NFFC Financial Talk

[Marinakis Red]

By the way, I know I touched a nerve with some of you with a Derby comparison. Think its necessary, there is a bit of self righteous “we complied with the spirit of the rules, we kept the league informed” type of thing.
Look at it from the outside. We were in the top 5 spenders in Europe and went around singing 30 signings who gives a xxxx. Don’t expect other teams to give us any sympathy.

I'm just looking forward to you explaining how we gained a sporting advantage over the last 3 year rolling period over the 19 other teams in the prem last year in your opinion as per my previous post?

As previously said I've not no problem with the breach it's the sporting advantage wording in Everton's outcome. 

You seem to be avoiding that question taking a completely different take on my posts.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Sorry guys but think some comments are veering towards the Derbyesque Mel Morris is innocent type.

P&S is looking at a rolling 3 years in isolation. If your argument about sporting advantage applied then by the same logic Everton could claim their squad cost is a fifth of Liverpool’s and they should be able to spend £800m to be able to compete with their neighbours.

We theoretically had the same allowable loss as any other promoted team and by breaking that allowable loss we could have gained an advantage on them.

Im not denying the rules are unfair or that the system is hopelessly skewed towards the bigger teams. However that is the monster we created back in 1993 and unfortunately the monster we are aiming to be a  part of.

This is even more ridiculous, I think all of us are accepting we are in breach of the rules, those idiots still don't think they did anything wrong. 

With the wording of the Everton outcome is what has annoyed me with anyone deemed to be in breach gaining a sporting advantage, how on earth is our breach gaining a sporting advantage SM?

I'll look forward to you explaining that to me when we had a squad deficit, a financial deficit with us the only team in the league allowed to post only a 61m loss, against every single team in the league. how has the amount we spent gained us a sporting advantage after the other 19 teams have spent heavier than we have over the 3 year cycle we are being judged for? 

I'm accepting the breach but not the tone in which we are being judged when it was never a level playing field to start with. 

Parachute payments to teams going to the championship certainly does quantify giving you a sporting advantage against everyone else in the league, and we managed to navigate a way out of that league against teams that did have those advantages but now we've gone up we were not allowed to compete on a level playing field.

That is not derby that is common sense and those 2 do not go together.

See my post above. Had we been promoted alongside Luton and Boro we would have spent more than those teams and gained an advantage. You cant make up the rules as you go along.
Its one of the reasons in the Championship we all moaned that parachute payments were unfair.

You cannot speak hyperthitically when making a legal judgement, they didn't go up, we are not being judged hyperthetically. We are being deemed to have gained a sporting advantage against the other 19 teams competing in the prem last year over a 3 year rolling cycle. 

Middlesborough as a club have had lots of parachute payments over recent times and had sporting advantages against others including us in the championship. Remember when they paid us 15m for Britt. 

Luton as a club have been brilliant. Nothing more to say on them. 

But again on facts of last year and the 3 year cycle we are being judged for, could you kindly explain how we gained a sporting advantage on the other 19 teams that we competed against last season over a 3 year rolling period? As per anyone deemed to be in breach by the outcome of the commission on Everton's appeal?

The rules are not made hypothetically or retrospectively either. They apply to any team promoted from the Championship all of who have an equal chance of promotion at the start of the season. We would have gained an advantage on those teams.
That the allowable loss for a promoted team is less is clearly unfair and is the reason that the 3 promoted teams are immediate favourites to be relegated. The PL has always wanted to be a closed shop whatever they say about a Superleague. Can see them dropping to 18 teams at some stage and that will be the start of it.

[Marinakis Red]

Sorry guys but think some comments are veering towards the Derbyesque Mel Morris is innocent type.

P&S is looking at a rolling 3 years in isolation. If your argument about sporting advantage applied then by the same logic Everton could claim their squad cost is a fifth of Liverpool’s and they should be able to spend £800m to be able to compete with their neighbours.

We theoretically had the same allowable loss as any other promoted team and by breaking that allowable loss we could have gained an advantage on them.

Im not denying the rules are unfair or that the system is hopelessly skewed towards the bigger teams. However that is the monster we created back in 1993 and unfortunately the monster we are aiming to be a  part of.

This is even more ridiculous, I think all of us are accepting we are in breach of the rules, those idiots still don't think they did anything wrong. 

With the wording of the Everton outcome is what has annoyed me with anyone deemed to be in breach gaining a sporting advantage, how on earth is our breach gaining a sporting advantage SM?

I'll look forward to you explaining that to me when we had a squad deficit, a financial deficit with us the only team in the league allowed to post only a 61m loss, against every single team in the league. how has the amount we spent gained us a sporting advantage after the other 19 teams have spent heavier than we have over the 3 year cycle we are being judged for? 

I'm accepting the breach but not the tone in which we are being judged when it was never a level playing field to start with. 

Parachute payments to teams going to the championship certainly does quantify giving you a sporting advantage against everyone else in the league, and we managed to navigate a way out of that league against teams that did have those advantages but now we've gone up we were not allowed to compete on a level playing field.

That is not derby that is common sense and those 2 do not go together.

See my post above. Had we been promoted alongside Luton and Boro we would have spent more than those teams and gained an advantage. You cant make up the rules as you go along.
Its one of the reasons in the Championship we all moaned that parachute payments were unfair.

You cannot speak hyperthitically when making a legal judgement, they didn't go up, we are not being judged hyperthetically. We are being deemed to have gained a sporting advantage against the other 19 teams competing in the prem last year over a 3 year rolling cycle. 

Middlesborough as a club have had lots of parachute payments over recent times and had sporting advantages against others including us in the championship. Remember when they paid us 15m for Britt. 

Luton as a club have been brilliant. Nothing more to say on them. 

But again on facts of last year and the 3 year cycle we are being judged for, could you kindly explain how we gained a sporting advantage on the other 19 teams that we competed against last season over a 3 year rolling period? As per anyone deemed to be in breach by the outcome of the commission on Everton's appeal?

The rules are not made hypothetically or retrospectively either. They apply to any team promoted from the Championship all of who have an equal chance of promotion at the start of the season. We would have gained an advantage on those teams.
That the allowable loss for a promoted team is less is clearly unfair and is the reason that the 3 promoted teams are immediate favourites to be relegated. The PL has always wanted to be a closed shop whatever they say about a Superleague. Can see them dropping to 18 teams at some stage and that will be the start of it.

That's not the question Sal, how in your opinion do you think we gained a sporting advantage over the other 19 teams in the prem last season over the 3 year rolling period? 

I know the rules and completely understand them. 

I don't agree that the championship teams have an equal chance of promotion though, because parachute payments do not equal fair opportunity. As we have seen the majority of teams promoted do have parachute payments in recent history.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

That's not the question Sal, how in your opinion do you think we gained a sporting advantage over the other 19 teams in the prem last season over the 3 year rolling period? 

I know the rules and completely understand them. 

I don't agree that the championship teams have an equal chance of promotion though, because parachute payments do not equal fair opportunity. As we have seen the majority of teams promoted do have parachute payments in recent history.

Yep I know all that too and we have always complained about parachute payments for that very reason.

My point is that you are using the unequal playing field as mitigation for our breaking the rules. In my view it doesn’t apply and I don’t think it will to the panel on our hearing either.

[Marinakis Red]

That's not the question Sal, how in your opinion do you think we gained a sporting advantage over the other 19 teams in the prem last season over the 3 year rolling period? 

I know the rules and completely understand them. 

I don't agree that the championship teams have an equal chance of promotion though, because parachute payments do not equal fair opportunity. As we have seen the majority of teams promoted do have parachute payments in recent history.

Yep I know all that too and we have always complained about parachute payments for that very reason.

My point is that you are using the unequal playing field as mitigation for our breaking the rules. In my view it doesn’t apply and I don’t think it will to the panel on our hearing either.

So you think we did gain a sporting advantage ie on the pitch against those teams but cannot really conclude why?

How did we get sporting advantages against those 19 teams? Given all of the evidence against spends over 3 year rolling periods for all of those clubs?

I fully accept the breach of the rules in a financial term but not a sporting advantage term. Those 2 things are seperate.

[Shawoddyred]

You do know that you're all basically saying the same things.....just some of you are looking at it from a purely legal standpoint and some of you are looking at it from a 'what makes sense' standpoint.

[The reds]

No one knows what our case is even about, so leave it to Nick De Marco and his legal team, We should not be comparing our case with anyone else. Forest breached we all accept that let’s see what happens, try and pick up as many points as possible, clearly having an affect on the players. Not just our team, the clubs around us as well. The perfect time to have it completed is in International break. To give us an idea of what we need to get to stay in this rich but definitely not glamorous league.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

That's not the question Sal, how in your opinion do you think we gained a sporting advantage over the other 19 teams in the prem last season over the 3 year rolling period? 

I know the rules and completely understand them. 

I don't agree that the championship teams have an equal chance of promotion though, because parachute payments do not equal fair opportunity. As we have seen the majority of teams promoted do have parachute payments in recent history.

Yep I know all that too and we have always complained about parachute payments for that very reason.

My point is that you are using the unequal playing field as mitigation for our breaking the rules. In my view it doesn’t apply and I don’t think it will to the panel on our hearing either.

So you think we did gain a sporting advantage ie on the pitch against those teams but cannot really conclude why?

How did we get sporting advantages against those 19 teams? Given all of the evidence against spends over 3 year rolling periods for all of those clubs?

I fully accept the breach of the rules in a financial term but not a sporting advantage term. Those 2 things are seperate.

Look I have to go now mate but this is a circular argument. Let me spell it out more clearly.

We did not gain an advantage on any team last season because of reasons you state.

However.

The rules are written before events take place. Therefore ANY team from the championship could have been promoted alongside Forest. If you want a better example take Swansea and Blackburn.

All 3 teams have an equal baseline squad value. So we spend £150 and exceed P&S. Swansea and Blackburn spend £100m and comply with P&S. we stay up, they go down. We have an unfair sporting advantage. Of course that is hypothetical but when the rules were put in place that was a scenario that could have happened.

[The reds]

That's not the question Sal, how in your opinion do you think we gained a sporting advantage over the other 19 teams in the prem last season over the 3 year rolling period? 

I know the rules and completely understand them. 

I don't agree that the championship teams have an equal chance of promotion though, because parachute payments do not equal fair opportunity. As we have seen the majority of teams promoted do have parachute payments in recent history.

Yep I know all that too and we have always complained about parachute payments for that very reason.

My point is that you are using the unequal playing field as mitigation for our breaking the rules. In my view it doesn’t apply and I don’t think it will to the panel on our hearing either.

So you think we did gain a sporting advantage ie on the pitch against those teams but cannot really conclude why?

How did we get sporting advantages against those 19 teams? Given all of the evidence against spends over 3 year rolling periods for all of those clubs?

I fully accept the breach of the rules in a financial term but not a sporting advantage term. Those 2 things are seperate.

Look I have to go now mate but this is a circular argument. Let me spell it out more clearly.

We did not gain an advantage on any team last season because of reasons you state.

However.

The rules are written before events take place. Therefore ANY team from the championship could have been promoted alongside Forest. If you want a better example take Swansea and Blackburn.

All 3 teams have an equal baseline squad value. So we spend £150 and exceed P&S. Swansea and Blackburn spend £100m and comply with P&S. we stay up, they go down. We have an unfair sporting advantage. Of course that is hypothetical but when the rules were put in place that was a scenario that could have happened.

But we didn't we went up with Bournemouth and Fulham they had a 151m and a 197m squad cost, we went up with a squad cost of 12m and about 6 players. We may have had a 'sporting advantage' for the 3 games Brennan Johnson played this season in which we won 3pts.

[wassy04]

That's not the question Sal, how in your opinion do you think we gained a sporting advantage over the other 19 teams in the prem last season over the 3 year rolling period? 

I know the rules and completely understand them. 

I don't agree that the championship teams have an equal chance of promotion though, because parachute payments do not equal fair opportunity. As we have seen the majority of teams promoted do have parachute payments in recent history.

Yep I know all that too and we have always complained about parachute payments for that very reason.

My point is that you are using the unequal playing field as mitigation for our breaking the rules. In my view it doesn’t apply and I don’t think it will to the panel on our hearing either.

So you think we did gain a sporting advantage ie on the pitch against those teams but cannot really conclude why?

How did we get sporting advantages against those 19 teams? Given all of the evidence against spends over 3 year rolling periods for all of those clubs?

I fully accept the breach of the rules in a financial term but not a sporting advantage term. Those 2 things are seperate.

The "sporting advantage" is gained in that we were able to make a larger loss than the other two promoted sides.

I'm afraid parachute payments (as terrible as they are) are baked in completely and not considered a sporting advantage. Teams need that money to offset losses occured in the first year in the prem on wages and transfer fees to be competitive and then offset the wages of players they are stuck with. 

I think your point is valid that it would be difficult for someone to claim we had a sporting advantage but that Parachute payments do not give them a sporting advantage. This arguably just furthers the point that the para teams have a sporting advantage.

[wassy04]

That's not the question Sal, how in your opinion do you think we gained a sporting advantage over the other 19 teams in the prem last season over the 3 year rolling period? 

I know the rules and completely understand them. 

I don't agree that the championship teams have an equal chance of promotion though, because parachute payments do not equal fair opportunity. As we have seen the majority of teams promoted do have parachute payments in recent history.

Yep I know all that too and we have always complained about parachute payments for that very reason.

My point is that you are using the unequal playing field as mitigation for our breaking the rules. In my view it doesn’t apply and I don’t think it will to the panel on our hearing either.

So you think we did gain a sporting advantage ie on the pitch against those teams but cannot really conclude why?

How did we get sporting advantages against those 19 teams? Given all of the evidence against spends over 3 year rolling periods for all of those clubs?

I fully accept the breach of the rules in a financial term but not a sporting advantage term. Those 2 things are seperate.

Look I have to go now mate but this is a circular argument. Let me spell it out more clearly.

We did not gain an advantage on any team last season because of reasons you state.

However.

The rules are written before events take place. Therefore ANY team from the championship could have been promoted alongside Forest. If you want a better example take Swansea and Blackburn.

All 3 teams have an equal baseline squad value. So we spend £150 and exceed P&S. Swansea and Blackburn spend £100m and comply with P&S. we stay up, they go down. We have an unfair sporting advantage. Of course that is hypothetical but when the rules were put in place that was a scenario that could have happened.

But we didn't we went up with Bournemouth and Fulham they had a 151m and a 197m squad cost, we went up with a squad cost of 12m and about 6 players. We may have had a 'sporting advantage' for the 3 games Brennan Johnson played this season in which we won 3pts.

Squad cost is irrelevant though, it's about financial losses. It just means they spent their money better/had access to better finances in the prem. I do think the parachute payments issue is a reasonable mitigation though as we do seem to be uniquely affected in that season.

[The reds]

Yep I know all that too and we have always complained about parachute payments for that very reason.

My point is that you are using the unequal playing field as mitigation for our breaking the rules. In my view it doesn’t apply and I don’t think it will to the panel on our hearing either.

So you think we did gain a sporting advantage ie on the pitch against those teams but cannot really conclude why?

How did we get sporting advantages against those 19 teams? Given all of the evidence against spends over 3 year rolling periods for all of those clubs?

I fully accept the breach of the rules in a financial term but not a sporting advantage term. Those 2 things are seperate.

Look I have to go now mate but this is a circular argument. Let me spell it out more clearly.

We did not gain an advantage on any team last season because of reasons you state.

However.

The rules are written before events take place. Therefore ANY team from the championship could have been promoted alongside Forest. If you want a better example take Swansea and Blackburn.

All 3 teams have an equal baseline squad value. So we spend £150 and exceed P&S. Swansea and Blackburn spend £100m and comply with P&S. we stay up, they go down. We have an unfair sporting advantage. Of course that is hypothetical but when the rules were put in place that was a scenario that could have happened.

But we didn't we went up with Bournemouth and Fulham they had a 151m and a 197m squad cost, we went up with a squad cost of 12m and about 6 players. We may have had a 'sporting advantage' for the 3 games Brennan Johnson played this season in which we won 3pts.

Squad cost is irrelevant though, it's about financial losses. It just means they spent their money better/had access to better finances in the prem. I do think the parachute payments issue is a reasonable mitigation though as we do seem to be uniquely affected in that season.

Fair enough - Hopefully any deduction is 2/3pts