• Forum has been updated to an interim version. Please advise of any anomalies via the "Care in the Community" thread. Thank you. (You can 'x' this message when you've read it)

  • WIN A FOREST SHIRT!

    Registered members of LTLF can enter a free competition to win a shiny new Nottingham Forest shirt. Choose from home or away, and you can even get a name/number on it into the bargain! There's a question to answer, and the winner will be selected from the right answers. For details and to enter, look at the thread by clicking WIN A FOREST SHIRT!!

    Dismiss this notice by clicking the x in the top right corner

Financial Fair Play (FFP)

Not a surprise that we're in breach but it would be interesting to know how much we are over by.

It's a relatively big fine considering i) it's our first offence and ii) there is no suspended part of the fine.

One question I have is that the BBC says "Chelsea, Newcastle and Nottingham Forest must continue to comply with the Uefa regulations even though they do not have European football next season" - this can't be right can it? It would put us as a disadvantage to the club's not in Europe, who don't have to comply with UEFAs tighter financial rules.
 
vertigored said:
I thought the euro rules had already discounted teams selling anything that wasn’t a human being?
Click to expand...
That would rule out Derby selling their supporters.
 
I guess we start booing the UEFA anthems now too.
 
Daz said:
Not a surprise that we're in breach but it would be interesting to know how much we are over by.

It's a relatively big fine considering i) it's our first offence and ii) there is no suspended part of the fine.

One question I have is that the BBC says "Chelsea, Newcastle and Nottingham Forest must continue to comply with the Uefa regulations even though they do not have European football next season" - this can't be right can it? It would put us as a disadvantage to the club's not in Europe, who don't have to comply with UEFAs tighter financial rules.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't affect much

It is quite complicated though, but off the top of my head from last year - I believe the main sanction is operating with a 1 in 1 out policy & we have to break even in our transfer spend. Happy to be corrected on that though.

That shouldn't change anything for us, and should be easily achieved with Anderson going
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daz
Rzar said:
It shouldn't affect much

It is quite complicated though, but off the top of my head from last year - I believe the main sanction is operating with a 1 in 1 out policy & we have to break even in our transfer spend. Happy to be corrected on that though.

That shouldn't change anything for us, and should be easily achieved with Anderson going
Click to expand...
Does the ‘out’ there include the players whose contracts expired? I.e. Boly, Gunn, Ortega
 
Daz said:
Not a surprise that we're in breach but it would be interesting to know how much we are over by.

It's a relatively big fine considering i) it's our first offence and ii) there is no suspended part of the fine.

One question I have is that the BBC says "Chelsea, Newcastle and Nottingham Forest must continue to comply with the Uefa regulations even though they do not have European football next season" - this can't be right can it? It would put us as a disadvantage to the club's not in Europe, who don't have to comply with UEFAs tighter financial rules.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it states we have to comply at 70% doesn’t it…….

While clubs in Europe will have to adhere to Uefa's 70%, the other 11 Premier League teams will be permitted to spend upwards of 85% of income on the playing staff and the manager.

The Premier League is trying to protect the competitive balance by allowing those without income from European competition to spend a higher proportion of their earnings.

But Chelsea, Newcastle and Nottingham Forest must continue to comply with the Uefa regulations even though they do not have European football next season.
 
Seems a bit unfair that we'll still be inside the UEFA rules, even though we won't get UEFA income.

However, my thoughts could be that as UEFA rules are calendar years, we were still in UEFA competitions in 2026 (and earned from UEFA competitions), so still have to meet the 2026 calendar year tests?

Because it's calendar year and 2026 will be the key year, unless the Anderson sale means we'll fly though, I'd expect we may push quite a lot of spending to late August* (to reduce 2026 squad costs - less days wages and transfer amortization in 2026). Also, we'll perhaps use loans with obligation (paid 30th June 2027 / 1st July 2027).

Plenty of flexibility available with the Anderson sale putting us in a good position you'd think.

*I'd still expect one or two signings in the next few weeks on to get them involved early in pre-season / before start of the season.
 
It's strange though - how are they going to enforce it if we don't comply? They can't exactly kick us out of the Champions League, so the probable options would be to ban us from entering next time or to fine us again. If it's a fine we might as well decide to take the hit and pay the fine to have a better squad like we ended up taking a points deduction vs going down
 
Statto said:
It's strange though - how are they going to enforce it if we don't comply? They can't exactly kick us out of the Champions League, so the probable options would be to ban us from entering next time or to fine us again. If it's a fine we might as well decide to take the hit and pay the fine to have a better squad like we ended up taking a points deduction vs going down
Click to expand...
Agree, you are looking at another fine next time around so you likely have some play between the 70% and 85% margins where the punishment is a manageable fine, with a hefty element suspended.
 
Rzar said:
It shouldn't affect much

It is quite complicated though, but off the top of my head from last year - I believe the main sanction is operating with a 1 in 1 out policy & we have to break even in our transfer spend. Happy to be corrected on that though.

That shouldn't change anything for us, and should be easily achieved with Anderson going
Click to expand...
There is no sanction other than the fine, and we will just get another fine if we don't comply for calendar year 2026 (although we should do quite easily).

The sanction that Villa have (and had last season) isn't a one in one out, it is purely the need for a positive transfer balance and only on their UEFA list A squad.
 
Newcastle are in a settlement because they breached football earnings. Forest didn’t so there is no restrictions to follow. But it’s unlikely we spend more than we bring in anyway. So I wouldn’t worry about it unless we get Europe again.
The difference between a Forest and a Villa is that we are more open to trading every summer.
 
Statto said:
It's strange though - how are they going to enforce it if we don't comply? They can't exactly kick us out of the Champions League, so the probable options would be to ban us from entering next time or to fine us again. If it's a fine we might as well decide to take the hit and pay the fine to have a better squad like we ended up taking a points deduction vs going down
Click to expand...
Club won't go that route regardless, that being said though, the monitoring period should end at the end of a season if you aren't in Europe. The Big Six don't need an advantage which is why City can afford Anderson and Spurs can afford Fernandes. But then you've got teams like Everton who aren't in European competition, that can spend 85%. We'll have to compete with that and we're hamstrung on 70%!
 
BBC Sport article has changed, now ends:

But Aston Villa, Chelsea and Newcastle must continue to comply with the Uefa regulations even though they do not have European football next season.

Forest are not in a multi-year settlement period.

I presume this means we get the 85% after all.
 
DanR said:
That would rule out Derby selling their supporters.
Click to expand...
If Derby sold their supporters, they’d have to claim that many had been lost in delivery when the stated 30,000 didn’t turn up, with most packages being delivered half empty.
 
Think if anything highlights once again the ridiculous financial rules it's that Tottenham having finished 17th 2 years running and already buying Fernandez for £85m, are now being reported to be close to signing Tonali for £100m, and yet Villa having been in Europe for the last 4 seasons and winning the Europa last season are going to need to sell before they can buy.
 
Templeton said:
Think if anything highlights once again the ridiculous financial rules it's that Tottenham having finished 17th 2 years running and already buying Fernandez for £85m, are now being reported to be close to signing Tonali for £100m, and yet Villa having been in Europe for the last 4 seasons and winning the Europa last season are going to need to sell before they can buy.
Click to expand...
Spot on. The system is working exactly as designed.
 
Templeton said:
Think if anything highlights once again the ridiculous financial rules it's that Tottenham having finished 17th 2 years running and already buying Fernandez for £85m, are now being reported to be close to signing Tonali for £100m, and yet Villa having been in Europe for the last 4 seasons and winning the Europa last season are going to need to sell before they can buy.
Click to expand...
Villa only have themselves to blame, they could have relegated Spurs! :mad:

(But I agree concerning the rules)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom