4evablu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:58 pm
That court case has opened up a great opportunity (can of worms) for us/anyone to challenge the FFP ruling policy and process.
If the eu court can determine stopping the super league is a restriction of trading then what is FFP but a restriction of trading ?
You can see it now city & chelsea will challenge the charges, the PL will drop their cases and we’ll be the only prem team to suffer from it.
Think ffp and the super league are very different things legally. 1 is about the right to enter other competitions. When it comes to ffp you're allowed to spend whatever you want just not if you enter a competition where there's a rule against it.
Who actually voted for ffp. The top teams seem to get blamed for it but I suspect pretty much everyone was in favour. Even the lesser teams voted to protect their place rather than look upwards and have ambition.
I'd be very surprised if we too didn't vote for it
777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:51 pm
Think ffp and the super league are very different things legally. 1 is about the right to enter other competitions. When it comes to ffp you're allowed to spend whatever you want just not if you enter a competition where there's a rule against it.
Who actually voted for ffp. The top teams seem to get blamed for it but I suspect pretty much everyone was in favour. Even the lesser teams voted to protect their place rather than look upwards and have ambition.
I'd be very surprised if we too didn't vote for it
I think what he's saying is that, under EU law, a business should be allowed to lose money without punishment, as long as the owners are willing to keep pumping it in.
4evablu wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:58 pm
That court case has opened up a great opportunity (can of worms) for us/anyone to challenge the FFP ruling policy and process.
If the eu court can determine stopping the super league is a restriction of trading then what is FFP but a restriction of trading ?
You can see it now city & chelsea will challenge the charges, the PL will drop their cases and we’ll be the only prem team to suffer from it.
Which would then give us a very good case to sue the Premier League for loss of revenue, since the 10 point deduction will cost us xx places in the table (we'll know for certain at the end of the season). At around £2m per leagure place, that could be quite a tidy sum. If could also cost us a place in one of the European competitions too and therefore another revenue stream, which again ould be roughly quantifiable.
That would work out better.for us if the PL dig their heela in and then Chelsea and City challenge them and win. We're no longer thw bad guys in this whole fiasco.
74Blue wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 11:30 pm
Which would then give us a very good case to sue the Premier League for loss of revenue, since the 10 point deduction will cost us xx places in the table (we'll know for certain at the end of the season). At around £2m per leagure place, that could be quite a tidy sum. If could also cost us a place in one of the European competitions too and therefore another revenue stream, which again ould be roughly quantifiable.
That would work out better.for us if the PL dig their heela in and then Chelsea and City challenge them and win. We're no longer thw bad guys in this whole fiasco.
Whilst I love the optimistic angle on this, I just can’t see a world where it all aligns for us, FFP is dismantled and we get £100M to spend on the squad just as we move into BMD. It would take some next level, voodoo, soul-selling shit for this to happen.
Toddacelli wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 8:52 am
Whilst I love the optimistic angle on this, I just can’t see a world where it all aligns for us, FFP is dismantled and we get £100M to spend on the squad just as we move into BMD. It would take some next level, voodoo, soul-selling shit for this to happen.
But now thankfully very feasible I’ll bet as we speak there’s many clubs including us looking at the legal aspects of this ruling as we speak. I posted (either on the old site or in this thread) I’d been chatting to my lawyer friend re FFP and he said way back then “surely that can’t be legal “
Nottingham Forest could face FFP charge as Everton risk second penalty
Two clubs considered most at threat of being charged with breaching financial rules for 2022-23 under new fast-track system introduced by Premier League
Premier League clubs will learn in the next two weeks if any will face charges for new breaches of financial rules, with Nottingham Forest seen by experts as being most at risk.
Forest are considered to be sailing close to the wind because of their heavy spending while in the Championship and since winning promotion, and there are also concerns that Everton could face a second charge in consecutive seasons of breaching profit and sustainability rules (PSR).
Under a new system brought in by the Premier League for this season, charges for straightforward breaches will be fast-tracked and dealt with by early April, with any points deductions applied to this campaign. Everton were charged last season but had a ten-point penalty imposed in November, which they have appealed against.
The new rules meant all 20 clubs had to submit accounts for 2022-23 by December 31 and any charges will be announced by January 14. A club will have two weeks to respond to a charge and then a hearing by an independent commission must be concluded by April 8. Appeals will have to be completed by the end of the season.
Under the Premier League’s PSR, clubs can make a maximum loss of £105 million over a rolling three-year period, or £35 million a season. If a club has been in the EFL during those three years, the amount of losses allowed are even smaller. Forest would be limited to losses of £61 million: £13 million for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons when they were in Sky Bet Championship, plus £35 million for last season.
Forest made a loss of £45.6 million in 2021-22, when they were promoted, and £15.5 million the season before. In both years, the club spent double the amount on wages that they earned in turnover. Although promotion to the Premier League will have boosted Forest’s income by about £90 million, the club spent heavily on transfers after promotion and their wage bill will have rocketed too.
One legal expert with experience of Financial Fair Play cases told The Times that he expected another club apart from Everton to be charged.
Meanwhile, the football finance author Kieran Maguire believes that Forest have the most to fear. “Nottingham Forest were very much at the limit of their Financial Fair Play allowance when they were promoted to the Premier League and that investment in new players continued in their first season, when they signed players on high wages, including some such as Jesse Lingard who didn’t work out,” he said. “If you are looking for clubs close to the limit they would be at the top in my opinion.”
Forest declined to comment.
There are also fears that, assuming the same calculation system is used, Everton could find themselves facing a second charge.
The new approach to fast-track cases covers single or straightforward breaches of the financial rules — unlike the more complex cases involving Manchester City and Chelsea.
City are facing 115 charges of financial rules breaches, while the Premier League is investigating allegations of off-the-books payments by Chelsea during Roman Abramovich’s ownership.
Chelsea have made huge losses in recent seasons — £156 million in 2020-21 and £121 million in 2021-22 — but Maguire believes that they will avoid a straightforward charge of breaching PSR because they sold many players for significant sums before July 1 this year, including Mason Mount, N’Golo Kanté and Kalidou Koulibaly. That transfer income would balance the books for last season.
The three year average thing is odd. I don’t dispute it’s true btw, but surely one catastrophic loss of revenue in a season, could then lead to being punished for the ‘crime’ three times.
The mistake is thinking that there's any fairness in these arbitrary financial rules. They're there primarily to allow established top clubs to spend without a care in the world even if they're racking up over a billion in debt. The side effect is that it also prevents clubs from spending beyond their means and going bust.
If the priority was the latter then they'd have changed things to remove the anti-competitive shackles of it all. They haven't and they won't.
The thing that stinks the most is they’ve all of a sudden decided to “fast track straightforward cases” then quickly reminding us all that of course this doesn’t apply to City and Chelsea.
