+- 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 - Reds73 - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 11:36 AM)Jean_claude_killy Wrote:We are talking 2 different things here though.(04-01-2024, 11:03 AM)The reds Wrote: My theory is Forest are close to the limit for PSR, they are just on the right side of the line BUT to be 100% sure they are they want to add the Johnson sale to the 2022/23 Accounts, Our Case is very different to Everton’s they got given a budget plan to follow and they broke that plan which is why they got the Points Deduction. This is Forest first run in with the Prem so I don’t think we get a points deduction most likely a fine. And warning to stop spending crazily
From now we really just need to tweak the squad this window and next window
The club could not add the Johnson sale to last seasons accounts even if the PL agreed to it; the Club are accountable to a much higher authority than the PL, UEFA or even FIFA were accounts are concerned - HMRC.
There are the accounts and then there is the FFP version.
The FFP version is just related to the EPL and not HMRC
Example being the 20.9m promotion bonuses paid in 2022. These are included in the accounts to HMRC, however you can remove them from the losses for FFP purposes.
So I guess the club maybe saying, although they are accounted for as at 1st Sept, we were in dialogue with you regarding achieving the best possible price, and therefore asking for an exception in terms of breaching FFP rules.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - wassy04 - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 11:36 AM)Jean_claude_killy Wrote:(04-01-2024, 11:03 AM)The reds Wrote: My theory is Forest are close to the limit for PSR, they are just on the right side of the line BUT to be 100% sure they are they want to add the Johnson sale to the 2022/23 Accounts, Our Case is very different to Everton’s they got given a budget plan to follow and they broke that plan which is why they got the Points Deduction. This is Forest first run in with the Prem so I don’t think we get a points deduction most likely a fine. And warning to stop spending crazily
From now we really just need to tweak the squad this window and next window
The club could not add the Johnson sale to last seasons accounts even if the PL agreed to it; the Club are accountable to a much higher authority than the PL, UEFA or even FIFA were accounts are concerned - HMRC.
PSR (or FFP) isn't though. The PSR calcs are separate from the actual accounts and not evenly publicly released so of the Premier league agreed, then theoretically we could include it in the FFP calls even if its not included in the accounts for that year.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - wassy04 - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 11:03 AM)The reds Wrote: My theory is Forest are close to the limit for PSR, they are just on the right side of the line BUT to be 100% sure they are they want to add the Johnson sale to the 2022/23 Accounts, Our Case is very different to Everton’s they got given a budget plan to follow and they broke that plan which is why they got the Points Deduction. This is Forest first run in with the Prem so I don’t think we get a points deduction most likely a fine. And warning to stop spending crazily
From now we really just need to tweak the squad this window and next window
Everton's issue was not that they failed to follow a budget (aside from the generous 105m loss threshold). It was they tried to claim way higher covid losses to write off than anyone else which was initially accepted by the PL but then later rejected after all other clubs complained. Because the whole FFP process is done in secret, only the actual people involved know the details (which is ridiculous) but made it easy to avoid sanctions. However Everton pushed it top far and everyone including us kicked off, they were retrospectively reassessed then punished.
In the independent panel, apparently their issues were that they budgeted for 80m for Richarlison (which sounds crazy now) and only got 60m in June. The panel said that 105m was already a generous threshold so anyone actually crossing it would be punished harshly. Also, initially Eveeton claimed losses of 87m (presumably the generous covid losses), these were revised just before the deadline to 112m so they did reluctantly accept guilt but not as much as the prem said hence the appeal. The fact they revised their numbers a year later two weeks before the tribunal, probably didn't do them any favours! In fact, I think this was a factor in their punishment as they were considered to have misled the PL.
So their situation is clearly worse than ours but there are similarities too. Hopefully we've never actually misled the league and any fail will only be marginal if the Brennan thing is rejected. The fact that all these calls are done in secret though is bs. It seems crazy something so important is not released publicly.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 10:37 AM)wassy04 Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:20 AM)Sausage Roll Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:13 AM)Reds73 Wrote: Also if you look at the latest tweet from Kieran Maguire he has put the section of the rules that does not enable you to adjust accounts retrospectively for the sale of a player
That's the concern for me because it seems like that's what we're trying to do. I hope I'm wrong.
The question is, are we trying to do this because we've breached by say 5m, or is it because it a breach by 30m.
It seems pretty risky to be relying on this though, given it's not in the rules. I'm guessing we didn't think this was an issue in June or else we'd have sold someone Brennan or otherwise to sort it.
So presumably either it was much closer than we realised or after the Everton penalty they are bigger stricter on the covid write-offs (which is just an abstract figure). According to Tails, we were in constant communication with the PL in the summer, presumably about the Brennan sale, however this was pretty much what happened with Everton then the PL later backtracked and decided to charge them anyway.
My guess is I can't see the Johnson sale counting so it's just whether we actually failed and if so by how much.
There was a reason for that though. Everton never actually sold the player that they were in communications with where we did sell our player.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - jurgen rober - 04-01-2024
Jamie Martin talking to Kieran Maguire - at least he says what are facts and what is supposition.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - DR Forest - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 11:42 AM)The reds Wrote: Just got to wait till 14th January, no point worrying unless we have breached.
This.
We don’t even know if the Brennan sale is relevant to our compliance or not- the soundbites from the press and club indicate it’s not relevant to whether we meet FFP and that the possible breaches relate to the interpretation of whether other losses are disallowable for FFP purposes (like covid allowances and promotion bonuses).
I’m hoping that we are inside or close to the limit without factoring the Brennan sale.
However, even if it was crucial, we should not be punished for a technical breach following the precedent already set down by the PL when Everton were not initially penalised for such a breach but only then punished for not meeting their targets (and flagrantly taking the piss tbh).
This may be why we maintained discussions throughout with the PL, demonstrating absolute compliance would occur within weeks through the sale.
Our lawyer will have the precedent and full record of conversations and disclosure which should be sufficient for any appeal should someone be determined to over-punish us for political reasons.
Finally, might be worth mentioning that a ‘contingent asset’ is an accounting mechanism that potentially allows the recognition of a future sale in the previous period when it is virtually certain an economic inflow will arise. It’s a rabbit hole not to disappear down right now, but it may technically be possible for us to have recognised £30m for the Brennan sale last season and the rest this season (with the £30m being the amount on the table from Brentford).
As my brain is now hurting, I’ll reiterate what Reds says and wait!
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 04-01-2024
Our Lawyer hired by EM for this case is Nick De Marco.
He is the worlds leading Sports Layer who vindicated Newcastle during their takeover by the Saudis.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - wassy04 - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 12:13 PM)Sniffer Dog (Admin) Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:37 AM)wassy04 Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:20 AM)Sausage Roll Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:13 AM)Reds73 Wrote: Also if you look at the latest tweet from Kieran Maguire he has put the section of the rules that does not enable you to adjust accounts retrospectively for the sale of a player
That's the concern for me because it seems like that's what we're trying to do. I hope I'm wrong.
The question is, are we trying to do this because we've breached by say 5m, or is it because it a breach by 30m.
It seems pretty risky to be relying on this though, given it's not in the rules. I'm guessing we didn't think this was an issue in June or else we'd have sold someone Brennan or otherwise to sort it.
So presumably either it was much closer than we realised or after the Everton penalty they are bigger stricter on the covid write-offs (which is just an abstract figure). According to Tails, we were in constant communication with the PL in the summer, presumably about the Brennan sale, however this was pretty much what happened with Everton then the PL later backtracked and decided to charge them anyway.
My guess is I can't see the Johnson sale counting so it's just whether we actually failed and if so by how much.
There was a reason for that though. Everton never actually sold the player that they were in communications with where we did sell our player.
Everton sold Richarlison? Who are you referring to?
I was referring to the PL initially accepting their version of their covid write-offs before Leeds, Leicester, Forest etc kicked off and they backtracked. Ie the PL has previous in backtracking what they've previously said.
The fact Everton essentially later admitted guilt and changed their numbers sounds like a big reason why they were punished and they were found to have misled the PL (was in the panel's notes). We don't appear to have done anything like that so hopefully that will be in our favour.
The worry is the rules are now being more strictly applied on the back of Everton's punishment and the impending independent regulator.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Sniffer Dog (Admin) - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 12:32 PM)wassy04 Wrote:(04-01-2024, 12:13 PM)Sniffer Dog (Admin) Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:37 AM)wassy04 Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:20 AM)Sausage Roll Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:13 AM)Reds73 Wrote: Also if you look at the latest tweet from Kieran Maguire he has put the section of the rules that does not enable you to adjust accounts retrospectively for the sale of a player
That's the concern for me because it seems like that's what we're trying to do. I hope I'm wrong.
The question is, are we trying to do this because we've breached by say 5m, or is it because it a breach by 30m.
It seems pretty risky to be relying on this though, given it's not in the rules. I'm guessing we didn't think this was an issue in June or else we'd have sold someone Brennan or otherwise to sort it.
So presumably either it was much closer than we realised or after the Everton penalty they are bigger stricter on the covid write-offs (which is just an abstract figure). According to Tails, we were in constant communication with the PL in the summer, presumably about the Brennan sale, however this was pretty much what happened with Everton then the PL later backtracked and decided to charge them anyway.
My guess is I can't see the Johnson sale counting so it's just whether we actually failed and if so by how much.
There was a reason for that though. Everton never actually sold the player that they were in communications with where we did sell our player.
Everton sold Richarlison? Who are you referring to?
I was referring to the PL initially accepting their version of their covid write-offs before Leeds, Leicester, Forest etc kicked off and they backtracked. Ie the PL has previous in backtracking what they've previously said.
The fact Everton essentially later admitted guilt and changed their numbers sounds like a big reason why they were punished and they were found to have misled the PL (was in the panel's notes). We don't appear to have done anything like that so hopefully that will be in our favour.
The worry is the rules are now being more strictly applied on the back of Everton's punishment and the impending independent regulator.
Dunno who it was Wassy.
He's unnamed but whoever he was he never moved despite Everton constantly communicating with the PL and insisting that he would be sold.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Derby My Arse - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 12:31 PM)Sniffer Dog (Admin) Wrote: Our Lawyer hired by EM for this case is Nick De Marco.
He is the worlds leading Sports Layer who vindicated Newcastle during their takeover by the Saudis.
EM not messing about then.
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Deeler16 - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 10:00 AM)Reds73 Wrote: It is also a political play by the EPL. They need to show they can govern football and don’t require an independent regulator.
According to Kieran Maguire the rumour swirling around the industry is that Forest, Everton and Chelsea are the 3 clubs that the accounts are being scrutinised by a fine tooth comb.
Forest clearly because of the sheer volume of activity we have undertaken. You have just got to hope that we have adhered to the rules, as the EPL are looking to show that they can govern football and that FFP has teeth.
It sounds like there are some ‘technicialties’ around our accounts, specifically around delaying the Johnson sale to enable us to maximise his value.
The penalties are severe, 6 points for breaching even by £1 and then 1 point for every 5m over.
Let’s hope the KC can put our case forward well enough.
in the worst case scenario - what would that equate to? Are we saying we needed the £30m to be clear in which 6 plus 6 in which case -12?
RE: NFFC Financial Talk - Reds73 - 04-01-2024
(04-01-2024, 01:25 PM)Deeler16 Wrote:(04-01-2024, 10:00 AM)Reds73 Wrote: It is also a political play by the EPL. They need to show they can govern football and don’t require an independent regulator.
According to Kieran Maguire the rumour swirling around the industry is that Forest, Everton and Chelsea are the 3 clubs that the accounts are being scrutinised by a fine tooth comb.
Forest clearly because of the sheer volume of activity we have undertaken. You have just got to hope that we have adhered to the rules, as the EPL are looking to show that they can govern football and that FFP has teeth.
It sounds like there are some ‘technicialties’ around our accounts, specifically around delaying the Johnson sale to enable us to maximise his value.
The penalties are severe, 6 points for breaching even by £1 and then 1 point for every 5m over.
Let’s hope the KC can put our case forward well enough.
in the worst case scenario - what would that equate to? Are we saying we needed the £30m to be clear in which 6 plus 6 in which case -12?
Nobody knows because the accounts aren’t published