FFP

[Monty]

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.

Like, what is the purpose of this rule, is my point. Happens so often in bureaucracy - enforcing it like this shows that the purpose is just the enforcement of rules, where it should be what it claims to be, i.e. profitability and sustainability. Forest flew a little close to the sun but got there in the end, and a sensible system of rules would say that's the end of it. Instead, beady-eyed, Excel-soulled pen pushers tell them that they can't actually be profitable or sustainable, despite what reality says, because the rule is actually stupid and the rule must be applied.

Like I say, I get that Forest broke the rules and they shouldn't have and their should be a sanction. I just find the idea that they're the biggest bad guys in this situation, when these same rules have allowed Chelsea to spend however much it is on being shite, a little much.

[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.

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.

[chrisw1]

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

I understand why it seems daft, but when you look into it in more detail it's clear that if you're going to have these types of rules there needs to be deadlines.  You can guarantee if Forest had complied last season they wouldn't be wanting Johnson's fee to be backdated - they'd want it to apply to this season.

[chrisw1]

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.

The transfer window is applied to the following season not the previous.  As it should, because that's the season you start benefiting from the players.

It's a bit of a loophole that clubs get a short period to fix any issues if they choose to before the deadline.  Forest chose not to, in full knowledge of the rules.

[Monty]

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.

[Monty]

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood with financial authorities!

[chrisw1]

But they benefitted from the whole period in question.  They had their 3 full windows, plus a short period of grace.  I don't see how you can expect more.

[Jockey Randall]

The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.

I agree when you look at the evidence out there the whole thing stinks. The thing I can't get my around is exactly why the Premier League have gone so two footed on this with that amount of charges? If it turns out their case is built on similar evidence to the UEFA case that went to CAS then I'm struggling to understand how they could return a guilty verdict here? Add in the political element and it seems even less likely. Surely the Premier League are going to have to win this to save their reputation and avoid an independent regulator coming in down the line? It seems like a big gamble.

[Monty]

Would say, as with many cases in life, a lesser penalty for late compliance than for flagrant non-compliance.

[Sexual Ealing]

The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.

I agree when you look at the evidence out there the whole thing stinks. The thing I can't get my around is exactly why the Premier League have gone so two footed on this with that amount of charges? If it turns out their case is built on similar evidence to the UEFA case that went to CAS then I'm struggling to understand how they could return a guilty verdict here? Add in the political element and it seems even less likely. Surely the Premier League are going to have to win this to save their reputation and avoid an independent regulator coming in down the line? It seems like a big gamble.

UEFA has a statute of limitations, which is why they, in effect, got off with those charges. The PL doesn't.

[chrisw1]

Would say, as with many cases in life, a lesser penalty for late compliance than for flagrant non-compliance.

I get where you're coming from and it's how I felt initially until I looked into it a bit more (I am generally against FFP and have huge sympathy for Forest and Everton whilst Man City get away with it).  But it's not late compliance, it's non-compliance.  They will be benefiting from the Johnson sale over the next 3 seasons as per the rules.  It would be entirely wrong if they benefitted from his sale twice.

[brontebilly]

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.

[algy]

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.

For me, Forest signed players that summer knowing (or at least, they should've known) that the books needed to be balanced on 30th June.  It's nobody else's fault but their own that they were in a position where they had to sell a player for under his market value because they were in a bit of a pickle financially.

The "Best price" argument is bollocks as far as I'm concerned.  Yeah, sure, if you have to sell a player by a certain date then you're not going to get as good a price as if you didn't.  Tough shit, you put yourself in that position in the first place.

All that said, I do have some amount of sympathy with them, and given they had resolved their problems by the end of that transfer window, I'd think a fine would be more appropriate than a points deduction.  They'd played to the spirit of the laws rather than to the letter in my book.  I don't see any problem with the letter of the law, by the way - that's when the season runs, so it's when the accounts should run.  If anything, the transfer window should be moved to fit in with that - not the other way round.

The loan situation with Everton seems perfectly reasonable to me.  If you can build a new stand/stadium/whatever without taking a loan, it's clearly sustainable [at the time].  If you need to take a loan, then questions have to be asked as to whether that club is operating in a sustainable way or not.  Otherwise what's stopping them using loans to pay the leccy bill?

[garyellis]

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.

For me, Forest signed players that summer knowing (or at least, they should've known) that the books needed to be balanced on 30th June.  It's nobody else's fault but their own that they were in a position where they had to sell a player for under his market value because they were in a bit of a pickle financially.

The "Best price" argument is bollocks as far as I'm concerned.  Yeah, sure, if you have to sell a player by a certain date then you're not going to get as good a price as if you didn't.  Tough shit, you put yourself in that position in the first place.

All that said, I do have some amount of sympathy with them, and given they had resolved their problems by the end of that transfer window, I'd think a fine would be more appropriate than a points deduction.  They'd played to the spirit of the laws rather than to the letter in my book.  I don't see any problem with the letter of the law, by the way - that's when the season runs, so it's when the accounts should run.  If anything, the transfer window should be moved to fit in with that - not the other way round.

The loan situation with Everton seems perfectly reasonable to me.  If you can build a new stand/stadium/whatever without taking a loan, it's clearly sustainable [at the time].  If you need to take a loan, then questions have to be asked as to whether that club is operating in a sustainable way or not.  Otherwise what's stopping them using loans to pay the leccy bill?

Forest have not got a leg to stand on. Sheffield Wednesday got a major points deduction basically for selling their ground in the wrong financial year. Different rules to EPL but very similar accounting concept its called cut off.

[Somniloquism]

The thing is though, most of the stuff is out there in the public domain. I mentioned before the Mancini contracts. One with Man City, an identical one with a UAE company for something like £4m for 4 days 'consultancy work'. They're guilty, and there's plenty of evidence. Find them guilty, relegate them to League 2, ban them from signing players for three years then let them appeal if they want to.

I agree when you look at the evidence out there the whole thing stinks. The thing I can't get my around is exactly why the Premier League have gone so two footed on this with that amount of charges? If it turns out their case is built on similar evidence to the UEFA case that went to CAS then I'm struggling to understand how they could return a guilty verdict here? Add in the political element and it seems even less likely. Surely the Premier League are going to have to win this to save their reputation and avoid an independent regulator coming in down the line? It seems like a big gamble.

UEFA has a statute of limitations, which is why they, in effect, got off with those charges. The PL doesn't.

Weirdly for Europe as well, I believe appeals are done by three people, one on behalf of the prosecution, one on the defence and a third "independent". For the third one, it was someone from the same law firm who were representing Citeh in the defence......