FFP

[Gareth]

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.

But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.

I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.

If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.

Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.

It's fundamentally flawed. Player trading isn't like umbrellas or stocks, there are only limited trading periods. Drawing a line during one is idiotic. Forest obviously gambled here, what if no club came in hard for Johnson and they ended up selling him for less than Brentford's bid. But it was a calculated gamble, clubs always get desperate (and cashed up) near the end of the window and so it proved here.

I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?

Even if that is true they still broke the rules, all it needs is clubs like Saudi owned Newcastle & Saudi financed Chelsea to make bids for each others players to scam the system.

They rolled the dice, it failed…they need to take their punishment -this is not a minor infringement, they tried to scam the system

[Somniloquism]

I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?

Forest themselves have argued they deliberately didn’t sell him in June because they wanted to get more money, not that the player wouldn’t leave unless a specific club was involved. But even if there was some truth, it shows even more fallacy on why relying on selling a player so late in the finances (assuming the PL would have accepted that time frame) was a stupid idea as the player has also got to want to leave. And again it also seems to ride in the face of the “we sold so late to get a good deal so we didn’t look desperate to sell” if the player was already aware of potential spurs interest in June, then Spurs would probably have been aware that Forest needed to sell from the same mechanism.

[HolteL4]

I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?

Forest themselves have argued they deliberately didn’t sell him in June because they wanted to get more money, not that the player wouldn’t leave unless a specific club was involved. But even if there was some truth, it shows even more fallacy on why relying on selling a player so late in the finances (assuming the PL would have accepted that time frame) was a stupid idea as the player has also got to want to leave. And again it also seems to ride in the face of the “we sold so late to get a good deal so we didn’t look desperate to sell” if the player was already aware of potential spurs interest in June, then Spurs would probably have been aware that Forest needed to sell from the same mechanism.

There is no doubt Forrest broke the rules and in my opinion they are just trying to get a lesser sentence not pleading innocence. But if Spurs knew this Levy would have waited and waited in the hope to get a cheaper deal hoping Forest got more and more desperate as time went on.  Don't forget Spurs put a £5 million plus Josh Onomah bid for Grealish when we were desperate.

[Smithy]

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.

But they finished the transfer window within the rules! Plenty of teams buy in anticipation of a sale to balance it. The exact timing of it is arbitrary and doesn't line up at all with the actual opportunity afforded the club to get their p&s in order.

I don't think it is arbitrary, it was mentioned earlier in the thread the point where one season finishes and ends contractually and in competitive terms is end of June.

If it doesn't line up with the actual window of opportunity to get their financial house in order, i.e. the transfer window, I'd say it's at least skewed.

Chris, I see the point, I do, I just can't actually see where Forest gained some huge advantage here. They sold their best player by miles to stay within the regulations.

It's fundamentally flawed. Player trading isn't like umbrellas or stocks, there are only limited trading periods. Drawing a line during one is idiotic. Forest obviously gambled here, what if no club came in hard for Johnson and they ended up selling him for less than Brentford's bid. But it was a calculated gamble, clubs always get desperate (and cashed up) near the end of the window and so it proved here.

I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?

Even if that is true they still broke the rules, all it needs is clubs like Saudi owned Newcastle & Saudi financed Chelsea to make bids for each others players to scam the system.

They rolled the dice, it failed…they need to take their punishment -this is not a minor infringement, they tried to scam the system

Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them.  I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules.  So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.

It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same.  They were screwed either way.

[pablo_picasso]

Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them.  I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules.  So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.

It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same.  They were screwed either way.

A position they got themselves into by purchasing before selling...

[Risso]

Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them.  I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules.  So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.

It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same.  They were screwed either way.

Or maybe they could have not bought a couple of the players in their supermarket sweep in the first place? Breaching FFP doesn't just happen overnight, it's a cumulative effect and one that is very easily calculated as you go along. Eg buy player X at £40m on a four year contract, that's going to give us £10m a year amortisation and whatever his wages are. Don't buy him, and we won't have those costs. It's really very simple, and they're not exactly dealing with millions of transactions.

[ChicagoLion]

Yep, they did break the rules, but I also has some small element of sympathy for them.  I remember reading that the Spurs offer before 30th June wouldn't have got them inside the FFP limit, so even if they'd sold then, they'd be sitting here having still broken the rules.  So I guess then you're faced with the choice, accept you're definitely going to be the wrong side the FFP limit, or gamble and know that if you get a bit more from Spurs you'll be the wrong side of FFP for a couple of months, and hope you can mitigate to a lesser punishment with the Premier League by demonstrating the sale brought you back within FFP limits.

It's their own fault, and was based on their strategy for the entire year previous, but faced with the decision they had at the end of June, I'd probably have done the same.  They were screwed either way.

Or maybe they could have not bought a couple of the players in their supermarket sweep in the first place? Breaching FFP doesn't just happen overnight, it's a cumulative effect and one that is very easily calculated as you go along. Eg buy player X at £40m on a four year contract, that's going to give us £10m a year amortisation and whatever his wages are. Don't buy him, and we won't have those costs. It's really very simple, and they're not exactly dealing with millions of transactions.

exactly, it’s all of their own making.

[Toronto Villa]

But didn’t we all wonder how the fuck they were doing it while they were doing it. If FFP in its simplest form is spending as percentage of revenues, then you can’t just go lash out on 30 players without consequences. This a side that had spent an eternity in the Championship, got up via the playoffs with one of the lowest points totals ever for a promoted side, and didn’t even have kit sponsor. Where was all the football related money coming from?

[dave.woodhall]

This is all very reminiscent of the non-league attitude in the early days of ground grading - ignore it, spend the money on getting promoted then plead that you're a special case and it's just not fair.

[Risso]

This is all very reminiscent of the non-league attitude in the early days of ground grading - ignore it, spend the money on getting promoted then plead that you're a special case and it's just not fair.

I think that's exactly what it is. Or the Man City version is/was, spend what we like, tie them up in legal knots for a decade, then deal with a year or two's punishment when we've successfully established ourselves as the most successful club in Europe.

[pablo_picasso]

This is all very reminiscent of the non-league attitude in the early days of ground grading - ignore it, spend the money on getting promoted then plead that you're a special case and it's just not fair.

I think that's exactly what it is. Or the Man City version is/was, spend what we like, tie them up in legal knots for a decade, then deal with a year or two's punishment when we've successfully established ourselves as the most successful club in Europe.

This is why any gains they have made while cheating their way to the top need to be removed.

Titles, prize money, league spot, everything.

It wont happen.

But it should...

[Drummond]

Chelsea having an embargo was a bit of short term pain because they kept their revenue and had a lot to spend. Having said that if it's a 3 year rolling cycle, it prevents them from having fun in future years I guess?

Anyway, on the ManC thing, relegation through the divisions, removal of all silverware in any period they've been found guilty, a further points deduction, a curb in their FFP figures in future years and the owners being declared unsuitable would be about right.

[Dante Lavelli]

Joking aside, if Man City are found guilty then can the owners be considered unsuitable?  By trying to cheat the system then its not a hard argument to make and presumably the directive has come from the very top.

[charlatan]

This is all very reminiscent of the non-league attitude in the early days of ground grading - ignore it, spend the money on getting promoted then plead that you're a special case and it's just not fair.

except that the ground grading criteria were often far dafter

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm sure I heard that Forrest accepted a bid (I think from Fulham) before the deadline which would have put them back within the rules but Johnson rejected it because he wanted to go to Spurs and by the time Spurs had bid and it all went through the deadline had passed?

See, that is where i have zero sympathy for Forest, and I also think is an example of FFP actually successfully doing what it is meant to do.

If you're prepared to risk the financial future of the club on flying that close to the sun and relying on one transfer happening in days rather than weeks, then that is absolutely not responsible financial management.

It is like when we went to the play off final against Fulham, with failure meaning administration.

Utterly reprehensible 'management' that deserves to be punished.