Nottingham Forest FFP charge ‘unfair’ as Evangelos Marinakis point made

Nottingham Forest FFP charge ‘unfair’ as Evangelos Marinakis point made

The most recent information on Nottingham Forest while they wait to hear the case about potential violations of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules

Evangelos Marinakis

According to Simon Jordan, Nottingham Forest is treated unfairly 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 is facing charges of going over that limit, and they are waiting to hear back from an independent committee that held a hearing last week to determine whether to impose any sanctions.

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 program 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.

“The reasons why Forest are getting walloped is because they’re carrying up two years of losses from the EFL and one year of losses from the Premier League, which means they weren’t allowed to have £105 million worth of losses. They’re only allowed to have £60m.

“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 sure as some that Forest is being penalized 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.

“It is not the same argument but I do agree there needs to be a better sophistication. Now is 85% of turnover on wages better than £35 million a season losses? That’s the question, because if it is, it’s moving in the right direction.

“So if you are Nottingham Forest and your turnover is £200 million, round it up for the sake of this conversation, you are allowed to spend £170 million on wages and associated depreciation. What are you currently doing? If you’re currently spending less than that, then there is a move in the right direction.

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.The most recent information about Nottingham Forest while they wait to hear about their hearing for potential violations of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules.

Read more news on:sportupdates.co.uk

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*