Financial Fair Play (FFP)

[ARedChester]

I dont understand how people are quoting differences in punishment to different clubs when the rules were different ovwr the years. You can only compare apples and apples. Rules from previous seasons are not relevant now. If today's rules state only points deductions, then that is fair - for all teams guilty under the current rules.

What would not be fair is not assessing other teams that look likely to have breached. Again, I understand the PL focusing on us after a huge and well advertised spending spree, compared to some who are more discreet.

It shouldn't be hard for the PL to assess all 20 accounts in a speedy fashion. We are all doing 90% the same business, revenue and expenditure so it shouldn't be hard.

 

[ARedChester]

I can see Everton getting 6 points, reduced to 4 on appeal and us getting 2 back.

Which basically gives us a 6 point swing on Everton, 2 points on everyone else and ultimately 2 points breathing space. Whether we use that or not is then up to us.

I can't see how we can get any points back on appeal.

3 points for breaking PSR - did we ? Yes, so that's 3 points plain amd simple - you can't appeal that. It doesn't matter if the breaking of the rules is by £1 or £100M, its a 3 point standard, as has been explained taken from EFL. That's fair.

The additional 3 points for the 'severity' has already been reduced to the absolute minimum after a reduction of 2 for a being very supportive of the enquiry and the first offence, so it can't realistically be reduced further. Even if the appeal hears and agrees how the PL changed the goal posts over BJ payment, promotion bonuses, Covid etc, did we still break due to allowable spending - yes, so a single point is fair.

I expect Everton to get 6, possibly reduced to 5. They may even get 7 or 8 as its their 2nd and clearly haven't learnt. 2nd penalties should be harsher for that exact reason.

 

[Flaggers]

I can't see how we can get any points back on appeal.

3 points for breaking PSR - did we ? Yes, so that's 3 points plain amd simple - you can't appeal that. It doesn't matter if the breaking of the rules is by £1 or £100M, its a 3 point standard, as has been explained taken from EFL. That's fair.

The additional 3 points for the 'severity' has already been reduced to the absolute minimum after a reduction of 2 for a being very supportive of the enquiry and the first offence, so it can't realistically be reduced further. Even if the appeal hears and agrees how the PL changed the goal posts over BJ payment, promotion bonuses, Covid etc, did we still break due to allowable spending - yes, so a single point is fair.

I expect Everton to get 6, possibly reduced to 5. They may even get 7 or 8 as its their 2nd and clearly haven't learnt. 2nd penalties should be harsher for that exact reason.

I believe it's likely to be related to the PL's refusal to allow us to include either promotion bonuses or covid losses in write-off-ables - a policy which seems to have been applied to us unilaterally

 

[ARedChester]

I believe it's likely to be related to the PL's refusal to allow us to include either promotion bonuses or covid losses in write-off-ables - a policy which seems to have been applied to us unilaterally

Ah OK, but even taking those in allowance, I have read that we would still have broke PSR, albeit by c.£5M (?), so we have got the very minimum we could - that's how I have seen it.

 

[Robertson]

Ah OK, but even taking those in allowance, I have read that we would still have broke PSR, albeit by c.£5M (?), so we have got the very minimum we could - that's how I have seen it.

Yes but it makes an enormous difference to this season’s assessment. Plus they also then can’t hit us for the “severity” of the breach.

 

[ARedChester]

Yes but it makes an enormous difference to this season’s assessment. Plus they also then can’t hit us for the “severity” of the breach.

Ah yes it would of course apply for this season's assessment.

The 4 points we have I still see as the minimum any club can be given undrthe rules theynare applying, but for this season, I get it.

 

[I'm Red Till Dead]

I don’t know that particulars but if Bournemouth and Fulham were allowed to write off the exact same debts that we weren’t than De Marco should have made that point and surely that would have been looked at?!?!

Marinakis has converted over £80m of debts in the form of loans into equity in the club over the last 4 seasons -

https://www.nottinghamforest.co.uk/...-club-with-further-debt-to-equity-conversion/

Some, possibly all of it would have been allowed to be offset against the PSR acalculations IIRC.

 

[Cloughie1975]

It's not as simple as that with so few games remaining though, e.g. the average position of Forest's home opposition in the final 3 home games is 7.6 (3, 9 & 11) whereas Luton's is 14.6. (16, 15 & 13).

Yes,but after today-Forest’s 3 away games are ‘easier’ (18th v 7th on average).

 

[Robertson]

Ah yes it would of course apply for this season's assessment.

The 4 points we have I still see as the minimum any club can be given undrthe rules theynare applying, but for this season, I get it.

To be honest I’m not sure the appeals panel will even listen to any of this stuff about the bonuses since I don’t think it was raised at the initial hearing.

I still think it’s all very fishy though.

 

[Cloughie1975]

Tbf if we don't get 1 more point than Luton over the remainder of the season we don't deserve to stay up whatever happens with deductions

We probably only need to match Luton’s points total given that our goal difference is superior-
we don’t need a hammering today.

 

[BristolfaninPeace]

Your contributions to this thread are much appreciated BFiP

Thanks Otis . I do list like to see justice and equitable use of FFP regs.

What SLbsn said, I was somewhat ahead of the curve on. I was tracking these two a year ago..Albeit seen it suggested in a thread that they attributed some £14-15m in 2021-22 to Covid delaying the construction of their new stand which frankly merits further investigation to me. There is a note in their Fulham Football Leisure Accounts on CH which appeared the other day

 

[BristolfaninPeace]

In the context of a) A £90m wage bill at Championship level all-in the year they went up and B) The fact they didn't sell anyone of note that year..this seems dodgy to me in respect of FFP.

Fixed Asset expenditure is of course exempt from P&S..is this not somewhat speculative? What exactly is the basis of their argument here.

 

[Bing Crosby's Head]

Marinakis has converted over £80m of debts in the form of loans into equity in the club over the last 4 seasons -

https://www.nottinghamforest.co.uk/...-club-with-further-debt-to-equity-conversion/

Some, possibly all of it would have been allowed to be offset against the PSR acalculations IIRC.

Converting debt to equity does little in terms of PSR as opposed to writing off debt which does and Bournemouth apparently did.

 

[Robertson]

Maybe Danny Taylor or someone could do a proper investigative piece on all this stuff about other clubs accounts rather than another hatchet job whinging about EM supplying the wrong colour bog roll to the training ground. Or whatever he’s clutching his pearls about this week.

 

[BristolfaninPeace]

Converting debt to equity does little in terms of PSR as opposed to writing off debt which does and Bournemouth apparently did.

It does and it doesn't..

What it does is class as secure funding to take a club between Upper and Lower Limit.

ie Lower Limit £5m, Secure Funding, Equity takes it up to £13m in the Championship, £35m in the PL and moving between pick the numbers.

What it doesn't do is grant extra headroom. That Bournemouth one was a straight debt Writeoff so shouldn't impact FFP, Fulham converted loads of equity but only the portion to move between higher and Lower counts towards FFP. There is no limit on equity but it doesn't improve a position beyond the Upper threshold.

Debt Write offs should be excluded but Nottingham Forest may or may not have been as I'm struggling to get down to a £3m loss for the Covid Period based on the 2022 numbers unless we include the average £5m debt Writeoff but a debt writeoff in the Profit and Loss was impermissible for QPR so maybe the PL and EFL have different standards here.

Based on a combination of the clearly allowed and stated Nottingham Forest Covid losses for the 2 main seasons and the FFP calculations for 2021-22..I'm struggling to reconcile an adjusted average loss of -£20m in the 2 averaged years or so down to FFP of £3m without including the debt writeoff.

 

[Statto]

I believe it's likely to be related to the PL's refusal to allow us to include either promotion bonuses or covid losses in write-off-ables - a policy which seems to have been applied to us unilaterally

It either counts or it doesn't so if we've had to include them and breached whilst other clubs didn't and didn't breach then us not being able to allow them might have resulted in us not breaching at all. I guess that could be the point.

 

[Red Ray's Redlist]

Ah yes it would of course apply for this season's assessment.

The 4 points we have I still see as the minimum any club can be given undrthe rules theynare applying, but for this season, I get it.

But if it's not a significant breach its 3 points with 2 back for good behaviour. So the promotion bonus and covid losses make a big difference. And thats before factoring the rolling nature of the breach.

With Covid the EPL are insisting on applying EFL rules, and with promotion bonus EPL rules, despite both accounting periods sitting in the EFL period.

 

[atrophy]

But if it's not a significant breach its 3 points with 2 back for good behaviour. So the promotion bonus and covid losses make a big difference. And thats before factoring the rolling nature of the breach.

With Covid the EPL are insisting on applying EFL rules, and with promotion bonus EPL rules, despite both accounting periods sitting in the EFL period.

Good point, and bearing in mind we're predicted to need £30M (if I read it correctly) to be compliant, then adding back the bonus and COVID allowances should then wipe out the need to sell in the summer.

That in turn has a huge bearing on what squad work would need doing and the amount needed to be spent.

 

[Redemption]

if it's not a significant breach its 3 points with 2 back for good behaviour

Where dies this come from?

Surely, all anyone can say is that from Forest's commision, a significant breach is worth 3pts.

We don't know what 'significant' means as a band nor what is less than significant.

 

[Erik]

Where does this come from?

Surely, all anyone can say is that from Forest's commision, a significant breach is worth 3pts.

We don't know what 'significant' means as a band nor what is less than significant.

'Significant' varies.

For example, for Forest it's anything above £5m. For clubs like Fulham, Bournemouth etc it seems to be around £25m. For most of the other clubs it is around £75m.

For Manchester City, and Chelsea it's anything above £450m.

 

[Col Steve Austin]

Yes,but after today-Forest’s 3 away games are ‘easier’ (18th v 7th on average).

Our three away games could be against League 1 teams and I still wouldn't want to rely on them.

 

[Cloughie1975]

Our three away games could be against League 1 teams and I still wouldn't want to rely on them.

Fair comment.

 

[YouReds43]

Think we need to send some more nice emails to the PL to give us our points back

 

[Flaggers]

Think we need to send some more nice emails to the PL to give us our points back

I believe there's one being drafted - it's in the form of a summons to court.

EM won't take relegation well if it's by 1,2,3 or 4 points - he'll take legal action against the Premier League I'm sure of it.

And if it weren't for the fact that it meant we'd been relegated, I'd say "bring it on".

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Yes,but after today-Forest’s 3 away games are ‘easier’ (18th v 7th on average).

In two seasons back in the Premier League we've won a grand total of three games away from home

I don't care who the opposition are we shouldn't be relying on those games to get wins