Financial Fair Play (FFP)

[BristolfaninPeace]

The promotion bonuses hurt us more than most other things in the accounts. Its been stated by financial experts such as Kieran Maguire that these can be excluded, but we were informed late in the day that wasn't the case.

Makes me think that other clubs have excluded them previously or why would Maguire have suggested they could be. We should be scouring EPL club accounts over the PSR period to see if all promoted clubs have put them in the accounts. If they haven't we need to ask to be treated equally regardless of points penalty because it impacts us next year too.

If we are relegated how will the EFL treat these losses, because we'd look a lot better without that 21m of loss.

Same with Covid. We should be demanding transparency on all clubs losses because if it isn't strictly Covid related it provides an unfair sporting advantage per the PSR definition. And if it can't be proven that the losses were recorded accurately we should demand that they be capped as per the EFL.

Its the EPLs role to ensure the reporting rules have been followed and if they haven't put any governance in to ensure this it would surely enable us to call on that years accounts to be revisited across the board.

I agree tbh, the Promotion Bonuses should be revisited for all clubs since the 3 year rule begun.

There are a few I think could fail if so. Not necessarily Brentford, Huddersfield, Norwich, Sheffield United but sides like Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Fulham more than once, maybe Wolves maybe Leeds.

Some clubs put their Covid losses openly by category in their Accounts, some didn't. £20m of Fulham's possible Covid losses looks dodgy. Could that be added back? (Would be averaged for Covid at £10m).

 

[REDDERS78]

Am I right in saying that the big man could solve any ‘overspend’ vs PSR this Summer purely by making additional £££ guarantees?

Or - most likely - have I just dreamt that?

Unfortunately not but he wouldnt do it anyway, all he does is take take take from the club with no investment, he hasnt put a penny into Forest.

If we had another owner like Reading we could be in the Prem by now !

 

[Bonfy177]

I have a mate - who is a Leicester fan

Stand in the corner Bob, and face the wall.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Unfortunately not but he wouldnt do it anyway, all he does is take take take from the club with no investment, he hasnt put a penny into Forest.

If we had another owner like Reading we could be in the Prem by now !

If we didn't have Harry Arter in our squad we could be in league one like Reading now.

 

[Bob Fossil]

Stand in the corner Bob, and face the wall.

Been here for ages now Bonfy I need a piss

 

[Rockabilly]

Been here for ages now Bonfy I need a piss

Yer'll have to tie a knot in it Bob, Bonfy's down the garden in his shed, wearing' his silver suit and havin' a sauna.

He could be a while,

 

[Bonfy177]

Been here for ages now Bonfy I need a piss

Sh@t sorry I forget about you, reet quick slash get a drink and then back in ya corner.

 

[Bonfy177]

Yer'll have to tie a knot in it Bob, Bonfy's down the garden in his shed, wearing' his silver suit and havin' a sauna.

He could be a while,

Bad for ya them saunas, ended up wi a sore heed last time I was in one of them

 

[Rockabilly]

Bad for ya them saunas, ended up wi a sore heed last time I was in one of them

You had a lucky escape yer daft sod , you go more careful next time.

 

[Bonfy177]

You had a lucky escape yer daft sod , you go more careful next time.

Naaa the door is ok .

 

[Flaggers]

I agree tbh, the Promotion Bonuses should be revisited for all clubs since the 3 year rule begun.

There are a few I think could fail if so. Not necessarily Brentford, Huddersfield, Norwich, Sheffield United but sides like Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Fulham more than once, maybe Wolves maybe Leeds.

Some clubs put their Covid losses openly by category in their Accounts, some didn't. £20m of Fulham's possible Covid losses looks dodgy. Could that be added back? (Would be averaged for Covid at £10m).

Everton's declared Covid "losses" (£150-something million) are tantamount to fraud.

 

[Quntib Hollox]

Everton's declared Covid "losses" (£150-something million) are tantamount to fraud.

They did very well to get that figure accepted.

 

[Statto]

One thing I've thought of is that these things are being decided mid season. I know that's what the clubs voted for but it does affect a lot of clubs plans and not just the likes of Forest/Everton/Leics who are potentially in punishment - it affects those around them too.

So we would have needed to file accounts for last season during this one, then the processes determine whether the rules have been broken and to what extent... after that the punishment which is applied to the following season. So no punishments are determined and applied during the current season. That way everyone knows that a club will be starting on -15 and that will be all the deductions until the next season.

If someone like Leicester is promoted and during that season the EFL decides they need to be deducted points then that punishment should apply to their PL season, vice versa if a team is relegated.

 

[Redemption]

So we would have needed to file accounts for last season during this one [snip for brevity]

There is no possibility of a punishment in the season where the breach happens.

Timing makes it hard even to punish in the next season. There are legal issues that force some delay.

If you punish in the 3rd season, as per Everton's original deduction, everyone says its too long. Someone will be asking about the Man City delay shortly.

It's hard to get the balance. A big deduction in the next season increases the relegation risk... it easier to work off the deduction over a full season.

 

[Notcher]

There is no possibility of a punishment in the season where the breach happens.

Timing makes it hard even to punish in the next season. There are legal issues that force some delay.

If you punish in the 3rd season, as per Everton's original deduction, everyone says its too long. Someone will be asking about the Man City delay shortly.

It's hard to get the balance. A big deduction in the next season increases the relegation risk... it easier to work off the deduction over a full season.

What you say is absolutely true but there is absolutely no reason that real time accounting/monitoring systems couldn't be put in place. The PL could access these at any time for monitoring and crucially at specific dates to capture year end accounts. This would speed the process up by several months.

 

[Redemption]

What you say is absolutely true but there is absolutely no reason that real time accounting/monitoring systems couldn't be put in place. The PL could access these at any time for monitoring and crucially at specific dates to capture year end accounts. This would speed the process up by several months.

I think there are two reasons...

firstly management accoubts dont tell you all the details, so deferals, rollovers and so on.

Secondly, using coho submitted accounts means that the club has locked the accounts and signed off.

But I'm not arguing for one over the other, just offering a probable explanation for why they are done when they're done.

 

[Strummer]

Also remember, „official“ accounts are not signed-off just by the club, they have to be assessed and passed by an external auditor too.

Otherwise, the club could make up just any old bollocks.

„Ah, Forest, I see you received sponsorship income last season from „Big Evangelos‘ Fishing Tackle and Oil Tanker Emporium“ of Piraeus, totalling €370m? Seems legit, carry on then“.

(Otherwise known as „doing a Manchester City“ * )



* Allegedly, of course.

 

[Erik]

Otherwise, the club could make up just any old bollocks.

And Forest would never do anything like that would they?

 

[DanR]

We're serious about making up a load of old bollocks, are you?

 

[Cortez the Killer]

We need to provide the EPL with the precious commodity of any old bollocks.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk

 

[SLM92NF]

One thing I've thought of is that these things are being decided mid season. I know that's what the clubs voted for but it does affect a lot of clubs plans and not just the likes of Forest/Everton/Leics who are potentially in punishment - it affects those around them too.

So we would have needed to file accounts for last season during this one, then the processes determine whether the rules have been broken and to what extent... after that the punishment which is applied to the following season. So no punishments are determined and applied during the current season. That way everyone knows that a club will be starting on -15 and that will be all the deductions until the next season.

If someone like Leicester is promoted and during that season the EFL decides they need to be deducted points then that punishment should apply to their PL season, vice versa if a team is relegated.

The top bit is the bit I really struggle with. It's what the clubs voted for.

They vote for it and plenty break it and then argue the case and everyone does it when the punishment hits. I'm irked we have but we're no special case. But it just demonstrates exactly what these rules are, a token gesture to appear to be doing something.

The concept of FFP/P&S flys in the face of good commerce, it's completely anti-competitive and doesn't actually solve any of the issues and the punishments that end up being hit translate to bigger financial risks than if the rules weren't there.

It's lip service so they can appear to take action whilst retaining the benefits of its market power, driven by the risks clubs and their owners make to be part of it and then to stay in it. It's created a vicious circle of uncontrollable spending that can never stop because the moment you do you get surpassed. And the way it's set up ensure the top level clubs can retain their power, control and spending, if anything it actually increases it.

Our argument makes total sense in pretty much any other industry but this is a very unique industry! If you really look at what we've done the last 3 years anyway, there's not been much commercial about it anyway in a broader context, we've spent ridiculous amounts of money that's been wasted, it doesn't matter because it's worked but it's not been what you'd see as sensible financials as much as the selection of our argument would tell a different story.

We should have enough about us for this to not be an issue league status wise, we just need to start demonstrating that on the pitch, quickly!

Premier League is a load of bollocks anyway. Our 2nd season has honestly felt so flat and indifferent to me like I've never experienced before. The ridiculous game schedules, the money, the over analysis of everything, the football is almost a secondary at times and even when it is, there are games you are walking into where you really have no hope.

 

[gurru991]

Man City is more to do with allegedly falsifying revenues and expenditures.
Allegedly one of the examples is the selling of shirts
6 million shirts sold in the middle east that were never even manufactured

Yes .. The Man C inquiry is nothing like Everton, Forest or Leicester. Apparently it's falsifyiing documents with the intent to defraud.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Also remember, „official“ accounts are not signed-off just by the club, they have to be assessed and passed by an external auditor too.

Otherwise, the club could make up just any old bollocks.

I like it how you assume auditors go into detail and care about what they're signing off.

For someone who lauds everything German you think EY's auditing of Wirecard might have given you a different impression of auditors!

 

[Strummer]

I like it how you assume auditors go into detail and care about what they're signing off.

For someone who lauds everything German you think EY's auditing of Wirecard might have given you a different impression of auditors!

The Wirecard case was slightly different though; that was a case of deliberate, hidden commercial fraud, wherein contracts were either made up entirely, or backdated and fixed with inflated prices, to inflate Wirecard‘s book value, and the price of its shares, as well as its free cash.

The other issue was Wirecard had its own bank, through which transactions passed. The criticism of EY was that they accepted the contracts presented to them as correct, and didn’t validate the bank transactions thoroughly enough, taking at face value the statements presented by Wirecard, mainly of which (as it turned out) were either deliberately inflated or entirely fraudulent.

Additionally, the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, BaFin, for short, who are the authority for financial compliance in Germany, were also criticised by the government as a result of the special audit carried out by KPMG, which itself was prompted by disclosures from two whistleblowers, who leaked internal documents to the Financial Times.

The complex, multinational nature of the Wirecard setup was deliberately opaque, and set up in a way that there was little accountability (especially in the Asia-Pacific region, where most of the fraudulent contracts were found).

 

[Bonfy177]

@Bob Fossil you still facing the wall ?