Everton, surely a points deduction?

[North West Wanderer]

FOSUN are just rectifying a problem they created themselves overpaying the odds for duds like Guedes. Not sure how this makes Shi a genius.

it doesn’t, it means he ****ed up and sorted it.

name me a team without over priced duds however?

Allow me -

Man Utd - Anthony,
Man City - Malanga
Liverpool - Nunez
Chelsea - Sterling
Spurs - Ndombele
Arsenal - Pepe

there’s 6 to start

 

[WolfLing]

I don’t fully understand the rules here, but if Forest are squealing and trying to bring Johnson into the equation, you can bet that they are falling foul of FFP

What Forest will probably try and argue, is that they always intended to sell Brennan Johnson this summer in order to cover their losses and comply with FFP.

As others have mentioned, Everton were in the exact same situation with Richarlison in the summer of 2022, a forced sale to cover an FFP hole. That transfer went through on 30th June/1st July, which as I recall, was the last day it could have done to fall into the relevant FFP period.

I don't know if the same applies to our situation, but we sold Neves before the end of June, perhaps on purpose?

By waiting until deadline day on 1st September, Forest were able to increase the amount of money they received for Johnson. But they missed the deadline for the relevant FFP period as a result.

The PL will probably argue that you can't have it both ways. You either sell by a given date for less to cover FFP, or you hold out for more money and risk breaching the rules.

Forest will argue that it's somewhat restriction of trade to force a sale by a certain date, especially early in a transfer window, and that a couple of months makes very little difference.

It will be very interesting to see how this one pans out.

Surely aligning the transfer windows and FFP reporting periods will make sense at some stage?!

 

[Urko]

it doesn’t, it means he ****ed up and sorted it.

name me a team without over priced duds however?

Allow me -

Man Utd - Anthony,
Man City - Malanga
Liverpool - Nunez
Chelsea - Sterling
Spurs - Ndombele
Arsenal - Pepe

there’s 6 to start

You mean those clubs who’s revenues dwarf the amount of money Wolves can generate.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

What Forest will probably try and argue, is that they always intended to sell Brennan Johnson this summer in order to cover their losses and comply with FFP.

As others have mentioned, Everton were in the exact same situation with Richarlison in the summer of 2022, a forced sale to cover an FFP hole. That transfer went through on 30th June/1st July, which as I recall, was the last day it could have done to fall into the relevant FFP period.

I don't know if the same applies to our situation, but we sold Neves before the end of June, perhaps on purpose?

By waiting until deadline day on 1st September, Forest were able to increase the amount of money they received for Johnson. But they missed the deadline for the relevant FFP period as a result.

The PL will probably argue that you can't have it both ways. You either sell by a given date for less to cover FFP, or you hold out for more money and risk breaching the rules.

Forest will argue that it's somewhat restriction of trade to force a sale by a certain date, especially early in a transfer window, and that a couple of months makes very little difference.

It will be very interesting to see how this one pans out.

Surely aligning the transfer windows and FFP reporting periods will make sense at some stage?!

I think you’ve summarised it well. I think you’ve missed the additional dimension that should Forest be successful in their argument, then it opens a can of worms with Everton and other clubs like Wolves, who did sell players within the reporting period, and could argue they forewent higher fees as a result. That could open a path to litigation against Forest and the PL.

 

[Chisels_n_ommers]

What Forest will probably try and argue, is that they always intended to sell Brennan Johnson this summer in order to cover their losses and comply with FFP.

As others have mentioned, Everton were in the exact same situation with Richarlison in the summer of 2022, a forced sale to cover an FFP hole. That transfer went through on 30th June/1st July, which as I recall, was the last day it could have done to fall into the relevant FFP period.

I don't know if the same applies to our situation, but we sold Neves before the end of June, perhaps on purpose?

By waiting until deadline day on 1st September, Forest were able to increase the amount of money they received for Johnson. But they missed the deadline for the relevant FFP period as a result.

The PL will probably argue that you can't have it both ways. You either sell by a given date for less to cover FFP, or you hold out for more money and risk breaching the rules.

Forest will argue that it's somewhat restriction of trade to force a sale by a certain date, especially early in a transfer window, and that a couple of months makes very little difference.

It will be very interesting to see how this one pans out.

Surely aligning the transfer windows and FFP reporting periods will make sense at some stage?!

It would make sense to align them, but you can't do it retrospectively.

You have to put in deadline dates in any financial arbitration and even if it's one day past it has to stick.

If this is the whole basis of Forest's defence they are surely down the pon.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

If Forest are punished this season it’s laughable when Man City verdict won’t be until the end of next year.

Very unlikely Man City will be punished in the next 3/4 years tbh if indeed at all
Their case is complex to say the least going back almost 15 years
Mainly breaches concerning managerial pay offs and players bonuses
A lot of the "evidence" came from a German newspaper article and has already been thrown out by a court of appeal
The powers that be are saying not enough paperwork has been submitted Man C say all relevant documents have been given and prove their case
Its down to lawyers to argue and prove their points and we all know how long that takes,so dont expect any ruling any time soon
Not saying they are innocent or otherwise but just pointing out its complexity

 

[The Pie Poker]

A Toffee family member of mine is absolutely adament they'll be given 4 points back...

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I think you’ve summarised it well. I think you’ve missed the additional dimension that should Forest be successful in their argument, then it opens a can of worms with Everton and other clubs like Wolves, who did sell players within the reporting period, and could argue they forewent higher fees as a result. That could open a path to litigation against Forest and the PL.

I'm still a bit unclear about what the period is. Not all clubs seem to close their annual accounts at the same time, which seems somewhat bonkers! Ours are up to May 31 so summer is all 23/24 as far as I can tell?

 

[WolfLing]

A Toffee family member of mine is absolutely adament they'll be given 4 points back...

Take them off Forest and give them to Everton.

 

[lycophilos]

I mean my memory is that he said Fosun had put enough money in and the club had to stand on it's own feet, so it wasn't exactly a stretch to claim they didn't want to keep losing the maximum allowed. Although of course what Shi tells us and the truth aren't necessarily the same thing.

I don't think many owners would be happy for their clubs to keep losing massive amounts of money. That applies even to those clubs which are owned by their fans.

Wolves in strictly economic business terms represent only a tiny part of the FOSUN empire. How much money the club makes or loses is pretty inconsequential with regards to FOSUN as a whole. On the other hand, Wolves is very important to FOSUN in a symbolic sense. In the annual general meeting of FOSUN in the year after Nuno got Wolves promotion to the EPL, Wolves were prominently featured. It would of course be rather embarrassing for FOSUN if Wolves were found to be breaching FFP and docked points, perhaps even relegated, as a result.

 

[North West Wanderer]

You mean those clubs who’s revenues dwarf the amount of money Wolves can generate.

so we shouldn’t make big signings then in case they fail?

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I don't think many owners would be happy for their clubs to keep losing massive amounts of money. That applies even to those clubs which are owned by their fans.

Wolves in strictly economic business terms represent only a tiny part of the FOSUN empire. How much money the club makes or loses is pretty inconsequential with regards to FOSUN as a whole. On the other hand, Wolves is very important to FOSUN in a symbolic sense. In the annual general meeting of FOSUN in the year after Nuno got Wolves promotion to the EPL, Wolves were prominently featured. It would of course be rather embarrassing for FOSUN if Wolves were found to be breaching FFP and docked points, perhaps even relegated, as a result.

Yes, which is all fine, but nonetheless doesn't clarify whether annual £35m losses are OK with them or not. The discussion of whether we're a bit of a soft power project or a financial investment is one I've been having on here since the day they took over. So they're either happy to keep losing money, unhappy but willing if it's what's needed to stay up, or determined to at least break even. You can decide which you like of course. I suspect it's the middle one, but that involves staying up, not top 6, which would require us to compete with sides who are both vanity projects and also have massively bigger revenue (so basically unachievable).

 

[Hawkguy]

so we shouldn’t make big signings then in case they fail?

Right? It sucks that our big swings have missed, but I'm still glad we took them.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

I'm still a bit unclear about what the period is. Not all clubs seem to close their annual accounts at the same time, which seems somewhat bonkers. Ours are up to May 31 so summer is all 23/24 as far as I can tell?

I assume for FFP purposes it doesn’t matter, it’s the position as of the end of June, as reported to the PL by Dec 31.

 

[WolfLing]

it doesn’t, it means he ****ed up and sorted it.

name me a team without over priced duds however?

Allow me -

Man Utd - Anthony,
Man City - Malanga
Liverpool - Nunez
Chelsea - Sterling
Spurs - Ndombele
Arsenal - Pepe

there’s 6 to start

You mean those clubs who’s revenues dwarf the amount of money Wolves can generate.

Yes, both points very valid here.

Every club makes dud signings, but there's no getting away from £35m being a lot of money for a club of our size to spend on an 18 year old 'wonderkid'.

To put it into perspective, Fabio Silva is the 45th most expensive forward player to be signed by a PL club, ever.

Of the top 50 forward players signed, the breakdown of clubs is as follows:

Chelsea = 11
Liverpool = 9
Man City = 8
Man Utd = 6
Arsenal = 5
Newcastle = 3
Wolves, Villa and Spurs = 2
West Ham and Everton = 1

So for Fabio to be one of the 6 players in the top 50 forward signings not signed by Sky 6 or Newcastle, is utterly crazy. Thankfully that kind of crazy signing is behind us!

The duds that stand out in those 50 are Antony, Sancho, Pepe, Mudryk, Werner, Haller, Carroll and Batshuayi, so mainly United and Chelsea wasting their money.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I assume for FFP purposes it doesn’t matter, it’s the position as of the end of June, as reported to the PL by Dec 31.

Cheers, that's quite mind-blowing though when you're trying to discuss the situation via accounts made up to May 31st! On top of not knowing how much loss is not attributed within FFP!

 

[North West Wanderer]

Yes, both points very valid here.

Every club makes dud signings, but there's no getting away from £35m being a lot of money for a club of our size to spend on an 18 year old 'wonderkid'.

To put it into perspective, Fabio Silva is the 45th most expensive forward player to be signed by a PL club, ever.

Of the top 50 forward players signed, the breakdown of clubs is as follows:

Chelsea = 11
Liverpool = 9
Man City = 8
Man Utd = 6
Arsenal = 5
Newcastle = 3
Wolves, Villa and Spurs = 2
West Ham and Everton = 1

So for Fabio to be one of the 6 players in the top 50 forward signings not signed by Sky 6 or Newcastle, is utterly crazy. Thankfully that kind of crazy signing is behind us!

The duds that stand out in those 50 are Antony, Sancho, Pepe, Mudryk, Werner, Haller, Carroll and Batshuayi, so mainly United and Chelsea wasting their money.

yep, we shouldn’t have spent so much money on what was effectively potential.
hindsight is awesome eh

 

[Premier Quality]

United will struggle with FFP come next season

3.5m loan fee after that outlay..

https://x.com/Plettigoal/status/1742495864705122602?s=20

I read that as no loan fee, they’re just paying his £250k a week salary

 

[Premier Quality]

A Toffee family member of mine is absolutely adament they'll be given 4 points back...

Do you know what makes him think that?

 

[WolfLing]

yep, we shouldn’t have spent so much money on what was effectively potential.
hindsight is awesome eh

Yeah, very easy to say in hindsight that it was a poor decision.

It was a gamble that didn't pay off for a number of reasons.

But also, it's very difficult to put a price on a player like that. As you say, you're paying almost all of the fee for potential.

He was 18, but he was the highest rated young forward player in the world at the time.

We know a lot of the fee went to his Dad and to Mendes, so in reality, the actual fee to Porto was probably closer to £20m.

I'd much rather we show the ambition to try things like that than not. But within reason.

Maybe Shi got carried away and paid whatever was being asked, rather than closer to what should have been paid? If the fee had been sub-£20m, there may have been some Cutrone-level disappointment, but nowhere near where it's been for Fabio.

 

[WW1963]

If Forest are punished this season it’s laughable when Man City verdict won’t be until the end of next year.

Man City can spend billions in appeals and challenges for many years. They laugh at the authorities.

That's why low hanging fruit is the target. Forest, Everton and Bournemouth can be picked up off the floor.

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

Man City can spend billions in appeals and challenges for many years. They laugh at the authorities.

That's why low hanging fruit is the target. Forest, Everton and Bournemouth can be picked up off the floor.

It be hard for city to get away with over 100 charge

 

[AndyY]

Are we absolutely sure that we are ok, and that, like Johnson at Forest, our sales drive last summer, didn’t come too late?

 

[AndyY]

it doesn’t, it means he ****ed up and sorted it.

name me a team without over priced duds however?

Allow me -

Man Utd - Anthony,
Man City - Malanga
Liverpool - Nunez
Chelsea - Sterling
Spurs - Ndombele
Arsenal - Pepe

there’s 6 to start

Sure, but we had Silva, Cutrone, Guedes, and loan fees for Trincao and Vallelejo, AND failed to sell Traore for any money at all, or even get a loan fee.

 

[Plovdiv Wolf]

Are we absolutely sure that we are ok, and that, like Johnson at Forest, our sales drive last summer, didn’t come too late?

Premier League FFP Table: 2023/24 Club-by-Club Report

Discover the 2023/24 Premier League FFP table to see which clubs have financial problems and restrictions and who can spend more freely.

sqaf.club

-152.2m current

as for last year I think a big loss, leave us below 190m

Last season 107m loss? Wolverhampton Wanderers - Transfers 22/23

 

[inaglasshouse]

Yeah, very easy to say in hindsight that it was a poor decision.

It was a gamble that didn't pay off for a number of reasons.

But also, it's very difficult to put a price on a player like that. As you say, you're paying almost all of the fee for potential.

He was 18, but he was the highest rated young forward player in the world at the time.

We know a lot of the fee went to his Dad and to Mendes, so in reality, the actual fee to Porto was probably closer to £20m.

I'd much rather we show the ambition to try things like that than not. But within reason.

Maybe Shi got carried away and paid whatever was being asked, rather than closer to what should have been paid? If the fee had been sub-£20m, there may have been some Cutrone-level disappointment, but nowhere near where it's been for Fabio.

lets not forget 4m a year in wages. Must be Rangers top earner if they are covering that.

 

[WolfLing]

lets not forget 4m a year in wages. Must be Rangers top earner if they are covering that.

Scotland's top earner probably.

 

[Chris H]

Surely aligning the transfer windows and FFP reporting periods will make sense at some stage?!

I believe the new UEFA FFP is reported to 31 December each year, so that would fall in line with transfer windows better as there’s two clear windows in each reporting period (January and summer) and no overlap to leave any debate on sales dates.

 

[yateleywolf]

Notice its Spurs who are buying these players from clubs in FFP trouble. Savy in a way . The next club I think will have to be careful is Bournemouth spent alot with little outgoings.

 

[Chris H]

lets not forget 4m a year in wages. Must be Rangers top earner if they are covering that.

He’s not on £80k a week, it’s a figure plucked out of the air by those websites that are so inaccurate it’s ridiculous.

The fact Rangers are covering his wages should be enough evidence of that.

 

[WolfLing]

Notice its Spurs who are buying these players from clubs in FFP trouble. Savy in a way . The next club I think will have to be careful is Bournemouth spent alot with little outgoings.

Levy likes a bargain!!

 

[Golden_Wolf]

Notice its Spurs who are buying these players from clubs in FFP trouble. Savy in a way . The next club I think will have to be careful is Bournemouth spent alot with little outgoings.

Can't think of many academy players that will help with that either from then. Guessing they'd be banking on Solanke going for big money.

 

[AndyY]

Premier League FFP Table: 2023/24 Club-by-Club Report

Discover the 2023/24 Premier League FFP table to see which clubs have financial problems and restrictions and who can spend more freely.

sqaf.club

-152.2m current

as for last year I think a big loss, leave us below 190m

Last season 107m loss? Wolverhampton Wanderers - Transfers 22/23

So we could be looking at a problem as well then? Because the max rolling loss is £105M over 3 years in the Pal, isn’t it?

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

So we could be looking at a problem as well then? Because the max rolling loss is £105M over 3 years in the Pal, isn’t it?

Not sure if Cunha counts as this summer signing otherwise yes we would be in big turd street too if he was counted for last season and not this…..

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

So we could be looking at a problem as well then? Because the max rolling loss is £105M over 3 years in the Pal, isn’t it?

I doubt it as those figures have covid years in them ,so dispensation for those, plus last year we sold Neves and Nunes plus others to more than balance the books

 

[Glow69]

So we could be looking at a problem as well then? Because the max rolling loss is £105M over 3 years in the Pal, isn’t it?

We seem to be the most switched on about correcting any problems so I think we'll be sound.

 

[glorybox]

Seems like Forest and Everton are both trying to get out of FFP by explaining to the league that the dog ate their homework

Their argument appears to be - "You know these reporting periods you use? Can we just ignore them please?"

 

[Bawtry Wolf]

Premier League FFP Table: 2023/24 Club-by-Club Report

Discover the 2023/24 Premier League FFP table to see which clubs have financial problems and restrictions and who can spend more freely.

sqaf.club

-152.2m current

as for last year I think a big loss, leave us below 190m

Last season 107m loss? Wolverhampton Wanderers - Transfers 22/23

Not sure about those figures as Inam sure we reported a profit during COVID due to the rule allowances and extended financial year. We made an £18m profit in 20/21. I think the last 2 years we were in danger of overspending if we made a loss this year when the profit dropped off.

We managed to sell Neves for more than we expected before the FFP window shut which would have been a big help.

 

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

Notice its Spurs who are buying these players from clubs in FFP trouble. Savy in a way . The next club I think will have to be careful is Bournemouth spent alot with little outgoings.

Just said the same at work discussing Forest and Johnson.

Not entirely sure I'd describe either as a bargain though.

 

[sillytuna]

Right? It sucks that our big swings have missed, but I'm still glad we took them.

Not me. Clubs our size cannot afford those players precisely because of ffp and the sheer expense. Silva, irrespective of his ability, was an insane purchase at anywhere close to that price.

Guedes never wanted to be here seemingly but none of us really know so it's hard to discuss. He had ability but had already failed to settle in northern europe.