Hxj

And by all accounts there is plenty of it around in this case.

No. The current case against Manchester City is based on the club giving the Premier League incorrect financial information, hence going back.

That is not a witness statement, I hope that the barrister didn't charge them! It's simply a whine dressed up as something formal.

Currently the club is under the Salary Cap rules, so market value doesn't arise. The Clowes group accounts to 31 March 2023 have just been published, contain some details on the acquisition.

To avoid a charge from the relevant authority they have to, just as we had to with Baker.

One option is to force all teams to have a 30 June accounting date and open the transfer window on 1 July. Nor do I, but realistically the sale of Brennan to solve the FFP issue will be a mitigating factor in any punishment.

Isn't this something which LJ suggested and was roundly mocked for on here for saying it?

You should only include information in relation to transactions that are finalised as at the date the accounts were signed.

My Forest friends are definitely not looking forward to playing at Ashton Gate.

Maybe he needs to tell the PR team that the rules have changed. This is from the press release regarding Everton and Nottingham Forest: Everton and Nottingham Forest confirm Premier League PSR breaches Premier League investigations and independent Commissions - The Premier League Board have the power to investigate any suspected or alleged breach of Premier League Rules - Where, following the conclusion of an investigation, an admission by a Club or otherwise, the Board believes that there is a suspicion or allegation of a Rule breach, it has a number of options available to it. One of these options is to issue a written compliant and refer the matter to a Commission - The League has access to an independent Judicial Panel, comprising a number of legal, financial and other experts. Members of the Judicial Panel are appointed, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26, by its independent Chair, Murray Rosen KC, an experienced barrister. It is the Chair who selects members of the Judicial Panel to sit on Commissions, which are independent of the Premier League

I would suggest that that is misleading. The Premier League Board's powers are: Board’s Disciplinary Powers W.3. The Board shall have power to deal with any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules by: W.3.1. issuing a reprimand; W.3.2. imposing a fixed penalty or other sanction where such provision is made in these Rules; W.3.3. exercising its summary jurisdiction; W.3.4. referring the matter to a Commission appointed under Rule W.19; W.3.5. seeking interim measures in accordance with Rules W.58 to W.61; W.3.6. referring the matter to The Football Association for determination under The Football Association Rules; and/or W.3.7. concluding an agreement in writing with that Person in which it accepts a sanction (which may include any of the sanctions referred to at Rule W.51) proposed by the Board, provided that agreement has been ratified in accordance with Rule W.13 (a “Sanction Agreement”). The Commission's powers are to decide if there has been a breach and if so what the sanction is. The Commission acts as judge on cases brought by the Board.

To keep it simple - yes when it comes to determining the penalty. There is a rumour that an outline negotiated settlement has been reached, hence the statement that: "The club intends to continue to cooperate fully with the Premier League on this matter and are confident of a speedy and fair resolution."

The breach has been admitted, so it is down to mitigation. I think that realising the best value for your players in the same transfer window would be a significant point of mitigation.

I think that the point more fairly made is what if the losses were £50 million in 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22, followed by a loss of £10 million in 2022/23. The losses to 2021/22 would be £150 million and the losses to 2022/23 would be £110 million, both failures. However the club has already been substantially punished for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 losses in the first sanction, and 2022/23 is itself well below the £35 million limit. In the EFL the £50 million would be reset to £35 million. Meaning that Everton would be compliant for 2022/23. (the above numbers are entirely made up and simplified)

Everton and Forest have both accepted that they have breached the FFP rules. The only decision to be made is sanction. I have some sympathy for Everton's point, but presumably if they had already agreed the prior year position they could have amended their FFP submission to whatever was agreed.

My previously stated view is that Derby and Everton have created the Epiphany moments for the EFL and the Premier League. The problem with limits is that they become targets. And once those targets were not considered serious they became irrelevant. There are similarities on a behavioural basis with the 'Dieselgate' issues.

I've always fully understood your view on these matters. Personally I would have pointed out that the rent paid by the football club to Ashton Gate Ltd also needs to be considered, giving a significantly higher real loss, but as you didn't I'm happy to ignore the issue. But I don't believe that a long term championship club can ever be sustainable under the current rules. The mere fact that you are allowed to overspend by £39 million over three years simply blows sustainability out of the window. What is clear from any comparable analysis is that the club do very well in the 'other non-football income which qualifies for FFP' box. By way of comparison the total 2022 income for Nottingham Forest was £30 million who were sold out every single week at home.

I think that that is incredibly harsh. Football stadiums are white elephants at the best of times. You can't use their biggest asset, the open space and stands, for anything other than sport for most of the year, and if you are lucky a handful of concerts in the summer. Against that background the ground cost the club about £50k for FFP purposes, or £150k accounting loss excluding depreciation. There will be many, many clubs deeply envious of being able to run a stadium like Ashton Gate at that cost.

It's because it is the simplest end date. As I understand it, there is (or was) a degree of flexibility around transfers out and replacement transfers in that happened either side of an accounting date.

Personally I don't have an issue with Parachute Payments. You either make it impossible for promoted clubs to compete on promotion, or make it easier on the way down. I am sure that tweaks can be made, but the fundamentals don't concern me. Again I don't see the current differential FFP systems between PL/Championship and the rest of the leagues as a problem. Most lower league clubs are much more 'hand-to-mouth' businesses than the PL/Championship, plus anyone trying to buy into the Championship is still effectively cash limited by those FFP rules. As regards sporting sanctions and penalties I think that it is clear that the EFL had it's Epiphany moment over Derby and the PL over Everton. The new EFL system seems to be working well, I expect the PL to follow it in due course.

I've no idea. But uncertainty causes doubt and confusion.

This is fine thanks! So if you were running a Premier League club would you sign the deal, and wait for an 'independent' (to you, but not other vested interests) regulator to demand changes, or wait and see how issues progressed?

Exactly. So why has there been a 15 year gap? What is stopping individuals becoming referees or progressing through the system?

Looks about right- but are you missing some spreadsheets and data? Again??? Looks about right- but are you missing some spreadsheets and data? Again???

The accounts for 2022/23 refer to a figure of £19m for the net transfer sales after the end of the year (note 26 para 1, page 42). I would be surprised if we had spent more than a net £2m ignoring Scott.