The Financial Fair Play and Profit & Sustainability points deduction saga that has cast a shadow over the 2023/24 Premier League season looks set to rumble on. That is because of Nottingham Forest’s decision to apeal their four-point deduction, adding more uncertainty to the Premier League’s regulatory process.
The international break started with the verdict against Forest being announced, which pushed the club into the relegation zone and added another twist to the league table. In response to the penalty, Forest criticised the Premier League’s handling of the case and then lodged an appeal against the initial decision this week.
This season, the profit and sustainability framework has raised more questions than answers, and the past two weeks have only added to the confusion. One of the main questions is why Forest decided to appeal. Those who have been following Everton’s journey through the league rules and independent commissions since November were taken aback by both the severity of the punishment given to their relegation rivals and the way the case was handled, which was heard over two days earlier this year.
Previous judgements on Everton seemed to give some insight into how this unclear system works. However, the Forest case challenged some of the principles that seemed to have come out of the arguments that led to Everton being deducted 10 points, then reduced to six on appeal. These included the idea that the size of the breach would be considered when deciding on a punishment.
Forest had different rules to Everton because they spent two years in the Championship during the assessment period. Even though Forest’s limit was much lower than Everton’s £105million, their breach was a lot bigger. Forest went over their £61million limit by just over £34million, which is 77% worse than Everton’s £19.5million excess.
If you read between the lines of the Forest judgement, it seems like this was taken into account. The three-person panel thought that Everton’s six-point penalty was partly due to other factors – meaning the starting point was lower. For Forest, the starting point seems to have been six, but the club got a reduction for good reasons – mainly how they handled the case. So Forest started with more points than Everton but ended up with a smaller punishment once other things were considered.
READ MORE: Man City given fresh verdict on 115 FFP charges as Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham await decision
READ MORE: Finance expert reveals Chelsea lifeline in Todd Boehly battle against FFP and point deduction
This way of doing things has made some people in and around the Blues camp ask questions. Firstly, it’s not great that, this far into the process, the third commission had to guess how Everton’s punishment was worked out.
Two expert panels have now looked at their case and suggested penalties of 10 points and six points, while a third has looked at the six points and still found it hard to understand how it was worked out.
Secondly, the reduction in penalty that Forest received for their exceptional co-operation seems a bit strange when you consider their general approach to the rules. Even though Everton’s long-term financial practices have been heavily criticised, they’ve never been accused of deliberately or cynically breaking the rules.
On the other hand, Forest kept spending money even after they were warned about a potential breach. The decision to delay the sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham, which was seen as the best way for the club to comply with the rules, was not made until weeks after the deadline.
The commission wasn’t impressed with Forest’s approach and it’s possible that this was reflected in the punishment given to the club. However, there’s been no explanation as to why the Premier League didn’t see the way the breach happened as making things worse.
Every case is unique and Forest’s situation is very different from Everton’s. It’s also easy to see areas where they could argue they have been treated unfairly. But having gained so much from the approach they took, it seems strange to then publicly criticise the Premier League for how they handled the case.
It’s clear that Forest, like Everton, had a very different understanding of the conversations they were having with the Premier League before their breaches. It’s unclear whether those actual conversations will ever be made public.
The likes of Manchester City, with 115 breaches already hanging over their heads, will be watching on interestedly, as will Chelsea, whose spending approach under Todd Boehly has been heavily criticised. Arsenal were very cautious in the January transfer window, as they have watched this FFP and PSR debacle unfold.
Tottenham, meanwhile did spend money in January, and may well be the best placed to go and do so again in the summer transfer window. Whetever happens, this debate is sure to rumble on and on and we certainly have not heard the last of it.
