Ffp (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Looks like there is no way round the FFP rules...

Nottingham Forest have announced losses of £17.1million for the last financial year, meaning the club could struggle to adhere to Financial Fair Play rules this season. When asked about the club's financial situation recently, Reds chairman Fawaz Al Hasawi said that the issue would be addressed in the form of sponsorship deals from several companies in his homeland of Kuwait.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Looks like there is no way round the FFP rules...

Nottingham Forest have announced losses of £17.1million for the last financial year, meaning the club could struggle to adhere to Financial Fair Play rules this season. When asked about the club's financial situation recently, Reds chairman Fawaz Al Hasawi said that the issue would be addressed in the form of sponsorship deals from several companies in his homeland of Kuwait.
Click to expand...

The rules are are totally different in league one.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Rusty Trombone said:
Seems odd, for how long? Surely not the whole season??
Click to expand...

Until you meet the 65% rule. Its based off turnover so the rules are totally different and in sure that the f a will judge that our circumstances mean the equation will apply to last seasons turnover.

The OP clearly has not understood the difference in rules between the divisions, Qpr face a huge crises if not promoted.

Due to his confusion the thread probably should be closed.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Until you meet the 65% rule. Its based off turnover so the rules are totally different and in sure that the f a will judge that our circumstances mean the equation will apply to last seasons turnover.

The OP clearly has not understood the difference in rules between the divisions, Qpr face a huge crises if not promoted.

Due to his confusion the thread probably should be closed.
Click to expand...

Poor Grendel you have a lot to learn

The concerns raised by Ferguson are echoed by Matt Porter, the Chief Executive of League One side Leyton Orient, who is worried that some clubs will try to find ways to exploit similar loopholes in the SCMP regulations. He says: “There are examples of clubs at our level where boards or owners think of imaginative ways of injecting money, whether in the form of sponsorship or donations, but as long as the money is not put in as loans then it is within the regulations by and large.
 
SkyBlue_Bear83

SkyBlue_Bear83

Well-Known Member
The penalties are a joke anyway, was it Swindon who went out and signed loads of players and then they got a transfer embargo and they already had a massive squad with quality.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
y6yvunur.jpg
 
S

SkyBlueScottie

Well-Known Member
Sisu could effectively sponsor us, that counts towards turnover. Looking back Sisu have effectively put in around 4 million per year. I am sure they will continue to do so and I would imagine the wage bill would remain largely unchanged for next season.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
I just cant see them using FFP on us whilst they agreed to allow us to play in Northampton. Sisu's lawyers would have a field day.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
lewys33 said:
I just cant see them using FFP on us whilst they agreed to allow us to play in Northampton. Sisu's lawyers would have a field day.
Click to expand...

Agreed. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
SkyBlueScottie said:
Sisu could effectively sponsor us, that counts towards turnover. Looking back Sisu have effectively put in around 4 million per year. I am sure they will continue to do so and I would imagine the wage bill would remain largely unchanged for next season.
Click to expand...

lewys33 said:
I just cant see them using FFP on us whilst they agreed to allow us to play in Northampton. Sisu's lawyers would have a field day.
Click to expand...

Since administration exit we were put in transfer embargo under the FFP rules as our wage bill exceeded 60% of the turnover. The embargo limited us to 'one out' / 'one in' and a new player's wage could be maximum 75% of the outgoing player.
Shortly before the January window opened sisu put in some new equity (which counts as revenue in the FFP calculation) to make sure we could trade - but unfortunately SW/SP couldn't get the players they wanted on permanent contracts.

The FFP is a reality and we are feeling the consequences.
So will Leicester who run at losses of some £30m per year. They are under FFP allowed a maximum loss of £8m. When they are promoted they will face a fine equal to the loss exceeding £8m. Though I would rather they were relegated back to the championship with a 20 point penalty.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
lewys33 said:
I just cant see them using FFP on us whilst they agreed to allow us to play in Northampton. Sisu's lawyers would have a field day.
Click to expand...

i think they would have to.

if we walked the league because it could be argued we were'nt constrained by FFP is it not likely that other teams lawyers would have a field day? any team that just missed out on automatic promotion and any team that just missed out on a play off place would surely have a case for loss of potential earnings against the FL, especially if they had lost one or either of the two games they played against us. or even if we got promoted through the play offs the teams who we played in the play offs and again any team that just missed a play off place could argue this. or again even if we made the playoffs by 1 point and did'nt get promoted the teams below us might have a case that they were denied the oppertunity off a chance for promotion and potential loss of earnings from no promotion. so potentialy risk what 9+ teams filling lawsuits or just 1. damage limitation would surely be risk just 1 team filing a law suit.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
i think they would have to.

if we walked the league because it could be argued we were'nt constrained by FFP is it not likely that other teams lawyers would have a field day? any team that just missed out on automatic promotion and any team that just missed out on a play off place would surely have a case for loss of potential earnings against the FL, especially if they had lost one or either of the two games they played against us. or even if we got promoted through the play offs the teams who we played in the play offs and again any team that just missed a play off place could argue this. or again even if we made the playoffs by 1 point and did'nt get promoted the teams below us might have a case that they were denied the oppertunity off a chance for promotion and potential loss of earnings from no promotion. so potentialy risk what 9+ teams filling lawsuits or just 1. damage limitation would surely be risk just 1 team filing a law suit.
Click to expand...

We've already signed players while in an embargo against league rules.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
was that against FFP rules?
Click to expand...

You are quoting a principal other clubs that they would litigate against us if we were allowed to sign players when in an embargo - the only penalty for breaking the rules. So if they do apply an embargo and allow us to sign players that's ok?
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
You are quoting a principal other clubs that they would litigate against us if we were allowed to sign players when in an embargo - the only penalty for breaking the rules. So if they do apply an embargo and allow us to sign players that's ok?
Click to expand...

the threads about FFP but as you're insisting in taking it off topic i'll answer you. if we stay up this season by one point or goal differance how do you know that teams below us wont litigate? the scenario hasn't happend yet. you are also suggesting that i say that they would litigate against us, i clearly havent. i have clearly talked about litigation against the FL no mention of litigation against us.

as for your last point i guess that depends on who you support. if we gain we aint going to be complaining, however other teams and fans who would be effected by the scenario would be.

its all hypothetical anyway and my initial reply was direcected from suggestion that the FL would not up hold FFP rules against us as they would be running scared of the sisu lawyers. do you not agree that the other side of that coin is that potentialy 9+ teams lawyers would have a case from a different angle depending on how the league panned out.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
Since administration exit we were put in transfer embargo under the FFP rules as our wage bill exceeded 60% of the turnover. The embargo limited us to 'one out' / 'one in' and a new player's wage could be maximum 75% of the outgoing player.
Shortly before the January window opened sisu put in some new equity (which counts as revenue in the FFP calculation) to make sure we could trade - but unfortunately SW/SP couldn't get the players they wanted on permanent contracts.

The FFP is a reality and we are feeling the consequences.
So will Leicester who run at losses of some £30m per year. They are under FFP allowed a maximum loss of £8m. When they are promoted they will face a fine equal to the loss exceeding £8m. Though I would rather they were relegated back to the championship with a 20 point penalty.
Click to expand...

That was nothing to do with FFP, that was because of a lack of accounts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top