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

[Daggers]

15 hours ago, RonnieTodger said:

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

Yeh. How dare they rub something like that in Tottenham's face.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

3 hours 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.

Exactly. One of the motivations for FFP was to stop another Portsmouth or in this case Forest. Big points deduction please.

[Jobyfox]

14 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

Exactly. One of the motivations for FFP was to stop another Portsmouth or in this case Forest. Big points deduction please.

I’m thinking 30 points and a 2 year transfer embargo! 

[Bilo]

I'm thinking Everton and Forest get 10 points deduction each and the points handed to us next season. Only fair.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

I’ll repeat what I said yesterday in that we should be really careful in pointing fingers, given we could conceivably find ourselves over a ‘financial fair play’ line at some point in the near future.

 

This becomes even more apparent when you become aware that the Premier League is currently consulting on changes to it’s Profit & Sustainability Regulations for next season onwards.

 

This includes changing the calculation to a ‘squad cost ratio’ in line with UEFA’s own new FFP calculations for its competitions.

 

That makes agreement to the change in calculation pretty much guaranteed - and I’d suggest that change is not going to be beneficial for us in any shape or form, at least in the short term.

 

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/sportinglinks/2022/october/uefas-new-cost-control-rule

https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations

 

https://morgansl.com/en/latest/financial-fair-play-20

[MancFox24]

6 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 amount of £105 million in losses was set by the PL with the expectation that it was very generous and that no clubs would go anywhere near it. There were people pushing to restrict losses to £30m-£40m. And allowances were made for Covid and to allow for interest payments on the new stadium costs in Everton's case. But they decided to push the limits despite repeated warnings from the PL about their transfer activity. People should turn their anger on owners and directors who can't run a business within very generous guidelines

[STEVIE B]

Wouldn't surprise me if Everton's 10pt deduction is reduced to 5, on appeal & then they get another 5 pt deduction in the coming weeks for this latest aberration. 

Edited 18 January by STEVIE B

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, STEVIE B said:

Wouldn't surprise me if Everton's 10pt deduction is reduced to 5, on appeal & then they get another 5 pt deduction in 5 in the coming weeks for this latest aberration. 

It's possible also that any additional points deduction will carry over to their next season of prem football which would presumably be next season..

[Chelmofox]

13 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I’ll repeat what I said yesterday in that we should be really careful in pointing fingers, given we could conceivably find ourselves over a ‘financial fair play’ line at some point in the near future.

 

This becomes even more apparent when you become aware that the Premier League is currently consulting on changes to it’s Profit & Sustainability Regulations for next season onwards.

 

This includes changing the calculation to a ‘squad cost ratio’ in line with UEFA’s own new FFP calculations for its competitions.

 

That makes agreement to the change in calculation pretty much guaranteed - and I’d suggest that change is not going to be beneficial for us in any shape or form, at least in the short term.

 

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/sportinglinks/2022/october/uefas-new-cost-control-rule

https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations

 

https://morgansl.com/en/latest/financial-fair-play-20

Surely every club could find themselves in breach in the future? Furthermore, the PL has proven that they are now taking action, but Everton / Forest is about what has happened.

[Ric Flair]

28 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I’ll repeat what I said yesterday in that we should be really careful in pointing fingers, given we could conceivably find ourselves over a ‘financial fair play’ line at some point in the near future.

 

This becomes even more apparent when you become aware that the Premier League is currently consulting on changes to it’s Profit & Sustainability Regulations for next season onwards.

 

This includes changing the calculation to a ‘squad cost ratio’ in line with UEFA’s own new FFP calculations for its competitions.

 

That makes agreement to the change in calculation pretty much guaranteed - and I’d suggest that change is not going to be beneficial for us in any shape or form, at least in the short term.

 

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/sportinglinks/2022/october/uefas-new-cost-control-rule

https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations

 

https://morgansl.com/en/latest/financial-fair-play-20

I'm still fascinated by these rules because barely any club operates a profit and yet effectively they're setting the requirements of teams only being allowed to spend 70% of their revenue. 

 

Where's the other 30% going?

[Golden Fox]

20 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm still fascinated by these rules because barely any club operates a profit and yet effectively they're setting the requirements of teams only being allowed to spend 70% of their revenue. 

 

Where's the other 30% going?

The 70% is for the squad cost - defined as "employee benefit expenses, amortisation/impairment of player (or head coach) registration costs and agents and intermediaries’ costs". So the other 30% will be other coaches & backroom staff, travel, policing & matchday costs, stadium upkeep, overheads, cost of Seagrave & interest payments.

 

In last year's accounts, our turnover was £215m. Admin expenses of £22m and interest of £19m comes to nearly 20%. Given there are likely non-player salaries in the £276m cost of sales and turnover will be reduced this year in the Championship, 30% doesn't look to be far off where we currently are.

[Ric Flair]

11 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

The 70% is for the squad cost - defined as "employee benefit expenses, amortisation/impairment of player (or head coach) registration costs and agents and intermediaries’ costs". So the other 30% will be other coaches & backroom staff, travel, policing & matchday costs, stadium upkeep, overheads, cost of Seagrave & interest payments.

 

In last year's accounts, our turnover was £215m. Admin expenses of £22m and interest of £19m comes to nearly 20%. Given there are likely non-player salaries in the £276m cost of sales and turnover will be reduced this year in the Championship, 30% doesn't look to be far off where we currently are.

Thanks, I was struggling to determine what wasn't part of the 70%.

 

I suppose in this scenario, the losses of £105m over 3 years are much easier to achieve / impossible not to unless the remaining costs are Sky high and some of which discountable from FFP anyway (investment in infrastructure, academy etc)

 

On that final point, that is key for me. I chunter on and on and on about this but the route to trying to remain prosperous in this financial world is a flag ship academy. We need to overhaul it, it needs to be at the forefront of our blueprint.

 

Best training facilities in Europe, should be the standout pick for any Midlands talent and yet we're not. We look for the cast offs from Villa because Petty is no doubt still pals with a load of them.

[coolhandfox]

Swish Ramble did an article on his stack about the UEFA Cost ratio for several PL clubs; see below where the clubs would have been in 21/22. 

 

He also comments the cost control ratio acts as a soft salary cap, but there have been reports that UEFA would ideally like to implement a hard cap, which would set a cash limit, as opposed to a percentage of revenue, i.e. similar to the framework established in many US sports.

 

Edited 18 January by coolhandfox

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Swish Ramble did an article on his stack about the UEFA Cost ratio for a number of PL clubs; see below where the club would have been in 21/22. 

 

 

 

 

We aren't on it? 😂

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Hence Newcastle’s recent pivot! ☝️

[coolhandfox]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We aren't on it? 😂

He only looked at half the PL clubs and a load of clubs in Europe. 

 

It's a massive article and his has loads of great stuff on his stack, but its sub only https://swissramble.substack.com/

 

From the 21/22 account period, he compared the league (clubs combined) and says Germany, Netherlands and Portugal all look absolutely fine, while England and Spain are not too far away from the ultimate 70% limit.

 

However, there is a fair bit of work to do in Italy and France to meet the target, French average was 97% compared to the PL 76%, Monaco at 162% and PSG 120% 

 

Edited 18 January by coolhandfox

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We aren't on it? 😂

I’m sure we were approaching 100% of turnover from memory - about 97 / 98%.

[coolhandfox]

4 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

I’m sure we were approaching 100% of turnover from memory - about 97 / 98%.

I believe we are on UEFA’s watchlist after 21/22, along with another 18 clubs (including Chelsea, Manchester City and West Ham), which explains boards stance on spending last year. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

4 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

I believe we are on UEFA’s watchlist after 21/22, along with another 18 clubs (including Chelsea, Manchester City and West Ham), which explains boards stance on spending last year. 

Indeed - and our Revenue has taken two significant hits in the past couple of seasons, what with no Europe, followed by relegation.

 

This is no doubt why despite some progress in moving some high wage players on, we’re still being ultra careful because I bet we’re still on the bubble.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I’ll repeat what I said yesterday in that we should be really careful in pointing fingers, given we could conceivably find ourselves over a ‘financial fair play’ line at some point in the near future.

 

This becomes even more apparent when you become aware that the Premier League is currently consulting on changes to it’s Profit & Sustainability Regulations for next season onwards.

 

This includes changing the calculation to a ‘squad cost ratio’ in line with UEFA’s own new FFP calculations for its competitions.

 

That makes agreement to the change in calculation pretty much guaranteed - and I’d suggest that change is not going to be beneficial for us in any shape or form, at least in the short term.

 

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/sportinglinks/2022/october/uefas-new-cost-control-rule

https://www.footballbenchmark.com/library/overview_of_the_new_uefa_financial_fair_play_regulations

 

https://morgansl.com/en/latest/financial-fair-play-20

I'd like the club to stop pussyfooting around the issue and start getting aggressive and properly stand up for ourselves.

 

We were screwed out of fair earnings/prize money when we won the Premier League, then had our ability to spend restricted, and therefore our ability to compete fairly completely withheld. Then for two seasons in a row we finished 5th, which would have been enough to qualify for the Champions League had Man City not had their 2-season ban overturned and left us in the Europa League with a quarter of the earnings the Champions League would have brought us.

 

ALL of that led to our situation last year with having to be extremely tight to adhere to the same rules that Everton broke and stayed up at our expense.

 

 

[mozartfox]

Handing out points deductions does not help us (or any other relegated Club) after the event.

 

If the FA are going to rule on such measures so long after the horse has bolted, then the guilty Clubs should be given a non applicable points deduction, following which any relegated Club that would have finished above the offending Club (had the said points deduction been applied) are compensated with cash for being stiffed.

 

The dished out fines will harm the guilty Clubs big time and assist those Clubs that were shafted (in part by the FA) to get back to financial stability following the relegation. 

 

Pointless giving Everton 10 pts now as does nothing for LCFC although if it relegates the Trees that would be a bonus.

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, mozartfox said:

Handing out points deductions does not help us (or any other relegated Club) after the event.

 

If the FA are going to rule on such measures so long after the horse has bolted, then the guilty Clubs should be given a non applicable points deduction, following which any relegated Club that would have finished above the offending Club (had the said points deduction been applied) are compensated with cash for being stiffed.

 

The dished out fines will harm the guilty Clubs big time and assist those Clubs that were shafted (in part by the FA) to get back to financial stability following the relegation. 

 

Pointless giving Everton 10 pts now as does nothing for LCFC although if it relegates the Trees that would be a bonus.

It's nothing to do with the FA.

[urban.spaceman]

54 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

It's nothing to do with the FA.

Sweet FA?

[spezza74]

4 hours ago, mozartfox said:

Handing out points deductions does not help us (or any other relegated Club) after the event.

 

If the FA are going to rule on such measures so long after the horse has bolted, then the guilty Clubs should be given a non applicable points deduction, following which any relegated Club that would have finished above the offending Club (had the said points deduction been applied) are compensated with cash for being stiffed.

 

The dished out fines will harm the guilty Clubs big time and assist those Clubs that were shafted (in part by the FA) to get back to financial stability following the relegation. 

 

Pointless giving Everton 10 pts now as does nothing for LCFC although if it relegates the Trees that would be a bonus.

The offending club could have to pay the relegated club the difference in prize money in compensation, based on the position they would have finished had the points deduction been implemented in season.

 

So, for last season, if the points deduction would have meant Everton finishing 18th and Leicester 17th, rather than the other way round, Everton would have to pay Leicester the difference in prize money between finishing 17th and 18th.

[Number 6]

On 17/01/2024 at 08:22, coolhandfox said:

No, what would the advantage be? 

 

It's aligned to financial accounting periods.

 

Clubs just need to follow the rules.

 

 

Changing dates on the reports would hardly be difficult.

 

But like the Jonson transfer by Forest, or the Madders one by us, it allows clubs to get the best deals for their assets and not have to fire sell. You could argue that was an example of prudence from Forest in a sea of batshit decisions.

 

Given the transfer bits are going to be a decent chunk of being above or below the line it seems odd to arbitrarily cut it mid window. If they'd sold Johnson pre-deadline and then gone out and spent £80m the next day would that have been a better financial decision?