We would like to thank the members who have got in touch to share their views following our initial statement. As previously mentioned, the Trust Board now has specialist expertise on football finances following our recent elections, and this has helped us thoroughly analyse the ruling.
Firstly, the Trust wishes to record our deep concern at the outcome, and the impact it will have on the club and its supporters. The points deduction could have a major impact on the club’s future in the Premier League and the associated benefits this brings to the local community. Supporters, who pay significant sums for tickets, want to see the season decided on the field and not by legal teams.
Adherence to PSR, and previously Financial Fair Play (FFP), have long been key topics raised by members. There is widespread disappointment amongst the membership that the club has been charged and sanctioned, and this is shared by the board. We note that the club has given repeated public assurances that compliance was central to their strategy. We understand and accept that there are operational decisions that must remain confidential and are not for public comment, however the fact that these assurances were ultimately inaccurate on what is a critically important issue is troubling. We believe the club should comment on this.
The quantity of players signed by Forest has been one of the most widely reported facts in the media and has been raised as a concern by many Trust members. The report states that 22 players were signed or loaned in the summer of 2022, and a further 6 in January 2023. The Trust board recognises that these numbers are an outlier compared to other clubs and does have some concerns over what, at least from an external viewpoint, at times appeared to be haphazard recruitment. We believe that there are legitimate questions to be raised over this. Overall however, it is our view that there are significant mitigating factors that explain and justify the need for the very substantial rebuild witnessed.
In addition to our conclusions on the club’s actions with regard to the PSR breach, we believe it is important to comment on the rules and their application in this case. Trust board member, Robert Matusiewicz, has a long, distinguished career in sports finance and has led the Trust’s review of the ruling. He produced an initial report on the Commission’s findings which has been shared with the club.
Based on this report, the Trust believes there are several concerns around both the fitness for purpose of the rules, and the ruling itself. This in turn has impacts on the wider game and supporters of all clubs impacted.
The report includes the following points:
Key facts
- The club was found to have significantly breached PSR over the accounting period covering the past three seasons (2020/21 – 2022/23).
- The transfer of Brennan Johnson was the key factor in enabling the club to comply with, or breach, PSR.
- Atletico Madrid submitted a conditional bid of €50m for Brennan Johnson on the PSR deadline date 30 June 2023.
- Brentford FC submitted bids for the player of £32,5m, £35m and £40m in July and August 2023.
- Brennan Johnson moved to Tottenham Hotspur on 1 September 2023 for a fee of £47.5m.
Concerns raised by Trust report…
- The stance and attitude of the Commission towards this transfer are inequitable and inconsistent with the stated PSR aims of increasing transparency, credibility and improving the governance standards in football.
- The arbitrary cut-off date of 30 June undermines the above aims of PSR. The rationale, if there is any, as to why the transfer window deadline and PSR cut-off dates are not aligned has not been made public by the Premier League.
- The Commission’s view that the bids from Brentford and Atletico could have been accepted is inconsistent with the purposes and aims of the rules.
- The eventual sale of Brennan Johnson was a significant mitigating factor that should have been considered more favourably by the panel.
- The fact that Forest’s breach of PSR lasted for two months (July and August 2023), during which the club played three Premier League games, losing two, was dismissed as mitigation. This seems inconsistent with the claimed sporting advantage the breach caused.
- There are concerns the panel did not recognise the complexity of football transfers which require the agreement of several parties to be concluded.
- It was not relevant for the Commission to cite spending examples of Bournemouth and Fulham, given they were in receipt of parachute payments in the EFL.
- It is noted that Forest, Everton, and now Leicester City, have been charged in a much speedier fashion than other clubs investigated for potentially more serious alleged offences (more alleged breaches over a longer period).
The Trust will continue to monitor developments around the upcoming appeal from the club and continue dialogue with the club through its channels. We will also feed into the wider discussion on financial sustainability through our affiliation with the Football Supporters’ Association.
We will share an updated version of Robert Matusiewicz’s report with our members in due course. Once this has been published, if there is sufficient demand, we will arrange an online Q&A meeting so members can ask more questions and provide us with feedback which we can take to the club.
NFST