superspurs
Justin Edinburgh
4 point deduction for Forest then.
Luton could've gone for the same strategy, bought a brick load of players to help them stay up and just take a few points next season! I'm sure that would've outweighed being frugal this season and going straight back down. I hope Luton now stay up (although we need to beat them in our next game first!)4 point deduction for Forest then.
Agree your first para.It's a bit of a farce that the relegation depends on ongoing penalty decisions and appeals. Everton would be in the relegation zone now because of their initial penalty but the successful appeal lifted them out and a further penalty could drop them in again. Forest are now in the bottom three but perhaps an appeal could lift them out, as could an Everton penalty.
I think it would be better if the points deductions were set before each season so clubs know where they stand from the start.
Every other team is winning every game they play and we are struggling
I agree with you but I think the logic put forward was that if they put forward a menu of punishments, clubs would weigh up the risk and say "well maybe a 4 point punishment is worth it to sign Mbappe" or whatever.It's a bit of a farce that the relegation depends on ongoing penalty decisions and appeals. Everton would be in the relegation zone now because of their initial penalty but the successful appeal lifted them out and a further penalty could drop them in again. Forest are now in the bottom three but perhaps an appeal could lift them out, as could an Everton penalty.
I think it would be better if the points deductions were set before each season so clubs know where they stand from the start.
Can someone explain how this works? Nottingham Forest have a wealthy chairman who has been spending his money but because they spent more than they make they are punished, yet United are £750+ million in debt but can spend £100m on a player every season but its fine because they bring in a load of cash even though they are still in debt?
I’m genuinely confused, i don’t claim to have any knowledge on FFP.
Yep put in place to keep the big 6 the big 6It's working as intended... to protect the big boys
Guess the proof will be in whatever punishment City eventually receive, that will be the litmus test.Yep put in place to keep the big 6 the big 6
We’ll never know, we’ll all be dead by the time City are punished.Guess the proof will be in whatever punishment City eventually receive, that will be the litmus test.
Isn't City & Chelsea Fraud though, different to Everton & ForestGuess the proof will be in whatever punishment City eventually receive, that will be the litmus test.
Can someone explain how this works? Nottingham Forest have a wealthy chairman who has been spending his money but because they spent more than they make they are punished, yet United are £750+ million in debt but can spend £100m on a player every season but its fine because they bring in a load of cash even though they are still in debt?
I’m genuinely confused, i don’t claim to have any knowledge on FFP.
Spurs debt is largely stadium related so the debt servicing is I think excluded from the ffp calcs.We have more debt than that.
It’s debt servicing that affects the numbers.
No its includedSpurs debt is largely stadium related so the debt servicing is I think excluded from the ffp calcs.
Spurs debt is largely stadium related so the debt servicing is I think excluded from the ffp calcs.
Perhaps stadium related is a little loose. But debt servicing arising out of new stadium construction or existing stadium development is excluded from the ffp assessment. Ask Mr Levy if you don't believe me !It doesn’t matter why there is debt, just how much it costs to service it.
If stadium related costs are ignored well then the Glazers could just have remortgaged the stadium and pocketed the money and circumvented ffp that way. It just doesn’t work like that.
Perhaps stadium related is a little loose. But debt servicing arising out of new stadium construction or existing stadium development is excluded from the ffp assessment. Ask Mr Levy if you don't believe me !
edit, your point about the Glazers and re-mortgage, think Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday, Aston Villa did something akin to that in the recent past and the rules were then tightened. Similar rule tightening was done after Chelsea extended player amortisation periods, you recall, some clubs try to keep one step ahead of the rule-makers !
edit2, the PL are about to change their ffp rules to move closer to the uefa rules so instead of allowed losses figures the calcs will be based around player costs as a proportion of revenues.
edit3, reading that Saudi Sportswashing Machine considering either expansion of SJP or a brand new stadium, the Saudi owners are constrained as to what money they can put in, but as I say new stadia or stadia upgrade costs are permitted, and Saudi Sportswashing Machine would grow their revenues that way.
Does this change to the UEFA method help us or hinder us?edit2, the PL are about to change their ffp rules to move closer to the uefa rules so instead of allowed losses figures the calcs will be based around player costs as a proportion of revenues.