FFP charges? | Page 7 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

Pope John XXIII said:
It isn't the same thing.

By the looks of things, if we break FFP it will be because we have either got our sums wrong or understood the rules wrong. The club are saying they have complied. The numbers suggest they may (just) have complied. The club have clearly been attempting to comply by some of the actions they have taken.

Cheating would be deliberately breaking FFP and then trying to conceal it, or, as in Derby's case, flagrantly breaking the rules and claiming you have a clever workaround by selling your own ground to yourself.
Click to expand...

But it sounds like we're claiming the Johnson sale was our way of avoiding overspending but missed the deadline by 2 months. Not sure any credible accountants could argue this was not " flagrantly breaking the rules and claiming you have a clever workaround" by not knowing there was a deadline because you wanted to maximise the sale price.
 
BomberBowyer said:
But it sounds like we're claiming the Johnson sale was our way of avoiding overspending but missed the deadline by 2 months. Not sure any credible accountants could argue this was not " flagrantly breaking the rules and claiming you have a clever workaround" by not knowing there was a deadline because you wanted to maximise the sale price.
Click to expand...
Maguire has shown that this is actually within the rules to include Johnson today on twitter.

But I also get the distinct impression from the figures submitted that we were just within the rules even without it.
 
FeNris said:
Not the same thing at all. Derby knew exactly what they were doing and repeatedly tried to get around the rules when they knew they were in trouble. As far as I know we are also not failing to pay the taxman.
Click to expand...
Fair point about tax evasion but I'm not convinced people behind the scenes didn't know what they were doing. These rules have been set up because so many clubs are consistently breaking them.
Pope John XXIII said:
Maguire has shown that this is actually within the rules to include Johnson today on twitter.

But I also get the distinct impression from the figures submitted that we were just within the rules even without it.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right and I respect the amount of research you put in 👍🏻
 
On a slightly different scandal

https://twitter.com/x/status/1742968609876447461

CHO making the valid point that he was only 18 when Epstein died and therefore is a highly unlikely addition to his client list.

The client list widely seen the other day was, apparently, a list of celebrities that had had COVID changed to be Epstein's client list.

I suspected that list was off because a certain very recent president was not on it
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Maguire has shown that this is actually within the rules to include Johnson today on twitter.

But I also get the distinct impression from the figures submitted that we were just within the rules even without it.
Click to expand...
It might be within the rules but we started Brennan on day one of the next season so he couldn't have been a pending transaction surely spurs wouldn't allow us to play their asset ?

Until charges are brought against us i don't think we can go on the Times reporter.
 
The whole Shelvey thing seems like an afterthought too and could cost us more for FFP this season as he was signed on a 2.5 year deal so his fee would now be put into 8 months.

Bottom line is we need to get rid of players on our wage bill for a fee or a free if it saves us money - Arter won't count in that but Horvath, McKenna etc need to be moved on i think now.
 
forestfire_59 said:
Just read an article on sky saying it’s unlikely that we will face charges.
Click to expand...
For a totally different thing to the FFP though- this is Shelvey. Watch Rob Dorsett explain how we have done nothing wrong, while still trying to imply that we actually did.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1742976640949354749

If you can't be arsed to listen to him

We sent Mighten out as a senior loan when we meant to send it as a junior- mistake

This meant we didn't have as many international loans as we thought we did

We told the PL that Shelvey was a loan

Then tried to register it online with FIFA but the system wouldn't let us because we already had our maximum loans out

Realised what had happened, turned the deal to a permo and informed the PL

Dorsett says we didn't do anything wrong but tried to, after already explaining how an honest mistake came about. Didn't do anything wrong because the FIFA system wouldn't even let us.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
On a slightly different scandal

https://twitter.com/x/status/1742968609876447461

CHO making the valid point that he was only 18 when Epstein died and therefore is a highly unlikely addition to his client list.

The client list widely seen the other day was, apparently, a list of celebrities that had had COVID changed to be Epstein's client list.

I suspected that list was off because a certain very recent president was not on it
Click to expand...
The island sounds like a hoot, especially when Hawking was there!!!
 
Pope John XXIII said:
On a slightly different scandal


I suspected that list was off because a certain very recent president was not on it
Click to expand...
I know you suffer with TDS really bad, and would be ecstatic for him to be on the list, but dont get your hopes up, its not gonna happen.

Clinton DID visit some 20 odd times though.
 
radfordinlondon said:
www.skysports.com

Nottingham Forest: Club expect to avoid FIFA punishment over transfer administration error

Nottingham Forest expect to avoid FIFA punishment despite a transfer admin error regarding Jonjo Shelveys move to Trabzonspor last summer; the transfer was initially a loan that breached FIFAs rules on the number of international loans allowed which is seven per club
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
Proper non story really, Forest didnt break any rules and so wont get punished.

it does feel like the press are building an agenda against us hoping something will stick.
 
splitty62 said:
Proper non story really, Forest didnt break any rules and so wont get punished.

it does feel like the press are building an agenda against us hoping something will stick.
Click to expand...

I think they were too and getting excited about getting their claws in.

Wot a pity (for them) that there is nothing to see here.
 
stenroach said:
On a list, or on THE list?

List of what?
Click to expand...
The Epstein client list releases. Trump is on it.

He's not accused of wrongdoing in sleeping with kids on the island though. Trump has restricted himself to making weird, uncomfortable sexualised comments about his daughter
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The Epstein client list releases. Trump is on it.

He's not accused of wrongdoing in sleeping with kids on the island though. Trump has restricted himself to making weird, uncomfortable sexualised comments about his daughter
Click to expand...
You mean he is mentioned in transcripts with interviewed Victims?

I believe one was asked if she ever saw him on the island or was asked to sleep with him and she said no.

" client list" i dont think there is such a thing, certainly not out in public.

You dont like him, i get it.
 
stenroach said:
You mean he is mentioned in transcripts with interviewed Victims?

I believe one was asked if she ever saw him on the island or was asked to sleep with him and she said no.

" client list" i dont think there is such a thing, certainly not out in public.

You dont like him, i get it.
Click to expand...
I specifically said he wasn't mentioned on the island.

Although goodness knows, he has the mob credentials that I doubt anyone would dare say he had been even if he had.

But of course, he and Epstein didn't even know each other

GettyImages-681946574_zlewtp.jpeg.jpg
ac57baf3cf3efcc7360ad43f39b8ef24f02cac8d.jpeg.jpg


And if you think the shit he has said about his daughter is ok and normal...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.