Forest

[Reesh]

4 point deduction

[Southy_SWFC]

Why don't they just go ahead and reduce it to 1 or 2 instead of wasting everyone's time with an appeal? 

[bradowl]

Forest are appealing which means result of that could be after season is finished. 

[Tank_Owl2,0]

The intent is noble enough but there are other ways. Why not have an on demand bond that any new owner has to take out if they crash the club.

The other issue is stopping the wrong owners, which is on them EFL/ PL) but they won’t will they.

Edited March 18 by Tank_Owl2,0

[Tank_Owl2,0]

2 hours ago, bradowl said:

Forest are appealing which means result of that could be after season is finished. 

Did you misspell appalling? 😉

[HoylandOwl]

So, did I see that Forest’s overspend by almost double what Everton did…. Yet it’s 4points?

 

[Andyben]

They had points taken off for helping and admitted overspend.

But....they may win appeal.

Tuendd down £30m then £35m from Brentford for Brennan Johnson prior to 30/6, Atleti Offered £42.5m on 30/6 negotiated upped to £55.8m but had to sell first, then Spurs paid £47.5m in July so by holding out they actually decreased loses, although not within the financial period.

Edited March 18 by Andyben

[mkowl]

11 hours ago, Andyben said:

They had points taken off for helping and admitted overspend.

But....they may win appeal.

Tuendd down £30m then £35m from Brentford for Brennan Johnson prior to 30/6, Atleti Offered £42.5m on 30/6 negotiated upped to £55.8m but had to sell first, then Spurs paid £47.5m in July so by holding out they actually decreased loses, although not within the financial period.

The benchmark has to be the financial year end as how do you police this otherwise. I mean you can ask for forecasts for the current financial year, but how do you know Forest simply haven't spent the above delayed "profit" this year.

 

[EastCraigsOwl]

11 hours ago, Andyben said:

They had points taken off for helping and admitted overspend.

But....they may win appeal.

Tuendd down £30m then £35m from Brentford for Brennan Johnson prior to 30/6, Atleti Offered £42.5m on 30/6 negotiated upped to £55.8m but had to sell first, then Spurs paid £47.5m in July so by holding out they actually decreased loses, although not within the financial period.

But they knew the 'deadline' for compliance and chose to deliberately ignore it in favour of a greater fee received later.

A good decision from a financial perspective. However, they're also admitting they couldn't give a fuck about the rules (whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant).

Did they not fancy a firesale of any of the other 463 players on their books?

This is nothing short of a piss take. 4 miserable points? If that was us, we'd probably get kicked out of the league 😯

[Andyben]

4 minutes ago, mkowl said:

The benchmark has to be the financial year end as how do you police this otherwise. I mean you can ask for forecasts for the current financial year, but how do you know Forest simply haven't spent the above delayed "profit" this year.

 

But their argument is he was sold in the same transfer window and I would imagine that it's realistic to claim a restraint of trade in this respect. 

Would be easy enough to put in a post Balanc Sheet entry and note to that effect in th accounts which the PL would sign off

Edited March 19 by Andyben

[Andyben]

1 minute ago, EastCraigsOwl said:

But they knew the 'deadline' for compliance and chose to deliberately ignore it in favour of a greater fee received later.

A good decision from a financial perspective. However, they're also admitting they couldn't give a fuck about the rules (whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant).

Did they not fancy a firesale of any of the other 463 players on their books?

This is nothing short of a piss take. 4 miserable points? If that was us, we'd probably get kicked out of the league 😯

As mote than 4. But reduced like us and Everton for assisting and admitting it early 

[EastCraigsOwl]

1 minute ago, Andyben said:

As mote than 4. But reduced like us and Everton for assisting and admitting it early 

In that case, no further reduction available on appeal should be allowed.

Might as well just let them off with it.

"Guilty your honour."

"Thank you for your honesty. Have a couple of hours community service."

[mkowl]

1 minute ago, Andyben said:

But their argument is he was sold in the same transfer window and I would imagine that it's realistic to claim a constraint of trade in this respect. 

Would be easy enough to put in a post Balanc Sheet entry and note to that effect in th accounts which the PL would sign off

The analogy would be running a hotel business, having a 30th June year end but saying can I include the rest of the summer sales from July and August.

The point is that the year end accounts are audited (I grant you that may offer little comfort on accuracy if it was Big 4) and thus show a true and fair position. You have to have a verified figure for regulatory purposes

[mkowl]

I mean it's only football clubs and start ups looking for investors that look to accelerate revenue. Well until the Corp tax rate went up to 25% 

[Tylluan]

The PL has done everything it can to give them a fighting chance. 

They're one point off safety and if they can't make that up then they deserve to go down.  Their last 3 games are Pigs away, Chelsea home, Burnley away.