Are Forest abusing FFP rules?

[Driver8]

Interesting comments from Freedman. He seems to forget the effect of parachute payments for his team and QPR but surely "connected" sponsorship deals need to be scrutinised to prevent abuse of the new rules.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/spor...ipe_at_big_spending_Nottingham_Forest/?ref=mr

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Teams like Forest and Watford will find a way to work round the rules and teams coming down from the Prem will have parachute payments. If you're in one oif these groups you'll do well - if not, you'll be a Championship second class citizen. I suspect that's where we'll be - and I'm not unhappy with that.

 

[Driver8]

But surely if getting around FFP is as easy as your owner sponsoring the team with inflated amounts all Barbers cost cutting is unnecessary? If TB wants us to get promoted he pays us £10m to name the West Stand the Lizard Stand and job done.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Teams like Forest and Watford will find a way to work round the rules and teams coming down from the Prem will have parachute payments. If you're in one oif these groups you'll do well - if not, you'll be a Championship second class citizen. I suspect that's where we'll be - and I'm not unhappy with that.

Agreed. Patience. And our time will come.

 

[Hotchilidog]

He raises a good point and it is without doubt the biggest loophole in FFP and is something the authorities should take a look at, but I cannot see how that will be properly regulated.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

But surely if getting around FFP is as easy as your owner sponsoring the team with inflated amounts all Barbers cost cutting is unnecessary? If TB wants us to get promoted he pays us £10m to name the West Stand the Lizard Stand and job done.

Or perhaps our sugar daddy has spent far more than he originaly intended (stadium was supposed to be funded by bank borrowings after all) and doesn't want to shell out £10m a year. I suspect he wants us to run on a sustainable basis - where owning our own stadium guarantees us a decent revenue and a great place to play - which in the long run will protect the club.

It's highly possible that these clubs that mortgage their futures by not just abusing FFP rules, but also by abusing their own club's potential existence, could in the medium term end up like Wolves or Pompey. Many, many clubs will go bust in the next decade - or come bloody close - it's highly likely that we will not because of Tony Bloom's investment and prudence. I'm very grateful for that and loving going to the Amex every other week.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

He raises a good point and it is without doubt the biggest loophole in FFP and is something the authorities should take a look at, but I cannot see how that will be properly regulated.

Once that loophole is closed another one will be opened. There is too much money at stake.

 

[Titanic]

But surely if getting around FFP is as easy as your owner sponsoring the team with inflated amounts all Barbers cost cutting is unnecessary? If TB wants us to get promoted he pays us £10m to name the West Stand the Lizard Stand and job done.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/wsc0001.pdf

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

 

[El Presidente]

Sadly the FFP rules are as easy to sidestep as Zaha waltzing around Greer for the Rag's second goal in our night of shame.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

Didn't a similar thing happen at Man City a while back? I am sure that it was said that their chairman used his airline company ( Etihad ) to sponsor the stadium to the tune of a reported £400m.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Sadly the FFP rules are as easy to sidestep as Zaha waltzing around Greer for the Rag's second goal in our night of shame.

As things stand, yes, but the rules are going to be adapted as these situations crop up. I would hope that they stick with it and get to a reasonably watertight set of rules pretty quickly.

 

[Rugrat]

Or perhaps our sugar daddy has spent far more than he originaly intended (stadium was supposed to be funded by bank borrowings after all) and doesn't want to shell out £10m a year. I suspect he wants us to run on a sustainable basis - where owning our own stadium guarantees us a decent revenue and a great place to play - which in the long run will protect the club.

It's highly possible that these clubs that mortgage their futures by not just abusing FFP rules, but also by abusing their own club's potential existence, could in the medium term end up like Wolves or Pompey. Many, many clubs will go bust in the next decade - or come bloody close - it's highly likely that we will not because of Tony Bloom's investment and prudence. I'm very grateful for that and loving going to the Amex every other week.

It's a good point about Bloom and his money, maybe he just hasn't got the bottomless pit and has his other business interests that need investment ... with a better probability of getting a return. Hopefully he'll remain prudent and not get into a situation where he also feels he has "reached a ceiling" and looks for new investment ... I suspect we would represent a pretty lucrative opportunity

Where such rules are created by bureaucrats there will always be the "duckers and divers" focussed on success that will find a way around it ... will take years to iron it all out

 

[severnside gull]

I dont expect FFP to last more than a season or two as parachute payments and the likes of Watford and Forest waltzing round the rules make it a total farce which the league have no ability to manage

 

[MattBackHome]

Sadly the FFP rules are as easy to sidestep as Zaha waltzing around Greer for the Rag's second goal in our night of shame.

El pres - if the rules are as easy to sidestep as you mention (and I bow to your greater knowledge in this area) what are your thoughts on the implications to the Albion? Albion seem to be doing it 'the right way', yet non-penalization of FFP offenders would simply negate all of our efforts, completely undermining our entire approach to FFP.

If it's as easy as you say to get round them then wouldn't we be better off getting a parent-club relationship with The Volga Ural Gasolines FC, loaning Madrid's entire B Team, and starting a new company every year?

I'd like to think that our efforts in this area will be rewarded, that common sense and frugality will pay off in the long term, but if the FA aren't going to back it up, or if the rules themselves are comprimised then surely it's all a load of old bollocks?

 

[Stato]

There is something in the Financial Fair Play rules which states that, if team's over-inflate the cost of sponsorship deals from related parties, the income from them will be considered inline with market rates. It seems fairly clear that this is what Forest have done and I hope they get burned.

Watford really are the worst culprits though. We are in a position where Bloom can''t put his money into the club, but apparently, were he to buy a foreign club, sign players and then sell them to Brighton for next to nothing, or loan them whilst paying their wages through the foreign club, this would be alright. To me it just seems like money laundering. There is no way that Watford could afford the team they have on their turnover. They have an unfair advantage and the football league needs to do the same market rate checks on player value that they are promising on sponsorship.

 

[Titanic]

Sadly the FFP rules are as easy to sidestep as Zaha waltzing around Greer for the Rag's second goal in our night of shame.

"4. Fair Value
UEFA are aware that owners of clubs could look to inflate a club’s profitability by injecting funds into clubs via artificially inflated commercial deals. Paris St-Germain recently announced a huge sponsorship deal via a body that is connected to the club owners. For this reason UEFA FFP rules require any transaction from a ‘related part’ (i.e. a company or body connected to the club owners) to be assessed to ensure it was a genuine transaction at a ‘fair value’. UEFA has the power to adjust any artificial ‘mates rates’ deals and apply a lower value to the Break Even calculation. This assessment will be carried out by the CFCB panel (see below)."

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

El pres - if the rules are as easy to sidestep as you mention (and I bow to your greater knowledge in this area) what are your thoughts on the implications to the Albion? Albion seem to be doing it 'the right way', yet non-penalization of FFP offenders would simply negate all of our efforts, completely undermining our entire approach to FFP.

Matt - I think you're missing the point of FFP. My understanding of it is that it was created to stop clubs over spending and over extending - and by doing so will avoid clubs going out of business by speculating on promotion. So if we are complying, we "win" no matter what. We'll have a club with a long term future. Those who dodge the rules may "win" in the short term, but they put their clubs at risk in all the ways that FFP was meant to address.

We'll be OK by sticking to the FFP rules - but we may not be as high in the league in the short term. They may thrive in the short term but at higher risk to the very future of their clubs.

We'll be OK!

 

[KZNSeagull]

Matt - I think you're missing the point of FFP. My understanding of it is that it was created to stop clubs over spending and over extending - and by doing so will avoid clubs going out of business by speculating on promotion. So if we are complying, we "win" no matter what. We'll have a club with a long term future. Those who dodge the rules may "win" in the short term, but they put their clubs at risk in all the ways that FFP was meant to address.

We'll be OK by sticking to the FFP rules - but we may not be as high in the league in the short term. They may thrive in the short term but at higher risk to the very future of their clubs.

We'll be OK!

Totally agree. We have to look at the long term.

 

[MattBackHome]

Matt - I think you're missing the point of FFP. My understanding of it is that it was created to stop clubs over spending and over extending - and by doing so will avoid clubs going out of business by speculating on promotion. So if we are complying, we "win" no matter what. We'll have a club with a long term future. Those who dodge the rules may "win" in the short term, but they put their clubs at risk in all the ways that FFP was meant to address.

We'll be OK by sticking to the FFP rules - but we may not be as high in the league in the short term. They may thrive in the short term but at higher risk to the very future of their clubs.

We'll be OK!

I'm not overly concerned! Like I said I'm in full support of our finacial approach at present - though it does hinge on the rules actually being enforced.

I can accept that a benefit of FFP is to reduce the number of clubs overextending and going balls up. But surely the primary purpose is inherent in the name FFP itself? Maybe I’ve got that wrong.

Regardless of what the primary purpose is, surely the mechanics of FFP (that is giving funds from penalised clubs to the benefit of those who adhere to the rules) are a) designed to move league football to a fairer* state and b) entirely contingent on the adequate management and enforcement of the rules. If they can be swerved via whatever nefarious means, then the whole system is compromised isn’t it?



*Appreciate that fairer is a value call here, but I think we can all pretty much agree what it means.

 

[Driver8]

"4. Fair Value
UEFA are aware that owners of clubs could look to inflate a club’s profitability by injecting funds into clubs via artificially inflated commercial deals. Paris St-Germain recently announced a huge sponsorship deal via a body that is connected to the club owners. For this reason UEFA FFP rules require any transaction from a ‘related part’ (i.e. a company or body connected to the club owners) to be assessed to ensure it was a genuine transaction at a ‘fair value’. UEFA has the power to adjust any artificial ‘mates rates’ deals and apply a lower value to the Break Even calculation. This assessment will be carried out by the CFCB panel (see below)."

UEFA saying they will take action and actually doing anything are very different things. In the meantime Forest are spending millions to the disadvantage of everyone else.