Forest made a loss of £40m in 2021/22 season

[Redwurzel]

BBC article shows Forest lost £40m in season 2021/22 their promotion season. If £39m loss over 3 years is the maximium loss allowed in the Championship - how is a loss of £40m in one season acceptable?

Nottingham Forest: Appeal rejected against four-point penalty

Nottingham Forest fail in an appeal against their four-point punishment for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Andy_W]

BBC article shows Forest lost £40m in season 2021/22 their promotion season. If £39m loss over 3 years is the maximium loss allowed in the Championship - how is a loss of £40m in one season acceptable?

Nottingham Forest: Appeal rejected against four-point penalty

Nottingham Forest fail in an appeal against their four-point punishment for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

I didn't read the article, but this can apply if they made money the years either side.

The year before they won't have, but the year in the prem they could have, if they never spent a load again. The bought quite well and only just look like surviving, shows how hard it is.

Thing is though, if they never went up they would have been absolutely screwed by FFP, and also probably screwed as a club, but instead they just screwed the club they finished ahead of, or who they got in the play offs ahead of (us).

FFP is meant to be there to make things fairer, some clubs don't even have £39m to gamble, so even if they wated to do that, they couldn't, doesn't seem right to me.

FFP is also meant to make clubs more sustainable, but clearly that's not going to work if clubs are still allowed to roll the dice and press the gamble button, which poses massive risk to the fans club, but not necessarily the owners who are probably punting in small change for them.

Still nowhere near a fair system, especially for the smaller or sustainable clubs, and if the clubs are small and sustainable then they have next to zero chance, FFP is meant to even this imbalance, but it doesn't.

Do they not have a limit of ~£20m any one year, or £40m over 3 years? They should have.

 

[GazBoro]

Cheating the system to win promotion by having a squad you can't afford, works..

Villa did it the season they knocked us out of the play offs.
Forest did it.
And Leicester have just done it (they also wracked up massive debts in 2014 when they first went up, then won the EPL two years later!).

At least Derby got caught out, and that's only thanks to Steve Gibson making a public stand against it.

 

[Redwurzel]

Cheating the system to win promotion by having a squad you can't afford, works..

Villa did it the season they knocked us out of the play offs.
Forest did it.
And Leicester have just done it (they also wracked up massive debts in 2014 when they first went up, then won the EPL two years later!).

At least Derby got caught out, and that's only thanks to Steve Gibson making a public stand against it.

Gaz - You can also add Bournemouth to that list in 2015 - they were fined for over spending but it was half way through the next season when they were in the Premier League and 99% of the football community didn't even notice.

 

[Redwurzel]

I didn't read the article, but this can apply if they made money the years either side.

The year before they won't have, but the year in the prem they could have, if they never spent a load again. The bought quite well and only just look like surviving, shows how hard it is.

Thing is though, if they never went up they would have been absolutely screwed by FFP, and also probably screwed as a club, but instead they just screwed the club they finished ahead of, or who they got in the play offs ahead of (us).

FFP is meant to be there to make things fairer, some clubs don't even have £39m to gamble, so even if they wated to do that, they couldn't, doesn't seem right to me.

FFP is also meant to make clubs more sustainable, but clearly that's not going to work if clubs are still allowed to roll the dice and press the gamble button, which poses massive risk to the fans club, but not necessarily the owners who are probably punting in small change for them.

Still nowhere near a fair system, especially for the smaller or sustainable clubs, and if the clubs are small and sustainable then they have next to zero chance, FFP is meant to even this imbalance, but it doesn't.

Do they not have a limit of ~£20m any one year, or £40m over 3 years? They should have.

Andy - what the chances of Forest making a profit in two Championship seasons with a spend thrift chairman? I would honestly put it close to zero.

 

[Kowalski]

BBC article shows Forest lost £40m in season 2021/22 their promotion season. If £39m loss over 3 years is the maximium loss allowed in the Championship - how is a loss of £40m in one season acceptable?

Nottingham Forest: Appeal rejected against four-point penalty

Nottingham Forest fail in an appeal against their four-point punishment for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

They only lost £3m per season in the previous 2 seasons according to the article in the link. You then have to deduct all allowable expenditure, (academy spend, stadium running costs etc) before you arrive at the figures that go into the P&S calculations.

 

[TeaCider]

A huge portion of that figure will be promotion bonuses too.

So they might well not have been in immediate trouble at all if they weren't promoted.

IIRC part of their argument was that it was unfair that promotion bonuses were included in P&S.
Obviously an argument that was rejected.

 

[Andy_W]

Andy - what the chances of Forest making a profit in two Championship seasons with a spend thrift chairman? I would honestly put it close to zero.

Yeah not likely, over three seasons one of them was in the prem though, that's profitable if you don't blow all the cash or put all your eggs in one basket. Not saying Forest did that mind, as they then went and spent £190m, then another £50m this year. They probably won't be able to spend a penny this year and will still be in trouble with FFP again I think. They could be in trouble next year unless they sell Murillo and Gibbs White, who they should both get good money for. They spent £35m on a crap DM though, so that's gonna hurt.

Then comparing them to some others:

Luton scraped through in the play offs, only spent net £25m in the prem and got about 10 players for that, most of which will probably stick around in the champo, which is probably the most low risk way to do it. Probably still going down though, but they will likely be in the mix in the champo next year, and have cash to spend.

Burnley spent net £107m on about 30 players, none of which were expecting to play in the champo next year, and will finish below Luton, they're screwed if the players stay as they won't be able to afford the wages. What is mre likely to happen is the best players leave on a pittence, elaving them with high wage dross.

Sheff Utd spent net £36m, and the £40m on Archer and Hamer isn't value for a champo side, especially not on the wages they will be on, I think they're probably in trouble, and I don't think Wilder will be able to help them much.

So, out of those four, the only really sustainable one is Luton, and they're probably going to be in the best position of all next year, probably even including Forest who will likely survive.

We're up net 11m from last year, and starting to show signs of being a decent squad, we're getting ourselves fairly well positioned without being at risk to FFP, it's looking good for us I think. We were + 17m year before and -11m year before that, so over 3 years + £17m on transfers and our squad is probably better than it's ever been in for owned players. We probably had a better side back end of last year, but that was heavily reliant on loans, which is not the case now.

 

[BoroMart]

So, out of those four, the only really sustainable one is Luton, and they're probably going to be in the best position of all next year, probably even including Forest who will likely survive.

They certainly seemed to approach it more strategically, their big problem is funding the new stadium may suck up a lot of revenue next year

 

[indeedido]

We lost £31m pre tax in our promotion season of 2015-16, £9m pre tax in year 2014-15 and £20m in year 2013-14.

Allowances for U21, Community spend, depreciation, women's football (zero) would have made it nip and tuck to get us to £39m FFP allowable loss for the 3 years, really tight.

 

[Andy_W]

We lost £31m pre tax in our promotion season of 2015-16, £9m pre tax in year 2014-15 and £20m in year 2013-14.

Allowances for U21, Community spend, depreciation, women's football (zero) would have made it nip and tuck to get us to £39m FFP allowable loss for the 3 years, really tight.

Yeah we ran that close I bet, but seem in much better shape now and have a much more sustainable plan. Feels a lot "safer" to me, and even more so with Gibson not being the moneybags compared to the rest, like he once was. So much money in football now, it's a billionaires playground, even major millionaires can really struggle with the prem and champo.

 

[SmoggyRambo]

I’ve just written and deleted about 3 or 4 different things I’ve got to say on this, it’s all been said before…

I’ll leave it with… if the football authorities continue to exploit the fans the way they are, we’ll stop watching and that will collapse the whole system regardless of what they do, absolute bunch of brain dead, greedy, spineless F***ing jokers..

 

[Redwurzel]

To all posters

In general the fans are not fully treated with the respect they deserve - however looking at the facts of attendances isn't the trend of increasing attendances in the Championship over the last 20 years?