Olton Ram Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, JfR said: Definitely time to alert Steve Gibson, the Championship's resident FFP vigilante to such obviously dodgy 'workarounds'. Fire up the 'Gibson signal'......... Edited October 5, 2020 by David Removed photo containing profanity Reggie Greenwood, Alph and NottsRam77 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 I really hope they don't get the loan paperwork done in time so Grosicki just gets stuck at Olympiacos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 EFL will step in at some point and ban transfers between clubs with the same owners, Forest need to make sure they are on the right side of FFP when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olton Ram Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, David said: EFL will step in at some point and ban transfers between clubs with the same owners, Forest need to make sure they are on the right side of FFP when it happens. You'd have thought so, but Watford have been doing it even longer (with Udinese), and they still haven't done anything about it GenBr and NottsRam77 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, David said: EFL will step in at some point and ban transfers between clubs with the same owners, Forest need to make sure they are on the right side of FFP when it happens. I doubt it - I don't think they should either. The point of P&S is to ensure sustainability. If Olympiacos sign him then they take on the asset and therefore the risk. I wouldn't be thrilled about it if I was an Olympiacos fan, that's for sure, but really it's a smart way of getting around the P&S regulations and it has absolutely no detrimental effect for Forest in the long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ambitious said: I doubt it - I don't think they should either. The point of P&S is to ensure sustainability. If Olympiacos sign him then they take on the asset and therefore the risk. I wouldn't be thrilled about it if I was an Olympiacos fan, that's for sure, but really it's a smart way of getting around the P&S regulations and it has absolutely no detrimental effect for Forest in the long-term. It's no different than allowing an owner to inject as much cash as they want NottsRam77 and GenBr 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ambitious said: I doubt it - I don't think they should either. The point of P&S is to ensure sustainability. If Olympiacos sign him then they take on the asset and therefore the risk. I wouldn't be thrilled about it if I was an Olympiacos fan, that's for sure, but really it's a smart way of getting around the P&S regulations and it has absolutely no detrimental effect for Forest in the long-term. You make a valid argument, this is Forest though so I have no choice but to disagree. It’s no different to selling a stadium to yourself, although that’s a one time only get out of jail card. Forest have an endless supply of these cards, can’t see other Championship clubs not throwing their toys out the pram as it becomes more obvious what they are up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olton Ram Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Just now, Ghost of Clough said: It's no different than allowing an owner to inject as much cash as they want This. According to the EFL an owner can't just pump money into a club, but if that owner also owns another football club he can, if necessary, use the other club to loan players, sell players and buy players, all to the advantage of the Championship club. It's a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: It's no different than allowing an owner to inject as much cash as they want In some respects, I agree. However, the main point here (and I would assume for the EFL) is that the asset is on Olympiacos and not Forest. If Forest sign a player on a three year deal for £1.5m and on £40k-a-week. They, in theory, get a £1.5m asset, but they've also agreed to pay £6.24m over the course of his contract. The problem is in this scenario, if the owner goes bankrupt or simply can't afford to pay, then it's the club who is attached to the contract. Similarly, in your scenario, an owner could come in and sign a lot of players on contracts and effectively leave before ever having to see them through. An owner could stump up the £1.5m and then the first £2m of his contract, but then leave with an additional £4m left to pay. I would guess that's why the EFL can look the other way on things like this. In this scenario, of course, Forest may be paying a loan fee and some wages. However, if the poo hits the fan, it will be Olympiacos that will have to pick up the pieces and not Forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Greenwood Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 19 minutes ago, Ambitious said: In some respects, I agree. However, the main point here (and I would assume for the EFL) is that the asset is on Olympiacos and not Forest. If Forest sign a player on a three year deal for £1.5m and on £40k-a-week. They, in theory, get a £1.5m asset, but they've also agreed to pay £6.24m over the course of his contract. The problem is in this scenario, if the owner goes bankrupt or simply can't afford to pay, then it's the club who is attached to the contract. Similarly, in your scenario, an owner could come in and sign a lot of players on contracts and effectively leave before ever having to see them through. An owner could stump up the £1.5m and then the first £2m of his contract, but then leave with an additional £4m left to pay. I would guess that's why the EFL can look the other way on things like this. In this scenario, of course, Forest may be paying a loan fee and some wages. However, if the poo hits the fan, it will be Olympiacos that will have to pick up the pieces and not Forest. Or the owner goes to jail ? ? Ambitious 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuff264 Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 21 minutes ago, Ambitious said: In some respects, I agree. However, the main point here (and I would assume for the EFL) is that the asset is on Olympiacos and not Forest. If Forest sign a player on a three year deal for £1.5m and on £40k-a-week. They, in theory, get a £1.5m asset, but they've also agreed to pay £6.24m over the course of his contract. The problem is in this scenario, if the owner goes bankrupt or simply can't afford to pay, then it's the club who is attached to the contract. Similarly, in your scenario, an owner could come in and sign a lot of players on contracts and effectively leave before ever having to see them through. An owner could stump up the £1.5m and then the first £2m of his contract, but then leave with an additional £4m left to pay. I would guess that's why the EFL can look the other way on things like this. In this scenario, of course, Forest may be paying a loan fee and some wages. However, if the poo hits the fan, it will be Olympiacos that will have to pick up the pieces and not Forest. It depends on what you think the purpose of FFP/P+S really is. Is it to ensure clubs are sustainable? Is it to ensure a level playing field? Or probably a mix of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 3 minutes ago, Shuff264 said: It depends on what you think the purpose of FFP/P+S really is. Is it to ensure clubs are sustainable? Is it to ensure a level playing field? Or probably a mix of the two. Exactly. It HAS to be sustainability because no one can tell me with a straight face that it's to ensure a level playing field despite numerous teams having a £50m head start per year. RadioactiveWaste and Shuff264 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 If Mel "bought" a non league club in, say Turkmenistan, and then spent a fortune on players for it, only to loan them all to us, I think the EFL would step in and ban the practice. What difference is there between that and the Olympiacos/Gump arrangement? Carnero, Olton Ram, Andicis and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 14 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said: If Mel "bought" a non league club in, say Turkmenistan, and then spent a fortune on players for it, only to loan them all to us, I think the EFL would step in and ban the practice. What difference is there between that and the Olympiacos/Gump arrangement? I was about to suggest that’s exactly what he should do. We might get some friendly away days out to Turkmenistan in the process. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Could buy F.C. Union (? the one in Spain with the steve bloomer connection) ColonelBlimp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Vinagre from Wolves to olympiakos, maybe a similar deal. Dodgy owners and agents interests seem to align. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyram Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 36 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said: Vinagre from Wolves to olympiakos, maybe a similar deal. Dodgy owners and agents interests seem to align. Leaves a sour taste Rev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 5 hours ago, David said: EFL will step in at some point and ban transfers between clubs with the same owners, Forest need to make sure they are on the right side of FFP when it happens. Well they didn’t when Watford were in the championship last time and clearly Watford are doing the same thing with Grenada and udinese again. whilst the the red dogs are only exploiting the loophole and when they do eventually get promoted their owner will ship over the entire Greek team to replace whoever the current red dogs would be so that he could launder his money efficiently whilst creaming off the premiership big bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Derby Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Just been on East Mids Today - Sabri will be gone soon to be replaced by Hughton, Pearson or Howe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts