NFFC Financial Talk

[The reds]

Forest and Everton's start point of 3pts is correct, What they have got wrong is that Everton got 2pts more for being in the same category of breach as us which is 'significant'
We got an extra 3pt added on.
So our breach was effectively 6pts and then they started on 5pts
1 point difference straight way

So Everton's 5pts reduced by 2 for double jeopardy, 1 for early plea and Ukraine War
Forest's 6pts reduced by 1 for early plea and 1 for excellent cooperation.

[RyanR]

Fundamentally the issue of us being in the Championship and not being able to spend as much as everyone else means that it’s not a level playing field. Are we supposed to just roll over and not invest and go straight back down? We’ve spent money to try and survive and we’re now being punished against different standards than other teams. I know we’ve not spent all our money wisely, but our squad was in no way fit for a premier league season. “Little old” Bournemouth have spent huge sums of money too and also bought their way to promotion. The whole system is deeply flawed

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Not read the whole thing but can someone explain to me why the war in Ukraine was a mitigating factor that knocked a point off? Did we get that?
Can we claim any other spurious world event, earthquake in Japan, solar eclipse in Mongolia, alignment of the moon in Gemini? Its just so totally random.

[The reds]

Not read the whole thing but can someone explain to me why the war in Ukraine was a mitigating factor that knocked a point off? Did we get that?
Can we claim any other spurious world event, earthquake in Japan, solar eclipse in Mongolia, alignment of the moon in Gemini? Its just so totally random.

They lost 20m in revenue as one of their sponsors was Russian, Usmanov was also involved with Everton who is a Russian Oligarch.

But they could have got another sponsor?

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Thanks for the answer but it does seem like yet another thing they make up as they go along.

“So yeah right, we allow the loss for the russian bloke but we don’t allow Forest's loss because erm they have a lower case e in their badge. All in agreement? Good”.

[The reds]

Thanks for the answer but it does seem like yet another thing they make up as they go along.

“So yeah right, we allow the loss for the russian bloke but we don’t allow Forest's loss because erm they have a lower case e in their badge. All in agreement? Good”.

Covid Losses and Promotion bonuses weren't allowed as mitigation when it covers 30.6m of our breach but a loss of revenue due to a war is allowed as mitigation that makes sense.

[Fumanchew]

War in Ukraine is quite the misnomer though isn’t it? Usmanov was described as having close ties to putin and supported his policies, surely there should be a fit and proper persons test towards sponsors too? (Though most will say that opens a massive can of worms)

What I’m saying is that this is the fault of Everton for getting money from shady Russians and they should be made to own it.

War in Ukraine should be used if any ties to Ukraine it’s self affected the way you ran your club.

[Tricky]

Not read the whole thing but can someone explain to me why the war in Ukraine was a mitigating factor that knocked a point off? Did we get that?
Can we claim any other spurious world event, earthquake in Japan, solar eclipse in Mongolia, alignment of the moon in Gemini? Its just so totally random.

They lost 20m in revenue as one of their sponsors was Russian, Usmanov was also involved with Everton who is a Russian Oligarch.

But they could have got another sponsor?

You can see where Chelsea will have a fundamental mitigating factor can't you?

[The reds]

This commission is saying all PL clubs limit is 105m so they have completely disregarded our 61m limit which is 44m lower than the 105m. Basing the deduction on our level of breach.
Really couldn't make it up could you.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Quite a few people on social media now making the point that should Forest breach again for this season, following the method we get 3 points off but reduced by 2 points for double jeopardy therefore 1 point penalty.
So basically carry on spending, don’t sell anyone and take the 1 point hit next year.

Naturally logic like that won’t actually follow though, we will get 13 points off for having a manager with a beard or some other nonsense they make up.

[wassy04]

Quite a few people on social media now making the point that should Forest breach again for this season, following the method we get 3 points off but reduced by 2 points for double jeopardy therefore 1 point penalty.
So basically carry on spending, don’t sell anyone and take the 1 point hit next year.

Naturally logic like that won’t actually follow though, we will get 13 points off for having a manager with a beard or some other nonsense they make up.

3 points with 2 reduced and then 1 for cooperating and we're at 0!

[The reds]

Was there actually any point of selling Johnson and Mangala I don’t think so. Screw the points deductions, absolutely hideous organisation the PL is.