Appeal For PSR Breach

[JollyLolly]

Agreed SM but they should apply to ALL of the twenty clubs in the same way as applied to us!

[Paplane]

We chose to maximise profit on a player rather than adhere to p and s rules. So the spirit of the rules being profit and sustainability are not fit for purpose as it encourages sale or f assets for less than market value to fit arbitrary deadlines…
Ridiculous.

No, it only encourages sales of assets for below market rates if you've pushed the boundaries previously so hard that you need to make a last minute sizable sale to get back under the psr limit. What happened is we basically maxed out to the limit and then argued that our PSR period should be determined over 3 years and 2 months, rather than the 3 years every other club worked to. 

The fact that we failed to win one single argument in our entire case, heard now by two different panels, suggests to me that our case was basically a load of old cobblers and it was fabricated to mask a series of events that occurred for no other reason than rank bad management.

If we do go down this year imo the finger's pointing squarely in the direction of the owner. Not the manager, not the player, not refs, just the owner. I say that as someone who's been previously very supportive of the guy (and will be in the future if no more of these ridiculous events occur again).

[Madforit]

What a surprise, the establishment don`t want us here and were never going to help us out by giving us any points back, it`s down to the players and the manager to make sure that we stay in this league.

[Paplane]

The rules are those Premier League clubs voted for. We are now a Premier League club and vote accordingly.
Our club peers set the rules and we broke them whether they are fair or not.

Yep. The rules were set by others but we accepted we'd be bound by those rules when joined the premier league. If we felt we couldn't comply with said rules then we should have declined the invitation to join and remained in the EFL.

[Paplane]

Quite frankly, I'm now fed up with the old 'establishment don't want us' line. I do accept that the rules of the league are rigged in favour of the top 6 clubs but the suggestion that Forest, for some reason, is a bad boy club who the other clubs want rid off is just ridiculous in my eyes.

Also ridiculous is the concept that there's some conspiracy by refs against us. We've suffered very badly with a lot of ref decisions, and I do agree that there is some kind of unconscious bias towards the top 6 clubs in the ref's heads, but that's just down to the poor standard of officiating, not some pre-determined conspiracy against NFFC.

[Paplane]

I remember being highly amused by sheep fans who were claiming the EFL had it in for them. Similar again this season with Everton fans.

Every man and his dog could/can see that those two clubs were acting in ridiculous ways and they both eventually received appropriate punishments. We as a fan base need to take the rose coloured specs off and see things for how they are. We've screwed up and been punished for it. It's a fair cop.

[DR Forest]

What does this mean?


84.  Some of the criticisms of the Decision have involved a minute examination of the words used by the Commission. Decisions such as these should not be subjected to microscopic forensic examination and interpreted as if they were statutes which have been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. Allegations of infelicities of language or errors which are not material to the ultimate decision add to the complexity and costs of proceedings and are rarely likely to lead to a successful challenge of a decision.

It means their back was put up in the first place and were cutting in their criticism of our ‘technical’ style representations.
In other words, don’t come here trying to be a smart arse and take your medicine.

Hmmmm.
Like I said, some judges have their minds made up beforehand - usually in the ante-room or counsel’s chambers at court. I bet Masters was buzzing like a fly round shit in the run up to this.

Interesting to see what EM does.
My advice is ‘revenge is a dish best served cold’.

[Paplane]

What does this mean?


84.  Some of the criticisms of the Decision have involved a minute examination of the words used by the Commission. Decisions such as these should not be subjected to microscopic forensic examination and interpreted as if they were statutes which have been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. Allegations of infelicities of language or errors which are not material to the ultimate decision add to the complexity and costs of proceedings and are rarely likely to lead to a successful challenge of a decision.

It means their back was put up in the first place and were cutting in their criticism of our ‘technical’ style representations.
In other words, don’t come here trying to be a smart arse and take your medicine.

Hmmmm.
Like I said, some judges have their minds made up beforehand - usually in the ante-room or counsel’s chambers at court. I bet Masters was buzzing like a fly round S**t in the run up to this.

Interesting to see what EM does.
My advice is ‘revenge is a dish best served cold’.

EM needs to keep schtum, take his medicine and let this blow over. No more picking fights.

[ozzyten10]

If we stay up I’m wondering what difference BJ sale now makes to 2023-24 and if it gives us some headspace - obviously if we stay up. I hope that all clubs are dealt with accordingly now - that includes the biggest clubs. What is the betting that the shitstorm of this years psr accounts come under some kind of transitional model due to the amount and scale of clubs that can involved. The Covid losses coming off accounts will cripple some…

[Salvatore Matrecano]

We chose to maximise profit on a player rather than adhere to p and s rules. So the spirit of the rules being profit and sustainability are not fit for purpose as it encourages sale or f assets for less than market value to fit arbitrary deadlines…
Ridiculous.

No, it only encourages sales of assets for below market rates if you've pushed the boundaries previously so hard that you need to make a last minute sizable sale to get back under the psr limit. What happened is we basically maxed out to the limit and then argued that our PSR period should be determined over 3 years and 2 months, rather than the 3 years every other club worked to. 

The fact that we failed to win one single argument in our entire case, heard now by two different panels, suggests to me that our case was basically a load of old cobblers and it was fabricated to mask a series of events that occurred for no other reason than rank bad management.

If we do go down this year imo the finger's pointing squarely in the direction of the owner. Not the manager, not the player, not refs, just the owner. I say that as someone who's been previously very supportive of the guy (and will be in the future if no more of these ridiculous events occur again).

Agree the first 2 paragraphs.

Re EM, 2 things
First I think you can definitely point fingers at the squad and manager(s) too. We should as a squad have enough about us having spent over £200 million to finish 4 points clear of Luton. Its a shambles that we seem to be struggling to do so.
Second I maintain willingly breaking the rules to get a only 4 point deduction was worth it. That extra spend bought us another year in the PL and should have bought us a third year too. As the first point it is the incompetence of the playing staff that we aren’t laughing and going well done EM, Premier League on strings etc.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

I remember being highly amused by sheep fans who were claiming the EFL had it in for them. Similar again this season with Everton fans.

Every man and his dog could/can see that those two clubs were acting in ridiculous ways and they both eventually received appropriate punishments. We as a fan base need to take the rose coloured specs off and see things for how they are. We've screwed up and been punished for it. It's a fair cop.

Unfortunately agree with this one. Far too many off field distractions and far too often in the news headlines. You can add conspiracy theories about referees to the same list.
None of this has helped Nuno get results.

[Paplane]

We chose to maximise profit on a player rather than adhere to p and s rules. So the spirit of the rules being profit and sustainability are not fit for purpose as it encourages sale or f assets for less than market value to fit arbitrary deadlines…
Ridiculous.

No, it only encourages sales of assets for below market rates if you've pushed the boundaries previously so hard that you need to make a last minute sizable sale to get back under the psr limit. What happened is we basically maxed out to the limit and then argued that our PSR period should be determined over 3 years and 2 months, rather than the 3 years every other club worked to. 

The fact that we failed to win one single argument in our entire case, heard now by two different panels, suggests to me that our case was basically a load of old cobblers and it was fabricated to mask a series of events that occurred for no other reason than rank bad management.

If we do go down this year imo the finger's pointing squarely in the direction of the owner. Not the manager, not the player, not refs, just the owner. I say that as someone who's been previously very supportive of the guy (and will be in the future if no more of these ridiculous events occur again).

Agree the first 2 paragraphs.

Re EM, 2 things
First I think you can definitely point fingers at the squad and manager(s) too. We should as a squad have enough about us having spent over £200 million to finish 4 points clear of Luton. Its a shambles that we seem to be struggling to do so.
Second I maintain willingly breaking the rules to get a only 4 point deduction was worth it.  That extra spend bought us another year in the PL and should have bought us a third year too. As the first point it is the incompetence of the playing staff that we aren’t laughing and going well done EM, Premier League on strings etc.

I just cant accept Salv that EM made a strategic decision to break the rules in some kind of grand masterplan to stay in the division. I can accept that he thought he needed to buy say Chris Wood or otherwise we'd be relegated. But it's clear to me that those kinds of key decisions were made in a kind of crisis management type of way, where decisions are made on the hoof and not via some perfectly executed plan.