Pin-seeker
Well-known member
It’s nice when you can spend €80m#buyingtheleague![]()
On a player like Nunez,then just stick him on the bench when it doesn’t work out
It’s nice when you can spend €80m#buyingtheleague![]()
Surely Liverpool won’t drop another £100m+ on one player?
![]()
#buyingtheleague![]()
They’ll be dodging 115 charges in a few years…![]()
![]()
Still got to finish spending the Coutinho money yet![]()
Sounds like Liverpool’s bank is based in Nigeria
Seems Liverpool are actually in a very strong position to splash some cash
![]()
Alexander Isak: How can Liverpool afford Newcastle striker?
Liverpool have spent more than £170m on players this summer and are rumoured to be interested in Newcastle striker Alexander Isak.www.bbc.co.uk
How many times, not Forest but your owner!Hypothetical scenario Arthur: Two seasons ago, Forest or Everton’s points deduction meant Luton finished one point above them and they got relegated. Luton survived as a direct result of said deduction.
I’ve got fifty quid here that says you WOULDN’T have said “Forest/Everton have earned the right to remain in the Premier League by winning more points.”
In both cases, punishments came because of errors by the owners. Not by the players. Not by the fans. But I have zero doubt at all that you will spin this rule breach as not being the same as other rule breaches. All rule breaches are equal, but some are more equal than others, eh?
For the record - I couldn’t give a stuff whether Forest end up in Europa or back in the Conference. But the way Palace fans have dragged us into their fight and tried to lay blame at our door for their own incompetence and inability to provide a correct email address or act in time the way everyone else did means my sympathy for their plight is now non existent.
Controlling interest...Unsure if you genuinely don’t know or if you’re trying to make a point.
But they breached UEFA’s multi‑club ownership rules — specifically Article 5.01 of the UEFA Club Competitions Regulations which prohibits any individual or entity from holding a controlling interest in more than one club participating in the same European competition as of the 1 March 2025 deadline.
They missed a deadline. It’s a stupid deadline and the rules are stupid. But it could easily have been circumvented and - as Forest and Everton were told so many times - rules are rules. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re stupid or not.
How many times, not Forest but your owner!
Do some digging on him rather than our fan base. Charged with match fixing in Geeece. The links to Lyon are quite staggering. Banning journalists from the grounds as he doesn't like certain opinions. .
For Greek shipping magnet, read used car dealer in the 80s.
Just hope for Forests sake he does not harm your club down the line.
So you don’t think Steve Parish is at fault at all? Regardless of how ridiculous the rules and/or criteria are, the buck stops with him.
This is a pretty level headed view, reflective of most Forest fans opinions. But I’m flabbergasted that Steve Parish has managed to gaslight the entire Palace fanbase into thinking it’s anyone else’s fault but his.
100% this.As football fans we all like to see all footballing matters decided on the pitch.
No one likes to see clubs hit with points deductions for financial reasons as it has nothing to do with playing the game,
I think it’s the same with VAR, it feels wrong to the average football fan that the officials on the pitch are not actually making the big decisions, we all use to moan about ref errors but it was part and parcel of the great game, VAR doesn’t feel like that.
We all know (even Forest fans) that Palace deserve their place in the Europa by virtue of their actions on the pitch.
The fact they are not being allowed into that competition just feels wrong because it’s something they deserve due to their football achievements.
It’s like the person who wins the club champs being disqualified for signing the scorecard in the wrong place.
I don’t think Forest have done anything wrong they are just seen as the villains as they are the club who will benefit the most.

I would presume the contract states that the release clause must be met in full in One payment.100% this.
On a different note - I assume everyone's outraged with Ipswich after Brentford paid the release clause but they blocked it anyway.
View attachment 58792
100% this.
On a different note - I assume everyone's outraged with Ipswich after Brentford paid the release clause but they blocked it anyway.
View attachment 58792
Forest fans are in real danger of just becoming bitter and twisted, a huge chip on their shoulder. Ipswich are not arguing about the release fee, it is the payment structure. Sort that out and the player goes.
Forest could be the new Ballotelli![]()
I'm not annoyed with the club really. That low clause was put in his contract to get it over the line. At the time, Steve Cooper was on the brink of walking if Gibbs-White deal wasn't done (true story) - it was the only player he specifically requested that summer. So I understand why it's as low as it is, and to be fair, at the time, £60m on a £25m purchase (because the add-ons were mostly Europe and England related and no one thought that would be a thing this soon after promotion!), would have been great business.I would presume the contract states that the release clause must be met in full in One payment.
Maybe that is the case with all release clauses.
As a Forest fan are you annoyed with whoever deals with your contracts for allowing MGW release clause to be too low or not agreeing a new contract with a higher release clause last season?
Forest fans are in real danger of just becoming bitter and twisted, a huge chip on their shoulder. Ipswich are not arguing about the release fee, it is the payment structure. Sort that out and the player goes.
Forest could be the new Ballotelli![]()
Who knows. I did read somewhere yesterday that, after having the initial bid for Ekitike rejected, we upped it to €80m.
Either way....whoever gets Ekitike...Frankfurt will be lining their pockets....nothing like an eBay style bidding war!!!
If we had to have only one...it would be to keep Isak....a known quantity in terms of his ability to score in the PL, plus, I want to see how playing with his international colleague Elanga pans out.
If our ex Sporting Director Paul Mitchell hadn't ballsed things up then there wouldn't be any discussion...Isak would be nailed on as a Newcastle player for the foreseeable future unless some super bid came in (and £130m doesnt count as a "super bid")....but no, when the club wanted to offer him a revised longer contract with better terms, Mitchell veto'd it saying the player earned enough as it was....yes there were still PSR concerns, but the moment we secured CL qualification, the club should have offered a new deal immeidately.