Discussion
JurassicGTS said:
I suppose that as long as we stay up, the silver lining is that the BJ and Mangala income goes into this season's accounts, which should allay the need for a fire sale in the next transfer window?
I think we still need to make one big sale this summer. But having a bigger allowance will also help. Come on West Ham and Spurs!!
I love a bit of football bantz, provided it’s good humored. Only two things I don’t like. The bottlers tag when a side loses. It’s just childish, there is no shame in losing to a better team, and suggesting one team ‘lost it’ detracts from the skill of the team that ‘won it’
The second is the ‘cry more’ line when a team or fans complain about decisions.
Forest have taken way more of our fair share of this abuse, over the season and from some of the awful officiating we’ve had.
But then, the clouds part and heaven reveals itself…
https://twitter.com/NoContextMarkG/status/17875745...
😂😂😂
Sport_Turismo_GTS said:
£70m for Murillo and £50m for MGW are being mentioned.
I think MGW would stay. Would be nice for Murillo to stay, or for him to go but then be loaned back for a year (which is what I would do as owner of Real or someone like that), I think he will go abroad rather than stay in the UK. Murillo's interview with Colin Fray was great on Saturday. He comes across brilliantly.
Sport_Turismo_GTS said:
So appeal unsuccessful - Premier League clearly don’t want the same 3 times that came up last year going straight down again, so are desperate to keep Forest in the mix.
It’s as corrupt as it gets.
Meanwhile Man City will win another title with 115 charges still hanging over them…
I'm not sure that you can complain, the points deduction is less then Everton got for the same offence. It’s as corrupt as it gets.
Meanwhile Man City will win another title with 115 charges still hanging over them…
Edited by Sport_Turismo_GTS on Tuesday 7th May 10:34
If the PL gave 2 points back that relegates Burnley without them kicking a ball. 4 points back relegates both them and Luton. They'd never do that as it leaves the PL open to further issues.
JurassicGTS said:
I suppose that as long as we stay up, the silver lining is that the BJ and Mangala income goes into this season's accounts, which should allay the need for a fire sale in the next transfer window?
The Times states that our own figures suggest we'll be 22mio to 27mio over the allowable losses up to June 24. I don't know if that includes the Mangala proceeds, but assume it does include Bren's fee. Obviously selling Murillo would easily clear that, but it would need to be concluded by the end of June.
Fast Bug said:
I'm not sure that you can complain, the points deduction is less then Everton got for the same offence.
If the PL gave 2 points back that relegates Burnley without them kicking a ball. 4 points back relegates both them and Luton. They'd never do that as it leaves the PL open to further issues.
It’s all about Brennan Johnson - forced to sell him early or wait and get an extra £20m or whatever.If the PL gave 2 points back that relegates Burnley without them kicking a ball. 4 points back relegates both them and Luton. They'd never do that as it leaves the PL open to further issues.
The rules make no sense and constrain the teams getting promoted who need to spend to compete.
Sport_Turismo_GTS said:
Fast Bug said:
I'm not sure that you can complain, the points deduction is less then Everton got for the same offence.
If the PL gave 2 points back that relegates Burnley without them kicking a ball. 4 points back relegates both them and Luton. They'd never do that as it leaves the PL open to further issues.
It’s all about Brennan Johnson - forced to sell him early or wait and get an extra £20m or whatever.If the PL gave 2 points back that relegates Burnley without them kicking a ball. 4 points back relegates both them and Luton. They'd never do that as it leaves the PL open to further issues.
The rules make no sense and constrain the teams getting promoted who need to spend to compete.
But it's not all about that, you did sign a lot of players (and I get you got promoted with a load of loan signings). But did you need all 473 signings? 1 got loaned straight out to another of your owners clubs so obviously wasn't needed.
You won't go down because if the deduction, this really had been the best season for a deduction. Or 2 lots in our case...
Sycamore said:
I know it's easy for the teams that have had deductions to sit there and think they're being targeted, but whichever way you look at it, you did break the rules 
Yes the City thing is a farce, but poor ol' Forest aren't being targeted with a relegation
Yes we broke the rules. For a couple of months. During which we played 5 games and lost three of them, so hardly benefitted. Yes the City thing is a farce, but poor ol' Forest aren't being targeted with a relegation
The problem is the timing of the deadlines and advice from the EPL
We were offered under £20m for Johnson ahead of the FFP deadline, at the same time the EPL were advising us to accept an offer from Athletico Madrid which entirely depended on them selling a player.
Fast forward to transfer deadline day and we sold Johnson for almost £50m.
What is more financially sustainable, selling a player for £20m or £50m?
Oh BTW the AM transfer would’ve fallen through because they didn’t sell the player they needed to. So if we’d followed the EPL’s advice we’d have had nothing.
Yes we broke the rules - not for years like City or even Everton, but for a matter of weeks - and we did it to make the club *MORE* sustainable.
Fast Bug said:
I do get that, and the rules are stupid as selling for less isn't better for the profit and sustainability of a club.
But it's not all about that, you did sign a lot of players (and I get you got promoted with a load of loan signings). But did you need all 473 signings? 1 got loaned straight out to another of your owners clubs so obviously wasn't needed.
You won't go down because if the deduction, this really had been the best season for a deduction. Or 2 lots in our case...
Some of the buying seemed to be based on the Chelsea model of a few years ago where you snap up young talent, loan them out and then sell for a profit. Players like Bowler and the Chinese kid were in that mould. But it's not all about that, you did sign a lot of players (and I get you got promoted with a load of loan signings). But did you need all 473 signings? 1 got loaned straight out to another of your owners clubs so obviously wasn't needed.
You won't go down because if the deduction, this really had been the best season for a deduction. Or 2 lots in our case...
There were only a couple of complete disasters from that season. Bade, Jessie (although signing him was also about signalling intent to get others in), Shelvey. Others such as Wood and Navas were to cover injuries.
Biggest issue for me is that we were only able to lose 65mio over 3 years, the lowest in the league (due to the other promoted teams having recently been in the Prem). That's just ridiculous, and unfairly hampers newly promoted clubs.
Hackney said:
Yes we broke the rules. For a couple of months. During which we played 5 games and lost three of them, so hardly benefitted.
The problem is the timing of the deadlines and advice from the EPL
We were offered under £20m for Johnson ahead of the FFP deadline, at the same time the EPL were advising us to accept an offer from Athletico Madrid which entirely depended on them selling a player.
Fast forward to transfer deadline day and we sold Johnson for almost £50m.
What is more financially sustainable, selling a player for £20m or £50m?
Oh BTW the AM transfer would’ve fallen through because they didn’t sell the player they needed to. So if we’d followed the EPL’s advice we’d have had nothing.
Yes we broke the rules - not for years like City or even Everton, but for a matter of weeks - and we did it to make the club *MORE* sustainable.
Nicely put. The problem is the timing of the deadlines and advice from the EPL
We were offered under £20m for Johnson ahead of the FFP deadline, at the same time the EPL were advising us to accept an offer from Athletico Madrid which entirely depended on them selling a player.
Fast forward to transfer deadline day and we sold Johnson for almost £50m.
What is more financially sustainable, selling a player for £20m or £50m?
Oh BTW the AM transfer would’ve fallen through because they didn’t sell the player they needed to. So if we’d followed the EPL’s advice we’d have had nothing.
Yes we broke the rules - not for years like City or even Everton, but for a matter of weeks - and we did it to make the club *MORE* sustainable.
Hackney said:
Yes we broke the rules - not for years like City or even Everton, but for a matter of weeks - and we did it to make the club *MORE* sustainable.
By breaking the rules for years you mean trying to build a new stadium to improve our sustainability as that's what the bulk of our charges were around.And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
Fast Bug said:
By breaking the rules for years you mean trying to build a new stadium to improve our sustainability as that's what the bulk of our charges were around.
And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
Yes, everything is fine at Everton. Nothing to see here. And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/12/e...
The G Kid said:
.
Biggest issue for me is that we were only able to lose 65mio over 3 years, the lowest in the league (due to the other promoted teams having recently been in the Prem). That's just ridiculous, and unfairly hampers newly promoted clubs.
This is my bugbear. I wondered why "the 14" signed up to this. My speculation is that it comes close to making the Premiership a closed shop. Yes there's still relegation, but it's predominantly the promoted sides that go down. Normally 2 from 3, and this year likely to be all 3. (Leicester and Southampton counter this view I guess)Biggest issue for me is that we were only able to lose 65mio over 3 years, the lowest in the league (due to the other promoted teams having recently been in the Prem). That's just ridiculous, and unfairly hampers newly promoted clubs.
Still not quite sure why FFP is only exploding now after more than a decade. To answer my own question, If it was index linked to inflation I don't think anyone would be having any issues. In our (Everton) case, we were far more profligate in Moshiris early years, had Rodriguez on 200k a week, spent 100m+ in a window, had lots of players on 100k+ a week. Holgate on 70k a particularly bad offer (which we are still paying now). To counter that we finished 6/7/8 but wouldn't have thought that made that big a difference in the scheme of things, say an extra 8 or 9 places at 2m a pop
And my other bugbear is that the teams on TV most get more TV money AND More finish place money AND money from European competitions, whilst also getting more fans, more sponsorship, more merchandise sales and more match day revenue. Some if that you can't control (obviously) but doesn't seem very "fair" that there isn't more equality wrt the TV money - a straight split. Or even a reverse split of the placement money so the side finishing 20th gets the most (although this then penalises the rest of the EFL and makes the PL even more of a closed shop, possibly?)
I suppose to a point it was ever thus? You and Leeds were big in the seventies, we were big in the eighties, ditto Liverpool (and it took them 30 years to recover), Utd were big in the nineties and noughties. Hope Cities dominance comes crashing down (soon) cos it's getting a tad boring now. Hopefully Richard Masters was as good as his word when he said "soon"...
Hackney said:
Fast Bug said:
By breaking the rules for years you mean trying to build a new stadium to improve our sustainability as that's what the bulk of our charges were around.
And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
Yes, everything is fine at Everton. Nothing to see here. And not being able to predict Russia invading the Ukraine meaning we'd lose a huge chunk of sponsorship/sugar daddy money. If only we had a crystal ball
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/12/e...
t show. It's all linked to the loss of Usmanov and losing his sponsorship money. Like I say, the PL said we should've predicted Russia invading the Ukraine... The interest payments are linked to trying to build the new stadium to improve our income as Goodison is limited in terms of corporate hospitality and also non-match day income. The new stadium will enable us to bring a heck of a lot more money on to the bottom lineGassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff