The Great Big FFP Debate

We may have some clarity around how points penalties will be dished out in future:
That noted, as stated above, the Commission does take into account the excess as part of the exercise to arrive at a starting point, before considering mitigation (there being no aggravation in the case at hand pleaded by the Premier League). All clubs have a margin of room up to the upper threshold which can be made good by additional investment its owners can make. Forest went beyond that by almost £35m, which the Commission treats as a significant breach. The Commission can see the merit in adopting the Appeal Board’s approach in the Everton Appeal when dealing with a significant breach. As such, the entry point should be a three-point deduction too.

If the context was such and/or the quantum at the lower end of a significant breach, then the starting point might slide down the scale in terms of points and conversely, absent any contextual justification and/or with a higher quantum within the significant breach band, the starting point should slide upwards in terms of points. The Commission notes with Everton, there were a couple of factors that moved it up the scale to a starting point of six points - the size of the breach itself and what was initially termed as “misleading” the Premier League, but on appeal shown to be “incorrect” information being provided to the Premier League.
Click to expand...

So there will be a starting point of 3 points however this can increase/decrease depending just how big the breach is and (as Everton did) if you provide the PL with incorrect information. Although Forest's breach was bigger than Everton's they ended up with the same starting point of 6 points, as Everton's was also increased because they gave duff info to the PL.

Forest have then got 2 points knocked off for cooperating with the PL and an early plea. Their argument around Johnson was dismissed out of hand.

edit: The PL didn't put forward any aggravating factors in the Forest case which is a bit of a surprise. I'd have thought they'd have made the argument that their reckless spending in the summer should be held against them.

So looking ahead to Everton's possible second penalty. 3 points to begin with, assuming a similar size breach as before but this time without trying to mislead the PL, maybe that increases to 5 points. You then have mitigating and aggravating factors - breaching the rules for a second consecutive cycle will count against them but the fact that they've already been punished for 2 of the 3 seasons will probably go in their favour. No idea how cooperative Everton have been this time. Best guess, anywhere from 2 to 4 points.
 
Last edited:
Rather than having all this hanging around and arguments about who should be relegated just leave the table as it stands with all points in place. Relegate the bottom three and then if any team with the points deducted comes below say Luton, relegate them as well. Send 5 down and let 5 teams doing the right thing get promoted.

I still think City will not win the league this year and then take some quick bargain with the PL to deduct them 30 points when it doesn't matter so much.
 
Shamikebab said:
It does feel like the point penalty is not enough, 4 pts is so little for abusing the rules to try and get an advantage over your rivals.
Click to expand...
It must be a double figure deduction for Chelsea, if they in fact haven’t just crossed the P&S rules but pole-vaulted over them, or are the new rules going to magically come in in-time to save them
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else think points should be docked at either the start of the season or the end? With so many angles and teams involved it could and probably will have opened so many cans of worms for everyone!
 
Reuben klang said:
Does anyone else think points should be docked at either the start of the season or the end? With so many angles and teams involved it could and probably will have opened so many cans of worms for everyone!
Click to expand...
What benefit would there be to issuing penalties at the end of the season? It still leaves you in the exact same situation as you are now with nobody knowing where they stand until the final call on the penalties are made.

There's some merit to doing it at the start of a season but it's incredibly difficult to see how that's possible. If you issued them at the start of next season then you'd be dishing out punishments based on charges from 2 seasons prior (remember these charges already relate to last season) and there just isn't the time to file accounts, determine a breach, charge, hear the charge & subsequent appeal between the end of June (when a lot of clubs accounting period ends) and mid August when the season starts.
woppy101 said:
It must be a double figure deduction for Chelsea, if they in fact haven’t just crossed the P&S rules but pole-vaulted over them, or are the new rules going to magically come in in-time to save them
Click to expand...
A) Based on what came out in the Everton appeal, it would have to be a bonkers size breach for any penalty to be above 9 points. 9 points is the penalty for a side going into administration so have a penalty greater than that would need a monster breach. B) Any change in the rules won't be backdated. These rules will apply until the new ones begin and clubs will still face charges for breaching these rules. E.g. if the rules change in the summer but Chelsea breach the old rules for the 3 years to the end of this season, Chelsea will still be charged next January based on the old rules. C) Although we don't know the exact details of the new rules yet (there's a few variations being reported), they're likely to be very similar to UEFA's and on the basis of them using UEFA's but with 85% for non European sides, as of the last set of published accounts, Chelsea would have breached the new rules by more than any other side.
GI8ChJwWMAAqp8m.jpeg

*Chelsea are also under investigation relating to allegations that they 'done a City' with some hidden expenses etc under their previous ownership. This charge, if made and proven guilty, is likely to result in a greater punishment than a simple breach of spending rules.
 
BaZ87 said:
What benefit would there be to issuing penalties at the end of the season? It still leaves you in the exact same situation as you are now with nobody knowing where they stand until the final call on the penalties are made.

There's some merit to doing it at the start of a season but it's incredibly difficult to see how that's possible. If you issued them at the start of next season then you'd be dishing out punishments based on charges from 2 seasons prior (remember these charges already relate to last season) and there just isn't the time to file accounts, determine a breach, charge, hear the charge & subsequent appeal between the end of June (when a lot of clubs accounting period ends) and mid August when the season starts.

A) Based on what came out in the Everton appeal, it would have to be a bonkers size breach for any penalty to be above 9 points. 9 points is the penalty for a side going into administration so have a penalty greater than that would need a monster breach. B) Any change in the rules won't be backdated. These rules will apply until the new ones begin and clubs will still face charges for breaching these rules. E.g. if the rules change in the summer but Chelsea breach the old rules for the 3 years to the end of this season, Chelsea will still be charged next January based on the old rules. C) Although we don't know the exact details of the new rules yet (there's a few variations being reported), they're likely to be very similar to UEFA's and on the basis of them using UEFA's but with 85% for non European sides, as of the last set of published accounts, Chelsea would have breached the new rules by more than any other side.
GI8ChJwWMAAqp8m.jpeg

*Chelsea are also under investigation relating to allegations that they 'done a City' with some hidden expenses etc under their previous ownership. This charge, if made and proven guilty, is likely to result in a greater punishment than a simple breach of spending rules.
Click to expand...

True, the entire thing is just a disaster zone.
 
They’re also on for conceding 100 goals as well.

Even that Derby team didn’t achieve that and they’ll likely beat their -69 goal difference.

According to transfermarket they sold 30.9 and spent 66.95, terrible season for them all round. Even with teams being docked points they’ve still had no chance of staying up. That’s really bad, anything but smart in foresight or hindsight. They’re awful and will be looking forward to the championship where they might win a game or two.
 
FgzvRuw.jpg
 
Surprised nobody has mentioned it yet but the PL today announced that Leicester have been charged for breaching PSR last season. They've also been charged with failing to provide the PL with their accounts, which probably explains the delay in their charge being announced. Leicester defense seems to be that as they're no longer in the PL, the PL's rules no longer apply to them which is quite funny as just the other week it was announced that Leicester had successfully defended a claim by the EFL* by arguing that they were a PL side last season so the EFL rules don't apply to them.

*The EFL had forecast that Leicester will breach PSR again this season (based on their accounts for the 2 seasons prior (when they were in the PL)) and as part of their rules, Leicester were required to submit a business plan showing how they planned not to breach PSR. Leicester argued that as they were in the PL last season, the EFL's rules requiring them to submit a business plan did not apply to them.

Leicester are in an amazing situation where they're possibly going to end up getting a points penalty from the PL based on last seasons breach, which will come into play if and when they're promoted (potentially next season) and also facing a points penalty from the EFL for breaching this season, which would come into play if and when they get relegated back to the EFL (assuming they get promoted this season).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom