Are Forest taking the Pis#???

[Rugrat]

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy here.

too right ... if TB had funded and underwritten a top drawer playing squad would we all be here complaining?

Not only that but the some of the comments are hugely prejudiced. Most of the top division clubs are owned by foreign investors and largely do quite OK ... I can think of several (including our own) that have been owned by Brit's that have gone to the wall or near too, or have had their assets stripped.

Also the fact that an investor is putting in cash over and above the revenues suddenly makes it unsustainable ... where did that come from? Holding up Pompey as an example of why it's wrong is short sighted in the extreme

 

[El Presidente]

Suppose it's marginally better than a bloke based in Spain living off the Cup Final and playoff money, whatever happened to him? I guess he cashed in his shares in some shady deal too

Wise words, it's all gone very quiet on what happened to the sale proceeds when we got rid of Liam Dickenson too.

 

[Forest Visitor]

Ultimately if an owner wishes to inject money in a legitimate way that more than offsets their true operating costs and losses but enables them to reach the Prem, then good luck. I don't know the details of Forest's owners, for example whether they have a long association with the Club and whether they are in for the long term?

As a fan I would be very worried if an unheard of foreign owner suddenly took over, injected huge amounts of money in a short term bid to get into the Prem, as a plaything and platform to promote their business interests abroad. Ok that is their right but the 'franchise' style of ownership isn't necessarily a happy one, as Cardiff and Hull are finding, plus Pompey who are the classic car crash of a Club that got into a cycle of living for today, whatever the cost to them - and worse still caused lots of collateral damage in the community.

If success isn't instant, the Prem eludes them again and the owner gets bored and jumps ship then Forest could be left in a real financial mire. We could well have a say in their outcome, being as we are at the City ground on the final day of the season.

Our owner has become very emotionally attached to our club not just because he's put a lot of money in. He wasn't a lifelong fan but a genuine lover of the game. Based in London he gets to nearly all our games home and away often mixing and sitting with regular fans.

Rumours that he was looking at Everton and Leeds but decided on us. There is no forest fan who regrets it!

 

[nwgull]

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy here. If the FFP rules had been introduced five years ago then The Amex could not have been built, is that what you really want?

FFP rules wouldn't have prevented the Amex being built.

 

[Driver8]

Also the fact that an investor is putting in cash over and above the revenues suddenly makes it unsustainable ... where did that come from? Holding up Pompey as an example of why it's wrong is short sighted in the extreme

Because when the owners cash dries up for whatever reason (boredom/skint/death etc) the club is unable to afford to carry on and pay the wages it has promised (like Pompey), i.e. It's unsustainable.

Infrastructure is excluded presumably as it's likely to have a positive impact on income rather than negative.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Our owner has become very emotionally attached to our club not just because he's put a lot of money in. He wasn't a lifelong fan but a genuine lover of the game. Based in London he gets to nearly all our games home and away often mixing and sitting with regular fans.

Rumours that he was looking at Everton and Leeds but decided on us. There is no forest fan who regrets it!

Thanks for the clarification. At least he attends games, unlike some absentee owners.

If he had no previous attachment to Forest and was considering other clubs to invest in then I would still be uneasy as to how long that attachment will remain.

As footie fans we tend to judge unknown JCL owners of Clubs by the standards of others who make headlines for the wrong reasons - however there must be some honourable owners out there. Maybe your owner will retain that emotional attachment and go on to become a lifelong fan and investor. It helps if the owner is content to steer the club from the boardroom and doesn't interfere in football matters or try to change your identity to Nottingham Sheriffs and wants you to play in Lincoln Green.

The Cardiff and Hull situations are more interesting because the new owners want to change the identity of the club, albeit for commercial reasons, and are prepared to ride rough shod over their proud history and traditions. The Cardiff situation feels irrational and heading for a car crash but the Hull situation is a dilemma for the fans - the owner is investing heavily in the squad and they are making some very shrewd acquisitions that ought to enable them to consolidate in the Prem.

 

[Rugrat]

Because when the owners cash dries up for whatever reason (boredom/skint/death etc) the club is unable to afford to carry on and pay the wages it has promised (like Pompey), i.e. It's unsustainable.

Infrastructure is excluded presumably as it's likely to have a positive impact on income rather than negative.

What if TB cash were to dry up? Isn't he owed c £140M?

 

[symyjym]

Funnily enough, even with Forest already having 9 strikers, their highest scoring striker has only scored 5. Most of their goals have come from midfield.

 

[El Presidente]

FFP rules wouldn't have prevented the Amex being built.

Fair comment, I've checked and you are correct. Apologies.

 

[El Presidente]

Exactly. That is why all clubs should be run sustainably without relying on the private funds of a few individuals.

So would you rather the Amex didn't exist?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Having read the FFP rules it's pretty clear that Forest's enhanced sponsorship deal, courtesy of their owner, is against the rules because it is not at market value.

What we really need is some sort of legal confirmation that FFP IS not going to be overturned and is fully compliant with EU law. Forest are driving a coach and horses through the rulebook and the authorities need to make a statement.

 

[Icy Gull]

Having read the FFP rules it's pretty clear that Forest's enhanced sponsorship deal, courtesy of their owner, is against the rules because it is not at market value.

What we really need is some sort of legal confirmation that FFP IS not going to be overturned and is fully compliant with EU law. Forest are driving a coach and horses through the rulebook and the authorities need to make a statement.

I expect the cash rich clubs affected will outmanoeuvre and outthink the powers that be who will be forced to rethink and make changes and amendments which will be too late have any impact on those going for broke this year.

I only have to think back to what Archer got up to without being brought to heel to reinforce my belief that FFP will be unenforceable in the near future..

 

[Pavilionaire]

The accounts have to be prepared by qualified professionals and audited too. The figures are what they are and the rules are based on the figures, so it's hard to manipulate that side of things.

I can't see a lot of leeway to be honest, it's simply a case of whether FFP is legal in the first place. The only other issue then becomes time and the speed at which the authorities uncover and then act upon transgressions. I don't know whether measuring compliance with FFP requirements are automatically part of the audit process; I can see clubs blaming auditors for getting penalised, but I can also see auditors not wanting to judge whether a sponsorship transaction by an associated party has been carried out at a market value or a vastly-inflated price.

 

[Gwylan]

The accounts have to be prepared by qualified professionals and audited too. The figures are what they are and the rules are based on the figures, so it's hard to manipulate that side of things.

That means nothing. Enron's accounts were fully audited by qualified professionals too

 

[Pavilionaire]

That means nothing. Enron's accounts were fully audited by qualified professionals too

That the exception, rather than the norm. And Enron's accounts are going to be a bit more complex than Nottingham Forest or Leicester City.

 

[KZNSeagull]

The accounts have to be prepared by qualified professionals and audited too. The figures are what they are and the rules are based on the figures, so it's hard to manipulate that side of things.

I can't see a lot of leeway to be honest, it's simply a case of whether FFP is legal in the first place. The only other issue then becomes time and the speed at which the authorities uncover and then act upon transgressions. I don't know whether measuring compliance with FFP requirements are automatically part of the audit process; I can see clubs blaming auditors for getting penalised, but I can also see auditors not wanting to judge whether a sponsorship transaction by an associated party has been carried out at a market value or a vastly-inflated price.

I assume that the accounts will be audited by representatives of the Football League and market values for sponsorship deals will be decided by them. But we are not going to know what a fair market value is until that process has been done, so at the moment we are assuming that Forest are breaking the rules and we are expecting them to be sanctioned. David Burke said that clubs have been sent guidelines on the Albion Roar, but we do not know what they are.

This is going to be a huge test of the football leagues resolve, but if those guidelines have been breached (which again I assume that the clubs have agreed to), the basis for a legal challenge diminishes I would have thought. But we all know that it will not be that simple!

 

[Gwylan]

That the exception, rather than the norm. And Enron's accounts are going to be a bit more complex than Nottingham Forest or Leicester City.

Hmmm..... there's been a money laundering case hanging over Birmingham City's owner for four years while the prosecutors try to get to the bottom of City's accounts. Here's a report from last year that talks about the opaque funding and mysterious payments

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jan/09/birmingham-city-supporters-debt-yeung

If City's accounts can be hard to fathom why would it be so hard for Forest to do the same?

 

[El Presidente]

The accounts have to be prepared by qualified professionals and audited too. The figures are what they are and the rules are based on the figures, so it's hard to manipulate that side of things.

I can't see a lot of leeway to be honest, it's simply a case of whether FFP is legal in the first place. The only other issue then becomes time and the speed at which the authorities uncover and then act upon transgressions. I don't know whether measuring compliance with FFP requirements are automatically part of the audit process; I can see clubs blaming auditors for getting penalised, but I can also see auditors not wanting to judge whether a sponsorship transaction by an associated party has been carried out at a market value or a vastly-inflated price.

I disagree, think of auditors as the dog that doesn't bark.

If UEFA are not getting upset over PSG's shirt sponsorship deal, which is rising to €200 million a YEAR from QTA, then hardly expect the FL to get their blazers dirty in respect of Forest. The nature of FFP is that it is always shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, as the accounts have to be lodged by 1 December, and Forest (or any other club) will have had 15 games in the PL by then.

 

[Stat Brother]

I disagree, think of auditors as the dog that doesn't bark.

If UEFA are not getting upset over PSG's shirt sponsorship deal, which is rising to €200 million a YEAR from QTA, then hardly expect the FL to get their blazers dirty in respect of Forest. The nature of FFP is that it is always shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, as the accounts have to be lodged by 1 December, and Forest (or any other club) will have had 15 games in the PL by then.

PSG have back dated their current deal from QTA so they receive money for last season as well, when the weren't supporting them.

Oh and Zlatan costs PSG 54,600,000 Euros a season.
When you take into account his NET wages and the money the club spends to cover his gross wage, tax insurance etc.

 

[El Presidente]

PSG have back dated their current deal from QTA so they receive money for last season as well, when the weren't supporting them.

Oh and Zlatan costs PSG 54,600,000 million Euros a season.
When you take into account his NET wages and the money the club spends to cover his gross wage, tax insurance etc.

He is however worth it. Zlatan is the Ronnie O'Sullivan of football IMO. I appreciate Ronaldo scores more goals, and is deserving of the Ballon D'Or, but Ibra is a complete wingnut.