FFP charges?
- Thread starter Pope John XXIII
- Start date
Geedo61
Vital Squad Member
No one said it was fair - but it is reality
Unfortunately, whether we deserve to or not, there is no way we will get any points back - there is too much chatter out there that Everton have been unfairly treated compared to us - right or wrong it just won't happen.
Our best bet is to accept the points penalty for now and continue to argue the case legally. We won't get our points back - but we might get the overspend decision overturned, which would help towards P&R for the next couple of years
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
well thank fook the big man doesn't see it that way. I assume we will now bet 1 pint of beer over whether or not we get some pts back...
GREAT NEWS. Make those 'see you next tuesdays' sweat and squirm
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
What are, for me, some key parts of the judgment we need to be arguing, as correctly pointed out by @Geedo61
5.5 To that end, on 1 March 2022, Forest made its filing with the EFL in fulfilment of the CPSR requirements; its last one before being promoted to the Premier League approximately three months later. In this filing, Forest claimed a Covid Add-Back allowance of £12,178,000.
5.6 On 4 July 2022, some two months after achieving promotion to the Premier League, Forest sent the same information previously provided to the EFL on 1 March 2022 (see paragraph 5.5 above), to the Premier League.
5.7 On 31 March 2023, Forest sent the Premier League interim accounts for the six months ended 31 December 2022, comprising its balance sheet, profit and loss account, cash flow statement and related explanatory notes. These statements showed an unaudited loss of £26,845,000 for the six-month period to 31 December 2022, as against an unaudited loss of £12,613,000 for the six-month period to 31 December 2021.
5.8 This PSR Calculation also included the Covid Add-Back of £12,178,000 for FY22. Forest was also looking to add-back the promotion costs of c. £20m that it had incurred (largely in the form of contractual bonuses to its playing squad and the coaches) when it secured promotion to the Premier League.
5.9 On 2 June 2023, the Premier League informed Forest, in relation to its PSR Calculation for the 2022/23 season, inter alia that: it would only allow a Covid Add-Back of £2.5m for FY22, not the entire £12,178,000 claimed and it would not allow Forest to claim any allowances for costs linked to promotion from the EFL Championship.
5.10 On 1 December 2023, Forest raised, and on 7 December 2023 the Premier League responded to, queries in relation to Forest’s FY23 PSR Calculation, again dealing with the Covid AddBack and the promotion costs.
5.5 To that end, on 1 March 2022, Forest made its filing with the EFL in fulfilment of the CPSR requirements; its last one before being promoted to the Premier League approximately three months later. In this filing, Forest claimed a Covid Add-Back allowance of £12,178,000.
5.6 On 4 July 2022, some two months after achieving promotion to the Premier League, Forest sent the same information previously provided to the EFL on 1 March 2022 (see paragraph 5.5 above), to the Premier League.
5.7 On 31 March 2023, Forest sent the Premier League interim accounts for the six months ended 31 December 2022, comprising its balance sheet, profit and loss account, cash flow statement and related explanatory notes. These statements showed an unaudited loss of £26,845,000 for the six-month period to 31 December 2022, as against an unaudited loss of £12,613,000 for the six-month period to 31 December 2021.
5.8 This PSR Calculation also included the Covid Add-Back of £12,178,000 for FY22. Forest was also looking to add-back the promotion costs of c. £20m that it had incurred (largely in the form of contractual bonuses to its playing squad and the coaches) when it secured promotion to the Premier League.
5.9 On 2 June 2023, the Premier League informed Forest, in relation to its PSR Calculation for the 2022/23 season, inter alia that: it would only allow a Covid Add-Back of £2.5m for FY22, not the entire £12,178,000 claimed and it would not allow Forest to claim any allowances for costs linked to promotion from the EFL Championship.
5.10 On 1 December 2023, Forest raised, and on 7 December 2023 the Premier League responded to, queries in relation to Forest’s FY23 PSR Calculation, again dealing with the Covid AddBack and the promotion costs.
Last edited:
Geedo61
Vital Squad Member
I will take that bet and I will happily pay up.
Geedo61
Vital Squad Member
These points are the key to success
Hopefully we recorded some of these co-operating discussions which were later dismissed
forestfire_59
Vital 1st Team Regular
This is getting beyond a joke now. If you can’t judge every team with equanimity then you can’t judge any team at all. The equivalence being that if you are part of the “nobility “ you can rob steal and murder without any repercussions, but if you are part of Joe Public you are going down. Football needs a Magna Carta moment and if the only teams facing points deductions are in the lower echelons of the epl and efl then there is something fundamentally wrong with football. If you can not judge Man City and Chelsea the same as you can us and Everton, then you have no legitimacy at all.
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
I think the regulator is designed to start that off but imo will need alot more than that. think we have to start from scratch recognising that the pyramid (I.e. the ability to go from the bottom to the top) HAS to be at least plausible.
forestfire_59
Vital 1st Team Regular
Totally agree 
Brilliantly put
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
Some more
12.62 Forest maintains that it operated reasonably throughout: (i) it is common ground that there had been no notification by the EFL that the add-back would be disallowed before June 2023; (ii) it appears that the Premier League and the EFL were in discussions as to the appropriate approach to take to Covid-19 Add-Backs from around mid-June 2022 and it took time for a clear picture to emerge; (iii) the Premier League’s position on Covid-19 Add-Backs was only properly explained and understood on 2 June 2023. Indeed, in May 2023 the Premier League remained in discussions with the EFL about at least some aspects of the Covid-19 Add-Backs that the EFL had previously allowed.
12.68 The Premier League submitted that the issue therefore for the Commission is the reasonableness of Forest’s belief. To that end, the Premier League noted that the Covid-19 Add-Backs which are permissible under the PSR are described in Covid Guidance. This stated that Covid-19 Costs may be excluded from a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax only if they are in the notes to or in supplementary information used to reconcile the Annual Accounts, and those had been subject to an independent audit. They should also fall into one of three categories: (a) lost revenues; (b) exceptional costs, and/or (c) impairment of value. Having included neither impairments nor a Covid note in the filed accounts for FY22, Forest could not reasonably have continued to believe that it was entitled to the claimed Add-Back.
12.69 The Premier League argued that it should have been clear to a reasonable reader of both the Premier League’s Covid Guidance and its EFL equivalent that the claimed FY22 Covid AddBack was not permissible. Both sets of guidance require costs to be disclosed by way of notes to the Annual Accounts or by way of supplementary information which reconciles to the Annual Accounts, and which has been subject to independent audit.
12.66 As regards the promotion costs, the Premier League argued that this does not constitute mitigation as a matter of principle. Various situations will cause clubs to incur costs of various types, as a necessary incident of running a football club. That promoted clubs will incur promotion costs is not an excuse for breaching the PSR. Further, the vast majority of the £20.92m relied on consists of “player and staff bonuses” (£18.6m), but there is nothing unique about this: all of Forest’s closest competitors are likely to have paid large promotion bonuses. Moreover, Forest’s calculation does not take any account of the countervailing benefits of promotion which are far greater. The accounts for FY23 show that its revenues increased from £29.7m to £154.8m as a result of promotion.
This stuff is pretty unbelievable.
Basically, the Premier League has consistently made a deliberate choice to attack us. How interesting that the referees started hammering us around the same time all this was being argued.
12.62 Forest maintains that it operated reasonably throughout: (i) it is common ground that there had been no notification by the EFL that the add-back would be disallowed before June 2023; (ii) it appears that the Premier League and the EFL were in discussions as to the appropriate approach to take to Covid-19 Add-Backs from around mid-June 2022 and it took time for a clear picture to emerge; (iii) the Premier League’s position on Covid-19 Add-Backs was only properly explained and understood on 2 June 2023. Indeed, in May 2023 the Premier League remained in discussions with the EFL about at least some aspects of the Covid-19 Add-Backs that the EFL had previously allowed.
12.68 The Premier League submitted that the issue therefore for the Commission is the reasonableness of Forest’s belief. To that end, the Premier League noted that the Covid-19 Add-Backs which are permissible under the PSR are described in Covid Guidance. This stated that Covid-19 Costs may be excluded from a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax only if they are in the notes to or in supplementary information used to reconcile the Annual Accounts, and those had been subject to an independent audit. They should also fall into one of three categories: (a) lost revenues; (b) exceptional costs, and/or (c) impairment of value. Having included neither impairments nor a Covid note in the filed accounts for FY22, Forest could not reasonably have continued to believe that it was entitled to the claimed Add-Back.
12.69 The Premier League argued that it should have been clear to a reasonable reader of both the Premier League’s Covid Guidance and its EFL equivalent that the claimed FY22 Covid AddBack was not permissible. Both sets of guidance require costs to be disclosed by way of notes to the Annual Accounts or by way of supplementary information which reconciles to the Annual Accounts, and which has been subject to independent audit.
12.66 As regards the promotion costs, the Premier League argued that this does not constitute mitigation as a matter of principle. Various situations will cause clubs to incur costs of various types, as a necessary incident of running a football club. That promoted clubs will incur promotion costs is not an excuse for breaching the PSR. Further, the vast majority of the £20.92m relied on consists of “player and staff bonuses” (£18.6m), but there is nothing unique about this: all of Forest’s closest competitors are likely to have paid large promotion bonuses. Moreover, Forest’s calculation does not take any account of the countervailing benefits of promotion which are far greater. The accounts for FY23 show that its revenues increased from £29.7m to £154.8m as a result of promotion.
This stuff is pretty unbelievable.
Basically, the Premier League has consistently made a deliberate choice to attack us. How interesting that the referees started hammering us around the same time all this was being argued.
seasider red
Vital 1st Team Regular
I'm not very good with all this corporate balance sheet stuff, but if I'm understanding the extracts Pope has posted correctly the PL didn't tell the club it was not accepting it's Covid calculations until 2nd June only 4 weeks before the reporting period ended, which gave us no time at all to have any chance of re balancing the budget. When you add to this the rejection of promotion costs we were left with a massive hole in the accounts and little if no time to correct it.
This doesn't sound very much to me like the actions of a reasonable organisation
This doesn't sound very much to me like the actions of a reasonable organisation
FoRest-fan
Vital Newbie
Arter has a clause... if we try him in a swap deal with Everton ...it triggers an automatic 2yr extension ... you couldn't make it up
in_the_top_one
Vital Football Legend
Not sure what I'm missing?
Seems they were slow to discuss with the efl about losses but that it was always in the rules that covid allowances needed to be sent with an explanatory note and we didn't send one. Also that the accounts including covid losses needed to be audited, which ours weren't.
seasider red
Vital 1st Team Regular
It was probably remiss of us in the first place not to provide the required explanatory note, but Surely if we didn't provide one, & they wanted one would they not ask if we had such a thing before just dismissing the claim or am I confusing them with a semi reasonable organisation
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
substantially weakens the idea we flouted the rules when it wasn't until 4 weeks to go we were told.
radfordinlondon
Vital Football Legend
reading between the lines suggest there was either a disagreement or at least reason for extended discussion. the plot thickens.
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
Indeed.
We've been deducted over a note.
That's part of what the Premier League have been pursuing.
in_the_top_one
Vital Football Legend
They might have rejected the losses earlier if we had provided a note.
