Forest and FFP

Apologies if posted before but this seems a rather astonishing example of the loopholes of FFP and the league defending the position of a team who has broken the rules set down by the same governing body
[MENTION=22229]Football[/MENTION]_league: For those asking about Nottingham Forest's position regarding the transfer embargo, see here >> http://t.co/EUU31FN1yz

Nottingham Forest have completed the loan signing of Chelsea defender Todd Kane with help from the Sky Bet Transfer Fund.
The 21-year-old full back moves from Stanford Bridge to the City Ground for the remainder of the season in a deal assisted by Forest winning the £250,000 jackpot on offer as part of the Transfer Fund competition.

Kane is an England youth international and has previously played in the Football League during spells with Blackburn Rovers and Bristol City. He signed a professional contract with Chelsea in 2011 and was part of their 2011/12 FA Youth Cup winning side.

The signing of Kane was announced by Forest boss Stuart Pearce this morning. He said: “Todd is a player we know well and we are all looking forward to working with him.

“He will be a huge asset to the team and I’d like to thank Shaun Lander for participating in the Sky Bet Transfer Fund and helping the club to sign Todd.”

Todd Kane Chelsea 4x3

Kane becomes Forest’s first signing of the January transfer window and will join up with his new team-mates today.

Speaking about his move to the East Midlands for the remainder of the 2014/15 season, he said: “I’m really looking forward to this next challenge in my career. Forest are a huge club with great tradition and I hope to help them achieve success during my spell with them.”

Forest scooped the £250,000 Sky Bet Transfer Fund prize when fan Shaun Lander was selected in a random draw at Wembley back in December.

Lander, who also won £5,000 for himself, said: “As a fan, I’m absolutely delighted I’ve played my part in helping to bring Todd Kane to the club - and all just by placing a £1 bet. Hopefully he can help our push for a play-off place.”

Fans who bet with Sky Bet earn a Transfer Fund token for every pound they spend, putting them in with a chance of winning the £250,000 Transfer Fund for their club.

Sky Bet head of sponsorship Edwin Martin said: “For our first winning fan, this signing must be a proud moment. Over 70,000 fans up and down the country have been taking part in the Transfer Fund, vying for a chance to help make a difference to their team in the second half of this season and for Shaun, this has become a reality.”

The Sky Bet Transfer Fund has been relaunched, with another £250,000 up for grabs for one Sky Bet Football League club to spend on transfers in the summer window.

While Nottingham Forest are currently subject to a Financial Fair Play embargo from The Football League, they are still permitted to register new players if they have 24 or fewer established players (players aged 21 or over that have made at least five starting appearances for the club) but only if the employee costs of the player being signed are less than £600,000 per annum (or pro-rata if signed on a shorter contract).

Where embargoed clubs have 24 established players, they are permitted to trade on a ‘one in, one out’ basis but only if the employee costs of the player coming into the club are no more than the lower amount of either 75% of the equivalent costs of the player going out or a maximum of £600,000 per annum (or pro-rata if signed on shorter contract).

Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/ne...rest-on-loan-2189144.aspx#Li1Zgr8UKERWRGjz.99

What a load of bollocks?

what a joke FFP has become. Bet all those that chose to spend through their teeth are bricking the consequences!

Toothless punishment, was it really worth risking our championship status to stay within FFP?

Seasider78 said:

Where embargoed clubs have 24 established players, they are permitted to trade on a ‘one in, one out’ basis but only if the employee costs of the player coming into the club are no more than the lower amount of either 75% of the equivalent costs of the player going out or a maximum of £600,000 per annum (or pro-rata if signed on shorter contract).

Click to expand...

Dan Harding out on loan, Chelsea lad in on loan (at a lower wage). Rules met.

What a complete farce. The precedent being set here is that the needs of the sponsors are once again being prioritised.

Wasn't this always the intention? Certainly it's the rules as advertised when the bans were announced.

The idea (which you may or may not agree with) is not the massively penalise clubs which overspend, but to steadily bring their finances under control. They cannot replace a player with someone at more than 75% of that player's cost - therefore they are reducing their cost base, until such a time as their finances comply with FFP.

F.A spineless as per usual.

Perfect use of the FFP regulations.

One in, one out. And the one in on less than the one out.

seagurn said:

F.A spineless as per usual.

Click to expand...

Have to say that I supported FFP but was disappointed when it came out with the one in one out rule. However, bearing in mind that the limit is £600k in total, that is a free transfer with £12k wages which isn't going to attract to many players of the calibre that Forest have got in the past. If you factor in a fee then that would reduce the wages they can pay (assuming the fee is spread over the period of the contract as well). They will have to make do with shipping out expensive players and bringing in far cheaper ones subject to the 24 established players.

I wonder how it works when they loan a player out who might be on £20k but they only get a proportion of that paid by the borrowing club!

drew said:

Have to say that I supported FFP but was disappointed when it came out with the one in one out rule. However, bearing in mind that the limit is £600k in total, that is a free transfer with £12k wages which isn't going to attract to many players of the calibre that Forest have got in the past. If you factor in a fee then that would reduce the wages they can pay (assuming the fee is spread over the period of the contract as well). They will have to make do with shipping out expensive players and bringing in far cheaper ones subject to the 24 established players.

I wonder how it works when they loan a player out who might be on £20k but they only get a proportion of that paid by the borrowing club!

Click to expand...

Its a £600k limit on 'employment costs', so bearing in mind the employer's contributions, etc, would work out significantly lower than £12k per week.

Worth pointing out, they can't spend any money on either loan or transfer fees - Seems like a pretty fair situation to me, you can't just let a team run out of players, that would be nonsensical.

They really did need to set an example of forest here . As I thought its all a joke regarding ffp.
The loosers here are the teams that did everything they could to meet ffp regulations

In a way you could argue that FFP has worked to a certain degree in that Forest have been forced to loan out Dan Harding (hardly much of a sacrifice really!) and signed someone cheaper with very little league experience. If they had not failed FFP then they would have simply gone out and done what they've been doing for the past year and spunked a huge wad of cash on a replacement fullback. The club are trying to sell the deal to fans but if this lad from Chelsea was really any good then I doubt he would have been on loan to a team in L1 where he only got a handful of games.

The FFP rules were known in advance and approved by the clubs so this is a non-issue.

Can't really moan about it when we've taken Halford on loan from Forest until the end of the season. I guess the next thing we'll find out is the Football League will say the potential fines to be handed out to QPR and Leicester but given to charities are unenforceable after lengthy legal considerations.

#BinTheFFP

We knew this would happen - the FA have no backbone at all. And I expect the Albion knew exactly what would happen btw. But I guess it's an easy way to make fans lower expectations (spinning the FFP line) and of course has helped to make the Albion more sustainable so not all bad...

sheebo said:

We knew this would happen - the FA have no backbone at all. And I expect the Albion knew exactly what would happen btw. But I guess it's an easy way to make fans lower expectations (spinning the FFP line) and of course has helped to make the Albion more sustainable so not all bad...

Click to expand...

May explain why TB voted for the new "sustainability guidelines" along with three quarters of the other Championship club chairmen. FFP will change its name but it will still be a shambles as the loopholes are still there to be exploited.