+- COYR NOTTINGHAM FOREST FORUM (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: NOTTINGHAM FOREST - A REBEL CLUB IN A REBEL CITY (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Nottingham Forest Fan Talk - Forest All Over The World (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: NFFC Financial Talk (/showthread.php?tid=546)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - DR Forest - 21-03-2024
(21-03-2024, 09:08 AM)The reds Wrote: I think most Forest fans have accepted it, it could have been a lot worse with the 8 point deduction they were pushing for even though the PL double counted in that, what I find embarrassing is the PL got the punishment from how much bigger the breach was than Everton’s even though both teams breached from different limits. Shouldn’t be comparing different cases. The only thing I’m confused about is why were the promotion bonuses disallowed, that’s 60% of the breach and also why we weren’t allowed to add an extra. 9.7m in Covid allowances, when other clubs claimed over 100m
You tell me, Reds!
Lots are saying we should take the punishment and move on.
We are the mighty NFFC and surely we can get a point more than little Luton in the last 9 games.
I hope we do but if we don’t get 4 points from our next two home games it would be interesting to see if those views change. By which time it will be too late to lodge an appeal.
Whether we appeal should not be based on our league position it should be based on the strength of arguments within and the probability of success.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 21-03-2024
Nobody has disrespected Luton or bigged up forest like you claim there ^^
However surely nobody is doubting that we have the better squad and an easier run in on paper.
So there are no reasons to suggest that we shouldn't be gaining one more point than Luton in the remaining nine games.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - jurgen rober - 21-03-2024
I think we should appeal on the grounds that some of the mitigations were not allowed. The maximum allowance they would give us for COVID was 2.5m and we claimed just over 12m. That relates to 500k a match which is more than reasonable. They would also not allow us to include almost 21m in bonuses for promotion which I believe would be allowed under the EUFA type rules to be brought in. This is a total of 30m we were not allowed and would have reduced the level of debt to around 4.5m. The supposed tariffs for exceeding PSR are 3 points for the breach and 1 point for every 5m over up to a max of 3 points. With those allowances we would have been docked 4 points and with 2 points returned, only a 2 point penalty for overrunning for 2 months and not 3 years like Everton. I wonder if this is in line with the club thinking.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - The reds - 21-03-2024
Even in the Times - ‘Forest could deduct the £21m promotion bonuses for their PSR calculation as well as an estimated 17m for academy, women’s football, community projects and depreciation.’
So you deduct 38m from -52,-40, -15 that comes to 69m so something isn’t adding up is it. 8m over.
Goalposts moving is definitely the reason Forest and EM are angry.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Tricky - 21-03-2024
Here's something to consider................
Lets assume we are in the PL next season and we go over our allotted loss figure of £83m by say £19m. How can the PL charge us for being over the threshold if we have already been charged and penalised for £39m this season? Surely they cannot re-penalise us for something we have already been penalised for? That is just wrong!!!
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Sausage Roll - 21-03-2024
I would imagine that'll be Everton's argument for their hearing next week too.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Username - 21-03-2024
(21-03-2024, 11:30 AM)Tricky Wrote: Here's something to consider................
Lets assume we are in the PL next season and we go over our allotted loss figure of £83m by say £19m. How can the PL charge us for being over the threshold if we have already been charged and penalised for £39m this season? Surely they cannot re-penalise us for something we have already been penalised for? That is just wrong!!!
We are probably hoping that the EPL do take that stance to penalise Everton this season!
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Jean_claude_killy - 21-03-2024
(21-03-2024, 11:30 AM)Tricky Wrote: Here's something to consider................
Lets assume we are in the PL next season and we go over our allotted loss figure of £83m by say £19m. How can the PL charge us for being over the threshold if we have already been charged and penalised for £39m this season? Surely they cannot re-penalise us for something we have already been penalised for? That is just wrong!!!
Pretty sure it does not work like that.
We have been penalised for exceeding the 3 three year rolling cycle.
If we exceed next years allowance it falls in a new three year cycle.
And that carries on ad infinitum
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - BomberBowyer - 21-03-2024
(21-03-2024, 02:17 PM)Jean_claude_killy Wrote:Which is why Everton are being charged this year. The poor Evertonians are saying the PL is corrupt and unfair they are facing second charge when already been deducted pts without taking into account the fact they are seperate 3 yr rolling periods(21-03-2024, 11:30 AM)Tricky Wrote: Here's something to consider................
Lets assume we are in the PL next season and we go over our allotted loss figure of £83m by say £19m. How can the PL charge us for being over the threshold if we have already been charged and penalised for £39m this season? Surely they cannot re-penalise us for something we have already been penalised for? That is just wrong!!!
Pretty sure it does not work like that.
We have been penalised for exceeding the 3 three year rolling cycle.
If we exceed next years allowance it falls in a new three year cycle.
And that carries on ad infinitum
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - The reds - 21-03-2024
In addition, clubs can exclude promotion bonuses from the PSR calculation. Clubs that are promoted from the Championship to the Premier League pay substantial promotion bonuses, which can be completely disproportionate to their underlying wage bill. It would seem unfair for a club to effectively be penalised for success if such bonuses took them over the maximum allowable loss.
This deduction is not explicitly listed in the regulations any more, but it was highlighted in the EFL’s 2014/15 guidelines, so I don’t see why this principle would have changed since then.
Swiss Ramble - When Charges first announced.
It would be interesting to know if Bournemouth and Fulham were allowed to deduct Promotion Bonuses, I really don't understand why they weren't allowed to be deducted, it put us on the back foot ever since promotion.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - DR Forest - 21-03-2024
(21-03-2024, 10:07 AM)Sniffer Dog (Admin) Wrote: Nobody has disrespected Luton or bigged up forest like you claim there ^^
However surely nobody is doubting that we have the better squad and an easier run in on paper.
So there are no reasons to suggest that we shouldn't be gaining one more point than Luton in the remaining nine games.
There’s no guarantee that we will, either.
So not appealing the decision in the interim is a fool’s errand notwithstanding the caveats I mentioned
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - ozzyten10 - 21-03-2024
Percy coming out with our stance on sales…