Winnershfox Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Would like to debate this. The reason is that I am confused by the rules. Why is it that Forest can spend spend spend surely increasing their salary budget above the limit. Clubs coming down from the prem seem to be above the rules. Quite frankly i am confused by the whole system. Can somebody please clarify!.
Bayfox Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Because their owners are banking on promotion and if it doesnt happen will **** off leaving fword in the shit. Our owners tried it with sven. It didnt work and are now accepting that the long term future of the club matters. Ok the 2nd part maybe wishful thinking but theres something in it.
Foxes_Trust Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Would like to debate this. The reason is that I am confused by the rules. Why is it that Forest can spend spend spend surely increasing their salary budget above the limit. Clubs coming down from the prem seem to be above the rules. Quite frankly i am confused by the whole system. Can somebody please clarify!. Forest's results in the 2011/12 season were a loss of £12.2m, just over FFP limits for that season (remember ours was £29.7m in comparison). Their wage bill had risen to £17.6m (ours was £27.7m for the same period). We don't know what Forest's finances were like for season 2012/13. They would have allowed to lose £10m last year & meet FFP as long as the owners invested £6m. If they were closer to a break even state, then if their owners were willing to provide the maximum £5m investment allowed this season & they "aimed" for a £3m loss, they could still be meeting the FFP criteria with an £8m punt. In our case, we were starting from a massive loss situation, based on 2011/12 figures, and while that loss should have reduced last season (having removed wages like Mills etc), there was still an apparent need to pump in £15.6m from the owners, it's a big shift for us to achieve FFP this season In terms of clubs relegated from the Premiership, the parachute payment they receive this season is based on the old rates (not the new TV deal). It looks unlikely that QPR are trying to adhere to FFP, but there are so many transfers in & out it's hard to assess the overall effect on their wage bill. Wigan have offloaded several players, while Reading didn't go overboard finance wise in the Premiership. Bolton & Blackburn still have parachute payments going to them, which in part explains their transfer activity.
cjslcfc Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Forest's results in the 2011/12 season were a loss of £12.2m, just over FFP limits for that season (remember ours was £29.7m in comparison). Their wage bill had risen to £17.6m (ours was £27.7m for the same period). We don't know what Forest's finances were like for season 2012/13. They would have allowed to lose £10m last year & meet FFP as long as the owners invested £6m. If they were closer to a break even state, then if their owners were willing to provide the maximum £5m investment allowed this season & they "aimed" for a £3m loss, they could still be meeting the FFP criteria with an £8m punt. In our case, we were starting from a massive loss situation, based on 2011/12 figures, and while that loss should have reduced last season (having removed wages like Mills etc), there was still an apparent need to pump in £15.6m from the owners, it's a big shift for us to achieve FFP this season In terms of clubs relegated from the Premiership, the parachute payment they receive this season is based on the old rates (not the new TV deal). It looks unlikely that QPR are trying to adhere to FFP, but there are so many transfers in & out it's hard to assess the overall effect on their wage bill. Wigan have offloaded several players, while Reading didn't go overboard finance wise in the Premiership. Bolton & Blackburn still have parachute payments going to them, which in part explains their transfer activity. Pretty sure FFP doesn't even apply to the relegated sides this year... This means QPR, Wigan and Reading don't even have to adhere to the rules everyone else plays by
Nift Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Billy Davies will fvck Forest up and they will be like Cov.
Finn Claw II Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 It is worth noting that FFPs sanctions are a fine if you go up (related to the size of overspend relative to the allowable loss) and a transfer embargo if they don't go up. Even if forest were outside of FFP by say £10m (so broadly a £18m loss compared to the allowable deviation) they would face a fine of about £6.7m if they were promoted. £6.7m vs. the £120m or so the premiership is worth still makes sense. If they were not promoted they would face a transfer embargo - presumably until they can demonstrate that they are broadly inline with FFP QPR, Wigan and Reading don't face sanctions in the first year although if they went up and were outside of FFP they face a fine. This post is very good http://www.danielgeey.com/my-top-ten-tips-for-understanding-football-league-financial-fair-play/ What I would like to know (any ideas foxes trust?) how much of our £29m loss doesn't count towards FFP due to it being related to academy spend / infrastructure. See point 10 in the above link
Bert Posted 28 August 2013 Posted 28 August 2013 Would like to debate this. The reason is that I am confused by the rules. Why is it that Forest can spend spend spend surely increasing their salary budget above the limit. Clubs coming down from the prem seem to be above the rules. Quite frankly i am confused by the whole system. Can somebody please clarify!.They've gone shit or bust. If they go up the gamble has paid off. If they don't then they'll be reprimanded.
Winnershfox Posted 29 August 2013 Author Posted 29 August 2013 Having read the replies i feel happier that we are trying to get our house in order which should provide long term benefits. Thanks for the comments and clearing this one up.
MrSpaM Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Forest are basically doing the same thing we did two seasons ago. If they dont go up this season they are going to be in the exact same position we are regarding transfers.
Bayfox Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Forest are basically doing the same thing we did two seasons ago. If they dont go up this season they are going to be in the exact same position we are regarding transfers. The only difference being, I hate to say it, but billy knows this level and knows what he's doing, so long as they aren't paying matt mills style wages then, once they have a decent squad then as long as they can keep it together it won't matter if they have a transfer embargo as they will just keep hold of the payers they have. Pearson is still tied by svens mental spending spree an the large wages, i'd be surprised if anyone forest have signed is on anywhere near the wedge we shelled out.
MooseBreath Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Financial fair play was superficially supposed to stop gung ho owners gambling a club's future on getting promotion. As we can see, it has fundamentally missed its target as it still allows such a gamble to pay off with substantial reward. The failure of FFP in this respect is incredible. How such an obvious flaw has been allowed to exist is nothing short of ludicrous. Why they've proceeded with this monumental failure would be a total mystery, if it weren't for the fact that as everyone knows, the FFP was designed for the big clubs, by the big clubs, to prevent new money from upsetting the establishment.
Strokes Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Financial fair play was superficially supposed to stop gung ho owners gambling a club's future on getting promotion. As we can see, it has fundamentally missed its target as it still allows such a gamble to pay off with substantial reward. The failure of FFP in this respect is incredible. How such an obvious flaw has been allowed to exist is nothing short of ludicrous. Why they've proceeded with this monumental failure would be a total mystery, if it weren't for the fact that as everyone knows, the FFP was designed for the big clubs, by the big clubs, to prevent new money from upsetting the establishment. Agreed, if you are in breech of the rules, promotion should be void.
theessexfox Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Plus it's farcical that the newly relegated teams are exempt.
tontolcfc Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me we have a self imposed transfer embargo this season based on overspending from the Sven era. I'd like to know if the spreadsheet looks healthy now or if there is still more cuts needed.
hackneyfox Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Agreed, if you are in breech of the rules, promotion should be void. Is there any other business where the owners aren't allowed to invest money to grow/improve the business?
hackneyfox Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me we have a self imposed transfer embargo this season based on overspending from the Sven era. I'd like to know if the spreadsheet looks healthy now or if there is still more cuts needed. Does seem that way, personally I think we should have gone for it again this season and taken the hit next season should we have failed, at least we would have improved the squad. Perhaps the owners have another reason for not spending at the moment.
Corky Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 This is the same principle that allows you to be shit in the Premier League and receive millions for it, therefore giving you an advantage against the clubs lower down because you've been shitter at a higher level than them.
berniethebolt Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 when is it that we have our FFP fire sale and seriously strip the squad down. ie when do our big earners contracts expire. thinking of konchesky, Danns, gallagher, and waghorn(who ive added as he just seems to never play and must be on 10k a week)
CosbehFox Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Does seem that way, personally I think we should have gone for it again this season and taken the hit next season should we have failed, at least we would have improved the squad. Perhaps the owners have another reason for not spending at the moment. Swings and roundabouts; imagine a situation in a couple of years if we comply and we are one of the few clubs who can sign players. What an advantage. Other teams would be releasing players trying to comply but it would be late for them.
hackneyfox Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Swings and roundabouts; imagine a situation in a couple of years if we comply and we are one of the few clubs who can sign players. What an advantage. Other teams would be releasing players trying to comply but it would be late for them. What a depressing thought that we may still be in this division in 2 years time. I'm still wondering how teams are going to comply with FFP if they can't sell players as the majority of other teams are under a transfer embargo.
Jace Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Frustrating that the relegated teams from the Premier are exempt can understand why but another example of why the FA has no idea what they are doing when it comes to bridging the financial difference between the Premiership and Championship
Guest MattP Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Is there any other business where the owners aren't allowed to invest money to grow/improve the business?Nope. Works both ways though, no other business can you go in and loan a load of money to it, take it back in other ways and then if goes wrong watch it go bankrupt and instead of going to prison for a long time you just go home.
Guest MattP Posted 29 August 2013 Posted 29 August 2013 Does seem that way, personally I think we should have gone for it again this season and taken the hit next season should we have failed, at least we would have improved the squad. Perhaps the owners have another reason for not spending at the moment. I think so. Clearly they don't want to loan us anymore money now as they aren't confident its viable to get it back. Let alone start paying fines on top of it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.