forest bankrolled

[pillred]

can somebody explain to me how forest can pay over 13 million for a player and give him a 5 year contract, we are constantly told city cant do it because of FFP, so how come they can they haven't got parachute payments so I can only assume they are saying to hell with FFP we will worry about that later.

[Monkeh]

4 hours ago, pillred said:

can somebody explain to me how forest can pay over 13 million for a player and give him a 5 year contract, we are constantly told city cant do it because of FFP, so how come they can they haven't got parachute payments so I can only assume they are saying to hell with FFP we will worry about that later.

Look at Villa, if they don’t go up they’ll be in trouble 

[David Brent]

4 hours ago, pillred said:

can somebody explain to me how forest can pay over 13 million for a player and give him a 5 year contract, we are constantly told city cant do it because of FFP, so how come they can they haven't got parachute payments so I can only assume they are saying to hell with FFP we will worry about that later.

Did they spend the £15m from the sale of Assombalonga yet?

[And Its Smith]

5 hours ago, pillred said:

can somebody explain to me how forest can pay over 13 million for a player and give him a 5 year contract, we are constantly told city cant do it because of FFP, so how come they can they haven't got parachute payments so I can only assume they are saying to hell with FFP we will worry about that later.

They are going to have to make sure they go up in the next two seasons.  If they do they will get away with it. 

I hope City never gamble like that.  

[Buckeyed]

23 minutes ago, David Brent said:

Did they spend the £15m from the sale of Assombalonga yet?

A guy on Twitter suggested that much of that transfer fee is coming to them this season

[Olé]

Another Jorge Mendes player. It appears he needs a new vehicle in the Championship for his prospects...

We should keep a close eye on this because for me Forest are part of a smaller direct peer group for us.

Prior to this similar spend, similar league positions, certainly more a "lower mid-table aspirational" group.

Not to say they now have a big advantage but we must check if someone "in our pack" is upping the pace.

They've sold a player for c. £10m each of the last 3 seasons so a blueprint for our desired funding model.

But this is the first time they've pushed the boat out this far, presumably using the Assombalonga money.

Interesting note in the Nottingham press about this deal being made possible by the relatively low wages:

Quote

With Forest's board mindful of Financial Fair Play regulations following the regime of former owner Fawaz Al Hasawi, it is understood that both players are considered an even bigger coup due to their relatively low wages

Remember wages are given as our biggest impediment so would be worth benchmarking Forest's outlay.

Usual reminder that actual transfer fees for an asset (proven young player likely to improve) are irrelevant.

The only real money out the door long term on the balance sheet will be the wages, this is our pinch point.

Being pragmatic, a player of proven (higher) value is a safer investment, provided you can cover the wages.

If Forest feel they've got a strong asset for "relatively low wages" I trust MA is assessing what level that is.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, David Brent said:

Did they spend the £15m from the sale of Assombalonga yet?

They had £13m for Oliver Burke two years ago too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

They apparently made a £32 million profit last year!? Can only assume that's related to transfer income, profit on player trading etc.

However, that will surely come under scrutiny from the Football League and FFP panel...seems crazily high based on its own merits that. Indeed, a brief search suggests Al-Hawsi wrote off £40m in loans which was the main driver in this- can't see the Football League accepting that on face value.

@Coxy27 Maybe they will, maybe they won't- Benfica have a very good academy though.

[Coxy27]

Neither of these players Forest have signed have the pedigree Wolves' signings had.

They might well prove to be quality, and for that money you would expect it, but they're hardly Ruben Neves and Diogo Jota, on paper, at least.

Time will tell, but it's a bit of a gamble. 14 league appearances for Benfica between them.

[Sniper]

2 hours ago, Olé said:

Another Jorge Mendes player. It appears he needs a new vehicle in the Championship for his prospects...

We should keep a close eye on this because for me Forest are part of a smaller direct peer group for us.

Prior to this similar spend, similar league positions, certainly more a "lower mid-table aspirational" group.

Not to say they now have a big advantage but we must check if someone "in our pack" is upping the pace.

They've sold a player for c. £10m each of the last 3 seasons so a blueprint for our desired funding model.

But this is the first time they've pushed the boat out this far, presumably using the Assombalonga money.

Interesting note in the Nottingham press about this deal being made possible by the relatively low wages:

Remember wages are given as our biggest impediment so would be worth benchmarking Forest's outlay.

Usual reminder that actual transfer fees for an asset (proven young player likely to improve) are irrelevant.

The only real money out the door long term on the balance sheet will be the wages, this is our pinch point.

Being pragmatic, a player of proven (higher) value is a safer investment, provided you can cover the wages.

If Forest feel they've got a strong asset for "relatively low wages" I trust MA is assessing what level that is.

This is an excellent point Ole. You have the bigger clubs and established Championship clubs that you know will be up the right end of the table, also the ones with parachute payments still, and the clubs that are coming down. If we don't keep pace with the clubs in 'our pack' as you say, suddenly you're looking at another season fighting off relegation. Been there, got the T-shirt, no thanks.

The Championship as we all know is brutal anyway, but now the money side of things has really been upped and if you don't spend you sink. I'm not talking about going out and spending 40 million (not sure what would happened if we did with FFP), but I think you get what I'm trying to say, you can't be tight-fisted, as you blink and you're back in L1 before you know it!

[EnderMB]

The reason Lansdown talks about FFP is because he doesn't want to spend money he cannot get back. It's as simple as that.

The rules around FFP dictate that a club should only spend its own money. Having an owner that is willing to pay megabucks is fine, as long as they put that money into the club first. There are countless ways of doing it to make it look like legit profit, so FFP will never be able to fully stop someone putting money into a club.

From our perspective, we've seen enough teams go up with a minimal budget over the years, and that's enough for Lansdown to believe that spending isn't the answer, despite the fact that there are far more instances of clubs achieving success through investment.

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

The reason Lansdown talks about FFP is because he doesn't want to spend money he cannot get back. It's as simple as that.

The rules around FFP dictate that a club should only spend its own money. Having an owner that is willing to pay megabucks is fine, as long as they put that money into the club first. There are countless ways of doing it to make it look like legit profit, so FFP will never be able to fully stop someone putting money into a club.

From our perspective, we've seen enough teams go up with a minimal budget over the years, and that's enough for Lansdown to believe that spending isn't the answer, despite the fact that there are far more instances of clubs achieving success through investment.

In the last 10 years he's spent £50m+ just covering our losses, let alone how much he's put into the stadium redevelopment and the academy. How much of that is he going to get back?

At the risk of teaching Granny to suck eggs, the financial rules limit how big a loss a club can make and, if my understanding is correct, how much an owner can put in relative to those losses. Ive long felt that SL sees Bristol City as a long term project where he accepts that he might not see a return on his investment until premier league promotion is achieved, and even then I also suspect that such an achievement will mean as much to him for the achievement itself, as for the financial retreads.  My reading has been that it was the introduction of the financial rules that caused SL to start to plan for the club being able to stand on it's own feet financially

Many comment that other clubs seem to flout the financial rules and get away with it, especially those gaining promotion to the premier league. There was a link to another club's forum on here not long ago ( might have been QPR's) in which a poster copied and pasted an article outlining the new sanctions the football league can, and will, take against clubs breaking the financial rules. The penalties include points deduction, clubs being prevented from taking promotion, transfer embargoes as well as fines.

I am pretty sure that SL will want to avoid the  nightmare of "buying " promotion only to then see it snatched from his and our grasp because we've breached the financial rules. Villa's predicament is a salutary lesson for everyone as to the consequence of overspending in the quest for promotion - they have to sell £50m of players over the next 2 windows!

 

[pillred]

31 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

The reason Lansdown talks about FFP is because he doesn't want to spend money he cannot get back. It's as simple as that.

The rules around FFP dictate that a club should only spend its own money. Having an owner that is willing to pay megabucks is fine, as long as they put that money into the club first. There are countless ways of doing it to make it look like legit profit, so FFP will never be able to fully stop someone putting money into a club.

From our perspective, we've seen enough teams go up with a minimal budget over the years, and that's enough for Lansdown to believe that spending isn't the answer, despite the fact that there are far more instances of clubs achieving success through investment.

there is a very good reason the phrase you have to speculate to accumulate is so often used, though I accept it doesn't always work.

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In the last 10 years he's spent £50m+ just covering our losses, let alone how much he's put into the stadium redevelopment and the academy. How much of that is he going to get back?

At the risk of teaching Granny to suck eggs, the financial rules limit how big a loss a club can make and, if my understanding is correct, how much an owner can put in relative to those losses. Ive long felt that SL sees Bristol City as a long term project where he accepts that he might not see a return on his investment until premier league promotion is achieved, and even then I also suspect that such an achievement will mean as much to him for the achievement itself, as for the financial retreads.  My reading has been that it was the introduction of the financial rules that caused SL to start to plan for the club being able to stand on it's own feet financially

Many comment that other clubs seem to flout the financial rules and get away with it, especially those gaining promotion to the premier league. There was a link to another club's forum on here not long ago ( might have been QPR's) in which a poster copied and pasted an article outlining the new sanctions the football league can, and will, take against clubs breaking the financial rules. The penalties include points deduction, clubs being prevented from taking promotion, transfer embargoes as well as fines.

I am pretty sure that SL will want to avoid the  nightmare of "buying " promotion only to then see it snatched from his and our grasp because we've breached the financial rules. Villa's predicament is a salutary lesson for everyone as to the consequence of overspending in the quest for promotion - they have to sell £50m of players over the next 2 windows!

 

Good post DC.  The rules as to what investments you can put in have been tightened, although PSG still seem to getting leniency.

I posted some while ago that the more clubs that come down with parachute payments, the more difficult the self-sustainable strategy becomes in terms of landing promotion.  The silver lining to that cloud is “mis-management” by those clubs.

The potential implosion of Villa, the consecutive relegation of Sunderland, the struggle of Hull, etc might just start to take effect / cause a knee jerk in the boardrooms of clubs who could follow a similar fate.

To my mind, despite a 3 year parachute, I think most clubs coming down can have one decent shot at getting back up, their first season back.  Some might go as far as Xmas in season two, but if they have any sense, you do what Noreich do, and start to cut their cloth accordingly.  They were unspectacular in season 1, and by Xmas this season were mid-table.  It then becomes shit or bust if you try to push.  

Norwich, pretty sensibly owned over the years, decided the risk was too high, and started to make plans for a longer tenure in tier 2.  The best they could realistically aim for was the 4-horse play-off.

Villa, however we’re probably thinking their push would be for automatic promotion and so they thought the gamble worthwhile.  Unfortunately (or not) they had Fulham and Cardiff to contend with....and they lost...big-time.

That second year gamble also means you’ve probably had to either have players on extended contracts, or renegotiated to keep them there, which then means they’re a bugger to get rid of, or you have to offer them cut-price.

Rodwell appears to have had a 1 year suspended relegation wage drop.  Nobody was gonna take him off their hands for a fee, not even a free with a £70k per week wage.

Thats the kinda deal that will keep that big earners at your club when relegated, which is good if you want to keep him, but not if you don’t.

So I think we might see a little more conservatism from a few clubs, levelling the playing field slightly, but if not, expect some epic fallout.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Davefevs

PSG will be an interesting test case- read recently they must raise 60 million euros by end of June- or they would fail it for this season. Variety of penalties available to UEFA.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Davefevs

PSG will be an interesting test case- read recently they must raise 60 million euros by end of June- or they would fail it for this season. Variety of penalties available to UEFA.

Yep, read the same.......we’ll see.  Think they’ll somehow get away with it!!!

[havanatopia]

On 15/06/2018 at 14:44, Olé said:

If Forest feel they've got a strong asset for "relatively low wages" I trust MA is assessing what level that is.

I think you give MA far too much credit.

On 15/06/2018 at 19:57, downendcity said:

My reading has been that it was the introduction of the financial rules that caused SL to start to plan for the club being able to stand on it's own feet financially

I disagree; SL would have been planning for such the day he took over. FFP only crystalised that basic tenet of business further.

[cidered abroad]

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Davefevs

PSG will be an interesting test case- read recently they must raise 60 million euros by end of June- or they would fail it for this season. Variety of penalties available to UEFA.

Sell Neymar  to Real? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, read the same.......we’ll see.  Think they’ll somehow get away with it!!!

It's going to be interesting IMO. It's highly unlikely they will get a CL ban- if they are punished a restriction on squad size for CL or a hefty fine or I don't know does UEFA FFP have the power to embargo a side? Maybe something like that at this stage- provided they don't get any quick sales done.

2 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

Sell Neymar  to Real? 

Most obvious way- plenty of good players though, could easily sell 2 or 3 squad players and raise it that way.

[Pezo]

On 15/06/2018 at 12:41, EnderMB said:

The reason Lansdown talks about FFP is because he doesn't want to spend money he cannot get back. It's as simple as that.

The rules around FFP dictate that a club should only spend its own money. Having an owner that is willing to pay megabucks is fine, as long as they put that money into the club first. There are countless ways of doing it to make it look like legit profit, so FFP will never be able to fully stop someone putting money into a club.

From our perspective, we've seen enough teams go up with a minimal budget over the years, and that's enough for Lansdown to believe that spending isn't the answer, despite the fact that there are far more instances of clubs achieving success through investment.

If you look at forest they have been selling for a few seasons to finally be able to spend now. From your post it sounds as if you want the spending without the selling and you're only focus is the players.

Clubs do go up with minimal budgets but they have usually spent a lot on infrastructure over the previous seasons (maybe as many as 10 or 15). This is what we are doing at the moment but we're about 3 years in. Training facilities, new technologies and techniques are not going to get most people excited because it's not a thing that they will ever see but if you want the better players those players are going to want those facilities and aren't going to look twice even if you say you'll pay them more - most players are highly advised now and understand that if a club has the infrastructure in place they are more likely to do well and understand that this will lead to more money in the future.

[EnderMB]

23 hours ago, Pezo said:

If you look at forest they have been selling for a few seasons to finally be able to spend now. From your post it sounds as if you want the spending without the selling and you're only focus is the players.

Clubs do go up with minimal budgets but they have usually spent a lot on infrastructure over the previous seasons (maybe as many as 10 or 15). This is what we are doing at the moment but we're about 3 years in. Training facilities, new technologies and techniques are not going to get most people excited because it's not a thing that they will ever see but if you want the better players those players are going to want those facilities and aren't going to look twice even if you say you'll pay them more - most players are highly advised now and understand that if a club has the infrastructure in place they are more likely to do well and understand that this will lead to more money in the future.

What I've wanted from Lansdown from the beginning is to push the non-football side as far as it can go, so that the club can create its own revenue and have money invested into the club without it being seen as bankrolling a small club. 

We've got that to an extent with the stadium revamp, but since Lansdown's been the owner it's been a slow process, and I'd argue a slower process than at many other clubs that have been in the Championship with us. This is where the "three years in" comment is flawed for me, because we should be at least a decade in right now. The playoff final was a decade ago, and since then we've had "the five pillars", a relegation, sitting bottom of League 1, and a number of failed transfers. There have also been great times, but I'd argue many of those were down to the people involved and not the ownership of the club.

Many aspects of the club have improved, but not enough to challenge for promotion. We need more bums on seats, we need wider investment, and we need to demonstrate that the current process is actually working. It wasn't long ago that Lansdown was on the end of a brutal grilling on the radio for his tenure at Bristol City, and if we stagnate I can see the fans turning again. This is largely my argument against FFP. If an owner wants to bankroll a club he/she can, but they need to build up the non-footballing aspect enough to make that money look like legitimate income.

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

What I've wanted from Lansdown from the beginning is to push the non-football side as far as it can go, so that the club can create its own revenue and have money invested into the club without it being seen as bankrolling a small club. 

We've got that to an extent with the stadium revamp, but since Lansdown's been the owner it's been a slow process, and I'd argue a slower process than at many other clubs that have been in the Championship with us. This is where the "three years in" comment is flawed for me, because we should be at least a decade in right now. The playoff final was a decade ago, and since then we've had "the five pillars", a relegation, sitting bottom of League 1, and a number of failed transfers. There have also been great times, but I'd argue many of those were down to the people involved and not the ownership of the club.

Many aspects of the club have improved, but not enough to challenge for promotion. We need more bums on seats, we need wider investment, and we need to demonstrate that the current process is actually working. It wasn't long ago that Lansdown was on the end of a brutal grilling on the radio for his tenure at Bristol City, and if we stagnate I can see the fans turning again. This is largely my argument against FFP. If an owner wants to bankroll a club he/she can, but they need to build up the non-footballing aspect enough to make that money look like legitimate income.

In fairness to SL, his plans were delayed by the Ashton Vale palaver.

A brand spanking new build stadium would have given us, at a  stroke, a huge uplift in off field revenues with corporate boxes, conference facilities and hotel. The "village green" deception not only put the kibosh on that but the time involved in whole process meant that  once it was knocked on the head Sl's only option was to revamp AG and , as we all know, the redevelopment took a lot longer than would building a brand new stadium on the (village) green field Ashton Vale site.

[grifty]

Palaver and kibosh in one post! Good work!

[Monkeh]

On 15/06/2018 at 12:41, EnderMB said:

The reason Lansdown talks about FFP is because he doesn't want to spend money he cannot get back. It's as simple as that.

The rules around FFP dictate that a club should only spend its own money. Having an owner that is willing to pay megabucks is fine, as long as they put that money into the club first. There are countless ways of doing it to make it look like legit profit, so FFP will never be able to fully stop someone putting money into a club.

From our perspective, we've seen enough teams go up with a minimal budget over the years, and that's enough for Lansdown to believe that spending isn't the answer, despite the fact that there are far more instances of clubs achieving success through investment.

so the 20 odd million we've spent in the last few years alone is a myth is it?

[downendcity]

21 minutes ago, grifty said:

Palaver and kibosh in one post! Good work!

Kushty!

[downendcity]

17 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

so the 20 odd million we've spent in the last few years alone is a myth is it?

..and the rest!

SL has covered at least £50m of losses plus what he has put towards the academy and stadium redevelopment.

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

..and the rest!

SL has covered at least £50m of losses plus what he has put towards the academy and stadium redevelopment.

indeed, it annoys me when people accuse him of not wanting to go for it or not getting the checkbook out,

if he didn't this club would be in around 140 millions worth of debt by now with no new revamp 

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

indeed, it annoys me when people accuse him of not wanting to go for it or not getting the checkbook out,

if he didn't this club would be in around 140 millions worth of debt by now with no new revamp 

 

On 15/06/2018 at 12:41, EnderMB said:

The reason Lansdown talks about FFP is because he doesn't want to spend money he cannot get back. It's as simple as that.

The rules around FFP dictate that a club should only spend its own money. Having an owner that is willing to pay megabucks is fine, as long as they put that money into the club first. There are countless ways of doing it to make it look like legit profit, so FFP will never be able to fully stop someone putting money into a club.

From our perspective, we've seen enough teams go up with a minimal budget over the years, and that's enough for Lansdown to believe that spending isn't the answer, despite the fact that there are far more instances of clubs achieving success through investment.

EnderMB just happens to have posted earlier in this thread so Im not picking on him specifically, but there have been numerous posts over the last 2/3 years suggesting that in some way or the other that SL is not willing to spend, not prepared to risk big signings etc.etc. 

As I understand it the financial rules are specific about the amount of losses a club is allowed to make and the amount an owner is allowed to "put in". EnderMB suggests there are countless ways for an owner to get around the rules and put money into the club to make it look "legit" 

Firstly, with his background in the highly regulated financial services industry, I would be very surprised if SL was ever to take any action that broke the rules . Secondly, my understanding is that the administrators look very carefully at issues like stadium naming rights, to prevent say Man City selling their naming rights to what is effectively their owner for a grossly inflated figure. Thirdly, the football league have updated the sanctions for breach of financial rules - many fans have previously commented that clubs have breached the financial rules and seemingly got away with it when promoted to the premier league. Those new sanctions are hugely punitive, including points deduction and clubs being prevented from taking their place in the prem, even when promotion has been achieved.

What SL has done is recognise the areas that the financial rules do allow an owner to invest and these are around info structure. SL has used this route to develop the academy and redevelop Ashton Gate ( once his original plan to build brand new at Ashton Vale was thwarted). The academy will hopefully help the club develop it's own young players able to come into the first team and improve the playing squad and/or to be sold for profit further boosting there funds that can be reinvested in improving the playing squad. The stadium redevelopment means the club has additional revenue streams e.g. corporate boxes - I think we were the only championship club without any before - and also use of the stadium on non match days for things like conferences. All of this stadium generated revenue can then legitimately be used to invest in the playing side without breaching financial rules.

Unfortunately developing this takes a bit of time and longer than many fans will be happy with. However, seeing the Villa predicament, I would much rather us going about things in a planned , organised and financially manageable way, than risking the club's future on some sort of Del Boy accounting wheeze that is anything but kushty.

P.S. Im sure if anyone knows the specifics about these ways for owners to get money into the club and make it look legit, then SL and the club's accountants would surely like to know. I bet all those celebrities that were professionally "advised" about the clever , tax efficient ways to invest in the film industry were glad that what they did was made to look legit when the taxman came after them for million of pounds.

 

 

 

 

[Major Isewater]

39 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

indeed, it annoys me when people accuse him of not wanting to go for it or not getting the checkbook out,

if he didn't this club would be in around 140 millions worth of debt by now with no new revamp 

Would it ? 

Without SL we would have other investors, we may be run differently, may be in League 1 , promoted to the Prem ...

It's all conjecture.

It could also be said that our debts are a direct result of SL's incompetence over the years .

 

[Spike]

On 15/06/2018 at 12:57, downendcity said:

Villa's predicament is a salutary lesson for everyone as to the consequence of overspending in the quest for promotion - they have to sell £50m of players over the next 2 windows!

 

 

Genuine question, should they not sell and instead gain promotion in on of those two years, would the promotion money cover that £50m and allow them to avoid selling?

If that is the case I guess essentially what they could do is go all or nothing again, maybe even add another £20m to that already growing number?