Nottingham Forest fined £750,000 after FA sought £1m sanction over VAR post
Forest were unhappy with Stuart Attwell’s performance in their defeat to Everton in April and pointed out he is a fan of relegation rivals Luton.
The Football Association sought a fine in excess of £1million for Nottingham Forest over the club’s “egregious, direct and public attack” on VAR Stuart Attwell in a social media post.
It was confirmed on Friday that Forest had been fined £750,000 for the post published in April, which followed a match against Everton where the midlands club felt they were denied three penalties.
The FA’s submission was that the fine should be over, or at least equal to, £1million given that it in its view it attacked the integrity of an official and the game of football as a whole “on an unparalleled scale”.
However, Forest released a statement describing the fine issued by the panel as “disproportionate” and said they would appeal.
The club were also warned by the panel over their conduct.
Forest had posted on their X account on April 21: “Three extremely poor decisions – three penalties not given – which we simply cannot accept.
“We warned the PGMOL that the VAR (Attwell) is a Luton fan before the game but they didn’t change him. Our patience has been tested multiple times. NFFC will now consider its options.”
The written reasons in the liability hearing in this case confirmed that Howard Webb, the chief refereeing officer of Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), and Mark Clattenburg, then a referee analyst employed by Forest, did discuss the fact that Attwell was a Luton fan during a call on April 19 – two days before the Everton match.
However, the commission says it was “common ground” between the parties that no representations or requests were made to replace Attwell.
The impact on Attwell was taken into account by the panel.
“The Commission takes the view that the principal (but not the sole) victim of this ill-chosen and irresponsible post was Stuart Attwell, and we have in mind the contents of his statement which sets out the stress, distress, fear and embarrassment caused to him as a result,” the panel stated.
“The impact upon Mr Attwell has plainly been very significant indeed. To Stuart Attwell, the harm has continued well beyond the short period contended for by NFFC.”
Webb said in his statement to the panel that Forest’s post had “the potential of serving as a green light to those who seek to abuse officials and normalises questioning the integrity of all referees”.
The panel found a reasonable bystander would conclude that Forest were clearly linking the rejected penalty claims to Attwell’s allegiances, and found the FA charge proven.
The panel added that it was “an extremely ill-informed accusation” to have made, because Everton were also one of Luton’s relegation rivals.
The panel said: “There were ways in which NFFC’s concerns about VAR and grievances, such as they were, could have been aired…. but NFFC chose to air them in a way which they knew would generate massive publicity, even if they were later to rue their choice of words and the way in which their grievances were received.”
The FA also expressed concern that Forest had not identified steps they had taken to ensure there could be no repeat of this incident.
While Forest’s lawyer said the club’s director of communications now had to sign off on all social media posts, the panel noted the director of communications had not been invited to consider whether to remove the post or issue an apology to Attwell.
The panel found this to be “clear evidence” that this was a continuing offence, and should be dealt with as such.
Following their initial post about Attwell, Forest also asked to listen to the VAR audio from the game, a request which PGMOL granted.
The club also called for PGMOL to take into account “contextual” rivalries when making referee and VAR appointments, but when the allegiances criteria were published at the start of this season this was not included.
Clattenburg left his position at Forest on the day the club were charged by the FA, having been given a formal warning himself.
Comments made by manager Nuno Espirito Santo and defender Neco Williams in relation to the officiating at the Everton game also resulted in sanctions, with Nuno given a suspended one-match touchline ban, a £40,000 fine and a warning as to his future conduct, and Williams warned and fined £24,000.
Nuno has since been charged with misconduct again by the FA in September after being shown a red card during a match against Brighton.
Earlier this month, Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis was charged by the FA over an allegation that he behaved in an improper manner close to the tunnel at the City Ground following his side’s defeat to Fulham.
