FFP

[ChicagoLion]

I know there's at least one particularly talented accountant on here (Percy told me !) so I have a question for them.
Wouldn't the sale of Johnson be reported in the 2023 accounts as a significant post balance event ? I know that obviously doesn't change the actual loss reported in the financial year, but formally highlights the corrective action taken by the club and condoned by the auditors. If I was analysing a set of accounts I'd factor this into my analysis of overall fiscal strength. So I would say that this just highlights the weakness in the drafting  of the P&S rules. Or am I being naive ?

You have to have a date when the financial transactions are accounted for, if not there would be chaos.
It’s like a seller of umbrellas  saying if it had rained in September instead of October as our financial year end is September we would have made profit.
Forest have more control over their affairs than someone does over the weather.
They sold him for more they claim after the accounting period, so what?
They were sailing too close to the wind and got caught out.

Let's just start with there's chaos anyway. FFP is encouraging clubs to stockpile academy players just to sell them for FFP benefit. So there have been unintended consequences already that aren't in the interests of players, clubs or the wider game. These will require changes.

Here's another blatantly obvious one, you simply can't have the 'line' during the transfer window. Forest have proven beyond doubt the issue here and will win this case all day if it goes the court. It simply has to be in the interests of P&S for clubs to sell their assets at their fair value during a trading period, given the transfer window it will nearly always be at the end for getting the best price for a top player. Instead of putting their hands up and changing the 'line', they have opened themselves to ridicule by charging Forest and emboldened the likes of Man City no doubt too.

I agree with your first paragraph but your second paragraph and the idea that they would “win the case all day” is somewhat removed from reality, they are in breach, there maybe mitigating factors that could be taken into account but this can not be confused with wether or not they broke the rules.

[edgysatsuma89]

It doesn't. If you google 'does stadium development affect FFP' you will see article after article stating it doesn't.

[LeonW]

It doesn't. If you google 'does stadium development affect FFP' you will see article after article stating it doesn't.

I think I can see where I’ve gone wrong; Everton are trying to write off interest due on loans for the building of their new stadium as a mitigation for their accounting and the EPL is saying that that doesn’t count.

[VillaTim]

Almost a perfect storm brewing for Everton , relegation would be the final piece in the jigsaw from hell

[edgysatsuma89]

It doesn't. If you google 'does stadium development affect FFP' you will see article after article stating it doesn't.

I think I can see where I’ve gone wrong; Everton are trying to write off interest due on loans for the building of their new stadium as a mitigation for their accounting and the EPL is saying that that doesn’t count.

Yeah, I thought that might be the case, it was mentioned a few posts ago. Good luck to them*.

*not really.

[ChicagoLion]

It doesn't. If you google 'does stadium development affect FFP' you will see article after article stating it doesn't.

I think I can see where I’ve gone wrong; Everton are trying to write off interest due on loans for the building of their new stadium as a mitigation for their accounting and the EPL is saying that that doesn’t count.

The EPLare saying that the loans have been used to finance working capital including transfers and player purchases so the interest payments are normal operating expenses so subject to FFP.

[Rigadon]

You'd think that the premier league would be all but certain of their legal footing before bringing charges against its member clubs.  It’s really not in their interest to piss their members off.  So if they’ve brought charges they must be pretty sure the clubs have broken rules.  The only thing you’d think is up for discussion is the penalty.  Maybe they should get VAR to have a look. 

All this waiting about in the case of man city stinks to high heaven. 

[Somniloquism]

Forest knew the rules and what they could spend in 2022-23 season without breaching them or without selling players. They still spent well over that and then decided to not fill the hole in the finances when they could. They then played Johnson in three matches this season including against another relegation threatened team which they won. Admittedly he didn't directly score or directly assist (he was the touch before the assist player though for the first), but you could also argue them ignoring the rules might have given them 2-3 more points this season then they might have gotten as well. So they want to rules changed that a player who directly affects the current season to apply back to the previous season for sales, and then when his affect on FFP falls off the books in 3 years, which period is that taken from?

And people are stating Forest are in the right?

Edit: Although it would be interesting which accounting period Awoniyi is in for Forest. They "signed" him in June 2022 but his Contract started July 1st.

[Monty]

Not their fault that the transfer window - i.e. the total amount of time they have to maximise their profitability and sustainability - overlaps with the start of the Premier League season. What were they going to do, not play him?

[eamonn]

The PL may argue that they should have been prepping to have their house in order earlier and not be relying on one massive sale last summer. As Paulie said, players registrations tend to end on June 30th, instead of seeing the summer window as a way to claw back their losses, they should have planned better the previous windows, not by buying a player per day the previous summer before trying to dump half of then when they didn't work out.

[Monty]

The PL may argue that they should have been prepping to have their house in order earlier and not be relying on one massive sale last summer. As Paulie said, players registrations tend to end on June 30th, instead of seeing the summer window as a way to claw back their losses, they should have planned better the previous windows, not by buying a player per day the previous summer before trying to dump half of then when they didn't work out.

I'd say this bears about as much relation to how the transfer market actually works as the handball rule does to how the game is played on the pitch.

[chrisw1]

Not their fault that the transfer window - i.e. the total amount of time they have to maximise their profitability and sustainability - overlaps with the start of the Premier League season. What were they going to do, not play him?

Sell him before the deadline.

Forest's case is open and shut.  They had 3 seasons and 3 summer transfer windows to do their business.  Their sale of Johnson benefits them in this season's books not last.  It would be ridiculous if clubs could pick and choose which seasons their transfers applied to in order to manipulate figures to their benefit. 

[Monty]

I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.

[LeeB]

I know they've broken the rules, I just think the rule concerned is kind of bollocks.

Yeah it is, but taking each case on its merits nobody forced them to sign the gazillion players that ended up with them needing to flog Johnson to balance the books.

[Smithy]

Not their fault that the transfer window - i.e. the total amount of time they have to maximise their profitability and sustainability - overlaps with the start of the Premier League season. What were they going to do, not play him?

Sell him before the deadline.

Forests case is open and shut.

I suspect Forest are making their argument solely to ensure it's a fine, not a points deduction.  I don't believe for one moment they are hoping to get away scot-free from all this. They knew the rules, and so deserve a punishment, but if it IS a fine, then it has to be an amount that ensures someone else in the same situation doesn't simply make the same decision. i.e. the fine has to be a significant amount.  Every place in the league is worth about £2m in prize money, so a fine in the £10m range wouldn't be out of the question I think. I will be surprised if they get docked points, given their mitigation argument.