And they've awarded the four points difference to Man City for falsely accusing them.

Red and Blue Army!

The independent appeals panel decided that the original panel had been incorrect on two of the nine charges and therefore, decided that the punishment should be reduced. Whether they bottled it like Chelsea did yesterday is possible but I suspect that, due to the legal implicatiosn, they were careful in their making their decision.

At least some sort of president has now been set although of course not every case will necessarily be the same.

But it's tempting to think that if Everton get found guilty of a second breach then 6 points will be the minimum they get docked and Forest should expect similar.

Old, Ungifted and White

Seems to me there are so many aspects of this which lack transparency and consistency. Here are just some of them:

1. No transparency re when points should be deducted relative to the timing of the transgressions in FFP/FSR. Should it be the same season, or the following season, or every (current?) season the transgressions occur? For context, Everton transgressed in windows affecting last season. They would have been relegated last year with even a 3 point penalty. Last year Man City won the title by 5 points: a 6 point deduction as given to Everton today would have resulted in ramifications at the top of the table as well.

2. No transparency on what transgressions (or volume of transgressions) should result in 'x' amount of points deducted. Assuming all infractions committed by Man City/Everton/Forest are fungible (a good accountancy exams word there), how can the 115 supposed infractions by Citeh potentially lead to the same deduction as the 9 infractions or so by Everton, assuming these numbers are accurate (again there is no transparency over precisely how many infractions there have been in each case).

3. No transparency over how similar, or dissimilar, the transgressions by each club are. How can points deductions therefore be consistent club to club and season to season?

4. No transparency or reason why Everton have somehow been penalized, had their appeal heard, and been awarded back points, whilst Forest and City (and maybe others?) are still at first base.

5. No consistency between approaches at Premier League level and lower levels. For context, Luton got hammered for 30 points in 2014. 10 of these deducted points were for player transfer anomalies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Luton_Town_F.C._season). There was no right of appeal for the transfer related 10 point penalty. The full -30 point penalty kicked in at the start of the season.

Where is the process? Where is the consistency?

I'd be livid if I were a Leicester/Arsenal/Luton fan. I'd also be angry as an Everton fan looking at how Man City/Forest seem to be able to filibuster.

Edited by RubinsCube (26 Feb 2024 5.08pm)

Thank you, my favourite typo of the week.

All hail the Chief!

Meanwhile, for natural justice to be seen to be done, 6 points should be more of a bench mark for that particular factual matrix than a hard and fast precedent for any offence.

After Luton's disgraceful 30 point deduction the 10 that Everton got didn't seem excessive to me so I think they have done well getting it cut by 4 points.

The people that really suffer are the fans not the management.

It's a terrible indictment that Man City who appear to most people to be major offenders that they are able to hire the best lawyers to constantly delay their hearing. I think it is possible they will eventually get hammered so hard that demotion to League Two is a possibility, as Rangers suffered a few years back, followed closely by Chelsea.

If the rules are there what excuse is there to be lenient with offenders?