FFP | Vital Football

FFP

B

Banter Central

Vital Youth Team
Hi all,

Apologies if this has been covered in another thread... but can anyone explain why we are, according to the likes of Taylor in the Athletic, 'cutting it close' with FFP? It feels like journos trot that excuse out every season to justify us relying on freebies and speculative bargain bin European signings - some of which work out, most of which don't.

As a side note, if we really do need to 'balance the books' as Taylor claims, does it not make most sense to move Carvalho on (even if it's in a Soudani-style Olympiakos move), instead of Cash or Worrall?

I see Lyle Taylor's off to Celtic. I actually liked the look of da Costa's link up play, but there wasn't any goal threat there. But then, he's never really scored many goals in his career, so where the evidence was that he was going to bang them in, I don't know.

Cheers.
 
They don’t need Carvalho so why pay for him? At least soudani played a few games for Oly.

Its only speculation surrounding celtics interest in Lyle Taylor, so that doesn’t mean he’s going there. Doesn’t mean he’s moving to forest either, just that gossip needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Banter Central said:
Hi all,

Apologies if this has been covered in another thread... but can anyone explain why we are, according to the likes of Taylor in the Athletic, 'cutting it close' with FFP? It feels like journos trot that excuse out every season to justify us relying on freebies and speculative bargain bin European signings - some of which work out, most of which don't.

As a side note, if we really do need to 'balance the books' as Taylor claims, does it not make most sense to move Carvalho on (even if it's in a Soudani-style Olympiakos move), instead of Cash or Worrall?

I see Lyle Taylor's off to Celtic. I actually liked the look of da Costa's link up play, but there wasn't any goal threat there. But then, he's never really scored many goals in his career, so where the evidence was that he was going to bang them in, I don't know.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

The situation was quite clear up until Covid; we had losses totalling 30m over the first two years of the 3 year cycle, which effectively means we are able to lose 9m in year 3.

To put things in perspective, we lost 5m in year one of the cycle and 25m in year 2; the year 2 accounts contained a number of write offs and impairments which inflated the losses.

I would have thought that the sales of Brereton and Appiah would have put us well within the parameters.

The situation is now not so clear due to the EFL relaxation of the P & S rules; how those rules have been relaxed is anyone's guess because the changes have not been publicised.

Taylor is once again guessing that players are being sold so that we comply with P & S; my guess is that it is due to cash flow.
 
Everyone will be in the same boat with the implications of Covid, but as Mao states recent sales (Brereton, Appiah, Chema, Robinson & Osborn) will give us headroom.

Plus we've taken a lot from our wage bill (Gueddy, Yacob & various others) and more work to do.
 
Hi Mao.

You say cash flow? i am guessing that is a projection of cash flow not at present actual. I say this as most championship teams had very little coming in since March but pretty much the same on outgoings. therefore they will have a small actual. Forest, because they has 22,000 season ticket holders, most of whom have probably chosen to take up the ifollow offer, had most of the cash already in pocket. It is next season where cash flow becomes an issue, if no spectators. Many of the 22,000 were juniors and OAP's, so ball park, say £300 per season ticket x 22,000 = just over £6.5M. of course we lose income from away fans. Assuming if loss of spectators, some deal will be done with TV companies and sponsorship and corporate can claw back. At present we don't make a lot of profit from match day peripheries and catering, which are often contracted out. Would you guesstimate Forest are probably planning for a £10M income loss next season (which is all cash flow) assuming no spectators?
 
Polly 433 said:
Hi Mao.

You say cash flow? i am guessing that is a projection of cash flow not at present actual. I say this as most championship teams had very little coming in since March but pretty much the same on outgoings. therefore they will have a small actual. Forest, because they has 22,000 season ticket holders, most of whom have probably chosen to take up the ifollow offer, had most of the cash already in pocket. It is next season where cash flow becomes an issue, if no spectators. Many of the 22,000 were juniors and OAP's, so ball park, say £300 per season ticket x 22,000 = just over £6.5M. of course we lose income from away fans. Assuming if loss of spectators, some deal will be done with TV companies and sponsorship and corporate can claw back. At present we don't make a lot of profit from match day peripheries and catering, which are often contracted out. Would you guesstimate Forest are probably planning for a £10M income loss next season (which is all cash flow) assuming no spectators?
Click to expand...

Loss of spectators, the sponsors will not be paying anywhere near what was planned; it will impact on every level, and all the while people need to be paid wages.

And it is not just the impact since March; there is no end in sight, this could go on well beyond the end of the year
 
mao tse tung said:
Loss of spectators, the sponsors will not be paying anywhere near what was planned; it will impact on every level, and all the while people need to be paid wages.

And it is not just the impact since March; there is no end in sight, this could go on well beyond the end of the year
Click to expand...

The Notts v Derbyshire cricket game had in excess of 80,000 views. Even if they count the same person for each of the 4 days, that's circa 20,000 people. There must be a massive market for football, even if they only charged £10 a game, especially when you can watch all the away games too.

Can't wait for the Yorkshire game to start at 11 !
 
Polly 433 said:
How many times is a club allowed to sell and mortgage it’s ground?
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely Derby have mortgaged an asset they don't own. Doesn't stop Mel Morris from mortgaging the ground, then loaning the money to Derby. Bristol paper says it will give Derby a massive FFP boost, but it doesn't make any difference to their FFP losses. Will just give them the cash to spend up to their FFP limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.