Nottingham Forest release statement expressing their ‘extreme disappointment’ at four-point deduction from Premier League, claiming financial rules will ‘destroy mobility in the football pyramid’

By James On Mar 18, 2024

Nottingham Forest have issued a damning statement in response to being deducted four points for breaching the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules.

Forest fell into the relegation zone on Monday after being deducted four points.

The club now sit 18th in the Premier League with 21 points, one point behind Luton in 17th.

Forest were accused of breaching spending rules in January 2024, along with fellow Premier League side Everton, with the Toffees receiving a 10-point deduction earlier this season.

The club has not yet confirmed whether it will appeal the verdict, but has issued a statement claiming the case has ‘damaged the confidence we had in the Premier League’.

Nottingham Forest have hit back in the Premier League after their four-point deduction

Forest move into the relegation zone after being awarded the penalty, falling behind Luton Town

Forest now find themselves in the relegation zone below Luton after deducting four points

</p> <p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p> <p>

“Nottingham Forest is extremely disappointed with the Commission’s decision to impose a four-point sanction on the Club, which must be applied with immediate effect,” the statement said.

‘Despite our disappointment, we thank the Commission for its willingness to expedite this matter. The Club considers it essential to the integrity of the competition that the charge be resolved in the season in which the charge is filed.

‘We were extremely appalled by the tone and content of the Premier League’s submissions to the Commission.

‘After months of involvement in the Premier League and exceptional cooperation throughout, this was unexpected and has damaged the confidence we had in the Premier League.

‘For the Premier League to require an eight-point sanction as a starting point was completely disproportionate compared to the nine points prescribed by their own rules for insolvency.

‘We were also surprised that the Premier League did not take into account the club’s unique circumstances and their mitigation at all.’

Forest have claimed that the current rules make it ‘extremely difficult, if not impossible’ for newly promoted clubs to compete in the Premier League without parachute payments.

The club claims this ‘undermines the integrity and competitiveness of the Premier League.’

Nottingham Forest highlighted the sale of Brennan Johnson as part of efforts to comply

Johnson joined Tottenham at the end of August and the deal fell outside the window

Forest’s four-point penalty

Forest received a lower sanction than Everton, partly due to the fact that they admitted their guilt from the start and adopted a joined-up approach to the Premier League. By contrast, Everton denied breaking spending rules for a long period after they were charged.

Forest are likely to appeal, which the Premier League has promised to hear by April 15. The verdict would follow a month later. The Premier League has imposed itself a ‘backstop’ date of May 24 to conclude all PSR cases and any appeals. This is five days after the last day of the season, but the Premier League expects to have things resolved before then.

The Premier League has made it clear throughout this process that they do not have a set sanctions policy and do not recommend a set points deduction. Each individual case is considered and heard on its merits by a separate, independent committee, and they have no current plans to change this. The independent committee that heard Everton’s appeal last month ruled that a six-point deduction was “necessary and sufficient” to enforce the PSR rules, but did not recommend its introduction as a minimum rate.

By Matt Hughes

Forest also stressed that it has taken steps to ensure that Brennan Johnson is sold before the end of the summer transfer window, to show respect and support for the rules.

Johnson was eventually sold to Tottenham for £47.5 million in August.

Because PSR calculations are made over a three-year period ending June 30, the Johnson deal will count towards the 2021-24 settlement rather than 2020-23 as it was completed on deadline day.

Forest indicated it had exceeded the PSR threshold due to this ‘near miss’

The independent committee report stated that Forest had received a €50m (£42.7m) bid from Atletico Madrid on June 30 last year.

Forest responded with a proposal of 65 million euros, but the talks did not progress any further.

The club then turned down offers of £32.5 million, £35 million and £40 million from Brentford in July and August, before finally agreeing a deal with Tottenham.

The Commission ultimately ruled that Johnson’s sale could not be awarded as a mitigating factor in the case.

‘The Commission understands the desire of all clubs to sell their players for the maximum they can achieve. That is a sensible commercial decision for any company,” the independent report said.

‘However, the Commission came to the conclusion that for Forest respecting the PSR regime and aiming to get as close to the miss as possible was a less important factor, compared to maximizing value/profit.’

Forest emphasizes that this ’causes problems that are important for all aspiring clubs’.

“The player transfer market is a highly specialized trading environment that cannot be compared to the sale of normal products and services,” Forest continued.

Forest, owned by Evangelos Marinakis, have claimed that PSR rules mean only a ‘small group at the top of the Premier League can realistically move up the football pyramid’

‘There will be cases where a player transfer cannot be completed in the first half of a transfer window and only at the end of that period. This should not be a reason for condemning a club.

‘That this is not recognized by the Commission or the Premier League should be a matter of great concern to all fans of our national football.

‘Of wider concern to all aspiring clubs is the worrying effect this decision will have on the operation of the player trading model. This is the only model that allows clubs outside the small group at the top of the Premier League to realistically move up the football pyramid.

‘The Commission’s rationale is that clubs should only invest after they have made a profit on their player development. This reasoning destroys mobility in the football pyramid and the effect of the decision will be to drastically reduce the room for maneuver for all such clubs, leading to stagnation of our national game.”

Last week it was confirmed that Premier League clubs have chosen to prioritize agreeing changes to their profit and sustainability rules.

The Premier League’s new PSR rules are likely to mirror the selection controls introduced by UEFA, which restrict clubs competing in European competition to spending a fixed percentage of their income on wages, transfer fees and agent fees, a figure that will drop to 70 percent. of turnover by the start of the 2025/26 season.

However, clubs will also have to agree transitional arrangements before a new system is introduced, which is unlikely to happen this summer.