Nobody knows (although if Usmanov really was the owner, there was nothing stopping it being official so why put a puppet in place?) but so what? Any club that's relying on outside funding just to pay the bills is at risk. Any number of reasons could be the cause of that money drying up. Southampton's owner died. West Ham's went bust overnight because of an Icelandic banking crisis. And some just get bored.
The Great Big FFP Debate
- Thread starter Reuben klang
- Start date
Was that not the case with Leicester’s owners as well, when Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha sadly died, his son didn’t have anywhere near the interest his dad did.
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 3,539
There will always been back doors, sell a box at auction? Romp the price up and have some random buy it.
Oh sir, this bottle of tap water costs £40,000.
As ridiculous as that sounds, theres ways and means to get revenue up. Could easily get a few million more per match day. They’ll have experts in the field working on loop holes right away.
Oh sir, this bottle of tap water costs £40,000.
As ridiculous as that sounds, theres ways and means to get revenue up. Could easily get a few million more per match day. They’ll have experts in the field working on loop holes right away.
I have always wondered why clubs don’t have a “special box” that sells for £1m per game
Caporegime
By clubs you mean the top 6 (even then I’d have reservations) who could potentially do it.
Crystal Palace aren’t selling a £1 million box every game are they?
A top tier box at Old Trafford is about £200k a season or something so no idea what you’d need to introduce to charge £1 mil a game.
Sounds like you’re advocating for some of the crazy stuff you see in Saudi? Maybe they can have a baby lion in the box with them?
Last edited:
Caporegime
Newcastle could make a gold plated box and sell it to "Saudi's" for 1 million a game. That is an easy 50 million revenue a season
.Newcastle could make a gold plated box and sell it to "Saudi's" for 1 million a game. That is an easy 50 million revenue a season
, there is actually nothing in the FFP rules that stops it
Caporegime
This is all making less sense once again.
Bit daft really because they could only lose 61 million over 3 years compared to 105 million for other PL clubs because they got promoted and the Johnson sale fell short by a couple of months which would have put them in the clear.
Surely the PL profit and loss should be PL, not EFL as well otherwise it hampers the teams that do get promoted as they can't spend as much as other PL teams in their first season.
Surely the PL profit and loss should be PL, not EFL as well otherwise it hampers the teams that do get promoted as they can't spend as much as other PL teams in their first season.
Caporegime
But Forest get 4 points. Okay.
Forests is different as they only get 61m allowed losses in 3 years compared to 105m for Everton, which is wrong in my eyes for Forest as it just hampers promoted clubs. With the Johnson sale which went through a couple of months past the deadline they would have been clear of any breaches, and they would be well under if they could lose the same amount as 17 other PL clubs, including Everton.
3 years PL profit and lose, they are trying to work some % out from a promoted clubs one year PL records, doesn't seem fair.
I really don't like Forest either so its not like Im biased or anything
Last edited:
That's simply a starting point with aggravating and mitigating factors to then be considered. I suspect the biggest point of mitigation will be around the fact that Forest only had one years worth of PL allowances and two seasons of EFL (which are lower) and that will have saved them a couple of points. Similarly I wouldn't be surprised if Everton's 2nd penalty (assuming they're found guilty) is also reduced as they'll argue that they've already been punished for 2 of the 3 seasons this charge relates to.
It's not really daft. You cannot just wipe the slate clean for promoted (or relegated) clubs. As above I suspect it's resulted in them getting a slightly reduced punishment but they've ultimately broke both the EFL and PL rules over a 3 year period.
I hope (and expect) the Johnson sale excuse was completely dismissed by the panel. Football clubs don't just find out at the end of the season that they've made a loss. Clubs will have teams of accountants crunching the numbers and will know within a relatively small percentage how much money they're going to bring in and what their expenses are. Forest went into last season knowing full well that they were going to breach PSR. They took the decision to keep buying and didn't sell (enough) players to balance the books. They left themselves in the situation where they had to have a big sale by the end of June in order to avoid breaching PSR. This was entirely a situation of their making and I have no doubt that they consciously took the decision to have that 1 (or 2) extra signing was worth the financial risk they were taking in the hope that they could make that sale pre June.
But why do promoted clubs only get 61m compared to 105 for the other 17 clubs, that just hampers them. No wonder most go straight back down. Pretty sure I read that with this years records Forest wouldnt be anywhere near the allowed loss number.
I know its a set number, set dates etc. but don't really know about the 50m less promoted clubs can lose. Doesn't seem fair
Caporegime
This is quite amusing.
Because finances in the PL are considerably more than the EFL and as such, the EFL have lower allowable losses than the PL. In the EFL the top line figure you can lose is £13m per season, compared to £35m in the PL. Two seasons of £13m + one season of £35m brings you to the magic £61m figure.
As a Forest fan, it seems fair enough.
We knew the rules and arguing that they are unfair after we breached them is a load of rubbish.
We also knew that we had been in the Championship for 2 years and what that meant.
We cheated, we've had the benefit of cheating with a massive squad and if we still get relegated after a 4 point deduction then we deserve it.
The annoying thing is we spunked so much money on absolute dross that have never played or idiots like Lindgard. There's £10m of midfielder on loan at Middlesbrough this year for example.
We could probably have got the same results without breaching the PSR if we'd just been more sensible in recruiting.
We knew the rules and arguing that they are unfair after we breached them is a load of rubbish.
We also knew that we had been in the Championship for 2 years and what that meant.
We cheated, we've had the benefit of cheating with a massive squad and if we still get relegated after a 4 point deduction then we deserve it.
The annoying thing is we spunked so much money on absolute dross that have never played or idiots like Lindgard. There's £10m of midfielder on loan at Middlesbrough this year for example.
We could probably have got the same results without breaching the PSR if we'd just been more sensible in recruiting.
Maybe but doesn't really seem fair and probably why most promoted teams go straight back down. But having said that maybe that's why Forest stayed up, over spent.
The alternative is more unfair though as you'd effectively be allowing promoted sides to breach EFL rules for 1-3 seasons in order to get promoted and then not face the consequences for doing so as EFL rules no longer apply to them. Not only is that clearly unfair but also encourages even more reckless spending in the Championship.Maybe but doesn't really seem fair and probably why most promoted teams go straight back down. But having said that maybe that's why Forest stayed up, over spent.
The fairest way is to calculate a pro-rata rate depending on how many seasons they were in the EFL and how many in the PL. For the 2 seasons Forest were in the Championship they were allowed to lose £26m and for the 1 season in the PL, they could lose £35m. They lost more than the total of those two figures.