Neither am I. I'm reading it as Forest pushing the limits of what can reasonably be counted as a promotion bonus (something like trying classify all win bonuses in the promotion season?)
a year ago
359
That was my take - the PL are questioning what we have included in that heading - as (I think) they did with Everton and the loan interest.
Doesn't really matter what happens, there's going to be a massive legal bunfight and some lawyers are going to become even richer.
No points deduction - relegated teams kick off.
Points deduction, but not enough to relegate us - relegated teams kick off.
Enough points deducted to relegate us - Maranakis burns down the FA, PMGOL, and SSC's summerhouse.Feels like this has happened every time someone has received some kind of sanction for financial jiggery pokery or transfer-related shenanigans, all the way back to Sheffield United bleating about West Ham signing that ugly Argentinian bloke, but nothing ever comes of their legal sabre rattling.
I thought Sheff Utd got a big payout?
Sure, but so what? It was a fraction of what West Ham made by staying up, and Sheffield U lost by going down.
It did give us a fun (YMMV) meme template for a few years.
Everton initial punishment reduced to 6, so we're now 17th.
Reduced on these two grounds:
My recollection of the second one was that Everton were saying the penalty should be reduced because their position was improving and the original commission rejected it because those were EFL rules and nothing to do with the EPL.
This bit, as an aggravating factor:
Is a worry though. If we are, say, £20m over the threshold, that's going to be a much higher percentage (because our threshold is so much lower).
On the flipside, if the Commission says they have to take into account benchmarks that show the club taking steps to improve the position then that would seem to fit well with our Brennan argument.
The threshold is seen as generous is an odd thing to say.
Does that mean that our lower threshold is not generous.
Have only read the summary of the appeal but in the original verdict they made a big deal out of how the intent of the rules is for clubs to break even (excluding certain allowed losses) and the threshold is there to allow for mistakes not to be regarded as a target. If you are supposed to break even a £105m (or even £61m) margin of error is pretty generous.
Also, why are Everton using EFL guidelines when they've not actually played in the EFL since forever?
In the original verdict, Everton claimed that the fact their losses were reducing should be a mitigating factor, as the EFL has done in the previous punishments. Original commision said it was irrelevant as it's a different regime, new one seems to say that the precedent is relevant.
But I think it's losses over the 3 year period being assessed, which, if I'm right, is shit for us.
I see on Twitter that this appeal decision means our own points deduction will now be around 0, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 or 12 points.
We should have a sweep. I'm going for six to us (now that the precedent has been reset). Four further to Everton.......suspended (bigger club, more bolshy fans).
