Red necks

[Bohinen]

Yeah, it's pretty amazing we weren't deducted any points from that or even retrospectively denied that promotion. I suspect it would be different if it happened today.

ALthough it has now been airbrushed from history, we are not the only ones to have a dodgy past ...

BRIAN CLOUGH is alleged to have presided over a regime riddled with corruption during his colourful reign as Nottingham Forest manager.

The Mirror today reveals the full extent of the bung culture which the Premier League and the Football Association claim thrived at Forest under Clough.

They amount to a staggering catalogue of accusations that will rock the game, could ruin Clough's reputation, and have devastating consequences for Forest.

These allegations, detailed in a hand-delivered letter from the FA to the club yesterday, will form the basis of the case against Forest at a disciplinary hearing.

Forest, who have been charged with making payments outside the rules during Clough's spell as manager, could be fined, lose points or even face relegation.

Clough, who steered Forest to two European Cups and a League championship, is alleged to have made cash payments in brown envelopes to players as inducements to win matches.

He is accused of authorising secret cash bonus payments to members of staff.

He is alleged to have received bungs in player transfers and is said to have broken the rules by using his No 2 Ronnie Fenton to sign contracts between clubs during transfers.

He is also accused of receiving transfer back-handers from two deals involving non-League club Leicester United.

Needless to say, they got away with it and the perpetrators now have statues.

[SwalePie]

Now charged...

"The Premier League has charged Everton and Nottingham Forest with breaching its financial rules.Both clubs have been referred to an independent commission for alleged breaches of profit and sustainability rules in their accounts for 2022-23.

Under Premier League regulations, clubs can lose a maximum of £105m over a three-season period, or £35m per campaign, before facing sanctions.
Clubs that breach those rules are at risk of a fine or a points deduction.

Everton are currently appealing against a 10-point deduction from a previous charge.

The Premier League said in a statement that Everton and Nottingham Forest "have each confirmed that they are in breach of the league's profitability and sustainability rules"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67978537

[irishpete]

So they are pleading guilty. Smell a rat. Plead guilty early only a fine, the deal?

[maddogslater]

I just saw that on twitter and borrowed it for faceache. Got a lovely rise from a couple of redbacks!

Well done for making our supporters look classless and jealous which you probably are.

[legs77]

So they are pleading guilty. Smell a rat. Plead guilty early only a fine, the deal?

Don’t think it works like that as Everton admitted it first time as well.

They know they are bang to rights so no point arguing it and possibly getting a harsher punishment.

It makes you wonder who will be next.

[SwalePie]

Well done for making our supporters look classless and jealous which you probably are.

You do realise it's F*rest we're talking about??

[irishpete]

Don’t think it works like that as Everton admitted it first time as well.

They know they are bang to rights so no point arguing it and possibly getting a harsher punishment.

It makes you wonder who will be next.

Why would they get a harsher punishment if they argue their case? If they have been deducted 10pts or fined 500k & fight it, I would have thought it will only come down not go up.

[legs77]

Why would they get a harsher punishment if they argue their case? If they have been deducted 10pts or fined 500k & fight it, I would have thought it will only come down not go up.

What I meant was if they denied it and said they have done nothing wrong.

I don’t know how many million they are over as I think it goes down to how bad it is according to some journo so they may only get say 5 points taken off who knows.

The 3 teams that came up are so bad it might not matter !

Everton though could be in big trouble as it’s the second time this season although not sure how it all works.

The amount spent in that league means others will be nervous and the transfer window will be dead in Jan.

[Newish Pie]

What I meant was if they denied it and said they have done nothing wrong.

I don’t know how many million they are over as I think it goes down to how bad it is according to some journo so they may only get say 5 points taken off who knows.

The 3 teams that came up are so bad it might not matter !

Everton though could be in big trouble as it’s the second time this season although not sure how it all works.

The amount spent in that league means others will be nervous and the transfer window will be dead in Jan.

Think that's the problem... no-one knows how it works, as they're largely making it up as they go along. Especially about sanctions, for which there's no guidance whatsoever beyond whatever the Commission chooses to impose... thus Everton get a bigger penalty than previous teams got for going into administration without any justification.

They've changed the rules again and again, and they change again in August. Don't know about That Lot, but Everton would be comfortably compliant under the new rules. The other odd thing is that Everton are saying that this is double jeopardy... they've already been charged for breaches for this period, and are now being charged again for the same "offence". Which wouldn't have been committed if they weren't building a new stadium.

If Forest's argument is that they wouldn't have been in breach if they'd sold a player a little earlier, I'm not sure that's going to work. Everton tried to claim similar with Richarlison as a mitigating factor.. that they couldn't get his full value because they had to sell him earlier. So it's kind of the mirror image. The Commission accepted virtually no mitigation with Everton, so if they're consistent, they won't accept any from Forest either. But there's the appeal to be heard, which may conclude that mitigating factors should have been taken into account.

The other problem is that if you get points deductions and still stay up, clubs lose places and lose prize money, which makes it harder to be sustainable.

[irishpete]

Think that's the problem... no-one knows how it works, as they're largely making it up as they go along. Especially about sanctions, for which there's no guidance whatsoever beyond whatever the Commission chooses to impose... thus Everton get a bigger penalty than previous teams got for going into administration without any justification.

They've changed the rules again and again, and they change again in August. Don't know about That Lot, but Everton would be comfortably compliant under the new rules. The other odd thing is that Everton are saying that this is double jeopardy... they've already been charged for breaches for this period, and are now being charged again for the same "offence". Which wouldn't have been committed if they weren't building a new stadium.

If Forest's argument is that they wouldn't have been in breach if they'd sold a player a little earlier, I'm not sure that's going to work. Everton tried to claim similar with Richarlison as a mitigating factor.. that they couldn't get his full value because they had to sell him earlier. So it's kind of the mirror image. The Commission accepted virtually no mitigation with Everton, so if they're consistent, they won't accept any from Forest either. But there's the appeal to be heard, which may conclude that mitigating factors should have been taken into account.

The other problem is that if you get points deductions and still stay up, clubs lose places and lose prize money, which makes it harder to be sustainable.

Forests arguement was they got a better deal by not selling Johnson earlier for a lower figure which they claim would have happened.