If selling Johnson later in the same transfer window raised a higher transfer fee, that has made the club more profitable and more sustainable. So the rules are actively encouraging the opposite.
As early as today, but this BBC article isn't claiming that it is expected today.
Re their mitigation:
It is unclear by how much the club have breached regulations but Forest, who hired leading sports lawyer Nick De Marco to defend them, are thought to have based their case around the sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham in September.
The move, worth more than £45m, took place after the accounting deadline but Forest argue selling Johnson at a later date allowed them to earn a higher fee than if they had sold him by 30 June.
How the hell can they use that as an argument?
One of our mitigating factors, which got dismissed, was that we accepted a lower offer for Richarlison in order to sell him before the deadline. If the PL find Forest's excuse valid, they'll have punished us for trying to be compliant . And given the appeal panel found that we were working in good faith, that would be absurd.
We obviously don't know how much over Forest are, but my expectation is:
- They'll get 4-6 points
- We'll get no worse
Does anyone have a plausible justification for any other outcome?
Also, in terms of timescale, that article says "A hearing was held on 7 and 8 March."
So that's at least 10 days until a verdict.
Claims that our hearing has now begun, which suggests our verdict should be the last week of March. Does anyone know any different to that?
Responses