Notts F & Everton admit to breaking rules and face points deduction

[Claudio Fannieri]

I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but Talksport has been a pretty interesting listen over the last few days regarding FFP, if you can try to listen to White and Jordan, which has provided genuine insight and debate on the situation. Also Adrian Durham has been quite vocal regards this, one valid point that has been made, is since its inception there has been no allowance or increase to the £105m net loss threshold for inflation or to reflect increased running costs etc. 

 

It is farcical and purely in place to prevent clubs like ourselves, Wolves even Newcastle from disrupting the established big 6 for anymore than a season or two, before you are slapped back down from where you came from.  
 

As previously mentioned, our relegation will hit us if we do go back up as it will mean the threshold for losses reduces for every season in the championship, hence why Forest have been hit, it means whilst we will have room

for manoeuvre in the summer we will still need to be very sensible and innovative  in how we recruit. 

[CosbehFox]

Hmmm Forest haven’t been hit because of the loss threshold. They’ve failed to address FFP because they signed over 30 players and left it too late to address the over spend. 
 

That’s simply it for them. Pretty clear cut 

Edited 18 January by CosbehFox

[Chelmofox]

1 hour ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but Talksport has been a pretty interesting listen over the last few days regarding FFP, if you can try to listen to White and Jordan, which has provided genuine insight and debate on the situation. Also Adrian Durham has been quite vocal regards this, one valid point that has been made, is since its inception there has been no allowance or increase to the £105m net loss threshold for inflation or to reflect increased running costs etc. 

 

It is farcical and purely in place to prevent clubs like ourselves, Wolves even Newcastle from disrupting the established big 6 for anymore than a season or two, before you are slapped back down from where you came from.  
 

As previously mentioned, our relegation will hit us if we do go back up as it will mean the threshold for losses reduces for every season in the championship, hence why Forest have been hit, it means whilst we will have room

for manoeuvre in the summer we will still need to be very sensible and innovative  in how we recruit. 

Forest haven't been hit just because they went up. They've been hit because they went on a ridiculous spending spree. 

 

If you think about the huge amount they spent on dross, the fact they brought average players in on loan without knowing they didn't have the places for them, and then paid stupid weekly wages to a tiktok influencer pretending to be a footballer. Its almost unbelievable to understand that they were very, very, very nearly compliant.  Its astonishing really.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

Ffp doing its job on Forest. Reckless spending with no clear strategy - their finances in the championship are really eye opening.

 

It does pull up a draw bridge at the top but imagine the crazy owners football would attract if they could just spend what they like. It'd be that Forest chap on speed and you'd have clubs going under left, right and centre as soon as that owner gets bored.

 

Also I'm really interested to know what sort of 'shipping' he's involved with.

[Foxmeister]

This may well have already been said but Forest being deducted 6 points would put them in the frame for legal action by us as they only finished 4 points above us. Getting £50m each from 2 clubs would be easier than £100m from 1.

 

The argument that this is in place to protect the big 6 is a tricky one for me, at some point the drawbridge had to be pulled up to avoid the Portsmouth '08 situation, our own under Peter Taylor and quite a few others, it can take decades for clubs to recover from 1 season of a big gamble to get survival that fails.

[OntarioFox]

2 hours ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

As previously mentioned, our relegation will hit us if we do go back up as it will mean the threshold for losses reduces for every season in the championship, hence why Forest have been hit, it means whilst we will have room

for manoeuvre in the summer we will still need to be very sensible and innovative  in how we recruit. 

I'm hoping we've been wise enough to see this season's business as building for the Prem, rather than treating these players as disposable once we hit the 'big leagues' like Forest did. I have always had an ire for clubs that don't stick with their promoted squad, not just that lot but Fulham before them being a good example.

 

Additions will be needed, especially at the back, but even if the start is bumpy I'm looking forward to seeing how a spine of the likes of Madds, Winks, KDH, Mavididi and Cannon would do in the top flight. We already know we've got the option to pick up Abdul and Yunus cheap too, so while I'm not fully convinced by the latter we will at least have a decent number of options without spending much at all, if we play our cards right.

Edited 18 January by OntarioFox

[lcfc278]

2 hours ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but Talksport has been a pretty interesting listen over the last few days regarding FFP, if you can try to listen to White and Jordan, which has provided genuine insight and debate on the situation. Also Adrian Durham has been quite vocal regards this, one valid point that has been made, is since its inception there has been no allowance or increase to the £105m net loss threshold for inflation or to reflect increased running costs etc. 

 

It is farcical and purely in place to prevent clubs like ourselves, Wolves even Newcastle from disrupting the established big 6 for anymore than a season or two, before you are slapped back down from where you came from.  
 

As previously mentioned, our relegation will hit us if we do go back up as it will mean the threshold for losses reduces for every season in the championship, hence why Forest have been hit, it means whilst we will have room

for manoeuvre in the summer we will still need to be very sensible and innovative  in how we recruit. 

Ok so it seems farcical because of inflation and the general increase in costs etc. However on the flip side it's madness when you think that they're complaining that they should be able to make bigger losses than £105m over 3 years - what sort of a business/company in any other industry would be complaining that there's restrictions stopping/advising/guiding them away from making such huge losses.

[Ric Flair]

39 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Ffp doing its job on Forest. Reckless spending with no clear strategy - their finances in the championship are really eye opening.

 

It does pull up a draw bridge at the top but imagine the crazy owners football would attract if they could just spend what they like. It'd be that Forest chap on speed and you'd have clubs going under left, right and centre as soon as that owner gets bored.

 

Also I'm really interested to know what sort of 'shipping' he's involved with.

He's 75% fried egg

[filbertway]

I don't mind clubs spending more than they have, but I would like to see owners who do want to push the boundaries take on the financial burden.

 

They have to lay down the money for the next 3 seasons that sits in a 3rd party account where wages/transfer fees will come out of. Then at the end of each season/account period. Once all staff and infrastructure are paid for, they can take the value of their investment back from the club for that season (up to say 80% on the revenue for the season). 

 

If you haven't opted into that and the club overspends then you willingly hand that club to a selected group/person to look after until a new owner comes in.

 

Obviously very sketchy and off the cuff idea, but I think the core concept is down the right path, it just needs polishing  

[Saxondale]

 

This is doing the rounds on social media.

[Saxondale]

12 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:

Forest deserve to go down for including “2022 Play-Off Winners” on their roll of honour at The City Ground. 

Surprised they didn’t include all those Brian Clough Trophies (assuming they actually ever beat Derby - I don’t know or care).

[Sir Steve Howard]

9 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

 

This is doing the rounds on social media.

Thing I hate about stuff like this is that Liverpool fans and Klopp are masquerading as the plucky underdogs against bottomless financial pit man city.

Liverpool, chelsea and man united are just as bad as man city, if not worse, in terms of splashing the cash these days. They're all just jealous of MC as they invariably spend better and aren't one of the old 'big 4'.

[Wortho]

37 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

 

This is doing the rounds on social media.

I thought it should be Chelsea or Man United 🤷‍♀️or even Arsenal 

[SamA27]

3 hours ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but Talksport has been a pretty interesting listen over the last few days regarding FFP, if you can try to listen to White and Jordan, which has provided genuine insight and debate on the situation. Also Adrian Durham has been quite vocal regards this, one valid point that has been made, is since its inception there has been no allowance or increase to the £105m net loss threshold for inflation or to reflect increased running costs etc. 

 

It is farcical and purely in place to prevent clubs like ourselves, Wolves even Newcastle from disrupting the established big 6 for anymore than a season or two, before you are slapped back down from where you came from.  
 

As previously mentioned, our relegation will hit us if we do go back up as it will mean the threshold for losses reduces for every season in the championship, hence why Forest have been hit, it means whilst we will have room

for manoeuvre in the summer we will still need to be very sensible and innovative  in how we recruit. 

The £105m net loss threshold is changing this summer. The PL recognised it hadn't been adjusted for inflation, and general running costs going up. So the system is changing at the end of this season.

[FoyleFox]

1 hour ago, OntarioFox said:

I'm hoping we've been wise enough to see this season's business as building for the Prem, rather than treating these players as disposable once we hit the 'big leagues' like Forest did. I have always had an ire for clubs that don't stick with their promoted squad, not just that lot but Fulham before them being a good example.

 

Additions will be needed, especially at the back, but even if the start is bumpy I'm looking forward to seeing how a spine of the likes of Madds, Winks, KDH, Mavididi and Cannon would do in the top flight. We already know we've got the option to pick up Abdul and Yunus cheap too, so while I'm not fully convinced by the latter we will at least have a decent number of options without spending much at all, if we play our cards right.

I agree and hope so too. We do have options to buy with most of our loans, don't we? The problem arises, as in your example with Fulham, when a lot of your squad are on loan and the parent clubs want the players back, then find you need to replace 5/6 key players. Which is why Fulham didn't stick with their promotion squad, they didn't have a choice, the parent clubs refused to sell Fulham the players that were instrumental in their promotion. Forest on the other hand were just scattergun in signing a few 'names'. Get in the big league and spend big, which they couldn't afford.

 

It obviously depends on the reason the parent clubs are loaning players out, offload or development - we would've been the same with Barnes, KDH when they were out on loan.

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, Sir Steve Howard said:

Thing I hate about stuff like this is that Liverpool fans and Klopp are masquerading as the plucky underdogs against bottomless financial pit man city.

Liverpool, chelsea and man united are just as bad as man city, if not worse, in terms of splashing the cash these days. They're all just jealous of MC as they invariably spend better and aren't one of the old 'big 4'.

Of course all the big clubs spend money, successfull clubs have always spent money, but I have more admiration for Klopp. He walked into a poor squad, got rid of deadwood and brought better players in. He makes a really good profit on players, something that people credit Man City for, and can therefore buy better players. Turned a club around and has made them one of the best in the league now.

 

I don't really like any of the "big 4", which is it's nice to see other clubs in that mix (not Newcastle) even if it's Villa, but Man City are despicable. I don't know how anybody can defend them. They are like someone that wants to be liked.

[PhillippaT]

2 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Of course all the big clubs spend money, successfull clubs have always spent money, but I have more admiration for Klopp. He walked into a poor squad, got rid of deadwood and brought better players in. He makes a really good profit on players, something that people credit Man City for, and can therefore buy better players. Turned a club around and has made them one of the best in the league now.

 

I don't really like any of the "big 4", which is it's nice to see other clubs in that mix (not Newcastle) even if it's Villa, but Man City are despicable. I don't know how anybody can defend them. They are like someone that wants to be liked.

Now imagine supporting a team that's spending loads of money and still being cwap...

[UniFox21]

Financial expert on talksport wouldn't be shocked if a third breach was found against Everton.

[Sir Steve Howard]

13 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Of course all the big clubs spend money, successfull clubs have always spent money, but I have more admiration for Klopp. He walked into a poor squad, got rid of deadwood and brought bought better players in. He makes a really good profit on players, something that people credit Man City for, and can therefore buy better players. Turned a club around and has made them one of the best in the league now.

 

I don't really like any of the "big 4", which is it's nice to see other clubs in that mix (not Newcastle) even if it's Villa, but Man City are despicable. I don't know how anybody can defend them. They are like someone that wants to be liked.

Klopp is the biggest cvnt I've ever had the misfortune to come across. Constantly moaning about how unfair everything is for him, you'd think he was managing Macclesfield ffs.

All of the big teams are despicable in their own way. Personally I dislike man city the least as they were crap within recent memory and a lot of their fans are regular, decent fans who have actually endured hardship.

It's not their fault they've suddenly turned into world beaters.

Not sure what you mean by the wants to be liked remark, that is absolutely Liverpool all over out of the big teams.

[MPH]

I really dislike the whole pointing fingers at someone else when you’ve broken the rules or done something wrong.  There’s no personal responsibility  or accountability in that. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

3 hours ago, Foxmeister said:

This may well have already been said but Forest being deducted 6 points would put them in the frame for legal action by us as they only finished 4 points above us. Getting £50m each from 2 clubs would be easier than £100m from 1.

 

The argument that this is in place to protect the big 6 is a tricky one for me, at some point the drawbridge had to be pulled up to avoid the Portsmouth '08 situation, our own under Peter Taylor and quite a few others, it can take decades for clubs to recover from 1 season of a big gamble to get survival that fails.

Not sure I follow? 

 

Surely the case is that Everton received a punishment this season that should have applied to last season. Forest's transgressions apply to this season, so their current/potential punishment has nothing to do with our relegation? 

 

 

[UniFox21]

8 minutes ago, MPH said:

I really dislike the whole pointing fingers at someone else when you’ve broken the rules or done something wrong.  There’s no personal responsibility  or accountability in that. 

There's no personal accountability in football at all really. 

Unless there are poor performances on the pitch, heads don't roll. 

[Footballwipe]

Might have said this earlier in the thread, but the sad/fascinating thing is that if we were in Everton or Nottm Forest's shoes right now a large portion of this forum would be losing their collective MINDS at the Premier League, the rules and everything else they could.

 

The mental gymnastics, tin foil hat and defensiveness of those fan bases would be replicated on here, on Twitter and elsewhere if we were charged for breaching the limit.

[Spudulike]

11 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Might have said this earlier in the thread, but the sad/fascinating thing is that if we were in Everton or Nottm Forest's shoes right now a large portion of this forum would be losing their collective MINDS at the Premier League, the rules and everything else they could.

 

The mental gymnastics, tin foil hat and defensiveness of those fan bases would be replicated on here, on Twitter and elsewhere if we were charged for breaching the limit.

Not sure that's entirely true of Leicester folk. It's in our DNA to run down anything and everything associated with out city. We'd probably be thankful for Premier League putting us on the straight and narrow and the very lenient points deduction. We did have it coming to us. We are sorry, we know that we're rubbish. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

25 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Not sure I follow? 

 

Surely the case is that Everton received a punishment this season that should have applied to last season. Forest's transgressions apply to this season, so their current/potential punishment has nothing to do with our relegation? 

 

 

Financial reporting always works a year behind - you report on the previous 12 months, not the current.