Financial Fair Play (FFP)

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

I read it - but don't believe it
DT is not the fount of all knowledge

We are not going to agree on this.
I am convinced that the recruitment strategy is much improved from where it was and the vast majority of the players bought in over the last year have and will continue to make Forest a better team and now we have a manager who knows his way around this league.

PS - You should have used Turner & Vlac to demonstrate your point - I couldn't have defended that

Yeah, I believe DT here. But each to their own.

True, Turner & Vlac prove my point too.

 

[Robertson]

Biancone, O'Brien, Dennis, Freuler...

Freuler was disappointing, but played 30 games last season. Dennis 25. Just because they weren’t especially good doesn’t mean we didn’t need someone to play those positions.

Biancone got injured. He was also one of those clever Murphy investment signings that are supposed to be the way to go.

I don’t what went wrong between Cooper and O’Brien. He was in the team, or at least on the bench, until suddenly he wasn’t.

 

[PlayedOnGrass]

Scarpa?
Dennis?
Biancone?
Freuler?
Richards?
Bowler?
Panzo?
etc.

That's a full 11 right there between us lol.

​

Are these all bad players or are some not managed in the right way?

Scarpa - didn't cost us anything sold him for £5m
Dennis - scored 10 goals in the Premier League for Watford the previous system - which is more that any of our players got
Bianconne - we will never know - was injured and then sold
Frueler - a top class player in Serie A before joining us - a top player in Serie A after leaving us
Richards - Injured whern we signed him - I believe there is still a case ongoing against Munich
Bowler - agreed no idea why why bought him
Panzo - I don't know whether we bought him/were obliged to buy him in the championship - either way - not good enough

I promise - I am not stalking you

 

[Robertson]

Scarpa?
Dennis?
Biancone?
Freuler?
Richards?
Bowler?
etc.

That's almost a full team right there between us lol.

​

We didn’t need Bowler. Scarpa we at least got money back for.

We needed to sign a left back. It was Richards. He got injured.

Others covered above.

 

[congo_red_49]

Freuler was disappointing, but played 30 games last season. Dennis 25. Just because they weren’t especially good doesn’t mean we didn’t need someone to play those positions.

They didn't improve on the players we already had in the squad, so were unnecessary for me. The players who were here already could have played those games and we wouldn't have been any worse off.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Are these all bad players or are some not managed in the right way?

Scarpa - didn't cost us anything sold him for £5m
Dennis - scored 10 goals in the Premier League for Watford the previous system - which is more that any of our players got
Bianconne - we will never know - was injured and then sold
Frueler - a top class player in Serie A before joining us - a top player in Serie A after leaving us
Richards - Injured whern we signed him - I believe there is still a case ongoing against Munich
Bowler - agreed no idea why why bought him
Panzo - I don't know whether we bought him/were obliged to buy him in the championship - either way - not good enough

I promise - I am not stalking you

So, if the club can find one or two half decent reasons to sign a player, regardless of how they fit, what they earn and how many people are already at the club etc. they should sign them?

Let's go out and sign another 60, because I can guarantee you'll be able to do the same for those lol.

To refer you to @little_donkey_congo_red 's example earlier...

Recruitment: "Here, have a wing-back"
Manager: "Thanks, but we're trying to move to a back 4, is he good at full-back"
Recruitment: "Who cares? He's won a World Cup!"

Recruitment: "Here's that striker you wanted."
Manager: "Great, he's got pace like we needed?"
Recruitment: "Lol, he scores goals, what more do you want?"

It's not Premiership standard.

Alternatively, we could have not signed Dennis, not signed Wood, and spent 25m on a much better forward whilst leaving 1 squad place free too. Easy? No, but the standard required at this level.

 

[Robertson]

They didn't improve on the players we already had in the squad, so were unnecessary for me. The players who were here already could have played those games and we wouldn't have been any worse off.

Ok, who should have been playing in midfield rather than Freuler? Dennis I suppose we had Surridge but Cooper didn’t seem to want to pick him.

 

[Matt]

Scarpa?
Dennis?
Biancone?
Freuler?
Richards?
Bowler?
etc.

That's almost a full team right there between us lol.

​

Scarpa - Cover for the #10 role, one of the most decorated domestic Brazilian players available and he was p much free
Dennis - Alternative #9 for Taiwo, scored loads for a poor Watford team
Biancone - Signed to play RCB in a back 3, got a horrific injury
Freuler - Had a stellar reputation in Italy, star player in a really competitive Atalanta team
Richards - Undoubtable talent, medical fiasco is well documented but on paper was a really good signing
Bowler - I'll give you that one but he was unplayable in the Championship the season we signed him

You can make a case for every signing we made being reasonable.

 

[EmmersonForest4]

I've also heard this many times.

But wild idea! Maybe there's more than one person at the club at the time who though it was a good plan.

That could be true as well! They do all talk to each other and the way these things work is players are identified by different people but they all talk about it and usually make decisions together.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Scarpa - Cover for the #10 role, one of the most decorated domestic Brazilian players available and he was p much free
Dennis - Alternative #9 for Taiwo, scored loads for a poor Watford team
Biancone - Signed to play RCB in a back 3, got a horrific injury
Freuler - Had a stellar reputation in Italy, star player in a really competitive Atalanta team
Richards - Undoubtable talent, medical fiasco is well documented but on paper was a really good signing
Bowler - I'll give you that one but he was unplayable in the Championship the season we signed him

You can make a case for every signing we made being reasonable.

Course you can, see my response a few posts above which already answers that.

Andrea Silenzi - One of the top scorers in Serie A
Eugine Dadi - Looked the business at Tranmere
Etc.

 

[SouthManchesterTree]

Biancone, O'Brien, Dennis, Freuler...

Freuler played loads of games. I didn’t rate him, but that’s another story.
Biancone - got injured, unforeseeable
LOB - Should have kept him and not signed Shelvey. Was in the team at the start and did quite well until he was ill.
Dennis - he was a signing that didn’t work out rather than a pointless signing

 

[EmmersonForest4]

Scarpa - Cover for the #10 role, one of the most decorated domestic Brazilian players available and he was p much free
Dennis - Alternative #9 for Taiwo, scored loads for a poor Watford team
Biancone - Signed to play RCB in a back 3, got a horrific injury
Freuler - Had a stellar reputation in Italy, star player in a really competitive Atalanta team
Richards - Undoubtable talent, medical fiasco is well documented but on paper was a really good signing
Bowler - I'll give you that one but he was unplayable in the Championship the season we signed him

You can make a case for every signing we made being reasonable.

However Bowler was entirely unreasonable asd the big heads at the club must have known we were sailing close to the FFP wind. So why spend valuable money on players we never intended on playing? That is absurd really, all your other ones I agree with. Although if Richards was signed with a bad injury already than that was mental.

 

[Robertson]

Course you can, see my response a few posts above which already answers that.

Andrea Silenzi - One of the top scorers in Serie A
Eugine Dadi - Looked the business at Tranmere
Etc.

Seems to me your argument is that a lot of the signings weren’t very good (which I don’t necessarily disagree with), rather than we didn’t need them, or at least someone in their position. There’s a difference.

 

[Matt]

So, if the club can find one or two half decent reasons to sign a player, regardless of how they fit, what they earn and how many people are already at the club etc. they should sign them?

Let's go out and sign another 60, because I can guarantee you'll be able to do the same for those lol.

To refer you to @little_donkey_congo_red 's example earlier...

Recruitment: "Here, have a wing-back"
Manager: "Thanks, but we're trying to move to a back 4, is he good at full-back"
Recruitment: "Who cares? He's won a World Cup!"

Recruitment: "Here's that striker you wanted."
Manager: "Great, he's got pace like we needed?"
Recruitment: "Lol, he scores goals, what more do you want?"

It's not Premiership standard.

Alternatively, we could have not signed Dennis, not signed Wood, and spent 25m on a much better forward whilst leaving 1 squad place free too. Easy? No, but the standard required at this level.

But both players do fit the mould we wanted? Dennis, by rights, played in interchanging front 3 at Watford with Pedro. We played with a split striker system in the championship so he made loads of sense.

Montiel played as a wing back for Argentina but most of his life at full back in a back 4 - including at Sevilla, where we signed him from.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Seems to me your argument is that a lot of the signings weren’t very good (which I don’t necessarily disagree with), rather than we didn’t need them, or at least someone in their position. There’s a difference.

I mean, I've already said what my point is many times, but I'll say it again.

There's little joined up thinking with the Greek's recruitment, a poor overall strategy and an excess amount of players moved through the club constantly.

 

[EmmersonForest4]

Course you can, see my response a few posts above which already answers that.

Andrea Silenzi - One of the top scorers in Serie A
Eugine Dadi - Looked the business at Tranmere
Etc.

However if you can see a valid reason to sign someone than we shouldnt lambast the signing because not every signing pays off. Torres and Shevchenko went to chelsea for big money and they didnt work out. All that mattered in summer was the board didnt break FFP not that they signed fewer players. Of course we shouldnt be inudated in positions but our squad was so short and poor last summer that the stratagy of lots of players in itself wasnt a problem. Its signing players we werent gonna use and spending a little over the limit.

 

[congo_red_49]

Ok, who should have been playing in midfield rather than Freuler? Dennis I suppose we had Surridge but Cooper didn’t seem to want to pick him.

Depends who was partnering him in a specific game out of the 30. If it was the times he was partnered with Colback and Shelvey, then you could have took him out and replaced him with a shop mannequin and it wouldn't have downgraded the performances.
His first start was against Man City - when he was paired with Yates and O'Brien. We could have played Kouyate there instead of at centre-back and played an actual center-back instead (Cook was on the bench, so i'd go with him).
His next start was against Fulham, Kouyate was on the bench, so probably him again.

Do I have to go through all 30?

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

But both players do fit the mould we wanted? Dennis, by rights, played in interchanging front 3 at Watford with Pedro. We played with a split striker system in the championship so he made loads of sense.

Montiel played as a wing back for Argentina but most of his life at full back in a back 4 - including at Sevilla, where we signed him from.

So did Silenzi, big, strong striker with plenty of goals in his locker.

Clark admits he bought him on some vids and word of mouth without actually scouting him though. Wouldn't surprise me if that was the case with some of the players the Greeks sign, and that's where my concern lies.

There's a lot of great players on paper.

However if you can see a valid reason to sign someone than we shouldnt lambast the signing because not every signing pays off. Torres and Shevchenko went to chelsea for big money and they didnt work out. All that mattered in summer was the board didnt break FFP not that they signed fewer players. Of course we shouldnt be inudated in positions but our squad was so short and poor last summer that the stratagy of lots of players in itself wasnt a problem. Its signing players we werent gonna use and spending a little over the limit.

I'm not, I'm criticizing the overall method. The other chap is the one picking individual players out.

 

[congo_red_49]

Freuler played loads of games. I didn’t rate him, but that’s another story.
Biancone - got injured, unforeseeable
LOB - Should have kept him and not signed Shelvey. Was in the team at the start and did quite well until he was ill.
Dennis - he was a signing that didn’t work out rather than a pointless signing

Freuler, you didn't rate him because he didn't bring anything to the table when he played. And he had lots of opportunity to so. He was pointless because he contributed nothing. You don;t have to not play to be a pointless signing.
Biancone - even before the injury, didn't fit the formation we were playing, being neither a wing-back, nor a true centre back. Pointless signing.
LOB - didn't look physical enough for the Premier League and didn't fit the template we were going for in midfield. Pointless signing.
Dennis - Never bought into the team ethic and was never going to. Team ethic was everything to Cooper. Pointless signing.

 

[Matt]

However Bowler was entirely unreasonable asd the big heads at the club must have known we were sailing close to the FFP wind. So why spend valuable money on players we never intended on playing? That is absurd really, all your other ones I agree with. Although if Richards was signed with a bad injury already than that was mental.

I don't disagree Bowler was a weird signing. However, we have loaned him out three times since owning him which will have generated loan fees and covered his wages (which won't be much, relatively). Considering we only paid £2m for him, amortised over a 3yr contract so £700kish a year, I wouldn't be surprised if we've actually turned an in-year profit on his book value

 

[Rockabilly]

 

[Robertson]

Depends who was partnering him in a specific game out of the 30. If it was the times he was partnered with Colback and Shelvey, then you could have took him out and replaced him with a shop mannequin and it wouldn't have downgraded the performances.
His first start was against Man City - when he was paired with Yates and O'Brien. We could have played Kouyate there instead of at centre-back and played an actual center-back instead (Cook was on the bench, so i'd go with him).
His next start was against Fulham, Kouyate was on the bench, so probably him again.

Do I have to go through all 30?

Again, you’re just repeating that he wasn’t very good. I don’t disagree.

The question is whether we needed to sign him.

We only had Colback and Yates so needed to sign a couple at least. Or stuck with Cafu.

We signed O’Brien, Mangala, Kouyate and Freuler. (Forget Shelvey, we absolutely didn’t need him.)

So a pool of six to start the season. Probably a couple too many, true.

For most of the season though Cooper was picking Freuler ahead of all the other central midfielders bar maybe Yates. So he for one clearly didn’t see him as an unnecessary signing.

 

[Robertson]

I mean, I've already said what my point is many times, but I'll say it again.

There's little joined up thinking with the Greek's recruitment, a poor overall strategy and an excess amount of players moved through the club constantly.

And it’s a fair point. But you can’t just point at every single player that didn’t work out in hindsight to prove it.

 

[Redemption]

Who's to say any 'unpublished guidance' given from the PL to our independent commission is the same as what Everton's was. It could be totally different.

So, to muddy the waters... or maybe to clear them

This is taken from the Everton Commission Report (p.27)

On 10 August 2023 the Premier League board adopted a sanction policy that it considered to be appropriate to breaches of the PSR. The policy was detailed in section 7 of Mr Masters’ witness statement. At the pre-trial review held on 4 October 2023 the Premier League clarified a misunderstanding as to the status of its position. It made clear that it was not seeking to impose a policy on the Commission as a binding formula. Rather it was advancing its view in the same way as the EFL policy was advanced by those representing it before a Commission hearing an EFL P&S complaint. Its status was therefore no more than that of a submission.

The guidelines advocated by the Premier League are similar to, but different from, those of the EFL. As with the EFL guidelines they start with a presumption that the appropriate penalty will be a sporting sanction in the form of a deduction of points. They adopt a fixed starting point of a deduction of 6 points. There would be an increase from that starting point of one point for every £5 million by which the club had exceeded the PSR threshold of £105 million. Further adjustments could be made to reflect aggravating or mitigating features. The rationale for this view is given in the evidence of Mr Masters

 

[Notcher]

I don't know where this corruption talk comes from.

I very much doubt that a body that had Trevor Brooking on its panel when deciding the fate of West Ham and Sheff Utd over Tevez would act in such a way