A fridge too far

[eezzeetiger]

Well said Sir!!

[G STAR RAM]

16 hours ago, David said:

Lifes not fair.

I can see why parachute payments were introduced, come and give it a go in the Premier League, mix it up and we'll help you out if you go down.

What's happened now is a new TV deal is in place meaning extra money for just being in the Premier League and on TV and those clubs are staying up and we're seeing the likes of Villa and Newcastle drop, established clubs which shouldn't need extra help other than allowances for FFP. 

Simple solution would be to only give parachute payments to clubs that drop down after one season in the Premier League. 

When a club manages to stay up after promotion, those parachute payments are distributed fairly between all Football League clubs.

Any club coming down after more than 1 season in the Premier League are excluded from FFP sanctions for 2 seasons.

Bournemouth earned £70m in TV revenue money 15/16 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/SPORT/14517559.AFC_Bournemouth__Cherries_earned___70million_in_Premier_League_prize_money/

If they came down last season they would also have also received £87m in parachute payments over 3 seasons had they stayed down.

That's not right.

Get Mel on the case...

[Van der MoodHoover]

20 hours ago, David said:

Lifes not fair.

I can see why parachute payments were introduced, come and give it a go in the Premier League, mix it up and we'll help you out if you go down.

What's happened now is a new TV deal is in place meaning extra money for just being in the Premier League and on TV and those clubs are staying up and we're seeing the likes of Villa and Newcastle drop, established clubs which shouldn't need extra help other than allowances for FFP. 

Simple solution would be to only give parachute payments to clubs that drop down after one season in the Premier League. 

When a club manages to stay up after promotion, those parachute payments are distributed fairly between all Football League clubs.

Any club coming down after more than 1 season in the Premier League are excluded from FFP sanctions for 2 seasons.

Bournemouth earned £70m in TV revenue money 15/16 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/SPORT/14517559.AFC_Bournemouth__Cherries_earned___70million_in_Premier_League_prize_money/

If they came down last season they would also have also received £87m in parachute payments over 3 seasons had they stayed down.

That's not right.

 

Another feature worth considering is to reduce the parachute paymenti amounts by any sale proceeds as clubs offload prem players.

Newcastle came down,  have their full whack of 80m plus of parachute payments and then promptly raised a load of further cash,  whilst at the same time removing the contract liabilities that the parachute payments were intended to help with.

Win win for them, which was not what was intended. 

[Sith Happens]

Here we go again, why is spending money no longer fair now they aren't the self proclaimed man city of the midlands. It was OK when they were spending loads of money and strutting about boasting they could buy who they want and talking about the 3rd star.

And anyway just because they don't spend millions on transfer fees it doesn't alter the fact they are still big spenders, sadly for them just because the club is so badly run they are having to spend millions just to keep going. Fawaz himself said he has to put a couple of million a month in just to keep going. Expenditure is not based purely on transfer fees.

 

[TigerTedd]

32 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Here we go again, why is spending money no longer fair now they aren't the self proclaimed man city of the midlands. It was OK when they were spending loads of money and strutting about boasting they could buy who they want and talking about the 3rd star.

And anyway just because they don't spend millions on transfer fees it doesn't alter the fact they are still big spenders, sadly for them just because the club is so badly run they are having to spend millions just to keep going. Fawaz himself said he has to put a couple of million a month in just to keep going. Expenditure is not based purely on transfer fees.

 

Imagine if the club were better run and they could spend that extra £24m a year on a stellar signing or two. 

[Sith Happens]

The points about teams coming down having an unfair advantage due to parachute payments seems reasonable on the face of it, but when you look at teams relegated in recent years very few have gone on to be promoted again

 

 

[Sith Happens]

I saw this and thought here we go again, another one of fawaz wacky ideas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38963887#video-38963887

[Van der MoodHoover]

11 hours ago, Paul71 said:

The points about teams coming down having an unfair advantage due to parachute payments seems reasonable on the face of it, but when you look at teams relegated in recent years very few have gone on to be promoted again

 

 

True up to now Paul,  but this is the first season where teams come down on the latest parachute deal which I think upped the payments from c60 to c100m

That's a huge increase when the championship money is not increasing hardly at all.

Even then there's villa who look poor even after spunking loads but the extra purchasing power the new deal gave them does not create a nything like a level playing field. 

[King Kevin]

On 2/13/2017 at 19:30, Paul71 said:

Here we go again, why is spending money no longer fair now they aren't the self proclaimed man city of the midlands. It was OK when they were spending loads of money and strutting about boasting they could buy who they want and talking about the 3rd star.

And anyway just because they don't spend millions on transfer fees it doesn't alter the fact they are still big spenders, sadly for them just because the club is so badly run they are having to spend millions just to keep going. Fawaz himself said he has to put a couple of million a month in just to keep going. Expenditure is not based purely on transfer fees.

 

http://www.nottinghampost.com/nottingham-forest-accounts-67-million-reasons/story-28802864-detail/story.html

Accounts just published ,if true about being offered £20m for the club by Moores then you can see why the deal fell through .

[mrdave85]

2 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/nottingham-forest-accounts-67-million-reasons/story-28802864-detail/story.html

Accounts just published ,if true about being offered £20m for the club by Moores then you can see why the deal fell through .

That story links to 2016? 

[King Kevin]

43 minutes ago, mrdave85 said:

That story links to 2016? 

My bad ,this is the one .

 

http://www.nottinghampost.com/fawaz-al-hasawi-writes-off-17-7m-in-loans-as-nottingham-forest-announce-losses-of-just-2-2m/story-30138140-detail/story.html

[Mostyn6]

£135m + in debt?? yikes!

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

I like how the article makes this sound positive, a "loss of JUST 2.2m".

No, the loss was 23.7 million they are just lucky Fawaz wrote most of it off. To any external buyer or investor who may have been interested that loss is still 23.7 million unless they also fancy writing off huge sums of money.

[TigerTedd]

£6m diffeeence between revenue and wages. Thank goodness Fawaz is 'benevolent' now the club only owes him £50-odd million, and I wonder who the other creditors are?

also, I thought writing off directors loans wasn't meant to be a way around ffp, just like sponsoring your own club. The idea of ffp is to run a club sustainably, not leave it in a position where there is 'uncertainty' based on whether or not the director decides to remain benevolent. 

What a mess! Even if they got their act together to make a proper Fawaz Out campaign, Fawaz is actually the only thing standing between them and oblivion. 

[archram]

After reading the first link, it makes me even more grateful to Lionel Pickering that we have a stadium that offers multiple ways    of increasing revenue.

[Van der MoodHoover]

82.8m owed to unspecified creditors!

Hope that they aren't doing a pompey and holding out on local businesses. 

Also - if any of that is to the hmrc vat people forest could easily be in deep do do 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

4 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

82.8m owed to unspecified creditors!

Hope that they aren't doing a pompey and holding out on local businesses. 

Also - if any of that is to the hmrc vat people forest could easily be in deep do do 

Wouldn't surprise me, have they not had a few winding up orders due to unpaid tax in his time?

[mrdave85]

Have ours been published? When are they due if not?

[davenportram]

"Therefore the Director acknowledges a material uncertainty in the event the Company's ultimate beneficial owner becomes unwilling at any time to continue to provide funding support to the business to the general level that it previously provided.

"It should be noted that there are management initiatives that can be pursued to mitigate any potential funding shortfall including the sale of players and other business assets."

 

thr above quote seems seems to be saying that if Fawaz wants out and they go into a administration the club will survive after being stripped of assets. 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

How long do we reckon it will carry on before Fawaz gets sick of writing cheques and bails on the club then? Unless there is some drastic turnaround in fortunes then this isn't likely to change and I can't imagine they are a huge draw for potential buyers in that sort of debt.