Everton and Forest charged with financial breaches.

[Chrisnutjob]

"Everton and Nottingham Forest have been charged by the Premier League for allegedly breaking financial rules. Both clubs have been referred to an independent commission for alleged breaches of profit and sustainability rules. Got no axe to grind against Forest. Everton though, another story. Bye bye blue noses"

[Mike Oxsaw]

"Man City, and, to a lesser extent, Chelsea are a huge component of Brand PL and Brand CL, so the prosecutions on these will be delayed - and, for them hopefully dismissed/forgotten - by whatever tactics available, with the full complicity of the PL & CL. I'm quite sure that if they wanted to throw the book at either/both, their club/association rules already allow that. Not sure that their sponsors would be so welcoming of such action though."

[marty feldman]

It looks to me as if the premier league are kicking the can as far down the road as possible. With regards to tackling man city and the sexton Blake's . And are holding Everton and Notts forest up to scrutiny instead. I'm not saying either are innocent. But I'd bet good money the other 2 have tried to dodge way more than they've done .

[Westside]

"""What I heard was that they held out for more money for Johnson, which is why it took longer than it should have done. So by trying to be more sustainable and bring in max income, which is what FFP is supposed to promote, they have fallen foul of FFP rules!"" A bit stupid, to rely on one last minute transaction, over a 3 year period, to make you compliant with the rules. A better run club, wouldn't have been in that position."

[SnarestoneIron]

"Russ of the BML 4:03 Tue Jan 16 What I heard was that they held out for more money for Johnson, which is why it took longer than it should have done. So by trying to be more sustainable and bring in max income, which is what FFP is supposed to promote, they have fallen foul of FFP rules!"

[Darlo Debs]

"Mike 6.50 Tues Jan 16 That's not unlike the Brighton business model, from.what gathered listening to an interview with one of their bigwigs a few months back."

[Russ of the BML]

"easthammer 3:46 Tue Jan 16 I'm not so sure its about maintaining the status quo. FFP was brought in with good intentions to stop owners running up club debts to the point that they go into administration. Leeds were lucky to survive Peter Ridsdale's mortgaging tp pay for their attempt to win a PL and a CL. They almost did it. But to the financial detriment of the club. But by doing this with good intentions they have kept clubs in their place and they live by their means so, by that, they have kind of produced an industry of maintaining the status quo. But look at Forest. One of their issues which took them over their eligible sum for transfers and salaries was that they had to sell a player to balance the books. It's being reported they agreed a fee with the buying club and then dilly and dally on getting it sorted and end up selling him two months after the deadline so it had to be accounted for in the current year. It's pure incompetence. They bought players on inflated wages. Bought Lingard. Bought a bloke with a broken leg and who never played. Bought four keepers. Bought two players on big wages and loaned them to Olympiakos. They deserve it just for being stupid. https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/nottingham-forest-ffp-rules-chaos-2856418?ico=related_stories"

[easthammer]

"A few thoughts that occur to me on this subject: Big Clubs as well as getting the best players can get better accountants and lawyers, which are even better than the EPL's. The financial errors of both Everton and Forest seem so basic that instead of buying creative midfielders they should have looked to bring in creative accountants. FFP rules weren't brought in to level the playing field between the big and small clubs but to maintain the status quo. Successful clubs will be less likely to look to find ways of changing actual profits into accounting losses; so the tax man will at least be happier."

[Russ of the BML]

"I disagree. It's not about 'easy pickings'. It's about what cases are easier to investigate, easier to prove and so, therefore, easier to charge. Everton and Forest are open and shut cases. They have broken the 'Profit and Sustainability' rule by spending more than their eligible amount based on their annual income. Therefore, they've been charged and have / will be punished accordingly. Man City and Chelsea (and so I now hear man Utd and Newcastle) are being investigated for alleged 'accounting' irregularities contained with how accounts are published within FFP guidance. In they are harder to investigate, harder to prove and so, therefore, harder to charge. It's like any court of law. There's no timeframe allocated to specific cases. And so, therefore, no deadline. It takes as long as it takes based on the complexities and circumstances on a case by case basis. So all these supporters of Everton and Forest (and other clubs for that matter) stating that the smaller clubs are being picked on are talking out of their arses. One Everton fan on Talksport came on and started spouting and shouting about a 'conspiracy against Everton'. Jason Cundy asked him a simple question. Why? His answer was because the PL want smaller clubs challenging the bigger clubs to be stopped. Cundy's response was superb.... ""Well, Everton have never ever got close to challenging the top clubs so you're talking crap."""

[RBshorty]

With the threat of oversight and a more powerful breakaway league. The Premiership want to been seen as being strong and in charge of it's members. Going after the likes of Chelsea. Man City. And even ManU. (Who happen to be skating on very thin ice. My pedigree Chums.!) Takes time. Somtehing the Premier League cannot afford. So it's the easy pickings. The low hanging fruit. This will be how the European Super League gets going. And remember. When the money get's tight. The Shit gets real.!

[threesixty]

"Limiting any business to spending only profits is pretty anti capitalist though isn't it? All businesses seek investment through loans to generate profit in the long run. Lots of businesses make losses for years and borrow heavily until they go into the green (Facebook etc..) The problem at the heart of this is are football clubs businesses or something else? Community organisations?? Because the issue seems to be that football clubs cant go under as they are fixed parts of communities. Yet, they are all set up like businesses who by definition should be able to fail and disappear. Maybe a single body should essentially own all clubs and be in charge of the books? I suppose the lighting of FFP is meant to create this pseudo centralised governance thing for money in the game. I just think clubs will get more creative with hiding stuff, especially with the rewards on offer in the PL."

[Mike Oxsaw]

"Banjo 10:38 Tue Jan 16 It's not football that's driving this though, it's the game's sponsors. The global/more significant brands only need a half a dozen successful clubs associated with them - the rest are just there to make up the numbers/act as cannon fodder. The media not only know which side their bread is buttered on, but who supplies them with both bread and butter. They'll never complain about the obviously exclusive elitism suffocating the game."

[Banjo]

"Mike, Whilst your view has credence, I would rather an alternative approach based on spend as opposed to debt. Cap the annual spend of all clubs based on net transfer spend and total wage bill. Not quite a salary cap just a different way of looking at it. Reign in the monied clubs and eqaualise the odds creating a more even league. This would also lead to significant investment in developing youth which can only be a good thing for the English game. Of course the rich Arab clubs would complain bitterly but who gives a flying fuck as the game is being torn apart by their money and their approach. Would it affect global number one ranking of the Premier League, so what, we did very well before the big money showed up and I am sure we can cope without it."

[Fauxstralian]

Chelsea have done that for years Buy up young kids that never play for them and do a few loans before being sold In the past they have had 30 (maybe more) out on loan Have said before the wages of these players in total should be counted on BOTH clubs FFP whatever the arrangement between loaner & loanee clubs

[Mike Oxsaw]

"This could turn academies into production lines of home-grown players brought on not to ever play in the first team but just sold on to help fund the purchase of first-team ready players. If we ship out 10 per year that ""have promise"", even to lower level clubs, that's a nice little earner for the club budget."

[Sydney_Iron]

"Forest is a little bit interesting i read! They would have been all right if they sold Johnson to Brentford prior to June, but they waited until August and got an extra $10m for selling to Spurs. Should they lose points for doing good business? Which is what FFP wants to promote teams to remain profitable isnt it? Maybe a slap on the wrist and a warning, imagine if this had been a ""big 6"" club, would never have got this far i suspect, all kinds of excuses would have been made."

[zico]

I meant 100 million not 10!

[zico]

Am I wrong in thinking why don't they just put a ceiling per season on player purchases for all clubs. Say 10million with obviously on limit on income from selling players. In one rule you would also then limit any players value to 100 million. Would arguably make a more level playing field and quash the outlandish increase in transfer fees and expenditure. Doable or an unworkable idea?

[Westside]

"Gaffer 58, 9.58pm That's largely correct. We for instance have made £100 million+ profit this season on selling Declan, being a home grown player. Player amortisation over a longer period, does reduce a club's exposure to FFP, but UEFA's limit has always been 5 years (regardless of what the player signed for) and the Premier League, voted to reduce the maximum to 5 years, in December last year."

[Westside]

"Fauxstralian 8.23pm. That's a pretty good summary. Forest's allowable losses though, are only £61 million (as opposed to the normal £105 million), as for the 3 year period under review (ending in 2022/23) they were only a Premier League side for one season (allowable loss, reduced by £22 million, for each season not in the Premier League)."

[rumford]

"Gaffer58 That's part of the problem mate but Newcastle are complaing that their owners have money which they can't spend. As you can only overspend 105m over 3 seasons .Which of course they think is too restrictive. Which of doesn't amount to much in transfer market these days. They also state that at the moment their revenue of 250m, which was similar to ours,but way behind the 700m revenue received by Man City last financial year. They therefore say they may have take the West Ham route and and generate more revenue by selling one of their best players and spread the cost of their next purchase over a number of years like you said."

[Gaffer58]

"Those that understand accounts, never had enough money to worry about them, will explain it easily but I have read that say Newcastle sell a home grown player for £20 million that’s classed as pure profit, so that then they can buy someone for £20 million and spread the cost over 4/5 years, that helps keep them in FFP rules, in fact VAR is probably easier to understand. I think that’s probably why Chelsea have been buying these players but giving them 8 year contracts."

[Gaffer58]

"Those that understand accounts, never had enough money to worry about them, will explain it easily but I have read that say Newcastle sell a home grown player for £20 million that’s classed as pure profit, so that then they can buy someone for £20 million and spread the cost over 4/5 years, that helps keep them in FFP rules, in fact VAR is probably easier to understand. I think that’s probably why Chelsea have been buying these players but giving them 8 year contracts."

[J.Riddle]

"Wd40 true, probably made a lot easier by trousering the Boleyn money."

[wd40]

OUR house is in order ! so remember that before slagging off our owners every other day.

[Joe C]

Everything has to be done my 24th May so it's in place for the coming season - the 25th this year is when the promoted teams get their license to play in the PL Means it could be decided after the last game of the season - which is obviously shit