LAST UPDATE | 7 May

NOTTINGHAM FOREST’S CHALLENGE against a four-point penalty for breaching Premier League financial rules has been rejected, with the club’s lawyers criticised by an appeal board for their “microscopic forensic examination” of the wording in the original decision.

An independent commission docked Forest four points in March for exceeding permitted losses under top-flight profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) for the period up to the end of the 2022-23 season by £34.5million (€40.1m)

Forest appealed against that sanction, arguing that the commission made a mistake in not treating the sale of Brennan Johnson to Tottenham on transfer deadline day last summer as mitigation.

The club also argued a further mistake was made by the commission in failing to wholly or partially suspend the sanction.

However, an appeal board announced today that the original commission was “entitled and right” to reach the decision it did, and took aim at the approach taken to the appeal by Forest.

“Some of the criticisms of the (original) decision have involved a minute examination of the words used by the commission,” the appeal board said.

“Decisions such as these should not be subjected to microscopic forensic examination and interpreted as if they were statutes which have been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel.

“Allegations of infelicities of language or errors which are not material to the ultimate decision add to the complexity and costs of proceedings and are rarely likely to lead to a successful challenge of a decision.”

The decision to uphold the original sanction leaves Forest on 29 points with two games left to play, three points above the relegation zone.

The appeal board added: “As the numbers of these (PSR) cases increases, there will be growing temptation to examine them in detail and burden commissions and appeal boards with minute examination of the similarities with and differences from the instant case. Such an approach will rarely be helpful.

“We are unanimous that the commission was entitled (and right) to impose the sanction of a deduction of four points and to refuse to suspend it.”

Forest have indicated they do not intend to issue a comment in response to the appeal board decision.

Everton succeeded in getting a 10-point sanction imposed last November for a PSR breach related to the period ending 2021-22 reduced to six points on appeal.

In that case, the appeal board found the original commission was wrong in finding Everton had been “less than frank” in relation to what they told the Premier League about debt linked to their new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, and finding that in being so the club had breached a league rule requiring an obligation to act in utmost good faith.

It also found it was wrong of the commission not to take into account available benchmarks for sanction, such as EFL guidelines.

However, the appeal board reviewing the Forest case backed the findings of the original commission.

It said the decision was “commendably clear and comprehensive” and that the original commission was entitled to conclude that the sale of Johnson did not reduce the seriousness of the breach and did not constitute a mitigating factor.

The original complaint against Forest was laid by the Premier League in January, with the case being treated under ‘standard directions’ for PSR breaches agreed by clubs at last summer’s annual general meeting.

The intention of the standard directions was to ensure cases were completed in the same season that the complaint was laid. Everton also faced a second PSR complaint in January which led to a two-point deduction.

That sanction is the subject of an appeal, with the Premier League stating last month it was seeking an “urgent” resolution so that the outcome is known prior to the last round of top-flight matches on 19 May.