[Football] The ticking Profit and Sustainability (FFP) timebomb...

[Hotchilidog]

I can understand people being frustrated that City and Chelsea seem to be getting away with it at the moment, but Everton and Forest are correctly being punished for breaking the rules, no sympathy for them what so ever.

I do understand the complexity of the City case, but I would like to know if it is possible to focus on an individual breach that may get them a penalty, or do all 115 have to be investigated at the same time, if anyone could shed light on that I'd be interested to hear why that it is.

One thing I am sure of though, is that these penalties are setting a precedent for punishment now, which does not augur well for the likes of City etc.

 

[Hamilton]

"https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ham-forest-everton?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

"Forests defence is expected to be based around their decision to delay the sale of Brennan Johnson to ensure they received the highest price possible for the academy graduate, whose fee would, in PSR terms, be deemed pure profit. The forward was sold on deadline day last September for £47.5m to Tottenham, two months after the cut-off point for complying with PSR. If Forest had sold Johnson before 30 June, the club believe they would have received a lower fee. Although that would have put them the right side of the allowed losses, they are expected to argue it was better for their long-term health to maximise their profit and make them more sustainable."

The fact that summer transfer window spans two separate seasons in FFP is a bit odd

That’s funny.

I’ll write to HMRC telling them that I didn’t pay my tax by 31 January because I wanted to go on that holiday to Barbados as it was in my long term interests health wish.

I’m sure they’ll tell me to bugger off.

 

[Springal]

"https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ham-forest-everton?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

"Forests defence is expected to be based around their decision to delay the sale of Brennan Johnson to ensure they received the highest price possible for the academy graduate, whose fee would, in PSR terms, be deemed pure profit. The forward was sold on deadline day last September for £47.5m to Tottenham, two months after the cut-off point for complying with PSR. If Forest had sold Johnson before 30 June, the club believe they would have received a lower fee. Although that would have put them the right side of the allowed losses, they are expected to argue it was better for their long-term health to maximise their profit and make them more sustainable."

The fact that summer transfer window spans two separate seasons in FFP is a bit odd

It’s a bollocks argument as they would have known their position and that’s the point of FFP. They might have some sympathy but given how much they spent and how many players they brought in everyone knew they were pushing it

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Those "corrupt" signs make me laugh.

"Yeah we broke the rules. But but but but......CORRUPTION!!"

 

[Berty23]

Those "corrupt" signs make me laugh.

"Yeah we broke the rules. But but but but......CORRUPTION!!"

And if they are so unhappy in premier league then they can be happy in the champo.

As others have said - they only just stayed up and they cheated Leics didn’t buy anyone when Rogers was clear they needed someone. They went down.

I am fed up with the line “it is not fair on the fans of forest and Everton” - it is not fair on the fans of the sides who went down. Everton have been campaigning to get their bent owners out and now others agree they are bent they say the league is corrupt.

All in all we are very lucky to have bloom.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

John cross has nailed it

 

[SAC]

There are fans of many clubs on here but seemingly none from Everton. I'd love to hear why they think it's Premier League corruption that is to blame rather than their own overspending. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places but I haven't seen any Forest screaming corruption, although there is quite a bit of whataboutary from them (but nowhere near as much as from Everton).

I used to like Everton fans because they aren't Liverpool. Now, I just want to see them relegated.

 

[halbpro]

In Commons Select Committee, Richard Masters (PL CEO) confirmed that a date has now been set for the City case. Wasn't able to announce the date at this stage, or give an update on the case, but confirmed that the case is proceeding. Assume there are confidentiality clauses and wants to avoid biasing the case or an even larger media circus than usual.

The investigation into Chelsea was brought after the new ownership gave the league evidence of issues under the previous ownership. The investigation is ongoing, but no charges have been made as of yet.

 

[Was not Was]

I feel like this new focus on adhering to FFP could play to our advantage. We must be in a great place financially and could pinch a couple of other clubs homegrown players for a decent price.

On the other hand, won't other clubs' caution mean that we'll now be less likely to get megabucks for players who are wanted by big teams and want to leave?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Everton are one of the founder clubs of the PL and one of the most historic club with clout within the PL

If it was corruption I would think Everton would be one of the safe clubs

It's easier and the punishment will be bigger if city punishments are all done at once.

Maybe I'm naive, but I still think City will be smashed

The "look at City" stuff is Everton/Forest trying to distract people from the fact they broke the rules.

Everton were under investigation by the FA when given that founding place in the FL. It should have gone to Bootle (at the time there was only one team allowed from each area).

 

[Greavsey]

"https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ham-forest-everton?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

"Forests defence is expected to be based around their decision to delay the sale of Brennan Johnson to ensure they received the highest price possible for the academy graduate, whose fee would, in PSR terms, be deemed pure profit. The forward was sold on deadline day last September for £47.5m to Tottenham, two months after the cut-off point for complying with PSR. If Forest had sold Johnson before 30 June, the club believe they would have received a lower fee. Although that would have put them the right side of the allowed losses, they are expected to argue it was better for their long-term health to maximise their profit and make them more sustainable."

The fact that summer transfer window spans two separate seasons in FFP is a bit odd

Heard a Nottingham journalist/fan on Radio 5 last night putting forward this laughable defence. What scuppered him was later in the conversation he said that they wanted more money than the £30m Brentford offered before the deadline, because the replacement they wanted for Johnson was costing £30m. So they needed more for Johnson in order to make any FFP savings. He also said when they got promoted they had loads on loans and out of contract players so they were left with no choice but to sign loads of players in that summer. Complete balls, if you can't afford it then don't spend it, and play youth team if you have to!

It's all just bad planning, and not expecting the premier league to enforce the financial constraints. They deserve what is coming to them.

 

[Acker79]

Everton are complaining that they're being penalised twice for the same period, when the most recent issue includes last season (22/23), whilst the previous penalty covered the period to 21/22. Everton KNEW they were sailing close to the wind, so why the hell did they carry on merrily buying players in 22/23 (eg: Onana, McNeil, Maupay [!!]).

Isn't the issue that it's a three year cycle.

So the punishment meted out for 21/22 covers 19/20, 20/21 and 21/22
The potential punishment for 22/23 covers 20/21, 21/22 and 22/23

So the failing in 20/21 and 21/22 is being punished twice. And the rules agreed didn't account for this.

Of course that third year does provide room to compensate if you are inclined, but the period under review does overlap with the period reviewed and punished previously. (I'm not trying to argue they shouldn't be punished, just that their argument has more merit than the above paragraph acknowledged)

 

[Creaky]

Sorry if fixtures but haven't seen mentioned the fact that the P&S rules for Forest for the 22/23 period, in terms of allowable losses, is different than that for the teams that had been in the PL for three years.

 

[Jim in the West]

Isn't the issue that it's a three year cycle.

So the punishment meted out for 21/22 covers 19/20, 20/21 and 21/22
The potential punishment for 22/23 covers 20/21, 21/22 and 22/23

So the failing in 20/21 and 21/22 is being punished twice. And the rules agreed didn't account for this.

Of course that third year does provide room to compensate if you are inclined, but the period under review does overlap with the period reviewed and punished previously. (I'm not trying to argue they shouldn't be punished, just that their argument has more merit than the above paragraph acknowledged)

Yes - all understood. The rules are pretty clear - you need to keep within the spending limits over each 3 year cycle. And as each year passes, one year drops out and a new year comes in. Their argument would have merit if the rules had suddenly been changed, but they KNEW the rules....they knew which were the relevant years for the 20/21 to 22/23 calculation. It must have been completely obvious to them how much they could spend in 22/23 (given they already had the data for 20/21 and 21/22), but they still managed to overspend! And they actually bought some fairly expensive players.
Having said that, I think where one might have a small amount of sympathy with Everton is that, because the EPL is at last getting to grips with this issue, the punishments for both the 19/20 - 21/22 AND 20/21 - 22/23 periods are presumably going to be meted out in the same season. But as it turns out, this has been a huge advantage for Everton - as logically the 10 pt deduction they have recently suffered should have been incurred last season. Which would have seen them relegated.

 

[Berty23]

A rolling three year is pretty easy for Everton to understand isn’t it?

 

[Mellotron]

Isn't the issue that it's a three year cycle.

So the punishment meted out for 21/22 covers 19/20, 20/21 and 21/22
The potential punishment for 22/23 covers 20/21, 21/22 and 22/23

So the failing in 20/21 and 21/22 is being punished twice. And the rules agreed didn't account for this.

That seems mad to me, that they didn't think that this might happen?!

 

[Acker79]

That seems mad to me, that they didn't think that this might happen?!

To be clear, I am reciting what I saw on, either SSN or from a football journalist, and have taken that as true. It does sound short sighted that it wasn't considered, so I wouldn't be surprised if some dullard comes along and 'actually...'s it. But the impression I got from that article was that it might be something the independent panel takes into consideration.

 

[mikeyjh]

Heard a Nottingham journalist/fan on Radio 5 last night putting forward this laughable defence. What scuppered him was later in the conversation he said that they wanted more money than the £30m Brentford offered before the deadline, because the replacement they wanted for Johnson was costing £30m. So they needed more for Johnson in order to make any FFP savings. He also said when they got promoted they had loads on loans and out of contract players so they were left with no choice but to sign loads of players in that summer. Complete balls, if you can't afford it then don't spend it, and play youth team if you have to!

It's all just bad planning, and not expecting the premier league to enforce the financial constraints. They deserve what is coming to them.

Same one who said their lawyer, Nick Di Marco, was famous for only taking on cases he would win? Was keen to phone in and ask him which of their near neighbours once employed Di Marco in an FFP case....

 

[dazzer6666]

Sorry if fixtures but haven't seen mentioned the fact that the P&S rules for Forest for the 22/23 period, in terms of allowable losses, is different than that for the teams that had been in the PL for three years.

Rules are the same but the number is different

 

[Reddleman]

On the other hand, won't other clubs' caution mean that we'll now be less likely to get megabucks for players who are wanted by big teams and want to leave?

Not sure other clubs not having the money to come and steal our best players. If other clubs aren’t making noises the players are less likely to be unsettled.

Also with our academy there is almost certainly to likely to be ‘home grown’ players we can sell for pure profit which keeps hugely. Might be unpopular with fans but that’s the reality of it all.