The latest Nottingham Forest news as the club await the outcome of their hearing for alleged Profitability & Sustainability Rules breaches
According to Simon Jordan, Nottingham Forest is not treated fairly by the existing Profitability & Sustainability Rules.
The Reds are accused of breaking the rules that now restrict how much a club can lose in a three-year span.
Forest has been charged with going over that limit, and they are waiting to hear back from an independent commission hearing that was held last week to find out if they will face any consequences.
Jordan, the former owner of Crystal Palace, points out that after Forest was promoted, the current regulations, which state that losses cannot surpass an average of £13 million in the Championship and £35 million in the top division annually, put a stop to them. When Forest needed to make investments to maintain their hard-earned status, they were at a financial disadvantage because two of their qualifying years were at the lower level.
“I believe that there is a component of Financial Fair Play that is a blunt tool,” Jordan stated on the White and Jordan talk show on talkSPORT.”I believe that Nottingham Forest should have had some kind of exemption from sanctions since they were promoted from the EFL to the Premier League.
“Forest is losing badly because they can’t afford to have losses totaling £105 million because they’re carrying up two EFL years’ worth of losses and one Premier League year’s worth of losses. Their allotment is limited at £60 million.
“It doesn’t change the fact that their owner knew what he was doing, had to get the balance right, and was a rapacious spender of far too much money.”
Jordan is not as convinced as some that Forest is being penalised for not giving Brennan Johnson the money he deserves. The winger was sold to Tottenham in the summer of last year, but it was too late to incorporate the money into the three-year accounting period that is presently being examined.
Additionally, it is not the same to acquire a player, sell him after three months, and then claim that you only sold him after three months in order to receive a higher market value; instead, you may argue that he ought to have been brought back to three months earlier in order to include the prior year.
“While the argument is different, I do think that there should be more subtlety. Is 85% of salary turnover now preferable to losses of £35 million per season? That’s the question; if the answer is yes, then things are headed in the right way.
For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say Nottingham Forest has a turnover of £200 million. In that case, you can spend £170 million on wages and related depreciation. What are you doing right now? You’re moving in the right direction if you’re currently spending less than that.
I’m torn between the notion that excessive regulation stifles entrepreneurship in sports and the idea that Profit & Sustainability, or FFP, is a blunt instrument that requires smart use.
However, Forest is being treated unfairly because, as you rise, the past ought to fade into the past. Nottingham Forest shouldn’t have been forced to play in the Premier League with the drag and tag mentality from the Championship.
See more updates on https://sportupdates.co.uk/
Leave a Reply