• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Official 2023/24 Premier League Thread

superspurs said:
4 point deduction for Forest then.
Click to expand...
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!)
 
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.
 
jts1882 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree your first para.
The answer needs careful thought I think. Rumours of Leicester if promoted starting with a pretty big points deduction.
The whole governance issue including how much money the PL gives the EFL and whether parachute payments continue needs sorting out.
Lots of work for the regulator !
 
jts1882 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Doesn't hold up for me because once a few of these are done, you then have precedent so clubs will know anyway.
 
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.
 
Yiddo said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's working as intended... to protect the big boys
 
Yiddo said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have more debt than that.

It’s debt servicing that affects the numbers.
 
spurs8 said:
Spurs debt is largely stadium related so the debt servicing is I think excluded from the ffp calcs.
Click to expand...

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.
 
johnola said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
spurs8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Of course Saudi Sportswashing Machine are in a completely different position. They can and will inject that permitted loss of £35M a year ad infinitum, and underwrite the infrastructure costs of the most ambitious of strategies- which would otherwise come at a hefty premium.

And whilst the Glazers have bled United for a lot, it was a massive asset to that family and they have now had to change tack on that strategy.

I think we need to be happy with the direction of travel of the rules and hope that some neglected communities get a new lease of life from some blue sky thinking around infrastructure.
 
spurs8 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does this change to the UEFA method help us or hinder us?

More importantly, Does it still.mean Chelsea are doomed!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back