This messageboard is for Adults 18 years and over.
If you are under this age please leave the board.
Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any other
content posted on it.
Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.
What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks.
If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place.
Any potentially libellous comments that might jeopardise the future of this messageboard will therefore be deleted, and the person posting them will receive a
ban.Enjoy.
FFP mitigation Everton and Forest
Posted by Town planner on 16/1/2024, 12:10:55
So Forest are saying they should get off because the Brennan Johnson transfer fee should count as last season, even though he was sold this season. No reason given, just should.
Everton want an out because theyve already been hit with one deduction, need to take into account the new ground and Spurs should have paid more for Richarlison, so it wasnt fair.
FFP was introduced in 2009. Both clubs know exactly what they were doing and gambled on getting away with it. Probably because the PL have been so weak with City and Chelsea.
Id say 50:50 on whether the PL bottle it and give everyone 'another chance'.
Just to be clear, Everton and Forest are not being charged under FFP. They are being charged under the Profit and Sustainability rules (PSR) which were introduced in 2022 in place of FFP.
I do have sympathy with Everton, to an extent, in that, because they've suddenly decided to fast-track cases (as long as you're not a Big 6 club), they've been hit by two separate accounting periods in one season.
Having said that, if their first punishment had come in last season, they'd have been relegated, so as I say, limited sympathy...
I think that the main thrust of Everton's fury is that because of the PL's PSR being taken on a rolling system, then the current charges relate to part of a period for which they have already been docked points.
If that is true, then they probably have a good case for being treated leniently.
But the rules are quite clear that the (huge) allowable losses are over a rolling 3 year period. So of course there will be overlap between rolling 3 year periods. Whats the alternative - only assess compliance every 3 years? Have a yearly limit (much less flexibility for clubs)?
Luckily I am not really thick then. My point was that two separate accounting periods have been dealt with within the same season, whereas you would expect it to be one period to one season.
I accept all that. But each rolling period covers 3 seasons - so every season, one goes out, another comes in. So I think the argument that Everton are making that they are being punished in the same "punishment period" (ooh matron) for two separate accounting periods. Which is, to be fair, a reasonable point.
Agreed. They don't get to pick and choose how the rules work.
If they were going to breach they could have sold Johnson last season.
Ultimately, he scored a few goals and assists which helped keep them up. They can't keep him, stay up, sell him and try to claim they want his transfer fee backdated.
which wouldnt, of itself, make them a secured creditor. But I would be astonished if they dont have security of some kind (a debenture almost certainly).
I'm sort of in support of FFP, but the fact it takes so long to show any teeth - if it's meant to be there to protect clubs and their fans from poor ownership it isn't working.
Points deductions whilst the owner runs the club unsustainably, and now potential admin to rid themselves of the debt.....
The owner, whilst losing a lot of cash and credibility, gets a slap on the wrist, whilst the Everton fans, if they go into admin, will probably be supporting a League One club in time for kick off 25/26 season.
It still doesn't seem fair but I've no idea what the answer is to it all.
The emotional fall out does land on the fans but maybe fans need to start getting a bit more literate on football finances, governance, etc and ask questions on how their club is being run
This is something I hope the regulator does - make football clubs' accounting transparent, flagging issues at the earliest possible stage so clubs running into problems can be prevented. Plus fans are clearly informed and, perhaps, points deductions won't be necessary
Reading fans have impressed me the last few months in the way they've mobilised against their dickhead owner but I'll bet not one of them asked questions when they were top half of the C'ship spending £2 for every £1 they were getting in income in the hope they'd get to the Prem
I guess it would be good if a regulator was able to summarise the accounts in a traffic light system on their system, showing which clubs are potentially at risk of breaching rules?
The thing is, despite the noise, I'm incredibly dubious we will ever see a regulator with proper teeth. It will be the clubs promising to regulate themselves, like the newspapers said they would do after Leveson.
The posts made on this board are the opinions of the people posting them and do not always reflect the opinion of the board
administration.
Luton Outlaws is a totally independent forum, paid for and run by supporters of Luton
Town and is not associated with Luton Town Football Club, lutontown.co.uk, lutonfc.com, Loyal Luton Supporters Club, Trust in Luton, Luton Town Supporters Club or
anyone else for that matter and is declared a 100% Tombola Free Zone.
Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any
other content posted on it. Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.
What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks. If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place.
Enjoy. Admin contact - dilligaf.outlaws@gmail.com.
