weejockmcplop
Vital Champions League
Note to self: Don't read what other teams' fans think.
FFP charges?
- Thread starter Pope John XXIII
- Start date
RochesterRed
Vital Squad Member
weejockmcplop
Vital Champions League
Because its 95% negative about Forest and then I end up annoyed because they are all *****.
RochesterRed
Vital Squad Member
But like most of us, you will keep reading their comments.
Geedo61
Vital Squad Member
Are you deliberately missing the point?
The point is that all of these costs were in our 21/22 accounts submitted to the EFL - as that was the league we were playing in and their rules applied.
This is stated in 12.62 - the first sentence. There was no kick back by the Efl.
At that point Forest or any club would be correct to assume that they had complied with the rules and were able to plan their business expenditure based on that - which is what we did
It is not the remit of the EPL to change the interpretation of the rules of another organisation 1 year after the event. If this happened in any other industry it would be thrown out of court
Which is basically Leicester's defence, so they can't be punished in EFL but will face a sanction if promoted to EPL, which is where they had breached the rules.
Geedo61
Vital Squad Member
It is completely the opposite to Leicester's case.
We posted our efl accounts on time to the efl - as far as I am aware they were accepted.
It is only 1 year later in June 2023 that the Epl inform us that they do do accept the accounts submitted to the Efl.
What the f**k has it got to do with them?
seasider red
Vital 1st Team Regular
Yeah the whole thing is beginning to look like a witch-hunt now isn’t it. It’s almost like bullying, The PL need to be exposed for the shambles that they are becoming
mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
That is exactly how I read it.
That was the point, but I was in a hurry.... we were compliant with EFL regulations to the point of promotion and thus, supposedly can't be penalised by EPL based upon those submissions.
The fact that there are differing rules for the 2 separate leagues just shows how unfair this is and we are now being punished based upon 2 of the 3 accounting years falling under EFL rules.
We already have a lower loss allowed when compared against other EPL sides, so this just another demonstration of how ludicrous and unfairly weighted the rules are.
Do we have evidence of Covid allowances acceptable by EPL for other teams in EPL? Why is the amount we can claim so much lower?
Promotion Bonuses etc, how do ours compare with other teams promoted to EPL?
As you say, Leicester's situation is the reverse, albeit they were in breach with EPL before relegation - but, can't be punished whilst in EFL, the punishment will be applied if/when promoted for next season - although, LCFC have also stated that they will appeal.
If Man City & Chelsea can defer punishment and drag it out as they have, whilst NFFC, EFC & LCFC face expedited punishments, then surely it brings the whole situation into disrepute.
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
I don't think it is even up for debate anymore. the system is demonstrably unfit for purpose from top to bottom. The way it has been managed is at best a shambles and at worst a cynical manipulation of football designed purely to maintain a cabal at the expense of everybody else.
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
yes
TMFwanstead
Vital Reserves Team
Totally agree. Utter shambles and unfit for purpose. Suits the top 6 only by allowing them to cherry pick players off the other 14 clubs when they have to sell in order not to breach.
Strategically, a must as we await to hear what happens with the Everton case.
chandos9
Vital Squad Member
Originally, having read the Panel's decision, I thought that Forest had misled the fans by saying that they had been in dialogue with the EPL. It is clear that, for instance, the claimed sale of Brennan Johnson to meet PSR ages later was not the result of any dialogue.
But where there might be something properly called communication is in relation to the submission of their accounts, and specifically, those parts of the accounts and claimed losses that were in compliance with EFL rules but only retrospectively, and some time after the primary underlying information had been supplied to the EPL, were rejected. In fact, I think that Forest might have a very good argument that they could not know that they were not in compliance with EPL rules when an entirely different approach was being taken to those Covid losses etc from that which had been APPROVED by the EFL.
If those are the grounds on which an appeal is lodged, then Forest do have a chance, and I think would certainly have a chance in the courts, were Mr Marinakis to take it there and be permitted to pursue it there ( bearing in mind the clubs agree to arbitration clauses etc when in their various leagues).
But where there might be something properly called communication is in relation to the submission of their accounts, and specifically, those parts of the accounts and claimed losses that were in compliance with EFL rules but only retrospectively, and some time after the primary underlying information had been supplied to the EPL, were rejected. In fact, I think that Forest might have a very good argument that they could not know that they were not in compliance with EPL rules when an entirely different approach was being taken to those Covid losses etc from that which had been APPROVED by the EFL.
If those are the grounds on which an appeal is lodged, then Forest do have a chance, and I think would certainly have a chance in the courts, were Mr Marinakis to take it there and be permitted to pursue it there ( bearing in mind the clubs agree to arbitration clauses etc when in their various leagues).
in_the_top_one
Vital Football Legend
Did the EFL accept these, despite them not being audited? They haven't charged us, but I haven't seen us argue that they were previously accepted either. Seems both organisations demand an audit.
In any case, it isn't enough money, is it? We also require them to accept the promotion bonus. So it isn't quite as simple as just being docked points over a missing explanatory note.
It does seem like a seam to pick at though. Really surprised our defence didn't go heavy on this first time around, especially in the context of Leicester (by the same guy).
in_the_top_one
Vital Football Legend
Again, it looks like it will come down to the definition of 'reasonable'. If they hadn't made their mind up themselves until the month before, how could we react?
That's still only relevant to the covid allowances though.
chandos9
Vital Squad Member
Agreed. Forest would still be in breach, but not as badly.
Basha73
Vital Football Legend
We have two years accounts for the EFL. If the first of those years accounts has been confirmed by the EFL and the second years figures are the same for any allowances then the EPL should have had no ability to overrule them. If the IC haven’t looked at it then there are grounds for appeal right there.
