A number of Premier League teams have contacted Nottingham Forest for more details about their legal victory over the FA after the club successfully claimed that an appeals panel decision had been biased against them, Sky Sports News has been told.
The legal ruling is likely to earn Forest hundreds of thousands of pounds from the FA in compensation, after the barrister appointed to hear the club’s appeal said in his formal summing up that Forest had made a «somewhat hysterical submission».
Sky Sports News understands other clubs want to understand Forest’s legal argument better, in case they wish to challenge the FA’s disciplinary procedures in the future.
There has been no comment from the FA.
The issue dates back to April 2024, when Forest faced disciplinary proceedings after posting on X that, in advance of their 2-0 defeat to Everton, the club had warned the FA that Stuart Attwell, the appointed VAR for the game, was a Luton Town fan. At the time, Luton were in a relegation battle with Forest.
Forest were eventually fined £750,000 for bringing the game into disrepute, after the controversial tweet, questioning Attwell’s integrity, was viewed almost 40 million times.
But the FA was seeking a £1m fine against Forest, and Graeme McPherson KC was appointed to chair the disciplinary panel.
It was he who called Forest’s complaint «hysterical» – comments which an independent panel have now decided were «unjustified, inappropriate, and a personal attack on the club».
When Forest appealed against the fine, McPherson was selected by the FA to chair the appeal, and Forest objected about his involvement again.
In a later incident in October last year, Forest were then fined £125,000 by the FA for their part in a mass confrontation of players against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea were fined £40,000.
Forest appealed against that decision, with McPherson once again named as chair of the disciplinary panel.
Again, Forest objected, and now an appeal panel has ruled in their favour, chaired by Kim Franklin KC, who said: «There can be no doubt but that the description as ‘somewhat hysterical’ can fairly be said to be an unjustified, inappropriate and personal attack on the club and its legal representatives.»
McPherson contested Forest’s view, but the panel said his use of the word «hysterical» was «inherently highly pejorative» and that any fair-minded person would conclude «there was a real possibility that Mr McPherson was biased against the club».
As a result, a new chair of the panel for this appeal will have to be appointed, with the FA having to cover the bill for that, and Forest’s legal costs.
Dejar una contestacion