NFFC Financial Talk

[wassy04]

Mangala is on a loan to buy for 30 million.  Which would balance the books.

Provided Mangala leaves in the summer then we are ok.

Door would be open to a loan or two, but no purchases unless we sell to buy.

And in the summer the same people saying we made our own problems will no doubt be complaining we are not signing anyone........

It depends on how the deal is structured but I suspect Lyon have structured it like this so that the cost is split across multiple years.

[wassy04]

The biggest thing from the Everton case which we'll find out is how the double (or even triple) jeopardy issue will be handled. As obviously this will have a large implication for us this summer. Watch this space I guess!

[The reds]

The biggest thing from the Everton case which we'll find out is how the double (or even triple) jeopardy issue will be handled. As obviously this will have a large implication for us this summer. Watch this space I guess!

I am not sure how double jeopardy can run. Had a whole year to correct it. Repeat offence is surely an aggravating factor, plus a negative trend will be too. It stated in the commissions report that a repeated offence could mean a higher starter point, which the start point was 3 for our case. Also it is interesting that it is over 3 days which suggests its a more complex maybe serious breach.

[Ziggerzagger]

If the sale of Brennan wasn't allowed to be accounted for in last year's gains/losses, then surely it will be carried forward to this year's accounts meaning that with the Mangala loan/sale we should be comfortably within the allowed losses?

[wassy04]

The biggest thing from the Everton case which we'll find out is how the double (or even triple) jeopardy issue will be handled. As obviously this will have a large implication for us this summer. Watch this space I guess!

I am not sure how double jeopardy can run. Had a whole year to correct it. Repeat offence is surely an aggravating factor, plus a negative trend will be too. It stated in the commissions report that a repeated offence could mean a higher starter point, which the start point was 3 for our case.

It just means if you have a big loss in one year it is counting against you three times. It's part of the rules I guess but it does mean getting punished three times for the same thing potentially. I think there is precedent in the EFL rules to be lenient in this scenario but not exactly sure what that is.

Will obviously have a big impact for us carrying that loss from the promotion year (in a large part due to the promotion bonuses).

[wassy04]

If the sale of Brennan wasn't allowed to be accounted for in last year's gains/losses, then surely it will be carried forward to this year's accounts meaning that with the Mangala loan/sale we should be comfortably within the allowed losses?

Depends if the transfer goes through/what year it was agreed to go through in. My guess it Lyon intentionally split it across multiple years. 

Anyone know how he's doing out of interest?

[The reds]

The biggest thing from the Everton case which we'll find out is how the double (or even triple) jeopardy issue will be handled. As obviously this will have a large implication for us this summer. Watch this space I guess!

I am not sure how double jeopardy can run. Had a whole year to correct it. Repeat offence is surely an aggravating factor, plus a negative trend will be too. It stated in the commissions report that a repeated offence could mean a higher starter point, which the start point was 3 for our case.

It just means if you have a big loss in one year it is counting against you three times. It's part of the rules I guess but it does mean getting punished three times for the same thing potentially. I think there is precedent in the EFL rules to be lenient in this scenario but not exactly sure what that is.

Will obviously have a big impact for us carrying that loss from the promotion year (in a large part due to the promotion bonuses).

If we can stay up, stay within the rules, then we would be in a decent position, with the promotion season being wiped off the 3 year cycle.

[The reds]

If the sale of Brennan wasn't allowed to be accounted for in last year's gains/losses, then surely it will be carried forward to this year's accounts meaning that with the Mangala loan/sale we should be comfortably within the allowed losses?

Depends if the transfer goes through/what year it was agreed to go through in. My guess it Lyon intentionally split it across multiple years. 

Anyone know how he's doing out of interest?

Started 6 games, scored a goal, But been ill last few weeks. Lyon are comfortably away from relegation now so should activate the buy clause of 15m.

[DR Forest]

When trying to second guess our losses this year to work out if we have to sell Murillo, don’t forget that (currently) it is adjusted losses rather than annual losses that matter.

So, here’s some generalised fag packet maths
we are -34.5m behind the curve atm
However, for this current season add on
47.5m brennan
15m mangala
22m increased PL allowance (as one EFL season drops off)

That leaves 50m in hand.

From that deduct 20m extraordinary costs for wood and shelvey and it still leaves us £30m of allowable adjusted losses to still be within FFP.

We will be buying and selling but I see no reason why we would particularly be forced to sell Murillo


I have a question whether this matters though, with the proposed changes to PSR being based upon salaries as a % of income; what would be the transitional measures? Will the PL still seek to punish clubs next season for being in breach this year under what will then be the ‘old’ FFP regime?

With 10 clubs at risk I bet not!

[stirred]

In case this hasn't been posted before, but an Athletic article by Paul Taylor yesterday includes the line:

"The club expect to fall well within the allowable losses for the financial year ending in June — they have worked well within the PSR guidelines this season"

(That's a quote from Tails' article, not the club)

[Salvatore Matrecano]

In case this hasn't been posted before, but an Athletic article by Paul Taylor yesterday includes the line:

"The club expect to fall well within the allowable losses for the financial year ending in June — they have worked well within the PSR guidelines this season"

(That's a quote from Tails' article, not the club)

Tails is fed his info by the club though, he was saying the same thing this time last year. Don’t blame Forest for putting out the message that we are on track, any other stance makes out we will be having a fire sale.

Youve got to expect that all the big clubs will have got their financial departments to root into as much info as they can about every other club in the league and see which might be close to PSR limits. Then their findings are going to land on the desks of the recruitment teams.

[Forest1970]

In case this hasn't been posted before, but an Athletic article by Paul Taylor yesterday includes the line:

"The club expect to fall well within the allowable losses for the financial year ending in June — they have worked well within the PSR guidelines this season"

(That's a quote from Tails' article, not the club)

Tails is fed his info by the club though, he was saying the same thing this time last year. Don’t blame Forest for putting out the message that we are on track, any other stance makes out we will be having a fire sale.

Youve got to expect that all the big clubs will have got their financial departments to root into as much info as they can about every other club in the league and see which might be close to PSR limits. Then their findings are going to land on the desks of the recruitment teams.

What makes you so certain that Forest knew they were in the sh*t and were lying to the supporters and everyone. Again if we were told we could use covid and promotion bonuses in our calculations then the info given to us by whoever was bad and by all accounts the info was from the PL themselves.