Yes it will turn on whether the PL cross-appeal, which if we are appealing they may as well (given their position was significantly off the first instance decision) and I expect they can do this in a responsive way (since they can only cross appeal if we appeal)
Once the appeal commission/tribunal are seized if it, it's all up for grabs.
So it seems like a bad idea to me.
Confirmed in club statement.
You don't get increased punishment by virtue of having made a weak appeal (other than costs). But you do risk reopening points in your favour from first instance which would otherwise remain unopened and which may be redetermined in a manner which is adverse to you (such as points relating to mitigation where the first instance decision was with you).
I can't imagine that any case put together by a serious barrister for an appeal is going to be dismissed a frivolous. I'm not even sure that's an option in this kind of quasi-judicial process.
The appeal can only judge whether the first commission got anything wrong and can only judge on the evidence presented. If the league haven't appealed the punishment, we obviously aren't going to reopen the mitigation that partially worked (we wanted a third off for an early plea and something more for co-operation, the league wanted 2, so the commission actually came back on the league's side - para 14.16), we're going to go back over the 5 that failed.
There's a lot of talk on social media that we should have the two taken back off us but the appeal is part of the process. We still entered an early plea and had "exceptional co-operation" that meant the initial case could be heard quickly so there's no reason for that to change. We're at least two weeks ahead of Everton's second case because of that co-operation.
The five failed mitigations were:
For point 1, I'd think we'd look at the commission's assertion that there's no evidence why Fulham and Bournemouth spent less than us. Kieran Maguire's figures on the relative cost of the squads in the summer of 2022 helps here, I think?
I'm sure we'll try on the other points but I can't see it.
Will the panel be different I wonder, or the same people?
Different. The three panels (Everton's first and appeal and our initial panel) have been entirely different people.
Also, the idea that the premier league wanted us to have eight deducted has set in but they also agreed we should have 2 points returned for our co-operation, so they actually only wanted a net 6 point deduction. The difference is they thought the size of our breach warranted -5, while the commission thought any large breach should be -3. There's no reason for an appeal to look at that as it's not "wrong", it's just an opinion and this is being made up by the commissions with each adding to the judgements of the previous one.
Implies Everton are heading for something between 3 and 6, depending on whether their current breach is large or not, unless they can also get something off for co-operation, in which case 1 to 4.
Is my understanding correct that in the championship our losses were lower in the 21/22 season as the Championship doesn't count promotion bonuses, but the premier league does?
If so, I would imagine a valid appeal would be that it is patently unfair that we get judged on the championship loss allowance for that season but on the higher premier league loss figure. That isn't consistent it should be either they add it back and we get the premier league loss - or no add back and the Championship loss.
But I am probably talking bollocks
All three judgements make it very clear they are just there to apply the rules not to assess whether they are fair or not. If the club wanted to argue the rules weren't fair, it would probably mean either going to the courts or (presumably) the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Neither of which is happening before the end of the season.
It seems common sense to me that, while speeding up the process is desirable, the aim should have been the start of the following season. Give us, Everton and Leicester points deductions by the end of July to apply for 24/25. That way everyone knows what they are dealing with for the whole season.
Percy on the appeal:
www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/03/25/nottingham-forest-appeal-premier-league-four-point-sanction/
The judgement makes it clear it was considered and rejected and explains why, so if that's what we are pinning our appeal on, it's going nowhere.
Everton's appeal was upheld on two mitigating grounds, one that the Premier League had incorrectly argued that Everton were "less than frank" and one that the sanction was disproportionate to the offence. The rest of their mitigation (seven other claims) was dismissed.
On that basis, we may be arguing on the grounds of proportion. The exact quote from the appeals board was "the Appeals Board considers that a six point deduction is appropriate and proportionate in that it is a sanction both necessary and sufficient to achieve the aims of the Profitability & Sustainability Rules", so it would seem to logically follow that if we all agree that the aims of PSR are to ensure that clubs run themselves in a manner that ensures long term financial stability, it is perverse to sanction the club for doing exactly that, and that to have complied with the Premier League's arbitrary deadline by accepting Atletico's bid on June 30th would have actually made us less profitable and sustainable. Given the technical breach that occurred in the name of satisfying the spirit of the regulations, and given no competitive advantage was gained by doing so, the appropriate punishment would actually be a suspended points deduction.
I'm afraid this seems like wishful thinking to me.
All three commissions have agreed that the appropriate sanction is a points deduction and that fines and suspended deductions don't work. There will almost certainly be a 4th that agrees by the time our appeal is heard. That's a dead end.
Also, the verdict says we gained a sporting advantage by having a team we couldn't afford in the season 22/23. The fact we were relying on a sale that EM didn't sign off until 28th August shows we weren't very motivated to make that right.
Everton’s hearing started on Monday, so presumably we should hear next week what and whether their second punishment will be.
50 points.
And a public flogging
