superpull wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:04 pm
Quite a few people seem to be offering the fact Forest were in the football league for two of the three years as some kind of justification. Am I reading that right?
Because the rules are more stringent and it reduces the £105m significantly for each of the 3 years not in the prem.
I think what people are getting at is, if it's 2 years from the EFL and 1 in the PL then you would think they would be tried under EFL rulings for those 2 and 1 for the year in the PL, which could of course mean a serious punishment. I don't see how they can justify the PL dishing that out for the 3 years. But then again, it's an IC so they are just winging it anyway.
I guess I'm just hoping this is the case being honest. I think the EFL rules are a lot more strict if I remember correctly.
Cozzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:10 pm
I think what people are getting at is, if it's 2 years from the EFL and 1 in the PL then you would think they would be tried under EFL rulings for those 2 and 1 for the year in the PL, which could of course mean a serious punishment. I don't see how they can justify the PL dishing that out for the 3 years. But then again, it's an IC so they are just winging it anyway.
I guess I'm just hoping this is the case being honest. I think the EFL rules are a lot more strict if I remember correctly.
Ah, I see.
I'm pretty sure there are rules in place for this.
For each PL year you can lose £5m a year (owner injecting finance and covering an additional £30m a year brings it up to the £35m we all think it to be).
EFL is also £5m a year, but owner injecting finance only allows a further £8m bringing it to £13m (£39m over 3).
Relegation means EFL take into account the higher loss allowance when judging and promotion means PL take into account the lower amount.
Forest have a £61m rolling allowance for this period we're talking a out.
We have a £105m allowance.
It absolutely can not be 6pts maximum. Newcastle would spend a billion and still be a champions league team each year with the points deduction
I imagine this time even if the numbers are bad we will get consideration for wages and transfers trending the right way. They can't really punish a team down the leagues for being in financial trouble
777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 11:11 pm
It absolutely can not be 6pts maximum. Newcastle would spend a billion and still be a champions league team each year with the points deduction
I imagine this time even if the numbers are bad we will get consideration for wages and transfers trending the right way. They can't really punish a team down the leagues for being in financial trouble
No, it's 9 points maximum for going into administration.
So, realistically, it's 8 points per season for the likes of Newcastle.
However, looks like rules ar changing in summer anyway
The 2nd punishment will depend on the outcome of the 3rd set of accounts for last year. Everton will argue (rightly so) they have been punished already for the 1st 2 x years so any punishment can only take into account year 3, so basing that on the 6 points we received and the precedent they have now set, if we are over the £35 million allowable for the last year we will likely get a further 2 point penalty for the 2nd breach. I think if that happens we can live with that and be safe.
liamgt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:38 am
The 2nd punishment will depend on the outcome of the 3rd set of accounts for last year. Everton will argue (rightly so) they have been punished already for the 1st 2 x years so any punishment can only take into account year 3, so basing that on the 6 points we received and the precedent they have now set, if we are over the £35 million allowable for the last year we will likely get a further 2 point penalty for the 2nd breach. I think if that happens we can live with that and be safe.
I just cannot understand how we could have an uptick in loses for that period, unless there's some seriously heinous loan stuff going on. Which obviously there probably is, but still.
All I know is, every single argument we had regarding losses was thrown out, so our next appeal should be much shorter at least.
Until we get more information, it is impossible to judge anything at this stage on the second charge as we have no idea why we have been charged or the severity of the charge. It's certainly not to do with transfers.
I really don't understand how we have failed FFP again if the stadium project falls under infrastructure spend which is excluded from FFP, and if we have already been charged for failing to be more transparent regarding loan interest costs relating to the stadium/club.
Gary1878 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 1:40 pm
Until we get more information, it is impossible to judge anything at this stage on the second charge as we have no idea why we have been charged or the severity of the charge. It's certainly not to do with transfers.
I really don't understand how we have failed FFP again if the stadium project falls under infrastructure spend which is excluded from FFP, and if we have already been charged for failing to be more transparent regarding loan interest costs relating to the stadium/club.
Genuinely confusing.
I think the club has failed in arguing that the interest costs associated with the stadium are to be excluded from losses.
We had argued that at the initial hearing. I suspect we thought that would be the case and therefore we assumed last year that we were fine, but we obviously were not fine when those costs are included.
Hard to know the interest costs and how they'll impact our losses so it's hard to say what the punishment could be.
I do think it likely means we need to sell another player before the current year-end to be compliant in 2024. Maybe Moise Kean sale is recorded in the current fiscal year which might mean we are ok.
Ideally sometime in 2025/26 we can re-finance the debt using the new stadium as collateral to get preferred rates and lower our costs while seeing revenue climb. Also dropping £200k a week in wages from Ali and Gomes will flow right to the bottom line as neither are likely to be replaced.
This actually seems a fair and reasonable way of dealing with the whole "double jeopardy" thing.
PL are quite arrogant though. You saw this with VAR - works well in rugby, Tennis and cricket, but the PL is *exceptional* and above all these other, poor, sports so can't deem to be seen adopting procedures from it's lessers.
Exactly the same as with all of this p&s and the EFL.
