Everton FFP breach claimed to be worse on Sky Sports News as Nottingham Forest appeal
Nottingham Forest’s Supporters’ Trust chair has suggested the club’s breach was not as serious as the one which got Everton punished.
Andy Caddell spoke to Sky Sports News on 25 March and argued that while Forest committed a bigger profit and sustainability breach the period it covered was much shorter than the Toffees.
He was speaking after the news emerged that their four-point penalty was going to be appealed [BBC Sport, 25 March]. Everton were originally hit by a 10-point deduction, which was reduced down to six on appeal.
Caddell said: “You don’t want to do whataboutery too much but if you look at Everton’s breach, which was reduced from 10 to six, their breach, albeit smaller in terms of cash – £19.5million as opposed to £34.5m – perhaps the most important thing is their breach lasted for a season or so, whereas Forest’s breach lasted for two months.
“Let’s remember which months those were. It was July 2023 and August 2023. Forest played three Premier League games in that time.”
Everton points deduction greater for smaller breach than Nottingham Forest
It would indeed be preferable to avoid whataboutery between two clubs in similarly difficult positions, but the flawed system has essentially now thrown Everton and Forest into a form of opposition that a consistent formula would avoid.
The issue appears to be that, as with legal cases elsewhere, since each case is argued in isolation the outcome depends as much on the value judgments of the panel and the quality of the club’s representation as it does the plain facts.
There is certainly an argument that such a system is undesirable for justice in wider society but it absolutely isn’t helpful when it comes to a sporting competition.
On one hand Caddell’s case for why Forest’s breach isn’t so bad has some merit, just as the City Ground club’s overall contention that holding out for two months to sell Brennan Johnson to Tottenham for £47.5million on 1 September 2023, rather than €50m [£42.8m] to Atletico Madrid on 30 June, or £32.5m to Brentford in July, makes more sense from a sustainability point of view (paragraphs 5.14 – 5.18 in the Forest hearing decision).
But on the other hand it is also clearly therefore a deliberate breach, and Johnson started all three of the Premier League games in question, one of which was a win over Sheffield United on 18 August.
In contrast, even the original Everton hearing accepted their breach was not deliberate (paragraph 104), while in a similar situation to the Johnson sale the Toffees sold Richarlison in June, again to Tottenham, for what they claim was £20m below their expectation of £80m (paragraph 32).
There are numerous other factors involved in each case, such as Everton’s stadium financing and their submitting the wrong information to the Premier League, or Forest being a promoted side needing to invest for the top flight, with a lower spending limit, but signing a record 21 players in one summer [Mirror].
In isolation all the points may have understandable explanations behind them, and which is considered more valid will depend on individual perspectives, but when Forest got away with a lighter sanction than Everton ended up with even after their appeal, despite a breach 77% higher, they it seems like they have got off relatively lightly rather than been harshly treated, even if their appeal may be a worthwhile attempt either way.
In other Everton news, the 777 Partners takeover bid needs to be scrapped if they can’t get it over the line now says one ex-player.
For more Everton news, follow us on Facebook or join our brand new WhatsApp Channel for instant updates to be sent straight to your phone.