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)

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)

Excellent post.

I think fans would be a lot happier if they understood how penalties are calculated and when they apply. I am not even certain that if found guilty Everton and Forest's punishment will apply this season?

As for Man City, will they take away trophies?

Edited by Badger11 (26 Feb 2024 5.47pm)

So the new cases have to be heard by 8th April that means anytime between now and then, i would imagine now the appeal decision has been announced it will be sooner rather than later

That is a very fair point.

At the same time, there is a lot of rhetoric around "this being a unique situation" which is "without precedent". I call BS (no, not BFS. A Freudian slip, perhaps) on that.

If you want to look through the narrow prism of the prevailing regulations in place at the time, then sure, this set of charges on Everton is unique. But the inference there has been no previous example of clubs engaging in fiscal mismanagement - specifically spending more on players and agents than they can responsibly afford - is disingenuous at best.

I would also argue there is an intersect between accounting breaches and transfer irregularities: the accounting breaches would understate losses and enable certain transfers to be considered/undertaken which would not be possible with true and fair balance sheets and cash flow statements.

Edited by RubinsCube (26 Feb 2024 7.37pm)