NFFC Financial Talk

[Jean_claude_killy]

This from Maguire is very telling compared to where we were come day 1 of last season. The wages also includes promotion bonuses. If anyone wants me to post the pics let me know.

The wage bill for last season was reportedly 71m.
It’s certainly not excessive in line with other similar sized clubs

I dont claim to be an expert on this R73 but my understanding is that for the average Premier League club, wages make up 70-80% of turnover. Therefore if Forest are capped to a £61m loss last season, having a similar size wage bill with lower permitted losses equals we have a problem.

Well if our wage bill for last season was only 71m the whole thing is even more confusing.

Our amortised transfer liability was in the region of 55m, that gives 126m in expense

We are guaranteed 116m in PL money together with over 35m in income gives a profit of around 25m.

If that is the case the problem must arise from our promotion year

[Sausage Roll]

I doubt it'll change commission's decision, but Sky Sports reckon we'd agreed a deal to sell Johnson to Brentford *before* the accounting cut-off but he refused the move.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

For me the biggest question is simply, why didn't we just take the money in June and avoid this charge?

Did we think we could beat the system with this mitigation plan? Did we not realise until too late? Did the PL decide after the Everton sage to be less lenient (would be my guess)

It seems pretty brazen to just take on the FFP rules and hope we can essentially get them changed after the fact.

Well there is the very important fact that Johnson did not want to go to Brentford for a start.

We couldn't force him to go there, you can't ruin careers like that.

I doubt it'll change commission's decision, but Sky Sports reckon we'd agreed a deal to sell Johnson to Brentford *before* the accounting cut-off but he refused the move.

::

[wassy04]

I doubt it'll change commission's decision, but Sky Sports reckon we'd agreed a deal to sell Johnson to Brentford *before* the accounting cut-off but he refused the move.

Would that not ruin our argument?

Can't really claim we could've got 30m when we couldn't because he wasn't interested!

[TrickySte]

Our wage bill would have been considerably higher than £71m, I'd imagine.

[Sausage Roll]

I doubt it'll change commission's decision, but Sky Sports reckon we'd agreed a deal to sell Johnson to Brentford *before* the accounting cut-off but he refused the move.

Would that not ruin our argument?

Can't really claim we could've got 30m when we couldn't because he wasn't interested!

I don't see how it would harm our argument. I'm guessing we'd say 'Well, we agreed to sell him but he said no.'

[TrickySte]

With extra FFP budget next year as the second championship season falls away from the rolling 3 year allowance, plus a host of expensive player contracts ending, it’s not difficult to see what the overall financial strategy was.

We get a higher 'budget' but that's surely balanced off as we'll lose a year of championship losses (circa £13m), which will be much smaller than our current PL losses.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

I doubt it'll change commission's decision, but Sky Sports reckon we'd agreed a deal to sell Johnson to Brentford *before* the accounting cut-off but he refused the move.

Would that not ruin our argument?

Can't really claim we could've got 30m when we couldn't because he wasn't interested!

I don't see how it would harm our argument. I'm guessing we'd say 'Well, we agreed to sell him but he said no.'

Exactly and it's the truth we are not trying to pull wool over someone's eyes.

So it's all Brennan's fault :fishing:

[Sausage Roll]

It does, however, contradict the other argument that we held out to get as much money for Johnson as possible.

[The reds]

It does, however, contradict the other argument that we held out to get as much money for Johnson as possible.

I’m pretty sure it’s just Forest telling a timeline, and that we were willing to sell before July

[zicorice]

Everton did nothing wrong apparently-just everyone picking on Scousers again. Though their 3 year debt is in the region of £250 million which is a bit eye watering. They gambled on top 6 and failed.

Our 3  yr debt is looking likely to be relatively small in comparison- though those pesky 2 years in Championship killing us a bit.

We had to gamble. Sick of reading (elsewhere) the list of players we have signed but contributed very little. This is such-hind sight 20 20 bull sh1t. Every single signing was to some extent a gamble. Taiwo was average at best before Christmas. Mangala was average last season. MGW took half a season to hit his stride. All were gambles-unproven in Prem- that cost fair sums but now look like shrewd signings.

Dennis, Shelvey and Wood were all proven in Premier League yet are being held up as examples of where we got it wrong. (Wood doing OK this season mind). If Dennis and Shelvey had hit their best form for Forest, then 2 others would be scapegoated. A team of frees and loans may not have kept us up!! F@(King Facebook idiots. 

I get we're frustrated and a bit nervous, but the kn@b on social media who produced his own spread sheet really finished me off and boiled my pi$$. 

We have f@(ked up a bit, nothing malicious, just trying to establish ourselves in toughest league in world after being sh1te for 20 odd years. Ambition and best intentions and let's see how it pans out.

Rant over.

[Paplane]

Incidentally, having seen him in a few Spurs games now, and comparing him to Gordon at Newcastle (who was just a tad more expensive), we've had Spurs' pants down.