There’s no doubt that the rules were broken by Forest - and they did so with their eyes open. Nor is there any doubt that they should be punished. 4 points doesn’t seem too harsh. But where Forest can be aggrieved is that without breaching the rules, they were unable to realise a fair price for their most valuable asset. Delaying the sale made good economic sense and actually reduced their overall losses - although not within the correct time frame for the rules. That’s where the rules seem to be self defeating and work to make the rich richer and prevent smaller clubs competing.
Financial deadlines have to be adhered to though. You can’t just miss a deadline and then say I’ll get you the money in the future once I’ve maximised it. Forest should have took a lower offer to meet the deadline instead of holding out for more and basically ignoring the deadline. Tbh I think they’ve got away lightly.
I agree to a point, but 30th June is an arbitrary deadline and does not allow clubs like Forest to balance their books in the transfer window. Wouldn’t 30th September be fairer?
Every period of 12 months includes exactly the same number of days in transfer windows. I don't think this end effect matters in the long run. The accounting deadline has to be in the close season since the rules are based on football seasons.
I don't think it can plausibly be any later....there has to be time for clubs to prepare and submit accounts, the League to analyse them, charges to be made, hearings and appeals to be heard etc. People are already complaining that there may not be time to complete all that before the season ends.
So 30th June is there for a reason. Luke was saying it was an arbitrary date. Forest took a risk and it backfire. No sympathy from me and certainly no blame at the feet of Daniel Levy for negotiating
And even if the deadline is arbitrary, they would have known it existed regardless, so plan around it.
Yes, but the point about balancing the books is that a newly promoted club is going to look how to do that at the end of the season. The sale of a player who has done well in the PL is a reasonable way of achieving that. Johnson’s reputation- and therefore his likely transfer fee - increased after a good first season in the PL. Imposing such a short window in which to effect sales reduces the saleability of such a player. That works in favour of the richer clubs to the detriment of the poorer clubs. It is a measure which adversely affects them - Forest being the case in point. If these rules are designed to create a more level playing field, they are failing.
None of this takes into account the fact that no one at Forest is in possession of a crystal ball by which they could have predicted with certainty in June that Johnson would leave in August at all, let alone for more money. We might have been an hour away from the cut-off and he fails his medical for all we know. Or he could've drowned on holiday in a freak scuba diving accident. Any number of things could've happened between June 30th and Aug 31st that could have scuppered the deal. Their reliance on it going through is symptomatic of the same recklessness that has gotten them into trouble in the first place.
i think selling Johnson was a genuine attempt to balance books, although their crazy spending up to that point had got them into that mess. Like most rules though, FFP & PSR represent a cliff edge, which you're either on the right or wrong side of. There is no chance to remedy a breach after the event.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. Forest's entire defense rests on the argument that they held back from selling Johnson before the June 30th deadline because they 'knew' they'd be able to sell him for more money later in the window. No they didn't. It wasn't possible to 'know' this. They gambled their compliance with the law on the hope that what they 'knew' would come to pass, I.e. my point that if he'd drowned off the coast of Mykonos at some point before Aug 30th, their finances would have been in even greater ruin than they are currently.
UEFA FFP has a three year rolling window, does it not. If that is still the case, hardly a "cliff edge" is it. If a club thinks at some stage in the future it will be forced to jump thru hoops, then better ensure you are fit to do so well before the event.
Precisely. They gambled 2 years and 10 months of pigheaded recklessness on the hope that they'd have a profitable 2 months at the end of it. They tempted fate, and lost.
I didn’t think I was disagreeing with you, except that the point you raise is one that could be levelled at most clubs - even the rich ones. Football is not a normal business; income and therefore profitability is determined by what happens on the pitch . Spurs’ financial plans will be based on expectations of what happens on the pitch and the match day, commercial and TV revenues which go along with it. So all clubs have to gamble. Forest were reckless, but did have a way of balancing the books at the end of it. Forest gambled to stay up; they achieved that. Ultimately, that will benefit them. This is reality for promoted clubs. The rules make it hard for them to compete. They support the status quo. Few can compete in the PL after promotion without gambling.
You're absolutely right, but the revenue you mention is difficult to compare to income through transfers. Most clubs will know to the closest £100k what they can expect in gate money and hospitality on match days. Most have also fine-tuned data on sales from replica shirts and other merchandise. All sponsorship deals will be tied in across many years at known figures. The single least predictable piece of revenue in the mad, mad world of modern football, is what happens in the transfer market. A club could be floating along minding it's own business hoping to turn a modest profit on a young player, when hey presto! an overgrown child takes over at Chelsea and starts throwing £100m at everything with a pulse. And you're right about promoted clubs needing to gamble to survive. But there is gambling and then there is smashing a global record for players signed. What Forest did was madness without precedent, and now they've been caught with their pants down. The speed with which they've cooperated and submitted a guilty plea should be the strongest clue that they know full well that they barely have a leg to stand on.
So profits being made by offering a compelling product/service that lots of people want to consume ?? 1. So just like any other commercial sector. 2. Not like every commercial sector, as the consumer base is immensely TRIBAL. "Spurs’ financial plans will be based on expectations of what happens on the pitch and the match day, commercial and TV revenues which go along with it. So all clubs have to gamble." Spurs have only gambled on the construction of new WHL. (a gamble that has paid off, and was never subject to the machinations of FFP regimes) .
