W
The Premier League has introduced a new and exciting innovation: the courtroom drama of a relegation battle. The recent decision to deduct four points from Nottingham Forest for violating profitability and sustainability rules guarantees that this dispute is far from over.
Get ready for some exciting legal battles in the upcoming months as Forest, Everton, and at least four other clubs hold on tightly like Indiana Jones on a collapsing rope bridge to a league table that is expected to constantly change with each new tribunal hearing and appeal for special circumstances.
Additionally, while individuals on various sides analyze potential causes and responsibility in a sport that is becoming more susceptible to unfounded theories and misinformation, it is likely that many will seek to assign fault without considering the most obvious contenders.
It is important to reassess certain fundamental terms in the following situation. While clubs may not agree with the rules they agreed to, they may have valid objections about the severity of the punishment. However, as long as the rules of the competition are clear, consistent, and accompanied by reminders whenever they are about to be breached, the process cannot be deemed corrupt or unfair.
If you are one of the 20 parties who agree to those rules every year, it cannot be considered a conspiracy. In fact, it is the exact opposite as it is a part of the proper procedure. While it is understandable for some Forest fans to feel frustrated and suspicious, it would be more appropriate for those feelings to be directed towards their own club’s management.
Who is ultimately responsible for this situation? Are the rules at fault? Or is it the club’s executive who decided to splurge on 29 new players, while being guided by the owner’s 23-year-old son through these challenging times? It’s a difficult question. However, regardless of everything else, spending £6m on Jesse Lingard’s wages was certainly a successful move.
Let’s review how this occurred: Both Forest and Everton were accused of violating the regulations on January 15th. Everton’s (second) hearing results are expected to be delivered in April.
According to the regulations, teams in the Premier League can incur a maximum deficit over a period of three years. Forest has been found to have violated this rule. They now have the option to challenge the penalty and a final ruling will be made within five days after the end of the season.
An additional request (in “extraordinary situations”) may prolong the entire procedure until 8 June, with a final decision on who will be relegated possibly postponed until that date.
There are two main criticisms of Forest’s disciplinary action. These criticisms do not pertain to the club’s actual violation of the rules, but rather to disagreeing with the rules themselves. The more believable argument is that it is unjust for teams with years of experience in the English Football League to have to abide by spending caps set by the EFL, when they could instead adopt the more attractive spending caps of the Premier League.
As a result of spending two years in the Championship, Forest only have a budget of £61m, instead of the full amount of £105m. If they had been given the full Premier League budget, even though they were not in the league, they would have remained within the budget constraints.
Cannot reword
The proposal has merit as a way to assist newly promoted clubs in competing within the system. However, some argue that this goes against the purpose of the rules, which is to discourage clubs from taking risks for potential future success. This could actually have a reverse effect. As of this moment, the current rules cannot be easily changed. The EFL would have to retroactively amend their rules for that time period. This could lead to uncertainty and potential complications. Some clubs followed the rules while others did not. It is not fair for those who followed the rules to now propose a new version because others knowingly broke the rules. Why should overspending be rewarded with a “get-out-of-jail-free” card? And would this apply to all clubs?
The second point relates to the timing of Brennan Johnson’s sale, which the club say needed to be delayed to maximise the fee for the player, thereby taking it out of the relevant accounting period. Surely, Forest say, the point of the rules is to maximise our revenue.
Ignore the newsletter promotion.
after newsletter promotion
However, intentionally disregarding the main issue. Using a player’s sale as a solution for prolonged overspending goes against the purpose of discouraging such actions set by the rules.
The problem involves purchasing 29 players within a year, which exceeds the total spending of the club over its entire history and even surpasses that of Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Paris Saint-Germain. The inability to make a necessary stop when hurtling off the side of the mountain is ultimately a result of reckless behavior in the first place. The dynamics of the football world follow the market. If Johnson had been in high demand among multiple clubs, he may have been sold for the appropriate price. However, this was not the case, so the payment must be made.
It may be difficult to accept the fact that Forest has received punishment while Manchester City’s alleged wrongdoing has not been addressed and Chelsea seemingly spent a large sum of money without facing consequences. Manchester City is facing 115 charges, all of which have been denied, concerning issues of transparency and good faith. This situation resembles the complicated legal case known as “Jarndyce and Jarndyce” in the world of football. Chelsea took advantage of a loophole in the rules, but there may still be consequences in the future.
None of this suggests that the regulations couldn’t benefit from an update. More specifics are necessary. What are the explicit guidelines for situations where clubs, like Everton, face punishment twice in one season? This is unclear. Perhaps we should investigate. The limit for (semi-) permitted debt has been consistent at £105 million since 2013. Taking into account the effects of “football inflation,” this number could potentially be closer to £200 million now. There is a valid rationale for increasing this threshold.
Some people want to completely eliminate regulations, often because they have a vested interest in a wealthy organization with unlimited resources. They may claim that there is a deliberate plot by a ruling elite to oppress the wealthy individuals. However, most industries are subject to regulations and it is not radical to spend money that is earned. Overspending for personal gain or propaganda purposes goes against the principles of a free market economy.
Currently, the lesson of this tale is quite evident. Supporters of Forest admire Evangelos Marinakis for his strong and compelling nature, his commanding presence resembling that of an intergalactic pirate fleet leader, and most importantly, for bringing them victory. However, the reality remains that this is a necessary but difficult task.
After their extravagant spending spree, the following year saw Forest release 33 players and bring on Nuno Espírito Santo as their seventh manager. Those seeking to assign blame for questionable decisions and missteps should focus on the luxurious seat in the directors’ box. They had been actively signing players, posting updates on the Marinakis Jr Instagram account.
Source: theguardian.com
