FFP charges? | Page 98 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

According to Sky we were £34m over the limit, if that is the case then we must have been in breach but by a lesser amount in January. Which in turn means that in January the club knowing we were already in breach made a conscious decision to spend a significant amount more on Wood, Shelvey, Felipe, Navas etc., knowing full well that it would put us even more over the top.

That being the case then the club clearly took a calculated gamble, what is unclear at this stage is whether that gamble has paid off, we stayed up last year thus picking up another years Sky money, but have now just paid the price & it is yet to be seen if that will mean we pay the ultimate price this year.

Right or wrong the club took the decision knowing the rules & I suppose in those circumstances a sanction has to be applied, so 4 points is probably about right. What we don't know of course what this alleged dialogue between the club & the PL actually amounted to & I would love it if the club decided to publish it
 
seasider red said:
According to Sky we were £34m over the limit, if that is the case then we must have been in breach but by a lesser amount in January. Which in turn means that in January the club knowing we were already in breach made a conscious decision to spend a significant amount more on Wood, Shelvey, Felipe, Navas etc., knowing full well that it would put us even more over the top.

That being the case then the club clearly took a calculated gamble, what is unclear at this stage is whether that gamble has paid off, we stayed up last year thus picking up another years Sky money, but have now just paid the price & it is yet to be seen if that will mean we pay the ultimate price this year.

Right or wrong the club took the decision knowing the rules & I suppose in those circumstances a sanction has to be applied, so 4 points is probably about right. What we don't know of course what this alleged dialogue between the club & the PL actually amounted to & I would love it if the club decided to publish it
Click to expand...

I've not completely read the entire report, but part of our mitigation was for Covid pay backs etc that were agreed by the EFL but not agreed by the EPL.

We considered that they previous agreement should stand and would effectively mean we were compliant.

The IC have confirmed we believed wrongly but it sort of explains why we thought we were compliant.
 
The Commission noted that there were few documents that demonstrated what Forest was doingabout its PSR issue. There were no board meeting minutes and only a few emails or messagesincluded within disclosure. Most communications were apparently oral. Mr Bonser, the FinanceDirector at Forest, did produce some forecasts of its PSR position. The first was on 22 August2022, the next was a week later and the next was on 29 September 2022. During this period,Forest was investing in players, so the PSR forecast was changing, but the last of thesecommunications from Mr Bonser was forecasting a significant breach, absent intervention fromthe Club. These communications did not deter the Club from bringing further players in overthe January 2023 transfer window (see paragraph 5.12 above).
 
Unless we have the same spending guidance as the NFL, which has pretty much a level playing field (pardon the pun) then the Tory League will just continue to widen the gap between Man City, Arsenal, Man U, Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea and the rest of the league.

Burnley spent more than us coming up, so if they get promoted again, they're also starting on the backfoot.

It's corrupt in the sense of if you're not an established global brand, you're fucked
 
seasider red said:
According to Sky we were £34m over the limit, if that is the case then we must have been in breach but by a lesser amount in January. Which in turn means that in January the club knowing we were already in breach made a conscious decision to spend a significant amount more on Wood, Shelvey, Felipe, Navas etc., knowing full well that it would put us even more over the top.

That being the case then the club clearly took a calculated gamble, what is unclear at this stage is whether that gamble has paid off, we stayed up last year thus picking up another years Sky money, but have now just paid the price & it is yet to be seen if that will mean we pay the ultimate price this year.

Right or wrong the club took the decision knowing the rules & I suppose in those circumstances a sanction has to be applied, so 4 points is probably about right. What we don't know of course what this alleged dialogue between the club & the PL actually amounted to & I would love it if the club decided to publish it
Click to expand...


I did say this on the vital WhatsApp group, and was shot down by that pig Mao
 
Just as a matter of interest our last chairman made two statements to the clubs fan base via the clubs official media outlet. I saw both so I am not relying on heresay. Statement one said that the club had agreed a new lease with Nottingham City Council in respect of the stadium and statement two said that we were in no danger of breaching FFP and profit and sustainability rules.
 
seasider red said:
According to Sky we were £34m over the limit, if that is the case then we must have been in breach but by a lesser amount in January. Which in turn means that in January the club knowing we were already in breach made a conscious decision to spend a significant amount more on Wood, Shelvey, Felipe, Navas etc., knowing full well that it would put us even more over the top.

That being the case then the club clearly took a calculated gamble, what is unclear at this stage is whether that gamble has paid off, we stayed up last year thus picking up another years Sky money, but have now just paid the price & it is yet to be seen if that will mean we pay the ultimate price this year.

Right or wrong the club took the decision knowing the rules & I suppose in those circumstances a sanction has to be applied, so 4 points is probably about right. What we don't know of course what this alleged dialogue between the club & the PL actually amounted to & I would love it if the club decided to publish it
Click to expand...
Exactly what Ive been saying-only thing that could have saved us was a binding agreement for 35m -we gambled, we lost , we are in the shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.