NFFC Financial Talk

[Sausage Roll]

Forest got paid just short of $580,000 by FIFA for releasing players to play in last year's World Cup.

[nffc93]

nffc93, based on your assumed selling figures and again on the rumoured purchase prices we paid for these guys we would be taking a large hit if we could indeed get these type of sums if selling. Also are any of these players wanted by other clubs?

We'll tick Surrridge off that list off to the MLS 5m plus according to DT

[Marinakis Red]

Ranked 91st out of 92 league clubs for sustainability

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Ranked 91st out of 92 league clubs for sustainability

So it depends if this sort of thing bothers you or not. The vast majority of fans don’t give a stuff about it as long as their club is in the Premier League and makes some sexy signings each year.

However it is driven by Tracey Crouch MP’s excellent fan led review of football governance published in 2021 here.
Its a long read and very good intentions but has to be said has been pretty well ignored by most clubs.

The 2023 ranking MR is referring to is here

Basically for Forest scores were
4/40 financial sustainability
6.1/30 governance
5.8/20 fan engagement
1.3/10 equity standards

It has to be said how these scores are arrived at is somewhat unclear.
As I said up to the individual how worried they are by it.

[JollyLolly]

Financial sustainability stands out for me and if we did not need reminding fan engagement is particular poor.

[Paplane]

All this stuff is b****ks.

[Marinakis Red]

All this stuff is b****ks.

It is whilst the current owners are bank rolling us, it certainly isn't if they decide that they have had enough one day.

[Reds73]

All this stuff is b****ks.

It is whilst the current owners are bank rolling us, it certainly isn't if they decide that they have had enough one day.

You could say that for the majority of teams.

[Marinakis Red]

All this stuff is b****ks.

It is whilst the current owners are bank rolling us, it certainly isn't if they decide that they have had enough one day.

You could say that for the majority of teams.

Absolutely, that is a reason for concern in the whole of football, nobody wants to see another Bury.

[wassy04]

FFP Losses to affect this season

So the below is based off Swiss Ramble's calcs on the FFP losses which is based off the actual accounts and excludes any allowable losses, like promotion bonuses for examples (begs the question why you wouldn't massively load up on those in the EFL)

21/22 - 19m (13m allowable)
22/23 - 32m (39m allowable) - estimated based on what we could afford to do last year, ie worst case scenario
23/24 - So we should have around 39m to lose after allowable losses which tend to be around 7-10.

To be honest, until we see the accounts for this year it's hard to estimate how much of an impact this is having. If the 32m was correct, this would include amortisation. Meaning we couldn't increase wages/amortisation by more than say 10m. We already did that with Wood alone nearly. Maybe we only have a budget of 10-20m without Brennan sale.

If we sold Brennan for 50m, we could book that straight away. That would theoretically mean we could spend 250m on players signing 5 year deals to offset that. Excluding the inevitable wage/signing costs that would come from it. It's pushing the FFP can down the road but it does really show the value of selling an academy player in the current rules.

FYI, selling the likes of Dennis will have little impact. Lets assume he was signed for 10m as we met none of the add ons. I'm going to guess a 5 year contract, so the first 2m of that will be amortised already meaning he has a book value of 8m. So if we sold him for 8m, we'd actually only benefit to the tune of 2m (and 2m in each of the next four years accounts). Basically all you save is the amortisation owed (if that makes sense).

[TwangandBoots]

I rarely post, but Jonno is off. 100%

[nffc93]

I rarely post, but Jonno is off. 100%

Think we've known this for a while to be fair.