Serial Whingers Notts Forest playtime, which we simply cannot accept.

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

I meant that, until the last 7 years, Plymouth were traditionally more successful than Bournemouth (league position etc) and even now have more fans and greater potential - they've just never had a wealthy Russian owner. 

Ah, fair enough ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Plymouth will only be spending about £5m on wages this season.

So not likely to be bigger than Burnmuff then? ?

[BodminRam]

I think they are quite clever buying all those players, they can use them to fill the seats up when the fans stop coming once reality hits home

[Bris Vegas]

The annoying part about all their spending is they have a loophole out of it in Olympiakos.

Why that is still allowed I don’t know.

 

[Leeds Ram]

Don't understand Forest's transfer strategy at all tbh. They'd have been better off spending on Spence, Garner and Henderson and carefully look at underrated gems tbh. Instead, they've spent fortunes on what looks early doors like pretty garbage players. Lingaard and Gibbs White just won't be cutting it for them at that level. Personally, I think unless they get their act together quickly they could become relegation fodder by christmas. You can see them sacking Cooper in a desperate attempt to stay up, still go down and have lost a fortune on a poorly thought out gamble. 

[Rammy03]

42 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Don't understand Forest's transfer strategy at all tbh. They'd have been better off spending on Spence, Garner and Henderson and carefully look at underrated gems tbh. Instead, they've spent fortunes on what looks early doors like pretty garbage players. Lingaard and Gibbs White just won't be cutting it for them at that level. Personally, I think unless they get their act together quickly they could become relegation fodder by christmas. You can see them sacking Cooper in a desperate attempt to stay up, still go down and have lost a fortune on a poorly thought out gamble. 

To be fair they've got a few of what you could call underrated gems from Europe but agreed on the whole their transfer strategy is very mixed. I think their biggest problem is that they have got all these players but they can't get them into one team. You've got big money players who really should be playing, sitting on the bench. You can see it getting pretty desperate if they can't get some results in the next few. 

I still think they should have bought in less players and tried to sign some of the loan players they had, keeping that spirit and core of the team which did very well to get them up. Doing this, along with buying a few good players who can cut it in a top league, is probably the best strategy and the most low risk. It has proven to work with the likes of Brentford and Leeds in their first season. On the face of it the team may not have looked good enough but at least they would have some cohesion. What they've done is bought in 20 new players and you just can't see it gelling together. When has this strategy ever worked for a newly promoted team?

Edited September 5, 2022 by Rammy03

[Boycie]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

The annoying part about all their spending is they have a loophole out of it in Olympiakos.

Why that is still allowed I don’t know.

 

If only we knew some kind of jorno type who has a passion for football finances and rule breaking etc?

[Reggie Greenwood]

4 minutes ago, Boycie said:

If only we knew some kind of jorno type who has a passion for football finances and rule breaking etc?

Might not want his shed burning down though ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

I'm still perplexed more haven't done the Watford thing and just bought a club in another league to facilitate this?

It's seemingly untouchable as a work around for FFP measures.

 

[Shipley Ram]

5 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

It's seemingly untouchable as a work around for FFP measures.

It bet if Mel had used that loophole they would have found it to be touchable

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

The annoying part about all their spending is they have a loophole out of it in Olympiakos.

Why that is still allowed I don’t know.

 

The worrying thing for them is that they used to have players who didn't mind going there.   Can't see that many takers amongst the ones they've brought who'll still think they're world class billy big bollox.   More likely mega strops till they get a move to the inevitably promoted Norwich or some mid table La Liga at half the price paid.  

[TigerTedd]

9 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

The worrying thing for them is that they used to have players who didn't mind going there.   Can't see that many takers amongst the ones they've brought who'll still think they're world class billy big bollox.   More likely mega strops till they get a move to the inevitably promoted Norwich or some mid table La Liga at half the price paid.  

They could end up selling to olympiakos with an instant loan to Norwich. It’s all so bloody dodgy. It’s clear as day. But the league will do nothing about it. 

[dantheram]

12 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I'm still perplexed more haven't done the Watford thing and just bought a club in another league to facilitate this?

It's seemingly untouchable as a work around for FFP measures.

 

This 

what’s the explanation as to why other don’t do it? Seems a loophole that they are not interested in. 

[TigerTedd]

3 minutes ago, dantheram said:

This 

what’s the explanation as to why other don’t do it? Seems a loophole that they are not interested in. 

There are other clubs that own other clubs though aren’t there. Don’t the Man City owners own loads of different clubs round the world. Didn’t they loan frank lampard to New York or something?

and the guy looking to buy Man Utd owns other clubs. But swapping plates between these clubs only really seems to happen with Forest and Watford on a regular basis. Other clubs could do it loads, they just choose not to. I doubt that’s a moral choice, so is there some sort of rule preventing them?

[Rammy03]

4 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

They could end up selling to olympiakos with an instant loan to Norwich. It’s all so bloody dodgy. It’s clear as day. But the league will do nothing about it. 

It's not right but what can the league do about it now? What do they have the power to do?

[May Contain Nuts]

33 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

It's not right but what can the league do about it now? What do they have the power to do?

Write it into the Profit & Sustainability rules?

They already do this with sponsorship / commercial deals requiring third party validation to make sure the deal represents fair market value https://www.mishcon.com/news/the-premier-leagues-new-profitability-and-sustainability-rules

There surely has to be something they can add to the rules on transfers that would stop, for instance, Watford selling a player to Udinese for 4-5 times the amount they paid for no more than 20 (largely unimpressive) appearances ago?

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

45 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

It's not right but what can the league do about it now? What do they have the power to do?

Maybe they could change the rules, apply the new one retrospectively and play a part in getting them relegated? They have form for that kind of thing. It’s ok, I’m sure Bristol City fans, the twitterati  and Kieran MacGuire are all over this. 

[TigerTedd]

2 hours ago, Steve Buckley’s Dog said:

Maybe they could change the rules, apply the new one retrospectively and play a part in getting them relegated? They have form for that kind of thing. It’s ok, I’m sure Bristol City fans, the twitterati  and Kieran MacGuire are all over this. 

Even if it’s not applied retrospectively, it would still be funny, cos they’re relying on selling these players to Greece next year. If the rule is changed in the close season, then they’re stuffed. Not unlike being told you can use one amortisation method, then using it smugly in the knowledge that you’ve got the thumbs up, then having the rules changed on you when it’s too late to turn back. Can’t really see a thing as abjectly unfair as that ever happening though. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

7 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

There are other clubs that own other clubs though aren’t there. Don’t the Man City owners own loads of different clubs round the world. Didn’t they loan frank lampard to New York or something?

and the guy looking to buy Man Utd owns other clubs. But swapping plates between these clubs only really seems to happen with Forest and Watford on a regular basis. Other clubs could do it loads, they just choose not to. I doubt that’s a moral choice, so is there some sort of rule preventing them?

Sure Brighton own a Belgian club

[JfR]

8 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

There are other clubs that own other clubs though aren’t there. Don’t the Man City owners own loads of different clubs round the world. Didn’t they loan frank lampard to New York or something?

and the guy looking to buy Man Utd owns other clubs. But swapping plates between these clubs only really seems to happen with Forest and Watford on a regular basis. Other clubs could do it loads, they just choose not to. I doubt that’s a moral choice, so is there some sort of rule preventing them?

I think some of those other clubs do it more than people think, it's just not as obvious as the Watford/Udinese or Forest/Olympiacos connections, probably because in a lot of cases the English club is the larger club doing most of the favours for smaller foreign clubs. Man City, for example, signed a 26-year old called Mix Diskerud from their sister club New York City in 2018. During the season he was signed, he was on loan at Goteborg to provide "salary relief" to NYC, but with them still paying a big chunk of his wages. He signed for Man City, and they immediately sent him back to Goteborg on loan. It didn't really benefit Man City - he never even made an appearance for the Man City first team - but it was likely quite inconsequential monetarily for a team of their size compared to the advantage it gave to a smaller club in NYC.