Hello, everybody, and welcome back to the Garabawdie Redd podcast, a Nottingham Forest podcast. I'm Max A's your host and do hope you're well. As we all know, Forest's appeal of the four points was rejected with no points back after the breach of PSR, something we've been talking about all season, an ongoing matter off the pitch and today. Delighted to welcome back to the podcast Robert Matowiski. I've just pronounced that hopefully right, but I doubt it. We've just been practicing actually, haven't we, Robert, just before we started recording this, who has joined us before on the whole points deduction situation. Robert, as a member, serves as a trust member, also serves as a financial expert. He's on the board of the Forest Supporters Trust, which contributed evidence to this appeal. Robert, let's start then. First of all, thanks for joining us again. Really appreciate it. Let's start with the trust statement that was put out a few days ago and maybe just a brief overview of that and a reminder, kind of, to listeners and to viewers the whole situation, if they've been living under a rock. Easier said than done for me to ask you that.

Yeah, well, I mean, we discussed this in a podcast earlier when the breach was publicized, and I ran through my concerns with the way that the PSR rules had been interpreted and thought that the four point penalty was grossly unfair and that Forest actions had been entirely consistent with the aims and objectives of PSR in seeking to maximize revenues and provide a firm financial base for the club's operations. The club felt there was a technical breach because of the. The club's year end was 30 June, which was two weeks after the opening of the summer transfer window. Forest were unable to sell Brennan Johnson in the first two weeks. They did sell him subsequently to Tottenham for a significantly larger fee than they would have got if they accepted one of the lower offers that was received earlier. And Forest's argument was that they should get credit for that and that the eventual sale of Brennan Johnson within the transfer window that spanned the Forest year end should have been taken as a significant mitigating feature in assessing the, the penalty that was introduced because the Forest had breached the PSR barrier. But that breach was cleared following the sale of Brennan Johnson.

And so Forrest's argument was that, you know, four penalties was excessive and that was something that we'd actually discussed at the Forest Supporters Trust board and decided that we would make our views known to the club and the Premier League and giving details and reasons as to why we thought the penalty was excessive. I'm not sure that the Premier League paid any attention to it, if I'm honest, but we felt it. We needed to give our views on the matter and so we did. The appeal board does make reference to our report. It also added that it didn't think it added anything that the club hadn't made in its own submissions to the appeal board, which, I mean, our document was an independent submission. So in some respects that. That shows that we were both on the same page. And when the results of the appeal were announced a few days ago, I have to say, well, I think, like everybody, we were expecting a more positive response to the appeal. And in some respects, having read the appeal board's findings, I really don't understand why there was a delay in providing their decision. I mean, Burnley and Lewton have been complaining that the uncertainty is affecting them and the way they prepare for games and it will have affected forest as well.

And why it took them. Why it took the board so long to release their report, I really don't know. I mean, they could easily, the day after the appeal or two days, two or three days after the appeal, say they've made the decision there's going to be no change to the penalty and their written report will follow in due course. I mean, that often happens in legal cases. The decision will be given so that people know the verdict of what's happening and that the detailed report follows in due course. They could easily have done that and I don't understand why they didn't. And, you know, whether that in itself shows slight disrespect to the clubs in the Premier League at the bottom of the table. Well, other people will make their own minds up about that. But when the appeal report came out, there were a number of elements to it that, again, I'm uncomfortable with, to be honest. And if I may, I mean, of course, one of the. If I. If I can just read out a couple of the paragraphs in the overall conclusions of the. Of the appeal board. It said some criticisms of the initial decision have involved a minute examination of the words used by the commission.

Decisions such as these should not be subject to microscopic forensic examination and interpreted as if there were statutes which had been drafted by parliamentary council. Well, I've got. Again, I've got a fundamental problem with that because all the club that's subject to a PSR breach can act on is the report of the independent commission. That's the only thing they've got. They'll have given their evidence and the commission comes out with a report, a penalty and a judgment. Any club that's subject to that, the only thing they can do is work on the basis of the independent commission's report and to say that it shouldn't be subject to review, I think is fundamentally wrong. What else can clubs do? How else can they challenge the decision? They have to go on the basis of the, the written report. And if the written report is badly worded or clumsily worded, then that's down to the authors of that report, and clubs challenging it shouldn't be criticized. The appeal board went on to say a further practice that adds to the complexity and cost is a citation of other decisions on sanctions imposed for breach of the PSR.

We have been assisted by being referred to the appeals in Sheffield Wednesday and Everton one. That is because the decisions in both cases contain statements of general guidance, but reference to individual cases on particular facts is generally unhelpful and should be avoided. I can understand that to some degree, but the whole process, the whole system of english law is based on precedent. Any case that goes to court, the lawyers will be talking about similar cases that have happened previously and looking for similarities between the various cases. So to suggest that actually precedents shouldn't, you know, shouldn't be considered, I think again, it's fundamentally wrong. And the final point that they made is it's understandable that clubs wishing to appeal against sanction will search for other cases to compare the seriousness of the breach with that in other cases. As the number of these cases increases, there will be a growing temptation to examine them in detail and burden commissions and appeal boards with minute examination of the similarities with and differences from the incident case. Such approach will rarely be helpful. Someone is, if a club is faced with a PSR breach, the only thing they've got to go on is to report the, the report that they receive, the judgments that are made in that report, and to compare it with other cases.

Who actually makes the appeal board up in the Premier League? Are these, you know, how did the Premier League go about finding people to sit on the board?

Well, looking at, looking at the members of Everton one, Everton two Everton appeal one forests board, forests appeal, they're all different. There's no consistency. The members that sat on the Forest appeal was the right Honorable Lord Dyson, who is a. I mean, he was the most senior judge on the circuit at some point and he's doing, you know, is still active at 80. The other two members of the board were again King's counsel, David Phillips and Daniel Alexander, both of whom I think claim to have sporting experience in dealing with sporting disputes. But again, it's a completely new set of people who have looked at similar facts in other cases and come to a different conclusion, as I'll try and explain. I mean, Forrest's appeal was based on two fundamental points, that the sale of Brennan Johnson should have been regarded as a significant mitigating factor in determining the penalty, and also that the nature of the case was such that the penalty could have been suspended. With regards to whether Brendan Johnson's sale should be regarded as mitigation, the appeal board dismissed it totally and thought that the initial commission had handled it correctly.

Forest had a chance to sell Brennan Johnson. They chose not to. And the fact that it was, it was that Brennan was sold on the last day of the transfer window. Again, Forests were criticized for that. They could have sold him earlier. The appeal board again made reference to the fact that there was an offer that if it had been accepted in July, would almost have cleared the PSR breach. Almost. So if Forrest had accepted a lower figure, they could still have found themselves having a points breach, whereas by hanging on another few weeks they got 47 million, which more than clear, cleared the breach. The point that has been made in other cases is that the. I mean this mitigation point is subjective. It is subjective. The appeal board just totally, totally ignored it, totally rejected it. And again, for reasons that, well, they just followed the same line of argument that the initial commission had followed. And so they said no, could have done it earlier, should have done it earlier. And the fact that you didn't show disrespect for the rules, which again, I mean, it's their interpretation, but again, I think it's a situation that's totally different to the position facing Everton.

And again, the second line of appeal from Forrest was that having breached the PSR barrier because of the sale of Brennan Johnson within the transfer window, that because the breach had effectively been cleared within a relatively short period of the club's year end, that that should have been sufficient to trigger a deferred penalty. You know, so, you know, have a four point penalty, but carried over for a year or so just to make sure that the. That the club acted properly in the future. And there was reference in the papers to a case involving reading, again, going back quite a few years, where they were guilty of a significant breach, but a large part of the penalty imposed there was suspended because reading entered into a business plan and a monitoring program where the EFL could see that they were trading their way out of the difficulties. And that was the reason for a suspended sentence, reading and doing something about it. The response of the appeal board to that was, well, they can't suspend the penalty because there's no, there's no monitoring process in place, there's no business plan in place, so you can't suspend it.

Well, of course in the forest circumstances, there's no need for a business plan because Brendan Johnson had been sold, the profit had been made shortly after the year end, so there was no need for any monitoring. And so if, if ever there was a case for a suspension of a penalty, I would have thought that was it, Forrest's case, was it? But it wasn't even considered by the appeal board. And again, it struck me as being somewhat harsh, I have to say, and I didn't really follow the logical argument to it because it was one of, well, you know, the initial commission knew what they were doing, you know, we think they got it right. Well, you know, it's all about opinions, but I think they got it wrong.

And when you look at the differences between the Forest and Everton appeal as well, Robert, you're just shocked that Forrest haven't got any points back because obviously Everton received points back. You know, their appeal was taken into consideration and you mentioned there, there's similarities, but Forrest received no points back.

Yeah, it's, it's, yeah, I mean, again, referring to Everton two, there are a couple of interesting, a couple of interesting things. And again, going back to the comments I made, firstly about the appeal board and the comments they're making about not comparing like with like, and because each case is different, I mean, the Everton case, their board starts off by saying a sanction must reflect the aims of PSR in the wider context of the Premier League. And I was thinking about that, I mean, even that, that's open to interpretation. Because does it mean that if a club has done everything it can to mitigate a loss, that should be taken into account and the penalty reduced? Or does it mean if anyone's breached the PSR, they need a kicking for the benefit of all of the other clubs that haven't breached PSR? I don't know. But a more interesting comparison with the Everton two case is that there's recognition. The Everton technical director gave evidence on the recruitment strategy of Everton and said even in difficult financial circumstances, it's necessary to purchase players to secure the long term future of the club. He went on to say that there are practical and competitive constraints on player sales, which means that it's not a straightforward exercise to sell a player, and that Everton's attempts during winter 2023 window to sell further players was to no avail.

Well, the point about it's difficult to sell players is a point that we discussed in the previous podcast that didn't seem to be appreciated by the independent commission, that it takes three people, three parties to agree, a transfer, buying club, selling club and the player. But that seems that cut no ice in the forest case. But here with Everton it seems to have been accepted without question, even though in the report, the Everton Report, there's again a comment the Premier League suggested that Everton's purchase of players was reckless at a time when the club knew it was in serious trouble. Well, I mean, that echoes with some of the comments that were made by the independent to the independent commission during the forest case. And further, the Everton director of football accepted that a player regarded called player b could have been sold, but during that time he was still building value and developing his skill. Everton's intention, therefore, was not to sell him during 23, but to wait to allow him to develop and sell him thereafter. Well, so you'd think having seen the way that the commission reacted to Forrest, you know, having the temerity not to sell somebody in June for 17 million less than they actually got for him, you know, a few weeks later, you would expect the Everton commission to have absolutely gone to town on this.

Not a peep. I mean, my other concern as well, with the Everton, Everton two, they lost in 23. They lost, I think, 19 million. There were 19 million over the limit. That's in addition to the amount that they breached the limit by in 2022. But they were claiming double jeopardy. Evident, can't be punished for the same again for the losses in 22. But the rules clearly state that PSR is based on a rolling three year program. So if you have a loss in one year, that's going to have an impact in the PSR calculation for the following the two years after. And to claim double jeopardy I think is disingenuous. But again, it seems to have had some resonance with the Everton two independent commission because they would dot two points. And so we're in a situation where in aggregate, Everton's, Everton's losses are increasing, but in the second year, in the second breach, it's a two point penalty. Forrest had one breach that was cleared within a matter of weeks and they were hit with a four point penalty. It just seems unjust, really. But there's no consistency. And until there's consistency and clarity with the rules, then I think there are always going to be issues and I think that's the position that the Premier League have missed with this all of a sudden they decided that they needed to act on PSR.

The rules are unclear. They were set some years ago when nobody really anticipated the sort of problems that Everton faced with, you know, the loss of a main sponsor and what's looking increasingly financially fragile suitor to buy the club and the circumstances of forest which are totally different, which were addressed, player sold, you know, breach covered, but it's still a four point penalty and you know, it remains to be seen what will happen with the Manchester City case. I mean there are reports circulating that a deal's been done sort of behind closed doors and that the matter is going to be settled. I mean I don't know whether that's true or whether that's just, you know, media speculation. But if the Premier League wishes to retain any credibility over PSR then any decision made with Manchester City needs to be publicized in the same way that the Forest and Everton claims have independent commission look at the matter and report so that everybody knows the basis on which decisions are made.

Yeah. Were the trust and yourself, Robert, after the appeal, were you guys given any indication before it was made public? Or were you, you found out as it was made public or were you told before? Was there any actually conversations happened whilst you gave the evidence and after as well?

Well again, this is another issue with this. I mean the initial penalty I think was broadcast on talksport before it was released to the clubs. And the first I heard about again was via radio and I had understood, I contacted one of my colleagues on the board to say has anything come from the club? And I didn't think they had heard officially at that point. So, you know, it's again, which is disappointing really that, you know, you know, I mean the first I could understand them to some extent, I could understand them not advising the trust but I would have thought the first people to know before anything appears in the media ought to be the clubs involved. I think. I mean again I think it's, it's sort of slightly disrespectful really to be talking to members of the media before the club knows.

And you also think that this case will be settled now Forest can't appeal again, this will be kind of left as it is. I mean the club are under investigation as well for the whole statement and by the FA it seems like the Premier League and certainly Mister Maranakis must be very friendly with each other by now.

Well again it's I mean, if the Everton decision refereeing performance had been a one off, then you could look at the report that was issued and say, well, maybe that's slightly over the top, not on the continent. I mean, it was fairly mild compared with what other clubs have said about referees and the leagues on the continent, but it wasn't a one off. And, I mean, regular attendees at the world famous City ground will have seen a catalog of chronic refereeing decisions. And even on away games, I mean, the away game at Man United with, you know, the Rashford penalty and the Joe Worrall sending off were, you know, crazy. Well, poor decisions, in my view. And there comes a point when, I mean, I can understand the frustrations of the club because what more can they do? I mean, if. But for those decisions, how many points have forest lost because of those decisions? And it's, you know, they're not just some of the penalty decisions. You could say, well, you know, it's a judgment call, you know, was Nico Williams fouled? Would Tywo have got the ball if the goalie hadn't raised his arm?

Are questionable, but when you look at the Willy Bolly example, you know, which was wrong on so many counts, but he still had to serve a match suspension for a wrong second yellow because the rules don't allow it. I mean, Forest lost that game to Bournemouth. That could have been. That could have been three points. And the points deduction would have been. It would have merely affected whether Forest finished 15th or 16th or something. Whereas now I think everyone's sweating on the game on Saturday, which could be a great celebration, or it could be the precursor to an extremely nerve wracking week pending the visit to Burnley.

Yeah, I'm not looking forward to it, Robert. And, well, fingers crossed. Next season and in the summer we won't have to talk finance, we can talk football. We'll maybe get you on. Just for a podcast.

I hope so. I was away at the weekend and had to listen to the commentary of the Sheffield United game and I was a nervous wreck. It was the most uncomfortable 90 minutes I think I spent even when it was, you know, three. Even at three one, you know, you think, how long we got to go?

Yeah, it was nerve wracking in the away end. Yes. Fingers crossed. Let's hope that forest is safe before we've even kicked a ball. Robert, thank you for your time. Really appreciate it. Again, I will recommend that everybody reads the statement from the trust that Robert and the trust have put out. You can visit that just by going to the trust website or on their social media at Nottingham Forest Supporters Trust. And I'd also recommend you listen to our previous podcast that we did with Robert, me and Sarah with the original appeal and you can hear a lot more about the ins and outs before this appeal and everything like that. So fingers crossed, no more points deduction talk Robert, it's been a pleasure to do it, but it's something that I think a lot of Forest fans are getting sick and tired of now, so hopefully next season we won't have to do it. Yeah Robert, thank you for your time as always. If you have enjoyed this episode of Garabori Red, remember to drop us a like and share and subscribe on YouTube. You can also follow us across Apple and Spotify podcast leavers review if you did enjoy this episode as it really helps the podcast and we will see you next time from me and Robert come on you reds and hopefully no more points deductions.