Forest- possible points deduction

[Oh When the Wolves]

So they have until June? They are really hoping to sell someone before July. SOTV

Who in their right mind will pay above 40m for Ramsey knowing it’s a get out of jail free card for them?

Nobody is going to pay over 80m for Luiz or Watkins either.

Only one I could see leaving is maybe Luiz and I don’t rate him that highly. McGinn makes him look better than what he is from the industrial work power he puts into his game.

Let’s see what happens. Fail this one they are in the mud along with Chelsea. Champions league or not

Haven’t they breached UEFA rules too ?

 

[QB Wolf]

I don’t understand how they still spent in Jan too.

 

[Superted]

What is a club going to do to raise money between Feb and June? Not like they can sell anyone

Looked into it further, seems they don't actually have their own period as such.
What they do ask is clubs forecasting a loss report in December rather than March. Then when those losses are looked at, the PL looks for some kind of explanation if they're over the limit

Clubs that have reporting periods ending in June have an extra few weeks to balance their (official) books than clubs whose reporting periods end in May - which is in no way fair to be honest. So the PL will ask for interim accounts to see if anything has been done to get the right side of it. Seeing as we sold Neves in June, before pre-season started, we made a big sale quickly

Crux. Neves' sale balanced us out for 22/23 PSR assessment, even though he isn't included in our official accounts for that period. We couldn't possibly have sold him before our reporting period ended because the transfer window was shut but we did sell him shortly after. Issue with someone like Forest is they had an opportunity to sell Brennan Johnson in time and keep their finances in check, but got all haggly for an extra €10m

It's not necessarily fair but all clubs have the option to harmonise if they wish. If we thought it was that much of a disadvantage we'd have harmonised too.

You ask. What a club could do, they couldn't officially sell anyone but they could negotiate any number of deals to go through when the transfer window opens rather than having to flog a star player ASAP.

Neves' sale will surely be 23/24 because it's been confirmed that we didn't need to sell him to comply with PSR. Why would we want to make our figures for the 2020 to 2023 period look better to the detriment of 2021 to 2024? If we include him in 23/24 the benefit will still count when we get as far as 2027 rather than 2026 if he was included in the previous year.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Haven’t they breached UEFA rules too ?

Yes “Uefa outlined the £119.6m 2022-23m loss as the largest among teams competing in Europe this season, of which Villa’s wage bill of £194.2m is the seventh-highest among the same group, up from £137m the previous year. They also have the 15th-most expensive squad of any side in European competition and made an operating loss of around £33m.

Their immediate concern is now for the financial year which runs to the end of this season.”

“ Villa’s final European concern is going to be over adhering to Uefa’s new FFP equivalent, financial sustainability regulations, or FSR. FSR’s key metric is what’s called a squad cost ratio – effectively calculated by comparing a club’s wage bill with their revenue. Given Villa’s wage bill last season was £194.2m and their revenue was £217.7m, this is a squad cost ratio of 89 per cent.

This season, the maximum allowed squad cost ratio was 90 per cent, but this drops to 80 per cent for the 2024-25 season and 70 per cent in 2025-26. This puts Villa at heavy risk of financial penalties from Uefa if they continue to qualify for their competitions, another factor which means they’re likely to have to sell heavily.”


Sourced from - What Aston Villa's £120m loss means for FFP, transfers and Champions League hope

Failure to comply they will be fined and probably kicked out of European competitions for cheating the financial side.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

So anyway, Neves sale in this year seems to be 23/24 (for accounts and PSR). Forest and Villa have June to have a fire sale as required to get under the 23/24 threshold. We don't, we could however have extended our accounting period and bought in January and then made a sale in June to balance the books if we'd wanted too. Sound right?

 

[WickedWolfie]

I don’t understand how they still spent in Jan too.

Arrogance, stupidity, head in the sand... or a mixture of all three....

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Arrogance, stupidity, head in the sand... or a mixture of all three....

To be fair they bought a keeper - and they definitely needed one - and sold / loaned out players to make an overall profit. They'll also have bigger overall allowed losses with 2 years in the PL.

In general though, if you think a player is going to keep you up and it means ticking over the limit and having a 4 point penalty for next season, what would you do?

It's the financial equivalent of a professional foul for me, nobody will say it's right, everyone will do it anyway!

 

[wolfgar]

Can we give them the rest of that points deduction now? Another 15/20 should do it? Probably tried to sign him for £30 million on £200k a week to warm their bench?

 

[Fenrir_]

It's not necessarily fair but all clubs have the option to harmonise if they wish. If we thought it was that much of a disadvantage we'd have harmonised too.

You ask. What a club could do, they couldn't officially sell anyone but they could negotiate any number of deals to go through when the transfer window opens rather than having to flog a star player ASAP.

Neves' sale will surely be 23/24 because it's been confirmed that we didn't need to sell him to comply with PSR. Why would we want to make our figures for the 2020 to 2023 period look better to the detriment of 2021 to 2024? If we include him in 23/24 the benefit will still count when we get as far as 2027 rather than 2026 if he was included in the previous year.

Yeah basically ignore everything I said!

Been living under a rock and only found today that apparently we didn't need to sell Neves to clear PSR. Looking at the appendices, clubs have to file interim reports too so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that if a club with a May or April (apparently there are some) end date to their finances were looking like they'd be in trouble that the PL would turn around and say you need to raise X amount by the end of June. I'd imagine there's something in there of that nature, or everyone would be busy aligning their accounts with PSR. Deals agreed during the season then concluded when the window opens, while they can be done they're not exactly common. Teams don't want to commit to signing players who could end up getting injured before they move so having that as the only late 'get out' if things went pear shaped would seem unlikely as it's grossly unfair on clubs whose accounts end before the window opens

Either way, we're good, if Neves didn't count to last year PSR then we're even better!

 

[Mugwump]

Everybody should refuse to buy any of their players. The Saudis should do the same as it's in their interest to kill any competitors to Newcastle.

Teams will know they are in a weak position. This 30 or 40 million they want for Broja for example is going to be pie in the sky. Teams will offer 15-20 million tops if that because they know Chelsea are desperate.

 

[Mugwump]

Forest now refusing to sell Mgw and Murillo for less than 50m.

Mad

Looks like they will either be staying as Forest players or they will be very unhappy.

 

[Hoganstolemywife]

+2 points for good behaviour is such nonsense.

Maybe they should have just acted with even more grace and decorum and they would have been outright awarded points

 

[WW1963]

Yes “Uefa outlined the £119.6m 2022-23m loss as the largest among teams competing in Europe this season, of which Villa’s wage bill of £194.2m is the seventh-highest among the same group, up from £137m the previous year. They also have the 15th-most expensive squad of any side in European competition and made an operating loss of around £33m.

Their immediate concern is now for the financial year which runs to the end of this season.”

“ Villa’s final European concern is going to be over adhering to Uefa’s new FFP equivalent, financial sustainability regulations, or FSR. FSR’s key metric is what’s called a squad cost ratio – effectively calculated by comparing a club’s wage bill with their revenue. Given Villa’s wage bill last season was £194.2m and their revenue was £217.7m, this is a squad cost ratio of 89 per cent.

This season, the maximum allowed squad cost ratio was 90 per cent, but this drops to 80 per cent for the 2024-25 season and 70 per cent in 2025-26. This puts Villa at heavy risk of financial penalties from Uefa if they continue to qualify for their competitions, another factor which means they’re likely to have to sell heavily.”


Sourced from - What Aston Villa's £120m loss means for FFP, transfers and Champions League hope

Failure to comply they will be fined and probably kicked out of European competitions for cheating the financial side.

Should they win the Conference League, they should have their win annulled on account of gaining an unfair advantage.

They might well lose far more than what they thought they would gain - and it would serve them right.

Never forget that this is the club that wanted us to be done as they sought to take the heat off themselves. They are no different to Forest.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Should they win the Conference League, they should have their win annulled on account of gaining an unfair advantage.

They might well lose far more than what they thought they would gain - and it would serve them right.

Never forget that this is the club that wanted us to be done as they sought to take the heat off themselves. They are no different to Forest.

Also cheated their way out the championship by spending £250m and got away with it EFL chiefs not doing much at the time 2016-19. Losses of under the EFL's profitability and sustainability rules, Aston Villa are allowed to post losses of up to £61m over the three-year period which takes in their final season in the Premier League.. They had 36.1m loss in one season alone!

Aston Villa report £36.1m pre-tax loss - BBC Sport

Aston Villa say complying with spending rules "will continue to provide a significant challenge" after posting a £36.1m pre-tax loss.

www.bbc.com

Aston Villa leave Championship clubs fuming after promotion

There are lots of unhappy clubs following Aston Villa’s promotion <strong id="docs-internal-guid-751f29ee-7fff-06ed-0451-d163774183a1"> <strong id="docs-internal-guid-cdb2ac06-7fff-ce03-d888-36fde8d61524"> </strong></strong>

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[SuperGran]

+2 points for good behaviour is such nonsense.

Maybe they should have just acted with even more grace and decorum and they would have been outright awarded points

We could have +2 for good behaviour as we put our books in order in time

 

[JadeWolf]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the Premier League to ask clubs to spend money sensibly and properly.

Everybody said last summer that Forest’s transfer policy was reckless, especially with a poor manager like Cooper in charge. Same with Villa, they’ve been paying players and staff champions league level wages, without the champions league football and income. Chelsea have spent ridiculous amounts of money on players who might be really good in a few years, but might not. Everton have consistently spent big money on players and managers, despite being a bottom 6/7 club for the past few years.

It’s not like those clubs have been unlucky to breach the rules, they’ve done it through reckless and careless spending. It’s mad to think that these clubs have accountants and finance guys who will be very well paid to stop this happening.

 

[Premier Quality]

They can’t stop it happening if the chairmen are morons and over rule them

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the Premier League to ask clubs to spend money sensibly and properly.

Everybody said last summer that Forest’s transfer policy was reckless, especially with a poor manager like Cooper in charge. Same with Villa, they’ve been paying players and staff champions league level wages, without the champions league football and income. Chelsea have spent ridiculous amounts of money on players who might be really good in a few years, but might not. Everton have consistently spent big money on players and managers, despite being a bottom 6/7 club for the past few years.

It’s not like those clubs have been unlucky to breach the rules, they’ve done it through reckless and careless spending. It’s mad to think that these clubs have accountants and finance guys who will be very well paid to stop this happening.

Do you think clubs are ignoring the consequences. Such and such must have breached it so we can. Oh it’s only 6 points let’s do what we want kind of attitude?

 

[JadeWolf]

Do you think clubs are ignoring the consequences. Such and such must have breached it so we can. Oh it’s only 6 points let’s do what we want kind of attitude?

I dunno, no one knew what the consequences would be until Everton got done, and now Forest. I wonder if the clubs thought the PL would bottle it and not really do anything.

 

[YouGottaRaulWithIt]

Think i read they're banking on 100m from saudi for a couple of players

I doubt one of them will be Chilwell.

 

[Longford Wolf]

I doubt one of them will be Chilwell.

Shocking player

 

[hollo]

Chilwell has pinpoint accuracy when crossing and shooting.

 

[JohnB]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the Premier League to ask clubs to spend money sensibly and properly.

Everybody said last summer that Forest’s transfer policy was reckless, especially with a poor manager like Cooper in charge. Same with Villa, they’ve been paying players and staff champions league level wages, without the champions league football and income. Chelsea have spent ridiculous amounts of money on players who might be really good in a few years, but might not. Everton have consistently spent big money on players and managers, despite being a bottom 6/7 club for the past few years.

It’s not like those clubs have been unlucky to breach the rules, they’ve done it through reckless and careless spending. It’s mad to think that these clubs have accountants and finance guys who will be very well paid to stop this happening.

Spot on.

Whatever is spent only one team win PL and 3 teams get relegated. For me reducing players wages/agent fees would be a perfect outcome of this rather than spend every penny and more of Sky money - won’t happen though!

 

[The Wolf In The North]

Chilwell has pinpoint accuracy when crossing and shooting.

Sadly that pin is jammed firmly up the hind tunnel of a helium inflated donkey currently drifting somewhere above Battersea.

 

[Bryce]

Well you could look at the system of points
Fail ffp or whatever minus 10 points no other penalty
Administration minus 12 point pass ffp or whatever plus 10 points.
That would encourage clubs to either be in budget or face the consequences. Technically we would start the league 20 points spread of Everton. I will take that

 

[NothingButNeto]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1772324717757665656

 

[WickedWolfie]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1772324717757665656

Withdraw the two point discount forthwith....

 

[lobodelsur]

Everybody should refuse to buy any of their players. The Saudis should do the same as it's in their interest to kill any competitors to Newcastle.

They'll simply sell more players, at lower prices, to European clubs.

 

[JadeWolf]

So much for co-operation and support.

 

[rincewind]

Surprised at this. I thought theyd got a bit of a result and would just get their heads down. Hopefully they'll lose 2 more points for not co-operating if they lose the appeal.

 

[Wolf316]

Surprised at this. I thought theyd got a bit of a result and would just get their heads down. Hopefully they'll lose 2 more points for not co-operating if they lose the appeal.

The arrogant ****ers won’t accept they’re in the wrong!

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Are the grounds for appeal given anywhere?

 

[JOSWolf]

If they fail the appeal then dock them more points.

 

[The Wolf In The North]

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

OK apparently (from the Guardian)....

The main lines of defence for Forest were claims they were at a disadvantage because they were the only promoted club not to have received parachute payments in recent years, and matters relating to Brennan Johnson’s sale. The forward was sold two months after the 30 June PSR deadline as the club sought to get the best price, eventually securing a record £47.5m fee for their academy graduate.

So still on the ridiculous argument about having a player all season and then selling him, but not before the accounts closed.

Then if that wasn't ridiculous enough the fact that they didn't have parachute payments.

These constitute "unique circumstances" apparently

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

OK apparently (from the Guardian)....

The main lines of defence for Forest were claims they were at a disadvantage because they were the only promoted club not to have received parachute payments in recent years, and matters relating to Brennan Johnson’s sale. The forward was sold two months after the 30 June PSR deadline as the club sought to get the best price, eventually securing a record £47.5m fee for their academy graduate.
So still on the ridiculous argument about having a player all season and then selling him, but not before the accounts sold.

Then if that wasn't ridiculous enough the fact that they didn't have parachute payments.

These constitute "unique circumstances" apparently

The premier league could say if they got promoted sooner this wouldn’t be the case. 6 More points docked for wasting everyone’s time

 

[rincewind]

We didn't have parachute payments on promotion.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

OK apparently (from the Guardian)....

The main lines of defence for Forest were claims they were at a disadvantage because they were the only promoted club not to have received parachute payments in recent years, and matters relating to Brennan Johnson’s sale. The forward was sold two months after the 30 June PSR deadline as the club sought to get the best price, eventually securing a record £47.5m fee for their academy graduate.

So still on the ridiculous argument about having a player all season and then selling him, but not before the accounts closed.

Then if that wasn't ridiculous enough the fact that they didn't have parachute payments.

These constitute "unique circumstances" apparently

Pretty sure that ‘uniqueness’ was dismissed as *******s by the panel - it was pointed out that 12 other clubs (13 including Forest) in the last 10 years had been promoted without parachute payments. So not exactly unique.

 

[QB Wolf]

To be fair they bought a keeper - and they definitely needed one - and sold / loaned out players to make an overall profit. They'll also have bigger overall allowed losses with 2 years in the PL.

In general though, if you think a player is going to keep you up and it means ticking over the limit and having a 4 point penalty for next season, what would you do?

It's the financial equivalent of a professional foul for me, nobody will say it's right, everyone will do it anyway!

I was thinking more of Morgan from Boro in Jan.

 

[Ned]

We didn't have parachute payments on promotion.

Nor Sheff Utd (first time), Leeds, Luton.