Forest will be paid HALF A BILLION POUNDS for renaming their ground

Iggle Piggle · Jul 28, 2014

I'm with [MENTION=27275]Creaky[/MENTION] on this

If the Kuwait government want to spunk ½ billion on Forest and are good for their money, then why not? It’s not (seemingly) a Pompey situation with a succession of money launderers and people that don’t actually exist owning the club. Like Man City, they look good for the money even if I find it uneasy that a Government can buy a club which could be used to finance something better than a vanity Project.

Whilst there has been little romance in Man city’s rise in English football, it at least changes things at the top of the PL. Once FFP is embedded, It will just make the elite a closed shop.

Guinness Boy · Jul 28, 2014

Creaky said:
The League should be encouraging, via FFP or other methods, deals which inject cash into clubs and that don't increase debt.

sparkie said:
I agree fully with this. It is club debt which is the real problem, not income levels.

algie said:
Why should it be encouraged to throw money about? Clubs then spend big on enticing the better players to sign for them and paying them huge salaries as an incentive and then it's the ordinary fan who bares the brunt of it with rising season ticket prices and other goods.

Totally with [MENTION=4317]algie[/MENTION] here and [MENTION=9822]KZNSeagull[/MENTION] too. Forest will be in breach of FFP but will get to keep the dosh anyway. THEY might be out of debt but they are pulling against the key principle of FFP which is to reduce wage inflation. The only way other championship sides will be able to compete will be to increase prices so much that the traditional fan can't go or - guess what - increase their own debt!

Modern football really is a pile of catsick.

martin tyler · Jul 28, 2014

Creaky said:
How can you claim it's an "inflated deal" if it is a government paying for the sponsorship.

There is no market valuation to compare it against.

It does not increase the club's indebtedness and guarantees future income - if TB had done a similar deal with say Saudi Arabia I can't see that there would be many complaints.

Because it is an inflated deal. Any common sense can see that. It is a deal rolled by the Kuwait chairman to get them around financial fair play and nothing more than that. It is not bank rolled by their government and if you believe that you are pretty naive.
Why would the Kuwait government want a football ground in the 2nd tier of English football which they have nothing to do with? The answer they don't. There is no value to them from the deal in the slightest. However this deal keeps a powerful business man happy and they can a football ground named after themselves.

Kaiser_Soze · Jul 28, 2014

Creaky said:
How can you claim it's an "inflated deal" if it is a government paying for the sponsorship.

There is no market valuation to compare it against.

It does not increase the club's indebtedness and guarantees future income - if TB had done a similar deal with say Saudi Arabia I can't see that there would be many complaints.

You're missing the point. Under the current rules, if the sponsors are owned by a company that also has a stake in the club such as Notts Forest or Man City, the deal has to be checked to make sure it's above board. When Etihad signed an 800 million deal for the naming rights to the ground it was checked. This stops owners being able to pump artificial sums of money into the club.

Icy Gull · Jul 28, 2014

I am starting to think that we may have been better off bumbling around between the third and fourth tiers. I don't remember all this angst about players and being in the playoffs every season whilst feeling hard done by that other clubs had more money than us. We were just grateful to have a team to watch on a Saturday, there is something to be said for keeping it simple.

mikeyjh · Jul 28, 2014

Iggle Piggle said:
I'm with [MENTION=27275]Creaky[/MENTION] on this

If the Kuwait government want to spunk ½ billion on Forest and are good for their money, then why not? It’s not (seemingly) a Pompey situation with a succession of money launderers and people that don’t actually exist owning the club. Like Man City, they look good for the money even if I find it uneasy that a Government can buy a club which could be used to finance something better than a vanity Project.

Whilst there has been little romance in Man city’s rise in English football, it at least changes things at the top of the PL. Once FFP is embedded, It will just make the elite a closed shop.

Oh I agree, don't have a big problem with it per se, just can't argue that the £500m is 'fair market value'. Well, you can argue it, but I would disagree. Good luck to them, it will end it tears though.

Creaky · Jul 28, 2014

Kaiser_Soze said:
You're missing the point. Under the current rules, if the sponsors are owned by a company that also has a stake in the club such as Notts Forest or Man City, the deal has to be checked to make sure it's above board. When Etihad signed an 800 million deal for the naming rights to the ground it was checked. This stops owners being able to pump artificial sums of money into the club.

Do the Kuwaiti government have a stake in the club?

Braggfan · Jul 28, 2014

Is it actually the Kuwaiti goverment or Kuwaiti business men? Either way it's the same loophole Man City used to rename their ground. Owners use their own money to make it look like the club have made a huge profit so they can invest heavily in the playing side. Whether it's fair or not I guess depends on whether you think it's ok for football clubs to be bankrolled by billionaires. Personally I think it's everything that's wrong with football.

Iggle Piggle · Jul 28, 2014

mikeyjh said:
Oh I agree, don't have a big problem with it per se, just can't argue that the £500m is 'fair market value'. Well, you can argue it, but I would disagree. Good luck to them, it will end it tears though.

It's a bit like F1 - As soon as the regulations are updated, the first thing each team does is look for a loophole to exploit. FFP is similar, the cash rich teams who want promotion at all costs will either take a hit on the fine or try and find a way round it. Clearly, it's not fair market value but they can afford to go down the legal route if they want to - whether the FL have the stomach for the fight is the key question.

Creaky · Jul 28, 2014

Braggfan said:
Is it actually the Kuwaiti goverment or Kuwaiti business men? Either way it's the same loophole Man City used to rename their ground. Owners use their own money to make it look like the club have made a huge profit so they can invest heavily in the playing side. Whether it's fair or not I guess depends on whether you think it's ok for football clubs to be bankrolled by billionaires. Personally I think it's everything that's wrong with football.

All the reports suggest it is the Kuwaiti government who will be the sponsor - hence the proposed name 'Kuwait City Ground'.

Unless the League could prove that Fawaz Al Hasawi is actually bankrolling the payment then it would be difficult for them to object to it in regards to FFP.

I suspect that the deal is far more complex than just an unrestricted guaranteed annual payment over x number of years but will be tied to promotion to the Premier League.

martin tyler · Jul 28, 2014

Creaky said:
Do the Kuwaiti government have a stake in the club?

No. I think the problem people will have with this deal is the fact that the money is clearly coming from the Kuwait owner of the club. There is no value for money government of Kuwait to pay 500 million to name a ground. All this deal is a loophole for the owner to be able to pump money into the club. Very simple.
FFP can do sod all about it apart from fine the club a small percentage. He can then carry on spending money how he likes.

The Merry Prankster · Jul 28, 2014

Icy Gull said:
I am starting to think that we may have been better off bumbling around between the third and fourth tiers. I don't remember all this angst about players and being in the playoffs every season whilst feeling hard done by that other clubs had more money than us. We were just grateful to have a team to watch on a Saturday, there is something to be said for keeping it simple.

Sad to say I feel like that.

Barham's tash · Jul 28, 2014

What gets my goat is the stupidity of it all. They're all aiming for a slice of the same pie and there aren't enough slices to go around.

Pretty soon you'll have 20 clubs in the Premier club either run and backed in this manner or a surfeit of clubs in the upper echelons of the Championship scrabbling to get there and run like this.

Sovereign wealth funds or quasi sovereign wealth finds such as the Forest owners will want a return on their investment which they can't all get.

They'll pull out leaving poorly run businesses to struggle and potentially go under.

This problem has to be stopped as it's wholly unsustainable.

It also means that there's one less place at the top table for the likes of us to try and get there doing it the right way.

More than ever I believe in the youth is the future mantra but we have to accept that we're not on a short term ride to get there or busy and it could take us five ten or even fifteen years to get there through a successful youth development regime.

All I wish for is some exciting attacking football and maybe nearly getting there in the interim.

Creaky · Jul 28, 2014

martin tyler said:
No. I think the problem people will have with this deal is the fact that the money is clearly coming from the Kuwait owner of the club. There is no value for money government of Kuwait to pay 500 million to name a ground. All this deal is a loophole for the owner to be able to pump money into the club. Very simple.
FFP can do sod all about it apart from fine the club a small percentage. He can then carry on spending money how he likes.

The League would have to be able to prove that was the case in any legal action taken by Forest if the League refused to accept payment as part of the FFP accounts and how would they do that?

We are lucky to have an owner that has pumped millions into the club over the last few years and few, if any, have complained - most has gone into infra-structure but it can hardly be claimed that TB's investment hasn't helped our survival in the Championship and given us a better shot at promotion. Should we have complained and refused that investment because it's not fair to the likes of Yeovil?

Rugrat · Jul 28, 2014

algie said:
Why should it be encouraged to throw money about? Clubs then spend big on enticing the better players to sign for them and paying them huge salaries as an incentive and then it's the ordinary fan who bares the brunt of it with rising season ticket prices and other goods.

The huge wages and absurd amount of money football consumes is really all to do with TV. Clubs outside of the "TV club" are largely being choked to death and there's an argument that FFP is accelerating the process.

Having a fair and level playing field is something I think all of us would want, but it isn't going to happen so I can't really blame any club for finding creative ways to compete. As someone said if some rich benefactor came along and offered £500M to put his name on the stadium I doubt we'd need too long to consider

Triggaaar · Jul 28, 2014

Creaky said:
Don't really see how anyone can complain as it's money that goes straight into the club and can't be withdrawn at a later date.

Owners can withdraw money any time they like, it's their money. But that's not why people would complain, they'd complain because it's against the FFP rules that other clubs have to follow.

Creaky said:
Why? If the Kuwaiti government is willing to pay that much for the name then it must be worth it to them - maybe we should be looking for more from Amex.

I take it you're kidding?

Creaky said:
How can you claim it's an "inflated deal" if it is a government paying for the sponsorship.

There is no market valuation to compare it against.

Again, you're joking right? If it the government wanted to sponsor someone, they could have chosen a club with more exposure and paid a lot less. The market valuation is what Forest could have got from someone else, which would have been very low.

The Fifth Column · Jul 28, 2014

martin tyler said:
No. I think the problem people will have with this deal is the fact that the money is clearly coming from the Kuwait owner of the club. There is no value for money government of Kuwait to pay 500 million to name a ground. All this deal is a loophole for the owner to be able to pump money into the club. Very simple.
FFP can do sod all about it apart from fine the club a small percentage. He can then carry on spending money how he likes.

Not strictly true, UEFA FFP rules state: UEFA are aware that owners of clubs could look to inflate a club’s profitability by injecting funds into clubs via artificially inflated commercial deals. Paris St-Germain recently announced a huge sponsorship deal via a body that is connected to the club owners. For this reason UEFA FFP rules require any transaction from a ‘related part’ (i.e. a company or body connected to the club owners) to be assessed to ensure it was a genuine transaction at a ‘fair value’

I know this states UEFA but it is an identical rule for the Championship too. Ultimately what this means is that any such deal will be looked at and assessed and a decision made as to whether it us fair or not. I would suspect that they would look at clubs of a similar size, standing and other such areas and guage whether £500m is a fair market price for simply renaming their stadium - clearly everyone can see that this is a blatant attempt to pump millions into the club and I can't see them getting away with it. The sanctions will be a transfer ban and fine hence why Forest have been spunking money on players all over the shop over the last year before any sanctions are applied, they are obviously hoping they will get promoted and then just pay any fines that come their way. Its a bit of a shit or bust approach and one likely doomed to failure as they have to get promoted to make it succeed. If they remain in the championship with a shedload of players on large wages and expectations to play in the premiership then as they get itchy feet and want to move on they will be prevented from doing so due to the transfer ban, similarly forest wont be able to sign any replacements for players whose contracts expire or are injured etc. I can only see this generating a very negative environment for players and management alike and spiralling into disaster. Of course a lot depends on the FA growing some balls and ensuring the FFP sanctions are robustly enforced!! Can't say I'm too confident of that happening given the amount of corruption endemic in football at the upper levels of governance.

Creaky · Jul 28, 2014

Triggaaar said:
Owners can withdraw money any time they like, it's their money. But that's not why people would complain, they'd complain because it's against the FFP rules that other clubs have to follow.

Certainly owners can take a salary or be paid dividends but the money paid in by way of sponsorship is not like an owner putting money into a club by way of a loan. Once it has been spent the owner has no further claim for repayment.

Triggaaar said:
I take it you're kidding?

No.

Triggaaar said:
Again, you're joking right? If it the government wanted to sponsor someone, they could have chosen a club with more exposure and paid a lot less. The market valuation is what Forest could have got from someone else, which would have been very low.

Again - No.

Grombleton · Jul 28, 2014

We shouldn't worry too much - it won't matter on the pitch, they'll continually choke and cock it up like they do every season. It's quite funny :lolol:

Creaky · Jul 28, 2014

The Fifth Column said:
Not strictly true, UEFA FFP rules state: UEFA are aware that owners of clubs could look to inflate a club’s profitability by injecting funds into clubs via artificially inflated commercial deals. Paris St-Germain recently announced a huge sponsorship deal via a body that is connected to the club owners. For this reason UEFA FFP rules require any transaction from a ‘related part’ (i.e. a company or body connected to the club owners) to be assessed to ensure it was a genuine transaction at a ‘fair value’

I know this states UEFA but it is an identical rule for the Championship too. Ultimately what this means is that any such deal will be looked at and assessed and a decision made as to whether it us fair or not. I would suspect that they would look at clubs of a similar size, standing and other such areas and guage whether £500m is a fair market price for simply renaming their stadium - clearly everyone can see that this is a blatant attempt to pump millions into the club and I can't see them getting away with it. The sanctions will be a transfer ban and fine hence why Forest have been spunking money on players all over the shop over the last year before any sanctions are applied, they are obviously hoping they will get promoted and then just pay any fines that come their way. Its a bit of a shit or bust approach and one likely doomed to failure as they have to get promoted to make it succeed. If they remain in the championship with a shedload of players on large wages and expectations to play in the premiership then as they get itchy feet and want to move on they will be prevented from doing so due to the transfer ban, similarly forest wont be able to sign any replacements for players whose contracts expire or are injured etc. I can only see this generating a very negative environment for players and management alike and spiralling into disaster. Of course a lot depends on the FA growing some balls and ensuring the FFP sanctions are robustly enforced!! Can't say I'm too confident of that happening given the amount of corruption endemic in football at the upper levels of governance.

What is the 'related part' in this case - the only connection I can see is that he is a Kuwaiti citizen

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Forest will be paid HALF A BILLION POUNDS for renaming their ground

Well-known member

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Who is Kaiser Soze??

Back on the rollercoaster

Well-known member

Well-known member

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Pactum serva

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Retired ex-cop

Well-known member

Surrounded by <div>s

Well-known member

Share this page