Theres a clause in FFP that specifically regulates these kind of dodgy sponsorships, so if FFP is properly upheld there's no reason they wouldn't be hit with a big fine as well. I just don't think there's any chance of them every actually paying it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Forest and FFP
- Thread starter Giraffe
- Start date
Theres a clause in FFP that specifically regulates these kind of dodgy sponsorships, so if FFP is properly upheld there's no reason they wouldn't be hit with a big fine as well. I just don't think there's any chance of them every actually paying it.
Bwian
Kiss my (_!_)
- Jul 14, 2003
- 15,898
Most football fans want ffp to work - providing it doesn't apply to their club's chances of getting to the PL. Combine their aspirations with a governing body like the FL and it is clear nothing is going to happen.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just replying to your point that Forest reported losses similar to ours. Clearly, their recent reported loss is neither here nor there - but the fact they have CLEARLY overspent on players leaves them with a problem. Either they reduce their wage bill in time for next season when FFP takes hold for real, or they are going to be fined (or at least ought to). Same goes for QPR...
Bwian
Kiss my (_!_)
- Jul 14, 2003
- 15,898
It is matters like this that Blatter and his lapdog Plattini did what they are paid handsomely to do: ensure football is unified in getting its act together and banish all leagues/countries from their competitions if clubs are allowed to flaunt the rules. Another argument for nothing is going to happen then.
Difference is the transfer embargo relates to all players even those currently playing for the club. You can not extend or offer a new contract to existing players. That means their best players whose contact is going to expire will become a free agent.
father_and_son
Well-known member
Completely agree... but what seems to rile people most about Forest is they are trying to cheat - but so openly that its insulting. A number of clubs seem to have just said f*ck FFP and spent to get out of the division (or least done nothing to reign in their runaway debts), with varying degree of success - I'm looking at you Bolton! However, Forest, with their VERY dodgy sponsorship deal have pretended that they give a sh*t when they clearly don't.
Personally, I'd rather a spade was called a spade, not an "Earth Moving Device sponsored by Fawaz International Refrigeration & Air Conditioning" and so, provided they pay their dues will forgive the likes of QPR et al. But the Forest owners will always be a bunch of dishonest c*nts flipping two fingers at the rest of us.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
No one remaining within the Championship will be fined but will have a very strict embargo imposed.
No one remaining within the Championship will be fined but will have a very strict embargo imposed.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Until the figures are produced we are only presuming that Forest are breaking FFP
father_and_son
Well-known member
Except that the rules are "no transfers without permission", so players on wages that are deemed 'acceptable' will probably be allowed to have their contracts extended provided they are on similar terms. Only those players being paid 'too much for the division' will have to be left to do a Bosman.
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
mikeyjh
Well-known member
Correct, given that the league and clubs are still trying to figure out what to do with the regulations, it's pretty clear that nowt's going to happen - I don't have any issue with that anyway, it's kind of fun to see the mess the red dogs are in. And it's also fun to seem teams like Bournemouth get a bit of money behind them and compete. No problem.
drew
Drew
Sorry but the penalties are clear enough. If you get promoted, you get fined and if you don't you get a transfer embargo which remains in place until you demonstrate you are on track to meet FFP limits. All clubs have to submit their accounts for the current season by 1st Dec 2014. If Forest fail to get promoted, as seems likely, and their dubious sponsorship deal is declared outside the rules then they won't be able to sign any players from the 1st Jan 2015 and that continues until they meet the guidelines so that could be for several years if they have players tied into expensive contracts. It also means that if they have not demonstrated they are on track by June 2015 (which is probably unlikley) then any players whose contracts are up at that time cannot be re-signed. It does of course mean they still have the August 2014 window to purchase players but that will be the last transfer window not affected by FFP.
If they got promoted, then they get fined and if they are over £10m above the limit then the fine equates to 100% of however much they are over. For example, if they have a loss of £40m this season in a bid to get promoted and succeeded, the fine would be £28.68m (give or take a few £s as it is 100% of the loss over £10m above the limit and a sliding scale upto the £10m).
http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html
I'm sure Forest will argue they are not breaking FFP ... in the same way I suspect Bournemuff will too
Agree with this. From what I have seen of it, and I have made an attempt to inform myself, the rules to me seem pretty watertight and the penalties laid out clearly.
So I'm constantly puzzled by the number of people who come on here asking stupid questions like 'Explain FFP to me in 10 words'. The information is out there in many places and if you did a bit of reading it should be fairly clear, it just seems to be a lot of fans can't be bothered to learn about it and are instead coming to a lot of assumptions about it being lacking when actually it isn't lacking, their knowledge and more specifically their attempts to acquire knowledge is what is lacking.
I don't think it's a good idea.
Designed by lawyers, administrators and accountants, has NOTHING to do with either football or fair play, and easy to circumvent.
It wouldn't be easy to circumvent if the authorities didn't want it to be. If they stopped teams using loopholes, would you like it?
Nope. We don't restrict grocers, phone manufacturers or sex toy emporiums, why football clubs?
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
There was some big meeting about FFP and proposed changes last week, wasn't there? With all 24 Championship clubs represented.
I think you'd be surprised at some of the clubs who want it watered down, it isn't just the really obvious ones.
There are some prime movers trying to challenge the approach, but they have managed to get a few others onside.
I think you'd be surprised at some of the clubs who want it watered down, it isn't just the really obvious ones.
There are some prime movers trying to challenge the approach, but they have managed to get a few others onside.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
My problem with it, is that it purports to be creating 'fairness', But how so? To me it simply means that those clubs that are already have the highest income, grown either (unusually) organically (more regularly) as the result of major investment from a benefactor - Are the very clubs that actually benefit from FFP. You may try and argue that 'well run' clubs would also benefit, but only if they have an income that allows them to compete in some way. Clubs shouldn't be going in to massive debt to try and be successful, but if some rich benefactor wants to give them a helping hand, why not?
I suspect that if Tony Bloom were to be offering millions to go an splurge on new players, we'd hear rather less moaning about the league not enforcing the rules etc...
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
I can see FFP being dropped or watered down so much it won't matter, if the clubs don't want it then either the FL make them or they drop it and make far more stringent penalties for going bust