The Football Association will have to pay Nottingham Forest a significant, six-figure sum after losing a landmark legal battle over allegations one of its panel chairs may have been 'biased' against the club.
In a devastating verdict that will trigger red faces and serious questions within the governing body, lawyers found that Graeme McPherson KC had launched what could be viewed as an 'unjustified, inappropriate, and personal attack on the club' after it was fined for a now-infamous tweet.
Following their 2-0 defeat at Everton last April, which featured three disputed penalty appeals, Forest launched a searing attack on X, stating that they had warned PGMOL that the VAR for the high-stakes relegation battle was a Luton fan, and that the refs' body had failed to make a change.
They were subsequently charged with bringing the game into disrepute for the tweet, which was viewed nearly 40 million times, with the FA initially seeking to impose a £1m fine.
An outraged Forest hit back, claiming the FA was acting unfairly and effectively plucking a figure out of thin air. However, Mr McPherson, who was chair of the FA panel which made a preliminary decision, said he rejected 'the club's somewhat hysterical submission'.
Forest were eventually fined £750,000, which they appealed. Mr McPherson was then selected by the FA to chair the appeal, something which Forest objected to thanks to his previous comments. Eventually, he excused himself from proceedings thanks to 'pre-existing commitments'.
However, later in 2024, Forest were fined £125,000 and Chelsea £40,000 after a mass confrontation unfolded during their Premier League clash at Stamford Bridge.
Again, Forest appealed and were left stunned when Mr McPherson was named as the chair of the panel.
They claimed Mr McPherson's 'hysterical' comment meant he should be recused from the Chelsea matter on the grounds of apparent bias and sought an arbitration hearing.
That hearing has now concluded – and has ruled in Forest's favour. Despite Mr McPherson's claims to the contrary, the panel found that this was 'a case where apparent bias has been made out'. They added: 'There can be no doubt but that the description…as 'somewhat hysterical' can fairly be said to be, and would be seen by the notional fair-minded independent observer to be, an unjustified, inappropriate, and personal attack on the club and its legal representatives.'
The panel described Mr McPherson's use of the word 'hysterical' as 'inherently highly pejorative' adding: 'a fair-minded informed person would consider that there was a real possibility that Mr McPherson was biased against the club'.
The ruling continued: 'The Tribunal has no doubt that, having found that Mr McPherson suffers from apparent bias in relation to the club, and that the bias arises out of disciplinary proceedings brought by the FA against the club, he should not sit on the tribunal dealing with the Chelsea Proceedings.'
Forest had also sought to stop Mr McPherson from sitting on any alleged misconduct panels involving the club during this season. However, that request was rejected as such a move would be 'unfair'.
The FA declined to comment.
A new chair of the panel for the appeal will now have to be found, with the FA to be hit in the pocket. They will have to pay the cost of the tribunal, which was £105,750 plus VAT, their own legal costs and Forest's bill.
Ahead of the arrival of the Independent Regulator, the matter may well trigger embarrassment at the FA. Areas of discipline are widely viewed as one of few areas in which the governing body retains some semblance of power given the domination of the Premier League.