Jump to content

Adventures of Sloth, Jon Moss and their band of Merry men.


Day

Recommended Posts

Just now, Kernow said:

Could be an important goal for Sheffield United that. It's set up a bit nicer for the second leg now. Not sure if Forest have ever lost a play-off semi final after taking a lead into the home leg before?

No one has ever lost a championship play off semi final after taking a lead into the home leg, apart from Leeds against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Fair enough.  I don't get it though.  My order of preference is anyone A-Z who isn't Forest

It’s mostly because I don’t want to see the same parachute payment teams yo-yoing between the divisions.

Sheffield United and Huddersfield both fall into that bracket.

You know Norwich and Watford will be up there next season. It’s becoming a closed shop. 

We need some of the parachute payment clubs to basically do a Cardiff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DCFC Kicks said:

Can someone explain why Forest seem to be the only non parachute payment club that haven't suffered over the last two seasons?

Because they transfer their players between Forest / Olympiacos that just happen to both be owned by their owner. Latest transfer being Carvalho for an “undisclosed” fee - likely to be the amount to keep them within ffp.

EFL don’t appear to see any unfair advantage though, nothing to see here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

Can someone explain why Forest seem to be the only non parachute payment club that haven't suffered over the last two seasons?

You mean why they didn't cash in in Jan to cover that 5 million centre half, 12 loans and a huge wage increase in 18 months

Selling their Portugese wonder kid who played about 20 games in 4 yrs for that 13.5 million they splashed out helped.

Not sure where he went or how much profit was made.  Anyone know.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

It’s mostly because I don’t want to see the same parachute payment teams yo-yoing between the divisions.

Sheffield United and Huddersfield both fall into that bracket.

You know Norwich and Watford will be up there next season. It’s becoming a closed shop. 

We need some of the parachute payment clubs to basically do a Cardiff.

Fair enough.  As long as it's not Forest.  Them going up helps no one except them .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Derbados said:

Because they transfer their players between Forest / Olympiacos that just happen to both be owned by their owner. Latest transfer being Carvalho for an “undisclosed” fee - likely to be the amount to keep them within ffp.

EFL don’t appear to see any unfair advantage though, nothing to see here. 

Complaining John Oliver GIF
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DCFC Kicks said:

Can someone explain why Forest seem to be the only non parachute payment club that haven't suffered over the last two seasons?

Dunno. Is it because the EFL are worried their HQ might get bombed if they sanction them? Maybe Trev and Rick woke up with horse's heads in their beds or summat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That they haven’t closed the loophole is bizarre. I mean, what’s stopping an owner buying some random club in Chile or something, purchase one of their players for £50m before sending him back on loan with a view to a permanent free transfer.

It creates a £50m FFP buffer for the selling team.

What Watford and Forest have done shouldn’t be allowed. It’s no different to shifting assets like the stadium between company accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, nobody would bat an eyelid at any of these if FFP didn’t exist.

It’s clearly broken. It was flawed from the start.

Scrap FFP and it would stop the likes of Wolves, Forest, Watford, Derby, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and many others from coming up with ‘creative methods’ to ultimately allow them to spend what they like.

We’re way past that though.

What Forest have done is wrong, but only in the context that swapping assets and having owner’s own sponsors fund the club is wrong too.

Scrap it all and just allow owners to spend what they want as long as they are forced to cover the debts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...