Post Match Nottingham Forest 2 Leicester 2

[FryattFox]

Jason Bourne ‏@JasonBourne1986 2m
It appears that Forest's talisman Andy Reid could be out for the next 3 weeks. They're not having the best luck with injuries. Tis a shame.

John Percy ‏@John__Percy 4m
Another injury blow for #nffc. Nailed-on POTY Andy Reid set to miss 2-3 wks with hernia injury. Op later this wk

 

[Arightfilbert]

Well, that´s poetic justice for you......he probably hurt himself during that disgusting incident in the goalnet.

 

[LCFC'sGodWears9]

John Eustace summed it up rather well.

https://twitter.com/j_eustace14/status/438733368768073728

 

[Blue Maniac]

John Eustace summed it up rather well.

https://twitter.com/j_eustace14/status/438733368768073728

Not actually John Eustace, but still funny.

 

[LCFC'sGodWears9]

Not actually John Eustace, but still funny.

That's my sheer laziness, didn't even look at the account just picked it up from someone else. Shambles.

 

[consty]

There is another reason for the Forest moaning... apart from the manager being an inveterate whinger... the club have flouted FFP and the stakes for them if they do not go up this season are very high. Hence they are all wound up by the imperative to go up this season. They know they will be clobbered and set back in attempts to go up next time by the football League with fines and transfer embargos. (Unless their owner converts the debt, pretty much writing it off, like Top and co have done... and there's not many owners who will do that including very rich ones). Forest have been rash and wreckless in spending beyond their means. As we found under Sven, it is not all about throwing money about that gets you promotion.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

There is another reason for the Forest moaning... apart from the manager being an inveterate whinger... the club have flouted FFP and the stakes for them if they do not go up this season are very high. Hence they are all wound up by the imperative to go up this season. They know they will be clobbered and set back in attempts to go up next time by the football League with fines and transfer embargos. (Unless their owner converts the debt, pretty much writing it off, like Top and co have done... and there's not many owners who will do that including very rich ones). Forest have been rash and wreckless in spending beyond their means. As we found under Sven, it is not all about throwing money about that gets you promotion.

I would have said similar until the reports about City having a legal firm send the Football League a warning about potential legal action if FFP is applied in the Guardian, this seems very strange for a club with no debt http://www.theguardian.com/football...nship-clubs-threat-football-league?CMP=twt_gu

 

[FryattFox]

this seems very strange for a club with no debt

Why?

The level of debt isn't a direct factor for FFP; it's focussed on losses. And we still had the debt for half the year in 13/14, so may have incurred the interest for half the year as well.

Plus the debt write-off can only be used against the FFP calculation up to certain thresholds.

 

[FryattFox]

with fines and transfer embargos.

They can't be fined whilst in this division.

Unless their owner converts the debt, pretty much writing it off, like Top and co have done...

As per the above, writing off the debt makes very little difference to the direct result. The only impacts are that they can convert to equity (or invest equity through other methods) up to certain thresholds, and also I'm not sure whether they pay interest on their debt.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Why?

The level of debt isn't a direct factor for FFP; it's focussed on losses. And we still had the debt for half the year in 13/14, so may have incurred the interest for half the year as well.

Plus the debt write-off can only be used against the FFP calculation up to certain thresholds.

The CEO stated that City would meet FFP this season in a meeting in December, now the waters seem a bit muddier. I don't think it is at all clear how debt for equity swaps work with FFP.

 

[Rich B]

There is another reason for the Forest moaning... apart from the manager being an inveterate whinger... the club have flouted FFP and the stakes for them if they do not go up this season are very high. Hence they are all wound up by the imperative to go up this season. They know they will be clobbered and set back in attempts to go up next time by the football League with fines and transfer embargos. (Unless their owner converts the debt, pretty much writing it off, like Top and co have done... and there's not many owners who will do that including very rich ones). Forest have been rash and reckless in spending beyond their means. As we found under Sven, it is not all about throwing money about that gets you promotion.

If we are stuck for paying our debts then perhaps we could just follow your example :icon_roll

 

[Lako42]

If we are stuck for paying our debts then perhaps we could just follow your example :icon_roll

Afraid not, the rules have changed, you should plan better.

 

[FryattFox]

I don't think it is at all clear how debt for equity swaps work with FFP.

It's completely clear against the rules as they stand (which are unlikely to change in the near future...it's much more likely that the sanctions won't be imposed or similar).

In order to comply with the Financial Fair Play regulations each club is required to demonstrate a Fair Play Result that is either:

a) nil or greater.

or:

b) A loss of less than the permitted level of acceptable deviation and shareholder equity investment for the season in question.

The permitted level of acceptable deviation and shareholder equity investment will reduce over time from £4m and £8m respectively in 2011/12 to £2m and £3m by 2015/16.

Therefore debt is irrelevant.

You can have £1bn of debt, but if you make a profit for the year you're ok. Or you can make up to a £3m loss (plus a further £5m if the owners invest that as equity) in 2013/14 season, and still be compliant.

Sorry - to be clear, it doesn't matter where the equity comes from (whether it's a transfer of debt, or the separate issue of new shares)

 

[FryattFox]

If we are stuck for paying our debts then perhaps we could just follow your example :icon_roll

Get rid of all of the rot, build a stable and successful team, and get promoted?

Sounds sensible.

 

[Blaarev]

Get rid of all of the rot, build a stable and successful team, and get promoted?

Sounds sensible.

They'll need to dip into League One again first.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

It's completely clear against the rules as they stand (which are unlikely to change in the near future...it's much more likely that the sanctions won't be imposed or similar).



Therefore debt is irrelevant.

You can have £1bn of debt, but if you make a profit for the year you're ok. Or you can make up to a £3m loss (plus a further £5m if the owners invest that as equity) in 2013/14 season, and still be compliant.

Sorry - to be clear, it doesn't matter where the equity comes from (whether it's a transfer of debt, or the separate issue of new shares)

Debt and when interest becomes due is totally relevant, there is no way a club with the level of debt and contractual commitments we started the season with is going to record a profit in the championship if the debt is at market rates or above (as the debt at City was). A £100m+ equity swap like ours could be viewed as an investment over and above the £5m allowed and thus judged a non-compliance with FFP. I can't see any other reason for the club to have lawyers send the League a letter disputing the FFP regulations.

 

[FryattFox]

Debt and when interest becomes due is totally relevant, there is no way a club with the level of debt and contractual commitments we started the season with is going to record a profit in the championship if the debt is at market rates or above (as the debt at City was).

I agree that it's relevant in the scheme of things; it's just not a direct consideration for FFP.

A £100m+ equity swap like ours could be viewed as an investment over and above the £5m allowed and thus judged a non-compliance with FFP.

You don't become non-compliant for investing over the £5m; it's just that only the first £5m can count towards the deduction when calculating FFP compliance. Anything over and above that is 'wasted' for FFP calculations.

 

[Arightfilbert]

I agree that it's relevant in the scheme of things; it's just not a direct consideration for FFP.



You don't become non-compliant for investing over the £5m; it's just that only the first £5m can count towards the deduction when calculating FFP compliance. Anything over and above that is 'wasted' for FFP calculations.

Good evening Fryatt! You sound like an accountant.

 

[FryattFox]

Good evening Fryatt! You sound like an accountant.

:icon_bigg

What are you going to do with your other 19 questions now?

 

[bocadillo]

:icon_bigg

What are you going to do with your other 19 questions now?

What was his first question?