NFFC Financial Talk

[wassy04]

One suggestion that we made was that newly promoted teams should have the full 3 years to get under the 105m. Seems a fair compromise to me rather than combining with the EFL losses. Hopefully something they adjust for in the future.

[ozzyten10]

Who would have had us to beat Arsenal and draw with Man City last year? Our place can be the most intimidating in the league. Now is the time to do our part. We can beat Fulham palace and Chelsea at home. We can beat wolves at home. We can go and get points at Sheffield Utd, Burnley. Hell we could get a point v Man City. We could even make spurs do a spurs tho g and get a win there. Time for all of us to step up- fans, players, manager. Let’s do this…

[Username]

“Any PL club could properly predict that, leaving aside any powerful particular mitigation, any breach of the PSR would result in a significant points deduction” (the Everton Appeal).

Yet most of the ITK feedback was how confident the club felt about our position.

The Everton appeal also set-out that it would not be appropriate to suspend any points deduction so any prior suggestions of that were clearly a fallacy.

[DR Forest]

“Any PL club could properly predict that, leaving aside any powerful particular mitigation,  any breach of the PSR would result in a significant points deduction” (the Everton Appeal).

Yet most of the ITK feedback was how confident the club felt about our position.

The Everton appeal also set-out that it would not be appropriate to suspend any points deduction so any prior suggestions of that were clearly a fallacy.

I don’t think there’s been any ITK on this issue by its very nature.
It’s impossible to second guess a judge (or panel’s) verdict; all you can do is assess the likely persuasiveness of the arguments raised in defence (ie mitigation); for example, I posted earlier today that I couldn’t see any real aggravating factors but plenty of mitigation points. Just a personal fag packet summary. I haven’t read the report since but did see reference that the panel agreed there were no aggravating factors but they rejected our mitigation points (of which I think there were 6.)

Whilst some may argue that 4 points is fair, I find the panel’s decision harsh based on the process and their lack of weight given to any of our mitigation certainly gives grounds for appeal (similar to Everton’s appeal). It is not infeasible - even if unlikely - that the 4 points might have been completely erased if our arguments were more fully accepted.

I expect the club to appeal.

[Red Dog]

Who would have had us to beat Arsenal and draw with Man City last year? Our place can be the most intimidating in the league. Now is the time to do our part. We can beat Fulham palace and Chelsea at home. We can beat wolves at home. We can go and get points at Sheffield Utd, Burnley. Hell we could get a point v Man City. We could even make spurs do a spurs tho g and get a win there. Time for all of us to step up- fans, players, manager. Let’s do this…

Could not have put this better

[Paplane]

Yep, ive just read all 50 odd pages. Every mitigation put forward has failed. I reckon i could've done a better job.

It's a fun read isn't it?

We did fail by 35m, think we got off lightly tbh.

On the basis that our defence turned out to be a damp squib, I reckon 4 points is a good result. It was reassuring that the panel also rejected the prem's suggested sanction. It demonstrates to me their independence. Id have to think hard about appealing. There's every chance an appeal panel may cast aside our mitigations too but not be so accomodating with regard to the seriousness of our breach.

[Paplane]

Id advise all on here to actually read the judgement. Its written in layman's terms so relatively easy to follow unlike some of the other's I've tried to read over the years. Some of the mitigation is convincing, but it all fell on deaf ears.

Having read it my belief is that Marinakis has gambled like other clubs have in the past. Unfortunately for him, he been nicked when other's have got away scot-free.

I cant see how Everton avoid another sanction. They may have the double jeopardy argument stack up (who knows) but the auto 3 points for being in breach seems unavoidable.

[Paplane]

We got the 2 points back for cooperation but I cant help but think the club wanted the sanction to arrive this season rather than next,  when the league undoubtedly gets harder.

Do you think that's a bad decision? I think it's pretty sensible to me. We should be able to finish 4 points ahead of Luton, Burnley and Sheff Utd plus Everton -10 odd.

Its not unduly harsh is it? I think id stick tbh.

[Forest1970]

In the grand scheme of things 4 points is probably the best result we could've got because it could've been a hell of a lot worse. But saying that after waking up this morning I've still got bills to pay, put food on the table and still be a carer for my wife so nothing that happened yesterday or what might happen in the future is ever going to change that so yes we should just grin and bear it and pull our fingers out and get as many points as possible.

[Username]

“Any PL club could properly predict that, leaving aside any powerful particular mitigation,  any breach of the PSR would result in a significant points deduction” (the Everton Appeal).

Yet most of the ITK feedback was how confident the club felt about our position.

The Everton appeal also set-out that it would not be appropriate to suspend any points deduction so any prior suggestions of that were clearly a fallacy.

I don’t think there’s been any ITK on this issue by its very nature.
It’s impossible to second guess a judge (or panel’s) verdict; all you can do is assess the likely persuasiveness of the arguments raised in defence (ie mitigation); for example, I posted earlier today that I couldn’t see any real aggravating factors but plenty of mitigation points. Just a personal fag packet summary. I haven’t read the report since but did see reference that the panel agreed there were no aggravating factors but they rejected our mitigation points (of which I think there were 6.)

Whilst some may argue that 4 points is fair, I find the panel’s decision harsh based on the process and their lack of weight given to any of our mitigation certainly gives grounds for appeal (similar to Everton’s appeal). It is not infeasible - even if unlikely - that the 4 points might have been completely erased if our arguments were more fully accepted.

I expect the club to appeal.

There’s been plenty as to the club’s view as to the outcome. 

In terms of the decision I would recommend you read the document in its entirety prior to forming a view about the outcome, it’s not a difficult read. 

I also expect the club to appeal but in litigation terms I would expect such an appeal to be flawed on the premise that the outcome does not appear to have erred on points of fact. However due to the nature of the proceedings we might get lucky. My guess is that any legal advice surrounding an appeal would be stating that the prospects of success of any appeal must be regarded as unlikely.

[The reds]

After reading the commission report, every mitigation failed but they weren’t aggravating factors.
PL don’t show themselves in a good light whatsoever. Also after reading it I reckon Everton get more points than us, 2nd time breach will be an aggravating factor and I think there starting point will be higher than ours.

[DR Forest]

Can I just say, I’ve woken up still in a bad mood about this but what really boils my piss is the f*****g whining scousers going into overdrive about our ‘worse’ breach being punished with a lower deduction.

Their losses are, before adjustments, roughly a quarter of a billion more as they had a higher threshold and covid write-offs we didn’t have, not to mention more time to rectify it and a higher threshold to start with.

They just can’t stop bleating can they?!
And the press say we have a victim complex…