Ffp (1 Viewer)

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2014

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 · Mar 5, 2014

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.

The rules are are totally different in league one.

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2014

Grendel said:
The rules are are totally different in league one.

So we can't do dodgy sponsership deals?

skybluericoh · Mar 5, 2014

dongonzalos said:
So we can't do dodgy sponsership deals?

no but you can 'fund the loses while we move the team away from it's fan base' how have the fL allowed that?

Grendel · Mar 5, 2014

dongonzalos said:
So we can't do dodgy sponsership deals?

Losses are totally irrelevant in league one the equation is completely different. Also there is no financial penalty for breaching it.

Rusty Trombone · Mar 5, 2014

Grendel said:
Losses are totally irrelevant in league one the equation is completely different. Also there is no financial penalty for breaching it.

Does that mean there are other penalties?

Grendel · Mar 5, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Does that mean there are other penalties?

A transfer embargo.

Rusty Trombone · Mar 5, 2014

Grendel said:
A transfer embargo.

Seems odd, for how long? Surely not the whole season??

Grendel · Mar 5, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Seems odd, for how long? Surely not the whole season??

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.

Rusty Trombone · Mar 5, 2014

Unless he does understand and is basing the question in respect of our impending promotion.

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2014

Grendel said:
A transfer embargo.

It's points in the other league

Grendel · Mar 5, 2014

dongonzalos said:
It's points in the other league

Where does it say that!

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2014

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.

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.

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2014

Grendel said:
Where does it say that!

Points deduction in the Prem

Grendel · Mar 5, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Points deduction in the Prem

Ha ha ha ha!!!! Keep trolling don.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Mar 5, 2014

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.

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2014

Jack Griffin · Mar 5, 2014

dongonzalos said:
So we can't do dodgy sponsership deals?

Can't even get shirt sponsorship.

Skyblue4u · Mar 5, 2014

FFP hasn't done lester any harm this season proving the whole scheme is as corrupt as fifa

SkyBlueScottie · Mar 6, 2014

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 · Mar 6, 2014

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.

italiahorse · Mar 6, 2014

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.

All part of their original poor decision.

stupot07 · Mar 6, 2014

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.

Agreed. .

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

Godiva · Mar 6, 2014

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.

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.

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 · Mar 6, 2014

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.

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 · Mar 6, 2014

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.

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

skybluetony176 · Mar 6, 2014

was that against FFP rules?

Grendel · Mar 6, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
was that against FFP rules?

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 · Mar 6, 2014

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?

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 · Mar 6, 2014

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.

That was nothing to do with FFP, that was because of a lack of accounts!

chiefdave · Mar 6, 2014

SkyBlueScottie said:
Sisu could effectively sponsor us.

Maybe the odd CBRE deal where they don't actually have their name advertised anywhere is something to do with this?

Ffp (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency