Nottingham Forest launched an extraordinary attack on the Premier League on Monday night after being handed a four-point deduction for breaching spending rules, plunging them into the relegation zone.
In a strongly worded statement, the club accused the Premier League of breach of trust and enforcing financial rules in a way that could lead “to the stagnation of our national football”.
Forest were dropped four points by an independent commission which found they had exceeded permissible limits by £34.5million in the 2020-23 accounting period.
The commission’s original six-point penalty was reduced by two in recognition of Forest’s early guilty plea and their cooperation with the Premier League, earning them a lesser penalty than Everton despite admitting a much bigger offense.
Everton’s 10-point deduction was reduced to six at an appeal hearing last month after a second panel concluded there were legal errors in the original trial, but the club did not did not benefit from the two-point reduction given to Forest as they did not plead guilty and were found to have submitted inaccurate information to the Premier League.
Nottingham Forest hit back in Premier League after four-point deduction
Forest enter relegation zone after winning penalty and slip behind Luton Town
Forest are now in the relegation zone below Luton following the four-point deduction
Your browser does not support iframes.
The Merseyside club face a second hearing this month over spending breaches this month and another points deduction appears inevitable.
Forest are likely to follow Everton’s lead in appealing following a verdict which saw Nuno Spirito Santos’ side drop into the bottom three, one point behind Luton and, ironically, four points behind Everton .
After pleading guilty to charges stemming from a lavish £142.8 million spending spree following their promotion to the Championship in 2022, Forest criticized the punishment and the Premier League’s approach during the hearing.
“The high levels of cooperation shown by the club during this process, and which are confirmed and recorded in the committee’s decision, have not been reciprocated by the Premier League,” a statement from the Premier League said. club.
“After months of engagement with the Premier League and exceptional cooperation throughout, this was unexpected and damaged the confidence we had in the Premier League. We were extremely dismayed by the tone and content of the arguments presented by the Premier League to the Commission.
Forest’s anger is based on the Premier League’s attempt to persuade the committee to award them eight points, although they had already lobbied for Everton to drop 12 points at their first hearing last year, and on their refusal to accept the club’s mitigation arguments.
In their submissions, Forest claimed that being promoted via the Championship play-offs without receiving parachute payments put them in a particularly difficult position to meet spending targets, while arguing that the subsequent sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham for £47.5m two months after the financial year closes in August 2023 should entitle them to greater leniency.
The Premier League rejected both arguments and the commission agreed, accusing Forest of “sailing close to the wind” with its business model.
Forest have spent almost £250m on 46 players since promotion but claimed in their statement that swapping players was the only way they and other clubs could survive.
Nottingham Forest highlighted the sale of Brennan Johnson as part of efforts to comply
Johnson joined Tottenham at the end of August on an out-of-period deal.
“The fact that the Premier League asked for an eight-point sanction as a starting point was completely disproportionate to the nine points that its own rules prescribe in cases of insolvency,” Forest said.
“The Commission’s decision raises issues of concern for all applicant clubs. There will be occasions where a player transfer cannot be completed in the first half of a transfer window and can only be completed at the end of that window. This should not be grounds for condemning a club.
“What is more concerning is the disruptive effect this decision will have on the operation of the player exchange model. It is the only model by which clubs outside the small group at the very top of the Premier League can realistically progress up the football pyramid.
“The Commission’s reasoning is that clubs should only invest after making a profit on the development of their players. This reasoning destroys mobility within the football pyramid and the decision will have the effect of significantly reducing the room for maneuver of all these clubs, leading to the stagnation of our national football.
In their submissions to the committee, Forest also criticized Everton, accusing the club of seeking to disrupt the Premier League and compromise its integrity by successfully delaying its PSR charges last season towards this campaign to avoid relegation.
The Premier League changed its rules last summer to prevent other clubs adopting a similar approach and Forest were the first to suffer the consequences.
Forest, owned by Evangelos Marinakis, claimed PSR rules meant only a “small group at the very top of the Premier League can realistically progress up the football pyramid”.
“Forest respectfully note in this regard that Everton appear to have avoided the prospect of relegation during the 2022-23 season due to the initial dismissal of the complaint made against them and the consideration of various points, notably in resisting the Premier League’s request for dispatch, so that the first instance proceedings against him could only be determined in November 2023,” Forest’s document states.
“The need for rapid decision-making to contribute to the integrity of the Premier League means that clubs who cooperate should be significantly rewarded to incentivize others to do so and deter those who seek to delay or disrupt proceedings. against them.”