The Footie Thread

[Tashyboy]

PL FFP rules do not apply to the Championship, the EFL have their own spending rules.

Forest, like Everton new the rules and spending levels from the outset.

They did, but the point is. How is it fair, every team is allowed £105 million apart from the promoted ones. So how is that a level playing field. How is that fair.
Talking about fair, Google Richard Masters. The guy ( 4th choice) running the Premier league.

 

[Tashyboy]

Heard this on the radio this morning and laughed out loud. Why? What has Southgate proven to be wanted by their owners? I've been a big Southgate fan but what the actual?

If Southgate goes to Utd, at least Maguires job is safe. Not to sure how the Utd fans would take to Henderson in a Utd shirt though

 

[PaulMdj]

They did, but the point is. How is it fair, every team is allowed £105 million apart from the promoted ones. So how is that a level playing field. How is that fair.
Talking about fair, Google Richard Masters. The guy ( 4th choice) running the Premier league.

Mate, how else can they do it for promoted teams? Surely you can’t say £105m in year 1 and zero in years 2-3! On average you get £35m per year, Forest and other promoted teams get £60m for 1 year! That’s better than the rest.

The only other way is for promoted teams not to be checked by PL until they’ve done 3yrs in the Prem, but that would mean teams going back down in years 1 & 2 wouldn’t get checked!

 

[nickjdavis]

They did, but the point is. How is it fair, every team is allowed £105 million apart from the promoted ones. So how is that a level playing field. How is that fair.
Talking about fair, Google Richard Masters. The guy ( 4th choice) running the Premier league.

Because two of the three years that Forest were assessed for were in the Championship where the rules are much stricter.

In the Championship a team is allowed to lose only £39 million over three seasons...so Forest could have lost £26 million for the 2 seasons in the Championship, plus the £35 million for the season in the premiership....so £61m in all.

They weren't even close to meeting this target and lost at total of £95.5million.

Lets assume that Forest were compliant in the Championhsip and lost their allowed £26m over the two seasons.....that means they would have incurred losses during their 1 year stay in the PL of £69.5m against a target of £35m....that's a pretty damning 100% overspend whatever way you look at it.

 

[fundy]

Not sure how true it is but Everton were allowed Covid loss write offs of 170m, Forest were allowed £2.5m! If that is anywhere near to true then its utterly laughable that they are trying to sell this as a level playing field

 

[PaulMdj]

Not sure how true it is but Everton were allowed Covid loss write offs of 170m, Forest were allowed £2.5m! If that is anywhere near to true then its utterly laughable that they are trying to sell this as a level playing field

Forests Covid losses had been dealt with by the EFL and their rules, Forest’s losses were also 77% higher than Everton’s yet the PL pushed for an 8 point ban rather than the 12 they asked for for Everton.

But rather than compare the Clubs against each other you are absolutely spot on when you say the PL is trying to sell this as a level playing field.

 

[fundy]

Forests Covid losses had been dealt with by the EFL and their rules, Forest’s losses were also 77% higher than Everton’s yet the PL pushed for an 8 point ban rather than the 12 they asked for for Everton.

But rather than compare the Clubs against each other you are absolutely spot on when you say the PL is trying to sell this as a level playing field.

the problem is they havent been dealt with by the EFL rules as Forest are now being judged on their financial performance by the PL and are not being allowed to make the same allowances for Covid losses in the period other sides have, in addition to already being allowed 40m less losses

and i assume you mean forest adjusted losses were 77% higher? how do the actual losses compare?

 

[Tashyboy]

Forests Covid losses had been dealt with by the EFL and their rules, Forest’s losses were also 77% higher than Everton’s yet the PL pushed for an 8 point ban rather than the 12 they asked for for Everton.

But rather than compare the Clubs against each other you are absolutely spot on when you say the PL is trying to sell this as a level playing field.

I have gone on record and said I disagree with FFP and thats nowt to do with me being a City fan. I just don’t think it’s fair and flawed. But I also do not have a suggestion re what is fair.
I was on Facebook last night and read an excellent piece re City and the 115 charges. It was lengthy. I discussed UEFA passing on information to the Premier league re there claim against City, The Premier leagues Richard Masters being interviewed by Utd and Liverpool before he got the job, his interference with the Newcastle buy out, calling Forest and Everton little clubs.

The charges against City, I think will be explosive from both sides when it comes out.

 

[PaulMdj]

the problem is they havent been dealt with by the EFL rules as Forest are now being judged on their financial performance by the PL and are not being allowed to make the same allowances for Covid losses in the period other sides have, in addition to already being allowed 40m less losses

and i assume you mean forest adjusted losses were 77% higher? how do the actual losses compare?

We overspent by £19.5m, Forest overspend was £31.5m.

Forest had had Covid losses agreed by the EFL, they then tried for further Covid losses against what PL Clubs were allowed, the PL threw that out as they weren’t a PL Club at that time and came under EFL rules.

 

[PaulMdj]

I have gone on record and said I disagree with FFP and thats nowt to do with me being a City fan. I just don’t think it’s fair and flawed. But I also do not have a suggestion re what is fair.
I was on Facebook last night and read an excellent piece re City and the 115 charges. It was lengthy. I discussed UEFA passing on information to the Premier league re there claim against City, The Premier leagues Richard Masters being interviewed by Utd and Liverpool before he got the job, his interference with the Newcastle buy out, calling Forest and Everton little clubs.

The charges against City, I think will be explosive from both sides when it comes out.

As I’ve said mate, I hope City beat all the charges and the PL deck of cards starting crumbling.

It’s not fit for purpose!

Last september the PL held a meeting to discuss punishments for Clubs who breach the rules. Everton asked for a copy of the minutes and have been refused.
Just what have they got to hide?

 

[Billysboots]

Last september the PL held a meeting to discuss punishments for Clubs who breach the rules. Everton asked for a copy of the minutes and have been refused.
Just what have they got to hide?

I suspect the term “whack a mole” appears in there, and they don’t want the watching world to know they have no clue what they’re doing.

 

[fundy]

We overspent by £19.5m, Forest overspend was £31.5m.

Forest had had Covid losses agreed by the EFL, they then tried for further Covid losses against what PL Clubs were allowed, the PL threw that out as they weren’t a PL Club at that time and came under EFL rules.

So Forests losses werent 77% higher as you stated?

Adjusted losses Forest were £92m, Evertons were £125m for the 3 year period. Evertons actuals losses were nearly £400m, with a £170m Covid write off and another £100m written off for other reasons. In terms of total losses for the period Evertons were more than triple Forests

Yet somehow Everton fans seem to think theyve been hard done by of the two clubs

 

[Beezerk]

Stupid question time.
By losses you mean transfer revenue losses?

 

[fundy]

If aimed at me, no i mean total losses as per their company accounts for the years in question for these FSR calculations

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Perhaps footy clubs should be run like a real business and have to break even each year just to survive.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Perhaps footy clubs should be run like a real business and have to break even each year just to survive.

Or maybe they could be left alone and their finances are up to them? If they go bust, they go bust . So far no PL club has gone bankrupt.

This isn't about saving clubs, it's about maintaining the status quo at the top.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Stupid question time.
By losses you mean transfer revenue losses?

If it was that then Man Utd would have been at the head of the queue

 

[Swango1980]

Or maybe they could be left alone and their finances are up to them? If they go bust, they go bust . So far no PL club has gone bankrupt.

I know they didn't go bankrupt in the PL, but I'm pretty sure Leeds Utd got themselves into a huge financial mess when in the PL. Would FFP have helped to stop or mitigate that?

If it was possible to have sliding doors moments, it would be interesting to see how some clubs would have done over the last decade if FFP didn't exist

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I know they didn't go bankrupt in the PL, but I'm pretty sure Leeds Utd got themselves into a huge financial mess when in the PL. Would FFP have helped to stop or mitigate that?

If it was possible to have sliding doors moments, it would be interesting to see how some clubs would have done over the last decade if FFP didn't exist

No idea. Loads of what ifs there though. If Chelsea were relegated this season, could they afford all of their player payments, wages etc. They might meet FFP in the PL but with the drop off in income etc would they last long? Same for any of the top teams, who presumably don't have relegation clauses in their player contracts (I mention Chelsea as they have gone nuts in the last 2 seasons).

I just don't see the system as credible for what they actually claim.

 

[Swango1980]

No idea. Loads of what ifs there though. If Chelsea were relegated this season, could they afford all of their player payments, wages etc. They might meet FFP in the PL but with the drop off in income etc would they last long? Same for any of the top teams, who presumably don't have relegation clauses in their player contracts (I mention Chelsea as they have gone nuts in the last 2 seasons).

I just don't see the system as credible for what they actually claim.

Well, you have to play a game of "what ifs" if you ever make proposals for change. Bit dangerous to say "ditch FFP" without thinking what the potential ramifications might be, or ignore the issues clubs got into in the past before FFP existed. Especially now, when the amount of money in football is ridiculous, which can also tempt clubs to spend far too much money, fooled into thinking they'll make it all back.

But, yeah, the details of FFP at the moment must have some big flaws, I'm not sure it'll ever be perfect. maybe now that some higher profile clubs are now getting punished, the flaws of FFP will be highlighted, and it'll be refined over the next few years?