looks like they have now signed Danny Graham plus they already have a squad on large wages who signed on large transfer fees. They are going for it but surely they are totally side tracking FFP and its regs? The same must apply to QPR? The day of reckoning will come *evil laugh*
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Are Forest taking the Pis#???
- Thread starter Neecha
- Start date
saafend_seagull
Well-known member
They have a record sponsorship deal, so how are they not complying? And even if they aren't they are gambling.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
The sponsorship is from one of the owner's companies, and way above fair 'market rate' ( which is a specific requirement of FFP ).
Yoda
English & European
Yeah! A record sponsorship deal from their owners company. A prime example of how to by-pass FFP.
saafend_seagull
Well-known member
If it is a specific requirement then it will be adjusted to the fair market price.
So people need to chill out, doubt it will be relevant as will get promoted.
FFP is nothing to do with fairness. If owners want to spunk big money on their club why not let them? We didn't complain when TB found £160 million to stick in the Albion.
nwgull
Well-known member
It clearly breaks the FFP rules about sponsorship from related companies and market value. So not a prime example.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Time will tell if it was a gamble worth taking. I believe it probably will be in Forests case. They are very well placed to get auto given the size and quality of their squad.
I have to confess to being a bit jealous of them, I can only dream about us having such quality at this level.
I have to confess to being a bit jealous of them, I can only dream about us having such quality at this level.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Perhaps it should be renamed to FUP. Financial Unfair Play.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
I don't like FFP, and want it scrapped, but also I don't see why we should expect Tony to make any annual loss at all - although if he is prepared to then fair enough and, of course, many thanks.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Time will tell if it was a gamble worth taking. I believe it probably will be in Forests case. They are very well placed to get auto given the size and quality of their squad.
I have to confess to being a bit jealous of them, I can only dream about us having such quality at this level.
Personally, I think Davies is spending the money pretty poorly.
He's now got loads of strikers to pick from, but ultimately he can only use a couple of them at a time, and none of them are actually particularly GOOD.
Danny Graham, Darius Henderson, Jamie Mackie, Ishmael Miller, Marcus Tudgay, Jamie Paterson, Dexter Blackstock, Matt Derbyshire, Simon Cox
They are paying NINE lots of high wages, so that each week he can pick two strikers,against a team that probably have two decent strikers of their own.
Surely he would have been far better off using the funds to have two genuinely outstanding strikers and a couple of decent ones in support?
nwgull
Well-known member
What don't you like about it? It seems a really good idea in principle to me.
Sorry - but why are we being punished? I really think people need a massive reality check. I do not want Tony Bloom to spend our way to the Premiership. Less than 20 years ago we were facing the real idea that we may not have a ground to play in, and were extremely close to going out of the league.
Now we have what I believe is a sustainable football club with all the infrastructure needed to ensure that this club remains successful for the foreseeable future. So it's not likely that we'll make the Premier League this year, is that really actually being punished? Or do we have a club that can play football when all around you sides have waterlogged pitches, idiots on £75k a week who can't be bothered to play football because they have no incentive, stands that are crumbling and unsafe, toilets which don't work.... the list can go on.
Be happy you have a club who doesn't want to flout the rules, and still able to play attractive football. Rome wasn't built overnight.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
What if these two strikers you talk of both got injured, and there must be a reasonable chance that they would. Look what has happened to our strikers and wingers over the last two seasons? Forest can have a bigger than 50% injury rate for their strikers and still pick two top of the Championship quality strikers. If they were not so well placed I'd agree but as other teams start to suffer due to injury and tiredness in the 2nd half of the season they have every chance of romping away.
It's not right, it's not fair but it will probably work. There is a risk involved but their owner seems to have the money and as long as he doesn't lose interest, they are very well set after years of mediocrity imo.
We, like any other club sticking to the rules will be punished because no action will be taken against those flouting the rules, it's all waffle.
- Thread starter
- #18
Record sponsorship deal with a company based in Kuwait, how coincidental. FFP is great for protecting clubs and Im sure there are lots of inventive FD's out there but to me this cant be within the parameters regarding the amounts they have spent. only time will tell
Last edited:
Marshy
Well-known member
of course they are taking the P
Probably get away with it though
Probably get away with it though
They need four, not two. Keep two of the current NINE as the back-up strikers, and swap the other SEVEN for two really, really good ones.
Paying nine wages to cover two positions just can't make sense, if it limits how good any of them are. They can pick any two, and it still doesn't give them a notably better front line than Nugent and Vardy, or Austin and Zamora, or Rhodes and Gestede, or Vokes and Ings, or McCormack and Blackstock, or Le Fondre and Pogrebnyak, or Maynard and Fortune or Deenay and Forestieri.