NFFC Financial Talk

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Bottom line- are we compliant with allowable losses for FFP? Can anyone answer?

Yes we are.

The large losses from 3 yrs ago have now dropped off.

These accounts also aren’t that actual amounts relevant for FFP either.

Academy costs, infrastructure etc doesn’t get included for FFP

We are fine in terms of FFP

Thank you.
The most important element of these results.

It was clearly written in the PDF (can't remember the page) that we are within FFP limits.

[Knocker West]

I did have the perverse thought to get through the current 'narrative' of what's happening in society at large, that football clubs could have let go of all their financially inclined posers that kick a ball around and instead?

On masse decided to play their Academies.   And in that scenario, just how well Forest would do?  And how much financially better off football would be if it could start again at 'grass roots.'

To agree to such a treaty...

As for Norwich.  At least they stick with a manager.  A plan.  They must be doing something right.

How many times have they been promoted in the last 20 years compared to Forest?

Our 'evil twin' of a club.  They, 'normal' conditions allowing, have around 30k attendance?

SA.

Greed means it will never happen, but conversely there's no excuse for the ridiculous finances that some clubs produce, especially when it's not necessary, or sustainable.

When bankers laid out the compelling vision for the future of Norwich City Football Club, that I mentioned above, as a ‘self-sustaining’ club, after they announced an operating profit for the financial year ending May 2011 – before the riches of the Premiership started to kick in – the club’s chairman & CEO were cited as ‘an exemplar’ of how banks and football clubs can work together to deliver a stable and manageable football club amidst the financial madness that can be English football.

The fact that City had also reduced their past debt burden by a hefty £4 million over the same financial year put a smile on the bankers’ faces & as I said, that was all before Norwich hit the dizzy heights of the Premiership that season & contrary to some nay sayers who could argue endlessly without ever producing an argument themselves, it isn't the only example, so there is no reason why some of these club produce the damaging figures they do, & they are damaging figures as clubs like Bury, Bolton & Wigan can attest to, when they finally have to address the financial messes they have walked into.

Our accounts are generally improving, & the club have mad it clear they wish to see them continue improve & for us to eventually become self sustainable, but it may take a while because the new owners came into a club that was effectively shut down financially & had no real revenue streams beyond the very basics, but we'll get there slowly & surely, & indeed, eventually all of football will have to get there, it's why FFP was introduced & whatever your views on FFP the actual reasoning behind it was because it was a necessity with so many clubs struggling financially due to mismanagement, as we saw in our own case,where Fawaz model was unsustainable & would have eventually led to our bankruptcy had the authorities not stepped in.

[wassy04]

Genius.

Not really, there's plenty of examples, I just remember that one as it was all over the financial sports news a few years ago because you actually had the banks releasing a presser to praise them & the self sustaining model that they were running at the time, & suggesting it's what other championship clubs should aspire to, & indeed as I mention earlier in the thread it is what our current owner aspires to as he & our chairman have both publicly stated.

Genius.

Norwich City lost £38M in the season 2018-2019, their first year without parachute payments.

Next?

That wasn't the years I was referring to, but if you keep searching you will find the right ones, & then when you have the answers you can come back here & discuss them with me rather than insisting your right with no evidence what so ever & demanding I go through ever more increasingly ridiculous scenario's for you.

My original point still stands & has been proven over & over again, that it is perfectly possible for a championship club to operate at a profit.

There is no law in the universe forbidding it & the basic rules of economics tell you it's entirely possible to run a company at a profit & there are examples of championship clubs running at a profit, including previously Norwich who were, as mentioned held up as an example by the banks.

This has to be my final response to you because you're just being silly now, you're clearly either looking for an argument or a way to save face & as such will clearly go on & on & on if I keep responding to you, for all your contrary nature & ridiculous demands you haven't even brought a counter argument to the table & explained why you believe it is totally impossible for a championship club to operate at a profit contrary to all evidence.

Instead of your silly demands, trying to nit pick on scenarios, rather than dealing with the core point, why not address that & offer any semblance of evidence a to why it's physically impossible for a championship club to operate at a profit & be sure to cite the actual rules & regulations that make that profit impossible, & not just your lack of imagination when it come to business.

Goodness knows what you are on about; I'm not insisting I'm right - I'm asking you to back up your claim that championship football clubs could make a profit, within the rules of FFP, and have sporting success "with a little imagination, and dreaming big". If you can't do that, then fine, but your argument is weak and your research is poor if you can't provide examples of how to do this. Hand-waving and crying that I'm being "silly", "ridiculous", "nit-pick", "impossible" won't cut it. Play the argument, not the man to borrow a phrase.

What is it that you think Forest should do now to generate £20M of profit each season, whilst building a squad capable of a top-6 finish?

It's not my rules that say that only earnings from football operations can be counted. The fact that you either don't understand that rule or want to ignore it, doesn't change the rule. 

p.s. Norwich had parachute payments for 8 years running. I've looked back at their accounts for over 10 years. You haven't even read the link I sent you.

Completely agree with you Selbourne, Norwich is a terrible example. In fact they are exactly what's wrong with the system, essentially able to succeed solely by living off parachute payments. 

Until parachute payments disappear they will continue to prop up the wage market therefore force other clubs to either accept they can't compete or overspend. Pretty simple economics really. Clubs are looking our for themselves so will do what's best for them and in most cases this is spending where they can afford it.

This situation will only ever be rectified by a consensus from all clubs to restrict wages and for parachute payments to be eradicated. Otherwise the incentive to run at break even just isn't there.

[Paplane]

Not really, there's plenty of examples, I just remember that one as it was all over the financial sports news a few years ago because you actually had the banks releasing a presser to praise them & the self sustaining model that they were running at the time, & suggesting it's what other championship clubs should aspire to, & indeed as I mention earlier in the thread it is what our current owner aspires to as he & our chairman have both publicly stated.

Genius.

Norwich City lost £38M in the season 2018-2019, their first year without parachute payments.

Next?

That wasn't the years I was referring to, but if you keep searching you will find the right ones, & then when you have the answers you can come back here & discuss them with me rather than insisting your right with no evidence what so ever & demanding I go through ever more increasingly ridiculous scenario's for you.

My original point still stands & has been proven over & over again, that it is perfectly possible for a championship club to operate at a profit.

There is no law in the universe forbidding it & the basic rules of economics tell you it's entirely possible to run a company at a profit & there are examples of championship clubs running at a profit, including previously Norwich who were, as mentioned held up as an example by the banks.

This has to be my final response to you because you're just being silly now, you're clearly either looking for an argument or a way to save face & as such will clearly go on & on & on if I keep responding to you, for all your contrary nature & ridiculous demands you haven't even brought a counter argument to the table & explained why you believe it is totally impossible for a championship club to operate at a profit contrary to all evidence.

Instead of your silly demands, trying to nit pick on scenarios, rather than dealing with the core point, why not address that & offer any semblance of evidence a to why it's physically impossible for a championship club to operate at a profit & be sure to cite the actual rules & regulations that make that profit impossible, & not just your lack of imagination when it come to business.

Goodness knows what you are on about; I'm not insisting I'm right - I'm asking you to back up your claim that championship football clubs could make a profit, within the rules of FFP, and have sporting success "with a little imagination, and dreaming big". If you can't do that, then fine, but your argument is weak and your research is poor if you can't provide examples of how to do this. Hand-waving and crying that I'm being "silly", "ridiculous", "nit-pick", "impossible" won't cut it. Play the argument, not the man to borrow a phrase.

What is it that you think Forest should do now to generate £20M of profit each season, whilst building a squad capable of a top-6 finish?

It's not my rules that say that only earnings from football operations can be counted. The fact that you either don't understand that rule or want to ignore it, doesn't change the rule. 

p.s. Norwich had parachute payments for 8 years running. I've looked back at their accounts for over 10 years. You haven't even read the link I sent you.

Completely agree with you Selbourne, Norwich is a terrible example. In fact they are exactly what's wrong with the system, essentially able to succeed solely by living off parachute payments. 

Until parachute payments disappear they will continue to prop up the wage market therefore force other clubs to either accept they can't compete or overspend. Pretty simple economics really. Clubs are looking our for themselves so will do what's best for them and in most cases this is spending where they can afford it.

This situation will only ever be rectified by a consensus from all clubs to restrict wages and for parachute payments to be eradicated. Otherwise the incentive to run at break even just isn't there.

Yep running at break even is just not an option. It would involve bringing 3 or 4 academy players into the first 11 every season and selling every player that showed the slightest bit of talent. And the money raised from sales would never be re-spent on transfers. That's may be OK at clubs like e.g. Barnsley, but at clubs like Forest, Sheff Wed, Sheep, the fan bases aren't going to accept the mediocrity of staying safe for the purposes of sustainability.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Running at break even in the short term probably isnt sustainable. However nor is buying a whole new squad on high wages every summer whilst continuing to pay your existing players who you have consigned to the bomb squad then paying off your manager and coaching staff because that insane gamble has backfired again. Thats why we have a £38M wage bill.

[wassy04]

Running at break even in the short term probably isnt sustainable. However nor is buying a whole new squad on high wages every summer whilst continuing to pay your existing players who you have consigned to the bomb squad then paying off your manager and coaching staff because that insane gamble has backfired again. Thats why we have a £38M wage bill.

Yes that is also a fair point! :D that doesn't help, but it's the same logic. You make one bad signing and you're stuck with them for years. If you choose to try and be frugal or offer shorter deals you will not sign the players, particularly when if they're good enough they'll likely have offers from better teams so overpaying is one of thenonly strategies we have.

If you choose to sign younger players it's a higher initial outlay (although lower wages) and you might still make a loss eg Carvalho. Plus the top young players are tied to big prem clubs.

The manager thing is very unnecessary waste though. Repeatedly cycling managers, then they want to bring in their own players etc. Been banging that drum for years but you get drowned out pretty quickly. Can't please everyone I guess

[Knocker West]

You make one bad signing and you're stuck with them for years.

The solution is you don't make bad deals.

There seem to be this view that there's no reason to even think about running a football club in a sensible & sustainable manner, which is exactly the thinking we got under Fawaz, yet some seem eager to return to that thinking.

The solution to bad deals is not to say debt & losses is inevitable, the solution is to cut out the bad deals.

Some would have our club bankrupt & in the Wells Road One Stop under 5's girls league if they were in charge of this club.

I can not honestly believe there is a rolling discussion here arguing against trying to be profitable or sustainable & arguing that what we've evidenced elsewhere is somehow impossible & undesirable for Nottingham Forest.

I mean literally there are posts in this thread that say that a profitable club, who ended up being promoted that season is a bad example, & we shouldn't strive for that, like in which universe is that a good answer?

Profit & promotion? Bugger that lad, we're perfectly capable of screwing up recruitment, turning a loss & staying down here!

I look forward to the EM out banners, because everyones going against his stated intention, so I'm waiting for the "Not enough Debt! Get Out!" banners at the City ground.

I sometimes feel like I'm in the twilight zone...

[Knocker West]

Running at break even in the short term probably isnt sustainable. However nor is buying a whole new squad on high wages every summer whilst continuing to pay your existing players who you have consigned to the bomb squad then paying off your manager and coaching staff because that insane gamble has backfired again. Thats why we have a £38M wage bill.

It's incredible that people are almost trying to justify bad business.

It's 100% desirable for us to strive to be as profitable & well run as possible, but for some that seems an alien concept.

[selborne garibaldi]

Not really, there's plenty of examples, I just remember that one as it was all over the financial sports news a few years ago because you actually had the banks releasing a presser to praise them & the self sustaining model that they were running at the time, & suggesting it's what other championship clubs should aspire to, & indeed as I mention earlier in the thread it is what our current owner aspires to as he & our chairman have both publicly stated.

Genius.

Norwich City lost £38M in the season 2018-2019, their first year without parachute payments.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2019/nov...-accounts/

Next?

That wasn't the years I was referring to, but if you keep searching you will find the right ones, & then when you have the answers you can come back here & discuss them with me rather than insisting your right with no evidence what so ever & demanding I go through ever more increasingly ridiculous scenario's for you.

My original point still stands & has been proven over & over again, that it is perfectly possible for a championship club to operate at a profit.

There is no law in the universe forbidding it & the basic rules of economics tell you it's entirely possible to run a company at a profit & there are examples of championship clubs running at a profit, including previously Norwich who were, as mentioned held up as an example by the banks.

This has to be my final response to you because you're just being silly now, you're clearly either looking for an argument or a way to save face & as such will clearly go on & on & on if I keep responding to you, for all your contrary nature & ridiculous demands you haven't even brought a counter argument to the table & explained why you believe it is totally impossible for a championship club to operate at a profit contrary to all evidence.

Instead of your silly demands, trying to nit pick on scenarios, rather than dealing with the core point, why not address that & offer any semblance of evidence a to why it's physically impossible for a championship club to operate at a profit & be sure to cite the actual rules & regulations that make that profit impossible, & not just your lack of imagination when it come to business.

Goodness knows what you are on about; I'm not insisting I'm right - I'm asking you to back up your claim that championship football clubs could make a profit, within the rules of FFP, and have sporting success "with a little imagination, and dreaming big". If you can't do that, then fine, but your argument is weak and your research is poor if you can't provide examples of how to do this. Hand-waving and crying that I'm being "silly", "ridiculous", "nit-pick", "impossible" won't cut it. Play the argument, not the man to borrow a phrase.

What is it that you think Forest should do now to generate £20M of profit each season, whilst building a squad capable of a top-6 finish?

It's not my rules that say that only earnings from football operations can be counted. The fact that you either don't understand that rule or want to ignore it, doesn't change the rule. 

p.s. Norwich had parachute payments for 8 years running. I've looked back at their accounts for over 10 years. You haven't even read the link I sent you.

Completely agree with you Selbourne, Norwich is a terrible example. In fact they are exactly what's wrong with the system, essentially able to succeed solely by living off parachute payments. 

Until parachute payments disappear they will continue to prop up the wage market therefore force other clubs to either accept they can't compete or overspend. Pretty simple economics really. Clubs are looking our for themselves so will do what's best for them and in most cases this is spending where they can afford it.

This situation will only ever be rectified by a consensus from all clubs to restrict wages and for parachute payments to be eradicated. Otherwise the incentive to run at break even just isn't there.

Bingo!

[Knocker West]

Football Index have suspended their trading platform.

If anyone's interested I'm launching a new platform called Football Shirt Index, where you can invest cryptocurrency into fictional shares in Nottingham Forest shirt sponsors, & then when they get into financial trouble, like 50% of our last 4 sponsors, I can restructure the market & keep your money & I won't even charge fans a fee for that!

Given some of the economic thinking by some in this thread I'm bound to get rich!

Forest will have to get a new sponsor next year though & in all seriousness I hope we think carefully about it given the fate of 888 & FI, & the bad taste such sponsors have left in some mouths.

[wassy04]

You make one bad signing and you're stuck with them for years.

The solution is you don't make bad deals.

There seem to be this view that there's no reason to even think about running a football club in a sensible & sustainable manner, which is exactly the thinking we got under Fawaz, yet some seem eager to return to that thinking.

The solution to bad deals is not to say debt & losses is inevitable, the solution is to cut out the bad deals.

Some would have our club bankrupt & in the Wells Road One Stop under 5's girls league if they were in charge of this club.

I can not honestly believe there is a rolling discussion here arguing against trying to be profitable or sustainable & arguing that what we've evidenced elsewhere is somehow impossible & undesirable for Nottingham Forest.

I mean literally there are posts in this thread that say that a profitable club, who ended up being promoted that season is a bad example, & we shouldn't strive for that, like in which universe is that a good answer?

Profit & promotion? Bugger that lad, we're perfectly capable of screwing up recruitment, turning a loss & staying down here!

I look forward to the EM out banners, because everyones going against his stated intention, so I'm waiting for the "Not enough Debt! Get Out!" banners at the City ground.

I sometimes feel like I'm in the twilight zone...

It's completely unrealistic to expect to not make bad signings. For a start the reason players are available is because their current club don't want them or they want too much money in most cases. So ripe for overpaying.

Norwich only made profit due to parachute payments. I feel like you're just choosing to ignore what we're saying here. 

The point is not that we're asking for the club to be run madly, simply pointing out that it's very difficult to run a club sustainably without parachute payments in the current championship climae and also challenge for promotion. Obviously it would be better if we were run sustainably, but then you'd also have to accept that it's not realistic to expect anything other than mid-table given every other club is not doing this.

The fact that not a single club is doing this is probably a sign that I fact you're wrong and that every single chief exec/owner might understand their own businesses slightly better than you do.

[Knocker West]

It's completely unrealistic to expect to not make bad signings.

Why is it?

That's like the argument earlier where I told it was completely unrealistic for a company to turn a profit (dispute the fact some do) without any actually explanation as to why it's impossible.

Norwich only made profit due to parachute payments

Except the year above I'm talking about they didn't have any

Facts, do you understand them?