much about the Premier League. I have no idea how Independent the Commission really is. If it is as independent as our governmental regulators such as Ofsted, not very.

The fact is, the club have released a statement clearly saying more or less everything I have suspected on here; that they feel the Premier League have prosecuted this case with undue prejudice. They have detailed some of the evidence that makes them think so, and alluded to the tone and content of their submission, which neither of us has seen.

Clearly the club have long suspected the same thing that I have long suspected.

The fact is also that they have breached their own rules in terms of when these findings are released, unless this was given to the club on Friday. That may be the case.

Oh, and I personally wouldn't normally do this but the next time you decide to respond to me by pointing out a spelling mistake I've made, have a look at your own posts and remember how easy it is to make a mistake typing quickly on a phone with autocorrect not always giving you what you want


I would say a far higher proportion of your posts are instigating petty arguments than mine are in participating in them. I am far from the only poster on here who as called you out on your nasty, bitter sniping at other posters.

Payola
Invisible Brian Man

 

[weejockmcplop]

As much as I blame the club and some ridiculous decision making on our part for the points deduction, the language and tone of the EPL submissions does bother me.
Why would they treat their own clubs in such a manner?
Isn't this supposed to be for our own good?
Why are we treated as an enemy of the EPL, instead of a member?

 

[Lienking]

Given we got four points this season I would guess it is likely to be four points next season too provided we are not being stupid.

Given that, if we are still in the Prem next season I would take the hit and get maximum value to reinvest and strengthen.

Yes, the problem isn't so much the points deduction, the problem is that unlike Fulham and Bournemouth , we haven't kicked on this season. We've failed to beat Luton (twice), Burnley at home, and only just managed to win at home to Sheffield United, plus plenty of other let-down games.

If Mao's figures are correct, we also lost less than £35 million in 2022/23, so we would effectively be being punished a second time for our 2021/22 losses. Brings in the old double jeopardy appeal, that it sounds like Everton are going to try to use.

 

[Polly 433]

As much as I blame the club and some ridiculous decision making on our part for the points deduction, the language and tone of the EPL submissions does bother me.
Why would they treat their own clubs in such a manner?
Isn't this supposed to be for our own good?
Why are we treated as an enemy of the EPL, instead of a member?

There does seem to be a difference between the EFL and the PL.

 

[chandos9]

You are being staggeringly kind to yourself here Chandos

I have no skin in the game when it comes to DeMarco one way or another, having never made any statements either in support or criticism of him.

However, given you tell me at the end of this post to think more and speak less, perhaps you might take your own advice?

The club appear to have admitted the charge immediately and pursued a strategy of cooperation which has won 2 precious points back. Who are you or I to say that another strategy would have won more, having neither legal training nor been there?

I mean, every point of our mitigation has been dismissed by the premier league and then the commission. Neither of us has the legal training to be able to say what alternative points of mitigation should have been put forward? I personally cannot think of anything else we could have argued in mitigation beyond what was put forward. Can you? And do you have the legal expertise to know if that would fly?


I don't know what the balance of unsolicited posts starting with me or you is. Certainly I've responded recently to a fair few where you have referenced me in a negative way out of the blue or quoted something else I've said. When I had a scan through your posts I was quite surprised by how many recently had been about me or aimed at me. Not sure I really understand the obsession.


I might be guilty of occasionally conflating the commission and the Premier League, but my suspicions are very much about the Premier League. I have no idea how Independent the Commission really is. If it is as independent as our governmental regulators such as Ofsted, not very.

The fact is, the club have released a statement clearly saying more or less everything I have suspected on here; that they feel the Premier League have prosecuted this case with undue prejudice. They have detailed some of the evidence that makes them think so, and alluded to the tone and content of their submission, which neither of us has seen.

Clearly the club have long suspected the same thing that I have long suspected.

The fact is also that they have breached their own rules in terms of when these findings are released, unless this was given to the club on Friday. That may be the case.

Oh, and I personally wouldn't normally do this but the next time you decide to respond to me by pointing out a spelling mistake I've made, have a look at your own posts and remember how easy it is to make a mistake typing quickly on a phone with autocorrect not always giving you what you want


I would say a far higher proportion of your posts are instigating petty arguments than mine are in participating in them. I am far from the only poster on here who as called you out on your nasty, bitter sniping at other posters.

My point on Da Marco's role is that since he has been involved for so long, then (i) either the club's statement that was put out when the proceedings were first announced is based on that wildly over- optimistic advice or (ii) that the club just put out a load of rubbish. I think the former, because the club's subsequent statement after the 4 points says what it says, and because Da Marco's own comments adopted that. That is my problem with this: the club has misled the fans over the seriousness of the position, in part, it appears, because Da Marco was wrongly talking up the chances of getting away with a lighter penalty. I think he made the lawyer's fatal mistake of believing too much in his own submissions.

 

[Lienking]

There does seem to be a difference between the EFL and the PL.

The EFL/PL difference is ridiculous. QPR, possibly Leicester, and if I remember correctly Bournemouth overspent in the EFL but couldn't be punished by the PL. Sounds like Leicester may have overspent last season and this season, but will probably be overspending, but the EFL can't punish the PL overspend, and the PL can't punish the EFL overspend !

 

[Polly 433]

Everton take their case to IC next week. The IC will deliberate and give ruling one week later, taking us very close to April 8th deadline. They are likely to get another 6 points.

By then Forest will have played a further two home games. The table could look very different.

We appeal, in case of worse scenario and in the knowledge that should further info come from IC Everton case that alters our stance. We hope for best case scenario of positive on field points haul and Everton points reduction means we can withdraw appeal.

Next season will look after itself. Everyone knows any overspend is 6 points. We will be clearer on double jeopardy and repeat offences. Everton will be in equal problematic S&P jeopardy as will Leics. Ipswich Matty gain promotion with no opportunity to strengthen. Other teams may overspend. All teams will struggle. Chelsea will probably be hit with 8 minus two for cooperation. Man City are untouchable.

Let’s get this season out f the way before worrying about next.

We appeal, hopefully it’s drawing appeal as on field we play like a team. Ever hopeful.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Payola
Invisible Brian Man

Payola, currently banned for the second time for abusing someone else

IVB, who specialises in calling a wide variety of posters after root vegetables because he doesn't like anyone

 

[Pope John XXIII]

The EFL/PL difference is ridiculous. QPR, possibly Leicester, and if I remember correctly Bournemouth overspent in the EFL but couldn't be punished by the PL. Sounds like Leicester may have overspent last season and this season, but will probably be overspending, but the EFL can't punish the PL overspend, and the PL can't punish the EFL overspend !

And yet they have punished effectively two years of EFL overspend in our case

 

[radfordinlondon]

i dont agree. this isnt the prem making the decisions is it? they report the crimes but its independants that make the decisions. therefore its neutral and an appeal in theory should be able to make a punishment more or less if what we want if fairness.
not to mention our breaches were twice the amount of Evertons and we got less points. total logic suggests we could get more points penalised and based on only evertons case we got off light

tbf that's a bit of a spin. we only appear to have lost more because of how much less we were allowed to spend. perhaps the 4pts does take this into account as the report says.

 

[toms]

My point on Da Marco's role is that since he has been involved for so long, then (i) either the club's statement that was put out when the proceedings were first announced is based on that wildly over- optimistic advice or (ii) that the club just put out a load of rubbish. I think the former, because the club's subsequent statement after the 4 points says what it says, and because Da Marco's own comments adopted that. That is my problem with this: the club has misled the fans over the seriousness of the position, in part, it appears, because Da Marco was wrongly talking up the chances of getting away with a lighter penalty. I think he made the lawyer's fatal mistake of believing too much in his own submissions.

Chandos my opinion is that the advice was (1) we are going to lose-you did breach (2) Cooperate and you might get something off (3) We need to deflect somewhat via a statement to make out we did what we could and its the Premier League who are horrible

My opinion on this is that we deliberately decided to breach the rules (unfair as they are) thinking that this year would be different and a points penalty wouldn't be fatal. Presumably because of our injury list (although Wood and Shelvey hardly played) .This is evidenced largely by the finance guy's email in January 23 . The argument raised about the Johnson sale was clearly absolute nonsense. There was no binding agreement before June 30. It appears the A. Madrid offer was never followed up. If that is correct, can we be sure about how genuine the offer was? Seems odd you wouldnt follow up doesnt it?

My concern is that the club took a massive gamble . The current encumbents have played with our reputation.

We will support and carry on but clearly the gardener has been using the wrong product on the plants and now they are at risk of wilting