NFFC Financial Talk

[wassy04]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

That makes sense but if that's not written into the rules, we'd need them to be changed surely? Which is perhaps asking a lot, sounds like they should be changed. The issue really is that you shouldn't be able to use the end of June sales at all. The window used to open July 1st so a recent change seems to have opened up a loop hole. Either they say you can backdate transfers or you close the loop hole.

Everton might make an argument if it was accepted though as they specifically sold Richarlison for less than what they believed he was worth on 30th June as they were told they had to. So you could understand why they might be frustrated.

[Reds73]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

That makes sense but if that's not written into the rules, we'd need them to be changed surely? Which is perhaps asking a lot, sounds like they should be changed. The issue really is that you shouldn't be able to use the end of June sales at all. The window used to open July 1st so a recent change seems to have opened up a loop hole. Either they say you can backdate transfers or you close the loop hole.

Everton might make an argument if it was accepted though as they specifically sold Richarlison for less than what they believed he was worth on 30th June as they were told they had to. So you could understand why they might be frustrated.

Why would we have been in regular contact with the EPL if it wasn’t part of the rules ?
Keiran Maguire put an extract of the rules on his twitter to the effect that stock can be included in a previous period if certain criteria was met.

[Paplane]

After they were charged, the sheep claimed all along that they had had continual discussions with the efl about their amortisation methods. And everton claimed similar about the epl after their case was heard.

[wassy04]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

That makes sense but if that's not written into the rules, we'd need them to be changed surely? Which is perhaps asking a lot, sounds like they should be changed. The issue really is that you shouldn't be able to use the end of June sales at all. The window used to open July 1st so a recent change seems to have opened up a loop hole. Either they say you can backdate transfers or you close the loop hole.

Everton might make an argument if it was accepted though as they specifically sold Richarlison for less than what they believed he was worth on 30th June as they were told they had to. So you could understand why they might be frustrated.

Why would we have been in regular contact with the EPL if it wasn’t part of the rules ?
Keiran Maguire put an extract of the rules on his twitter to the effect that stock can be included in a previous period if certain criteria was met.

That was an accounting rule rather than an FFP rule though. It would depend what's written in the rules. 

Obviously no idea what was discussed with the PL, maybe they changed it after Richarlison? Just saying if we do end up using that sale to avoid a penalty, Everton would have legit reason to at least be annoyed. Again so much of this is done behind closed doors we'll never know. 

I find it crazy the FFP figures aren't published, just means the PL can do whatever they want. I wonder if other clubs get copies of the other teams FFP returns.

[wassy04]

After they were charged, the sheep claimed all along that they had had continual discussions with the efl about their amortisation methods. And everton claimed similar about the epl after their case was heard.

Exactly, this is the worry, as these rules are not well regulated, they seem to be able to change what is and isn't acceptable as they go (which is bs). 

I think Everton clearly breached the rules and eventually admitted it, however it took other clubs kicking off. Previously the league accepted their filings and had told Everton it was ok, so you can see why they'd be pissed off too.

[BomberBowyer]

After they were charged, the sheep claimed all along that they had had continual discussions with the efl about their amortisation methods. And everton claimed similar about the epl after their case was heard.

But weren’t Everton docked points because this was not their first offence as such having been given a plan when they originally breached the limit and not then sticking to it?

[wassy04]

After they were charged, the sheep claimed all along that they had had continual discussions with the efl about their amortisation methods. And everton claimed similar about the epl after their case was heard.

But weren’t Everton docked points because this was not their first offence as such having been given a plan when they originally breached the limit and not then sticking to it?

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. 

(Just reposting what I posted earlier, this is just summing up an Athletic article basically)

[Jean_claude_killy]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

58% where has this come from?

[Marinakis Red]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

58% where has this come from?

If we sold for 30m rather than the 47.5m, we have received 58% more by holding on is what I'm presuming is meant by the 58%?

[Jean_claude_killy]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

58% where has this come from?

If we sold for 30m rather than the 47.5m, we have received 58% more by holding on is what I'm presuming is meant by the 58%?

Right, thanks for the explanation.

I still fail to see how the Johnson sale has any bearing on this.

I appreciate we are working from guesstimates, but they need to be out by around 30m for us to hit trouble.

Unless we have been.hit for the Covid and Promotion issues; that would be painful

[McDurban]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

58% where has this come from?

They were offered 30 million from Brentford and sold him to Spurs for 47.5 million, a 58% increase in the value.

[McDurban]

Don't take this has being gospel but based on what someone said to me yesterday via Skype I don't think anything will happen.

If it does though don't shoot me down and say that Sniffer said everything was okay.

It's second hand info from the UK not from Greece.

If the issue is around the timing of the Johnson sale in relation FFP for the previous period I don't see how anything can happen. FFP is as much about financial sustainability as it is about fair play.
To demand that a club surrender 18 million pounds in legitimate revenue is neither in the interests of sustainability or fair play. 
To penalise a club for the profitable management (by 58%) for the sale of an asset is laughable... but then we are dealing with the English.

58% where has this come from?

If we sold for 30m rather than the 47.5m, we have received 58% more by holding on is what I'm presuming is meant by the 58%?

yeah, that's it.