Hxj

There is no such nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish for players. Nakhi Wells, Alex Scott and Tommy Conway could under FIFA rules all play for Wales.

Well they need something to 'crow' about.

It is clear from the recent EFL published decision that LCFC are predicting that they are failing 2023/24. If they were to pass (regardless of the margin) then the CFRU would not have been in a position to report them to the CFRP as a failure to agree a business plan. Business plans only apply to clubs which are predicting failure. What happens next is anyone's guess. My prediction is that LCFC will agree say a 4 point penalty with the EFL for the 2022/23 period on the grounds that it makes no difference to their return to the EPL for 2024/25. Clearly there is a period in which Leicester's performance will be critical. The alternative is to take two points penalties in 2024/25 if promoted. That will probably result in relegation to the Championship for 2025/26 which will create further FFP issues.

Posted Tuesday at 13:14 (edited) Usual 'journalistic' nonsense. If Leicester are in breach in 2022/23 they will get punished by the EFL in 2023/24 or by the EPL in 2024/25, assuming they are promoted. If Leicester breach in 2023/24 they will get punished by the EPL in 2024/25, on the same basis. So there is the possibility that Leicester will get an irrelevant punishment in 2023/24 (not sufficient to stop promotion) or two punishments in 2024/25. That is how the rules are currently designed to work. He obviously reads OTIB then!

The EFL can appeal, which is fine. The CFRU can also wait until after 31 March and refer again. See paragraph 52 of the decision.

All p A settlement with the EFL and a points deduction in 2023/24 season may well be more beneficial for Leicester City than a points deduction in 2024/25 is my reading.

Not Championship FFP, but for those interested this Tax Tribunal case gives some details on a 'typical' player contract. NIASSE v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX - employment income - payments of agency fees made on behalf of professional footballer to agent) [2024] UKFTT 179 (TC) (28 February 2024) (bailii.org)

Morally maybe, but entirely within the regulations. That would not stop a club being promoted in a year of breach. One solution is forcing clubs to have an accounting date of 31 May, with audited accounts submitted by 7 June. Anyone suggesting that is not possible needs to spend a little more time on their accounts.

Usual 'journalistic' nonsense. If Leicester are in breach in 2022/23 they will get punished by the EFL in 2023/24 or by the EPL in 2024/25, assuming they are promoted. If Leicester breach in 2023/24 they will get punished by the EPL in 2024/25, on the same basis. So there is the possibility that Leicester will get an irrelevant punishment in 2023/24 (not sufficient to stop promotion) or two punishments in 2024/25. That is how the rules are currently designed to work.

Nor did I. As I've said previously some on here forget that they are talking directly or indirectly about children - no matter no concern to them - they have to score a point.

Which two back and where?

You need to move away from a mathematical model to describe the process of arriving at the deduction, as the Appeal Board themselves stated there is no formula. They also said that the screeching halt in expenditure for 2022 were little grounds for mitigation. Bearing in mind that this was the first such case an alternative way of looking at it is that the Appeal Board decided like this: "The minimum penalty in effect is 3 points, the maximum penalty is 9 points, we think this sits roughly in the middle taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, so 6 points seems reasonable." So Forest will be, assuming the same relative size of breach (which is rumoured), so we start from -6 points as in Everton 1. We should give them some mitigation for the sale of Johnson, see Sheffield Wednesday, and for the admission so say -3. Everton 2 will be, there is an admitted breach, but there is no such thing as a 'technical breach' due to applying the EFL rules, as those rules don't apply. As the Appeal Board stated it is an absolute offence, you either breached or you did not, and if you did breach you can expect a points penalty. Assuming of the same level, so start at -6. The mitigation is higher than last time with an admission, but there is also an aggravating factor as there appears to have been no attempt to meet FFP under EPL rules in this year, so we remain at -6. But looking at both cases in the round we reduce the penalty to -4 to reflect to some account the double counting.

It is also clear that Everton have vastly overspent in 2022/23. The club said that the breach that arose in 2022/23 only arose because there are no ability to reduce the losses where there were breaches in earlier years. Given the published losses of £58m in T-2 and £10m in T-1, the loss in T (2022/23) must have exceeded £37m (58+10+37 = 105). It must also have been less than £56m (39+10+56 = 105). So Everton have a significant FFP issue and go out and lose say £40 million in the following period. I can’t see a panel not imposing a significant penalty where there is such a cavalier attitude.

It doesn't work like that. The Appeal Board found that appeal succeeded on two grounds, the others failed. Having found that the original decision was wrong, the Appeal Board remade the decision. The primary points on which they hung their hats were, firstly the EPL insolvency penalty, and secondly the structure of the EFL calculations. It is difficult to meaningfully criticise the Appeal Board decision. It is also interesting that they also allude to the Brennan Johnson defence via the Sheffield Wednesday case, see paragraph 214.

The decision of the Appeal Board is detailed and considered. There are some interesting statements that Everton will not like in respect of their next case.

You need to compare like with like, you have picked up the consolidated figures which be net of the intra-group transactions.

Agreed. Forest have always accepted that they are in default.

Somebody has to fund the generously low say £250,000 to get them to the end of the season. The shareholders might, but then why would you threaten administration in the middle of a season and not wait until 31 May?

The main problem with the analysis is that it is wrong. Wrong as in wrong, not as in 'might be right if I imagine this and look at that.' For a start the old UK-GAAP passed away gracefully about 20 years ago, why anyone thinks that it is still useful is beyond me. For unquoted companies they can use IFRS or the appropriate FRS, usually 102. No accounting standards allow a revaluation of intangible assets to more than cost, you can only impair an asset if you can demonstrate that it is devalued. To be open and as I have said before I have some sympathy with Nottingham Forest's position, and not just because I know a lot of season ticket holders. They have accepted the breach. In mitigation they state that they have a necessity to sell their players at the best possible price to enable them to compete in the EPL, and that the transaction they entered into as resolved their FFP issues going forward. I think that it is a good, proper and meaningful argument. There are counter-arguments along the lines of why did you buy 250 players on huge salaries in your first year in the EPL. I also know that not everyone on here has the same view as I do.

If you move to an SCMP system then in year is definitely a possibility, in fact it is an integral part of such a system. If you overspend on your budget you get penalised.

Which bit?

I meant ‘in-season’ as in ‘in the season in which the accounts are submitted’. Sorry

The call in review is intended to be an in-season back stop. However the EFL note that it can be used at a later date.

Torquay have not yet entered Administration. However the shareholder has issued a formal notice stating that it has the intention to appoint an Administrator. I have heard that if that happens the club will be unable to meet the remaining fixtures, and will therefore be expelled from the Conference mid-season. Time for someone else to fund the £1 million a year cash deficit of running a Conference club.

For FFP purposes it is the accounts prepared under the UK Companies Acts which are used. These will be in line with UK accounting standards.