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).
a year ago
359
I'm going for a six point deduction for us, reduced to three or four on appeal. Everton to get exactly the same as us.
Now my second theory (it was taking so long because the league were trying to find a dignified way out of deducting any points) has been overturned, I'm back to my starting point, which is Everton end up back to where they were and we get about half.
My expectation now is us 6, them another 4.
12 for Everton, 0 for Forest because there is a God and unsurprisingly he is a Forest fan.
And he managed us for quite some time.
Our potential problem is that we broke the rules intentionally. We must have known well before the season ended that we were over the limit and chose to hold onto Brennan until September anyway.
Counter argument - if the Commission is going to talk about the spirit of the rules and acknowledge that progression towards breaking even is to be accounted for, then retaining Brennan for two months past the arbitrary deadline (and two months with no football and therefore clearly not an attempt to gain sporting advantage) in order to realise an additional 17M of profit is surely something that the Commission will approve of.
We played him three times between the "arbitrary" deadline (aren't all deadlines arbitary?), so a bit of sporting advantage. Also having an extra £17m in the bank is a sporting advantage.
Everton sold Richarlison on 30th June 2022 for £60m and tried to claim they would have got £80m if they'd been able to wait until the end of window (that £20m wasn't allowed). I'm sure there are other cases of clubs taking a lower price because they sold for the end of the financial year - if they set a precedent of being able to include transfers up to the end of the window, it's going to create chaos.
If it comes to a vote I'm voting we send Russ in and not Simon.
OK, but the chaos is created by having fiscal years and transfer windows not align.
Everton's argument that they might have got more carries a lot less weight than our observation that we did get more. Theirs is the same principle as Derby's spurious projection of residual player values based on option years.
As the rules are changing in the summer, why does precedent matter?
Because we are being charged under the rules as they stand?
Because the Commission has already stated in its review of the Everton case that precedent matters.
I meant beyond our case.
If the rules are different next season I wondered how there could be a precedent. I won’t pretend to know enough about the whole thing and the upcoming changes, but it seems odd.
You, me and everyone else.
