• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Financial Fair Play (FFP)

Morpeth

Morpeth

John Robertson
Redemption said:
Each 3 years period is judged separately.

The issue is whether you can getbdone for it again.

So let's in first punishment the 3 years are 0 loss, -60m, -60m. So the there is a punishment for £120m loss.

Then next 3 is years -60m, -60m, +12m , so the breach is £108m loss, it would be unjust to be punished again for the 2 -60m losses, when you've just made a profit of £12m because you sold a lot of players.
Click to expand...
It’s not unjust at all.

Rolling periods are rolling periods and should attract penalties on their own.
 
Y

Your Dad's Ashamed Of You

Viv Anderson
B

Berkshire Red

Jack Armstrong
Notcher said:
He's talking absolute nonsense
Click to expand...
and why do they think a second offence would be treated more leniently? Surely the second offence gets a higher punishment, as it wasn't a one off? There can be no claims of double jeopardy, as the offences are for different periods therefore not the same.
 
Redemption

Redemption

One less gobshite...
Berkshire Red said:
There can be no claims of double jeopardy, as the offences are for different periods therefore not the same.
Click to expand...
The periods overlap.

Whether there is a case for double jeopardy might be moot, but it's probably going to be tested by Everton.
 
Trents

Trents

John Robertson
I always felt we'd get similar to Everton on the 2nd charge. I'm expecting 6 points each. Today's result is probably good for us in terms of amount dished out before appeal.

Yes we fall behind Everton, but we won't fall as far behind the rest as we might have.
 
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
Trents said:
I wonder if the fact Brennan didn't want to move to Brentford will play any part of the defence. You can't force a player to move can you? Maybe straw clutching but that may have been what the discussion with the PL were about.
Click to expand...
It just another point which proves the whole thing was poorly conceptualised and planned. There's a scenario where you can have a number of players that refuse to move and play. What do you do in that situation?
 
Irish Wolf

Irish Wolf

First Team Squad
RichNFFC said:
I'm seeing loads of Everton fans on Twitter replying to ours fans saying our breaches are way worse, over £100m losses etc. Where the f*** are they plucking that from? Some have replied "in the reports" with no further info then that... What f***ing reports?!
Click to expand...
This is my understanding. I'm often wrong though.

Everton cheated the drop last year by delaying handing over their accounts - so it was too late to do anything about it then. They gambled that they could make up any deficit over the whole course of this season.

Isn't that's the reason why the league changed the date for the accounts from March to June this season onwards?

So, no, their breaches were actually worse. They don't actually deserve to be in the league this year.
 
eyupmeduck

eyupmeduck

Geoff Thomas
Irish Wolf said:
This is my understanding. I'm often wrong though.

Everton cheated the drop last year by delaying handing over their accounts - so it was too late to do anything about it then. They gambled that they could make up any deficit over the whole course of this season.

Isn't that's the reason why the league changed the date for the accounts from March to June this season onwards?

So, no, their breaches were actually worse. They don't actually deserve to be in the league this year.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the figures used. They have actually lost much much more than us over a sustained period and seem to have forgotten as much, especially when trying to draw focus away from the fact that they have committed the same offence twice. They can bleat on about this and that as much as they like but last season they raised something like £70m profit and committed to £80m worth of transfer fees as well as paying Tarkowski £100k a week. If for example they didn't sign Maupay, its conceivable that they would have made enough of a profit to redress the 3 year limit and fall inside it but they didn't.

If you take the approach I think they are and add up the total of the transfers we made during the year 22/23 it probably comes to £160m all told. If you then apply the PSR amortisation principle based on contract length then the actual cost in the year is £55m.

If you estimate that our wages are £105m over the year then thats a total PSR loss of £160m. Add in the £20m promotion bonuses then its £180m costs.

But we received £116m in EPL money, Marinakis also wrote off £11m and we got £10m from selling Samba and Surridge.

If my figures are anywhere near accurate (Sadly I have done a spreadsheet and pulled in info from various sources) then that would put us as £7m over the permitted £35m for last year. If we met losses allowed the EFL seasons then our loss is a 3rd of Evertons so we should get a 3rd of the penalty which is 2 points.

I'm not claiming to be ITK and certainly my info is easliy describable as flaky based on what I have been able to find from public record (Companies house) and educated estimates from transfermarkt, spotrac and football manager but I'd say the thing that I have noticed from the Everton forums at least is that they have a habit of turning an opinion into a fact so I don't really give what they have to say much credence.

If we have breached PSR by over £100m then its fair to say that we deserve what would come with that, I would be astounded if we had though because we would have had to sell Brennan Johnson twice to have any chance of not getting battered.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 
H

Harry1982

Grenville Morris
eyupmeduck said:
They (Everton) put forwards 9 mitigating points for appeal including Richarlison which is in fact the opposite argument to us and did not work at all as 6 others also did not sway.

They actually only "succeeded" with 2 points from the 9, one in that on appeal they were on balance more incompetent than deliberately dishonest when they initially insisted that they had not breached psr at all.

Two that if 9 points is the points deduction for administration then it can't be more than that for psr breaches.

2 back for being thick, 1 back for not being in admin (Yet).

Richarlison has no impact on us only in that if we had sold Johnson to meet psr, we couldn't then have tried to add back in the £20m additonal money that we could have made if we'd have waited to sell him like they tried to as a claim to have met psr requirements.

I'm not sure how the crowing about a supposed victory has also merged with them factually reporting that our breach is way worse than theirs when 6 hours ago they didn't even know their own situation nevermind anyone else's.

They started off saying that they had met psr, were found not to have. We have started off by saying that we have breached psr.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But with johnson argument we have a better argument over richarlson, in that we already had a stone cold bid that would have got us safe before the deadline but was 20 mill short of what he eventually went for. Don't know how FFP, which is to ensure profitability, spending within ours means could justify us taking a 20 million shortfall just to not breach that's gotta be absurd?
 
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
One thing I'm confident in after today is that the commission won't use the amounts PSR as a scale for points. There's no laid out scaling for it and the EFL's figures with theirs are irrevelent to the PL numbers. It would create a clusterfuck which they really need to avoid considering the shitshow it already is.
 
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
Harry1982 said:
But with johnson argument we have a better argument over richarlson, in that we already had a stone cold bid that would have got us safe before the deadline but was 20 mill short of what he eventually went for. Don't know how FFP, which is to ensure profitability, spending within ours means could justify us taking a 20 million shortfall just to not breach that's gotta be absurd?
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous. You can look as sustainable as you like on some arbitrary balance sheet but tangible profit is what counts. Having a rule which punishes that and benefits the opposite is ridiculous.
 
Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde

Jack Burkitt
Harry1982 said:
But with johnson argument we have a better argument over richarlson, in that we already had a stone cold bid that would have got us safe before the deadline but was 20 mill short of what he eventually went for. Don't know how FFP, which is to ensure profitability, spending within ours means could justify us taking a 20 million shortfall just to not breach that's gotta be absurd?
Click to expand...
The whole system is absurd
 
RedSpoons

RedSpoons

First Team Squad
Harry1982 said:
But with johnson argument we have a better argument over richarlson, in that we already had a stone cold bid that would have got us safe before the deadline but was 20 mill short of what he eventually went for. Don't know how FFP, which is to ensure profitability, spending within ours means could justify us taking a 20 million shortfall just to not breach that's gotta be absurd?
Click to expand...
Was it Percy who reported we’d been in constant communication with the league during the summer period.

I imagine, irregardless of whether we got any significant response, that is important correspondence during this process.

It shows an understanding of the rules, a willingness to act within them, proof of consideration and subsequently strong financial prudence.

Not that it will be taken into account, but still noteworthy in our defence
 
D

DB1702

Viv Anderson
GOBIAS said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Forest financial breach case to be heard next week

Nottingham Forest's Premier League financial breach case will be heard on Thursday and Friday, 7 and 8 March.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

If we appeal the initial ruling then the appeal result could take until the week after the season!!! You could have a situation where teams end the season and have to wait a week to see what league they will be in next year. That is wrong on every level possible!!!

No way they will give us points back if it alters the league table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's Baggio

It's Baggio

John Robertson
Morpeth said:
It’s not unjust at all.

Rolling periods are rolling periods and should attract penalties on their own.
Click to expand...

Especially as in Everton's case, they spent about £70m on players in summer 2022.
 
J

jdthebrit

First Team Squad
REDDERS78 said:
Don't want to sound negative but if we get 6 points, Luton win their game in hand and beat us then were in a right old state.

We need to start stringing results together and fast, no 2 ways about it.
Click to expand...
Blooming 'eck. I always have the glass half empty view of the world, but am very sure about our chances of being in the same division next year. Waited 20 plus years like all Trickies for us to get back in the First Division.
And I intend to keep on enjoying it. We are here and planning to stay for the foreseeable future.
Luton who?

Sent from my moto g53 5G using Tapatalk
 
T

Timothy Pope

I know that Nuno that I know that Nuno that I know
eyupmeduck said:
I think it depends on the figures used. They have actually lost much much more than us over a sustained period and seem to have forgotten as much, especially when trying to draw focus away from the fact that they have committed the same offence twice. They can bleat on about this and that as much as they like but last season they raised something like £70m profit and committed to £80m worth of transfer fees as well as paying Tarkowski £100k a week. If for example they didn't sign Maupay, its conceivable that they would have made enough of a profit to redress the 3 year limit and fall inside it but they didn't.

If you take the approach I think they are and add up the total of the transfers we made during the year 22/23 it probably comes to £160m all told. If you then apply the PSR amortisation principle based on contract length then the actual cost in the year is £55m.

If you estimate that our wages are £105m over the year then thats a total PSR loss of £160m. Add in the £20m promotion bonuses then its £180m costs.

But we received £116m in EPL money, Marinakis also wrote off £11m and we got £10m from selling Samba and Surridge.

If my figures are anywhere near accurate (Sadly I have done a spreadsheet and pulled in info from various sources) then that would put us as £7m over the permitted £35m for last year. If we met losses allowed the EFL seasons then our loss is a 3rd of Evertons so we should get a 3rd of the penalty which is 2 points.

I'm not claiming to be ITK and certainly my info is easliy describable as flaky based on what I have been able to find from public record (Companies house) and educated estimates from transfermarkt, spotrac and football manager but I'd say the thing that I have noticed from the Everton forums at least is that they have a habit of turning an opinion into a fact so I don't really give what they have to say much credence.

If we have breached PSR by over £100m then its fair to say that we deserve what would come with that, I would be astounded if we had though because we would have had to sell Brennan Johnson twice to have any chance of not getting battered.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You’ve counted promotion bonuses there - which according to Kieran Maguire are exempt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom