W
This new product innovation from the Premier League is causing quite the drama – the courtroom showdown over relegation. The recent decision to deduct four points from Nottingham Forest for violating profitability and sustainability rules has left two guarantees. Firstly, this dispute is far from resolved.
Get ready for some exciting legal battles in the next few months as Forest, Everton, and at least four other clubs fight to hold onto their league positions amidst constant changes due to ongoing tribunal hearings and appeals.
Additionally, as individuals from all perspectives analyze the factors of responsibility and culpability, in a sport that is becoming more susceptible to theories of conspiracy and misinformation, it is evident that there will be many individuals searching for a scapegoat; disregarding the most obvious candidates.
When should we redefine fundamental terms? Clubs may not agree with the rules they agreed to follow. They have the right to protest the severity of their punishment. However, this system cannot be considered dishonest or biased if the rules of the competition are clear, unaltered, and consistently warned against when close to being violated.
It is not possible to view this as a conspiracy when you are one of the 20 parties that approve these rules annually. In fact, it is the complete opposite of a conspiracy; it is the proper process being implemented. While it is understandable for Forest fans to feel frustrated and deceived, their anger would be better directed towards their own club’s ownership.
Who is ultimately responsible in this situation? Is it the regulations? Or a club leader who made the decision to overspend on 29 new players while being guided by the owner’s 23-year-old son, according to the imagery? It’s a difficult question. However, one thing is certain, spending £6 million on Jesse Lingard’s salary made for interesting content.
Let’s revisit how this situation occurred. Both Forest and Everton were accused of breaking the regulations on the same date, January 15th. Everton will receive the outcome of their second hearing in April.
The regulations specify that Premier League teams can only sustain a certain amount of financial loss over a span of three years. Forest has been found to have exceeded this limit and may challenge the penalty. A final verdict will be made within five days after the conclusion of the season.
In certain situations, another request could prolong the process until June 8th, and the final decision on which team will be relegated may be postponed until that date.
There are two chief objections to Forest’s punishment. Neither relate to whether the club actually broke the rules, but relate instead to not liking the rules. Most credible is the argument it is unfair that years in the English Football League should be subject to EFL spending caps, when they could instead be retrofitted with far more appealing Premier League level spending caps.
Due to spending two of the years in the Championship, Forest is allocated a budget of only £61m, rather than the full amount of £105m. If they had received the full Premier League amount, even though they were not in the league, they would have remained within their financial constraints.
Preview the image in full screen mode.
The suggestion of using this as a way to assist promoted clubs in their competition has some clear value. However, there is also a valid concern that this could contradict the purpose of the rules, which is to discourage clubs from making risky decisions in the hopes of future success. In the present moment, the rules cannot be easily changed, and in the case of Forest, they would have to be disregarded retrospectively. This approach is unreliable and should not be pursued. Other clubs have followed the rules and it is unfair to suggest an alternative version just because someone knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyways. Why should overspending be rewarded with a “get-out-of-jail-free” card? And would this be extended 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.
Bypass the advertisement for the newsletter.
after newsletter promotion
However, this intentional disregard for the issue at hand fails to address the root of the problem. Trying to rectify ongoing financial strain by hastily selling off a player goes against the purpose of the rules in place for such scenarios.
The problem at hand is purchasing 29 players within one year, surpassing the total spending of your club’s entire history and even exceeding that of Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Paris Saint-Germain. The inability to prevent this despite the potential danger of veering off the mountainside is ultimately a result of carelessly approaching the situation in the first place. In the world of football, the market dictates. If Johnson had been in higher demand by multiple clubs, he could have been sold for a more appropriate price before it was too late. However, this was not the case, so it is necessary to pay the fee.
It may be difficult to accept that Forest is facing consequences while Manchester City’s accusations are left unresolved and Chelsea has seemingly spent a large sum of money without repercussions. City is currently facing 115 charges, all of which have been denied. These charges relate to complicated matters of good faith and transparency. This situation in football is similar to the legal case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Chelsea was able to exploit a loophole in the system. The consequences of this may still come to light.
However, this does not necessarily indicate that the regulations should not be updated. There should be more specific guidelines in place. What are the specific regulations regarding clubs like Everton facing penalties twice in one season? It is unknown. We should find out. The limit for (semi-)acceptable debt has been established at £105m since 2013. Considering inflation in the football industry, this amount may have now risen to £200m. There is a valid argument for increasing this limit.
At the same time, there are individuals who advocate for the elimination of regulations, often aligning with a group that prioritizes a wealthy club with unlimited resources. This viewpoint is often supported by claims of a conspiracy by a ruling elite to suppress the interests of the wealthy minority. However, most industries operate within a regulated system. The concept of using your earnings is not a radical concept. In regards to freedom and a laissez-faire economy, spending excessively on a propaganda campaign or indulging in personal ego-driven displays of wealth does not align with the idea of a functioning market.
At present, the lesson of this tale is quite evident. The supporters of Forest admire Evangelos Marinakis for his determination and charm, his commanding presence resembling that of an intergalactic pirate fleet’s leader, and most importantly, his accomplishments. However, it’s important to acknowledge that this situation still requires a bit of tough love.
After their lavish spending spree, the following year saw a flurry of signings announced on Marinakis Jr’s Instagram page. However, Nottingham Forest subsequently let go of 33 players and brought in Nuno Espírito Santo as their seventh manager in the current era. Those searching for someone to hold accountable for any mishaps or missteps along the journey should perhaps direct their attention to the luxury seat in the directors’ box.
Source: theguardian.com
