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

Are Forest taking the Pis#???



Neecha

New member
Jul 10, 2012
1,190
London
looks like they have now signed Danny Graham plus they already have a squad on large wages who signed on large transfer fees. They are going for it but surely they are totally side tracking FFP and its regs? The same must apply to QPR? The day of reckoning will come *evil laugh*
 




Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
They have a record sponsorship deal, so how are they not complying? And even if they aren't they are gambling.

The sponsorship is from one of the owner's companies, and way above fair 'market rate' ( which is a specific requirement of FFP ).
 




saafend_seagull

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
13,883
BN1
The sponsorship is from one of the owner's companies, and way above fair 'market rate' ( which is a specific requirement of FFP ).

If it is a specific requirement then it will be adjusted to the fair market price.

So people need to chill out, doubt it will be relevant as will get promoted.
 




Trigger

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2003
40,457
Brighton
You just watch as absolutely no action whatsoever will be taken against these cheats... The only teams to suffer and get punished will be those that comply, as is already happening.
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,689
Pattknull med Haksprut
FFP is nothing to do with fairness. If owners want to spunk big money on their club why not let them? We didn't complain when TB found £160 million to stick in the Albion.
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,653
Manchester
The sponsorship is from one of the owner's companies, and way above fair 'market rate' ( which is a specific requirement of FFP ).

Yeah! A record sponsorship deal from their owners company. A prime example of how to by-pass FFP.

It clearly breaks the FFP rules about sponsorship from related companies and market value. So not a prime example.
 




Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Time will tell if it was a gamble worth taking. I believe it probably will be in Forests case. They are very well placed to get auto given the size and quality of their squad.

I have to confess to being a bit jealous of them, I can only dream about us having such quality at this level. :shrug:
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
FFP is nothing to do with fairness. If owners want to spunk big money on their club why not let them? We didn't complain when TB found £160 million to stick in the Albion.

Perhaps it should be renamed to FUP. Financial Unfair Play.
 


Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
FFP is nothing to do with fairness. If owners want to spunk big money on their club why not let them? We didn't complain when TB found £160 million to stick in the Albion.

I don't like FFP, and want it scrapped, but also I don't see why we should expect Tony to make any annual loss at all - although if he is prepared to then fair enough and, of course, many thanks.
 






hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,091
Chandlers Ford
Time will tell if it was a gamble worth taking. I believe it probably will be in Forests case. They are very well placed to get auto given the size and quality of their squad.

I have to confess to being a bit jealous of them, I can only dream about us having such quality at this level. :shrug:

Personally, I think Davies is spending the money pretty poorly.

He's now got loads of strikers to pick from, but ultimately he can only use a couple of them at a time, and none of them are actually particularly GOOD.

Danny Graham, Darius Henderson, Jamie Mackie, Ishmael Miller, Marcus Tudgay, Jamie Paterson, Dexter Blackstock, Matt Derbyshire, Simon Cox

They are paying NINE lots of high wages, so that each week he can pick two strikers,against a team that probably have two decent strikers of their own.

Surely he would have been far better off using the funds to have two genuinely outstanding strikers and a couple of decent ones in support?
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,653
Manchester
I don't like FFP, and want it scrapped, but also I don't see why we should expect Tony to make any annual loss at all - although if he is prepared to then fair enough and, of course, many thanks.

What don't you like about it? It seems a really good idea in principle to me.
 




narly101

Well-known member
Feb 16, 2009
2,683
London
You just watch as absolutely no action whatsoever will be taken against these cheats... The only teams to suffer and get punished will be those that comply, as is already happening.

Sorry - but why are we being punished? I really think people need a massive reality check. I do not want Tony Bloom to spend our way to the Premiership. Less than 20 years ago we were facing the real idea that we may not have a ground to play in, and were extremely close to going out of the league.

Now we have what I believe is a sustainable football club with all the infrastructure needed to ensure that this club remains successful for the foreseeable future. So it's not likely that we'll make the Premier League this year, is that really actually being punished? Or do we have a club that can play football when all around you sides have waterlogged pitches, idiots on £75k a week who can't be bothered to play football because they have no incentive, stands that are crumbling and unsafe, toilets which don't work.... the list can go on.

Be happy you have a club who doesn't want to flout the rules, and still able to play attractive football. Rome wasn't built overnight.
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Personally, I think Davies is spending the money pretty poorly.

He's now got loads of strikers to pick from, but ultimately he can only use a couple of them at a time, and none of them are actually particularly GOOD.

Danny Graham, Darius Henderson, Jamie Mackie, Ishmael Miller, Marcus Tudgay, Jamie Paterson, Dexter Blackstock, Matt Derbyshire, Simon Cox

They are paying NINE lots of high wages, so that each week he can pick two strikers,against a team that probably have two decent strikers of their own.

Surely he would have been far better off using the funds to have two genuinely outstanding strikers and a couple of decent ones in support?

What if these two strikers you talk of both got injured, and there must be a reasonable chance that they would. Look what has happened to our strikers and wingers over the last two seasons? Forest can have a bigger than 50% injury rate for their strikers and still pick two top of the Championship quality strikers. If they were not so well placed I'd agree but as other teams start to suffer due to injury and tiredness in the 2nd half of the season they have every chance of romping away.

It's not right, it's not fair but it will probably work. There is a risk involved but their owner seems to have the money and as long as he doesn't lose interest, they are very well set after years of mediocrity imo.
 


Trigger

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2003
40,457
Brighton
Sorry - but why are we being punished? I really think people need a massive reality check. I do not want Tony Bloom to spend our way to the Premiership. Less than 20 years ago we were facing the real idea that we may not have a ground to play in, and were extremely close to going out of the league.

We, like any other club sticking to the rules will be punished because no action will be taken against those flouting the rules, it's all waffle.
 


Neecha

New member
Jul 10, 2012
1,190
London
They have a record sponsorship deal, so how are they not complying? And even if they aren't they are gambling.

Record sponsorship deal with a company based in Kuwait, how coincidental. FFP is great for protecting clubs and Im sure there are lots of inventive FD's out there but to me this cant be within the parameters regarding the amounts they have spent. only time will tell
 
Last edited:






hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,091
Chandlers Ford
What if these two strikers you talk of both got injured, and there must be a reasonable chance that they would. Look what has happened to our strikers and wingers over the last two seasons? Forest can have a bigger than 50% injury rate for their strikers and still pick two top of the Championship quality strikers. If they were not so well placed I'd agree but as other teams start to suffer due to injury and tiredness in the 2nd half of the season they have every chance of romping away.
.

They need four, not two. Keep two of the current NINE as the back-up strikers, and swap the other SEVEN for two really, really good ones.

Paying nine wages to cover two positions just can't make sense, if it limits how good any of them are. They can pick any two, and it still doesn't give them a notably better front line than Nugent and Vardy, or Austin and Zamora, or Rhodes and Gestede, or Vokes and Ings, or McCormack and Blackstock, or Le Fondre and Pogrebnyak, or Maynard and Fortune or Deenay and Forestieri.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here