What's new

Financial Fair Play (general thread)

Albertbarich

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2020
5,543
20,917
Give it a year before someone (Chelsea) find some loophole to cheat their way round it

It sounds like a good idea. Id hope even the PFA recognise that football can't continue to go down this current route.
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
12,888
17,290
Give it a year before someone (Chelsea) find some loophole to cheat their way round it

It sounds like a good idea. Id hope even the PFA recognise that football can't continue to go down this current route.
This backstop IMO is basically designed to stop Chelsea and others finding loop holes around the UEFA 70% rule. Because with that (and the new version of PL PSR) clubs will be able to keep spending levels high by finding forms of revenue like sponsorships and selling themselves their own assets as a way around 70&% by simply increasing the revenue coming in.

With TV rights the amount is fixed and cannot be increased at a club level, so the backstop means that any dodgy deals that Chelsea and others are doing to inflate their revenue streams won't count for anything.
 

wishkah

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
4,828
14,546
so what happens with the the excess revenue the clubs make beyond the 5x bottom club tv revenue limit

so if we've been building the stadium, getting the gigs in and generally catching up revenue-wise with the big boys. does this mean we can't spend it?
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
12,888
17,290
so what happens with the the excess revenue the clubs make beyond the 5x bottom club tv revenue limit

so if we've been building the stadium, getting the gigs in and generally catching up revenue-wise with the big boys. does this mean we can't spend it?
Not really as right now only Chelsea are over the limit and they've spent £1bn in the last few windows on players. So basically we can't spend £1bn every few windows, but otherwise we can match the spending of the big clubs like City etc...

Also what the 70% rule does is force many clubs who operate below us off the field, but have wealthy owners pumping in dodgy cash, to operate at a level even further below us rather than overtake us with owner backed funds.

What it also means is that we need to sharpen up our player recruitment, which we have been doing, and be more ruthless on selling players.

For example if we buy a player like Ndombele for say £50m on a 5 year deal on £96k per week, then each year we have £10m of amortisation and £5m of wages. If after year 1 we realised he was a bit shite but we could still get say £25m for him then we should sell him as A) His amortised book value is now £40m and with the £25m incoming that means only £15m write down on the books - we would have written down £10m anyway and this way he's gone and so no future years write down and B) wages come off the accounts too, which saves us £5m - so year 2 is the same as keeping him on the books, but years 3-5 are now zero cost on the books to us and we can bring someone else in. This has been a massive weakness of Levy's IMO - not knowing when to cut our losses on players so that we can keep investing.

What I think the better model going forwards will be is to sign more players for smaller fees. That way the good ones stay and salaries can be increased when needed, but amortisation values stay low and the bad ones can be moved on with minimal impact on the books. Also a cheaper player being loaned out like we did with Sarr or Udogie means is a big thing versus loaning out an expensive player like Ndombele, because whilst we can reduce our wages bill by loaning players out we can't reduce our amortisation costs.

Basically I think, if it's not already the case, that we need to start looking at players from an annual cost perspective, which is a combination of their amortised cost and their wages.
 
Last edited:

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
5,501
8,282
Forest will have to go all out against Chelsea on Saturday to try and get some points to make sure Luton can't catch them.
 
Last edited:

archiewasking

Waiting for silverware..........
Jul 5, 2004
7,930
11,923
Forest will have to go all out against Chelsea on Saturday to try and get some points to make sure Luton can't catch them.
Luton are awful. Whatever Forest do, I can't see Luton getting enough points to overhaul them.
 

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
5,501
8,282
Sunak appears to be on the verge of giving us a date for the election , will Richard Masters follow suit and give us a date for the City trial ?
 
Last edited:

Westmorlandspur

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2013
3,059
4,994
Football governance bill not going ahead due to the election. Not sure if that means the football regulator is dead in the water or will be rehashed next year.
 

bubble07

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2004
23,398
30,746
Is the punishment greater for second offence? If the penalty is 4 points I'm sure they would rather keep their best players then sell for under market value
 

jurgen

Busy ****
Jul 5, 2008
6,842
17,643
Got lucky that the promoted teams were absolutely terrible this year, but that might not be the case next season so courting a points loss is a risk.
 

coy-spurs1882

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
4,122
10,889

arnoldlayne

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2007
1,118
1,205
I've just read the plans for an independent football regulator have fallen through because of lack of time with the election - so bill dropped

Hopefully short term seeing how Keir Starmer is a football fan
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
32,085
150,165
I've just read the plans for an independent football regulator have fallen through because of lack of time with the election - so bill dropped

Hopefully short term seeing how Keir Starmer is a football fan
I fully expect it to be in both parties manifestos for the election. It has broad support in Parliament.
 
Top