NFR Forest

[FFC1987]

Firstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.

Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.

This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.

Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.

In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.

Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.

Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.

Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.

[Angus Telford]

Firstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.

Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.

This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.

Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.

In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.

Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.

Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.

Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.

There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.

[FFC1987]

Firstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.

Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.

This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.

Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.

In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.

Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.

Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.

Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.

There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.

I'm almost certain that's not correct. The argument that teams that abuse the system in the championship, but get promotion, has never resulted in punishment, unless they get relegated in due course? At least, that's what was constantly reported when say, Bournemouth, completely abused it many seasons ago.

Maybe I'm wrong but has anyone upon promotion, been handed punishments for things done in championship?

[Angus Telford]

Firstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.

Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.

This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.

Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.

In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.

Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.

Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.

Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.

There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.

I'm almost certain that's not correct. The argument that teams that abuse the system in the championship, but get promotion, has never resulted in punishment, unless they get relegated in due course? At least, that's what was constantly reported when say, Bournemouth, completely abused it many seasons ago.

Maybe I'm wrong but has anyone upon promotion, been handed punishments for things done in championship?

Well taking one of your examples, Bournemouth, they were fined

[Drewry66]

Firstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.

Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.

This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.

Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.

In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.

Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.

Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.

Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.

As per my comments there shouldn't be a mitigation for Forrest with the rules as they are as that wouldn't be fair on us and Bournemouth who stick to them.

Anyway fair play mate. Let's just agree to disagree on this one! Lol

To be fair I hope it stays as is now. Despite me agreeing it is unfair on promoted clubs from a Fulham perspective we are through that from this summers transfer window which gives us a massive advantage over Leeds and Leicester or whoever comes up so long May the unfairness continue to help us avoid relegation ever again! Lol

[FFC1987]

Firstly the loss is usually greater than the allowable loss in the championship to get out of it. Our loss that year was massive and it is what has been dragging us down, especially because the allowable loss is lower. Those that have been in the prem for 3 years already have the massive advantage of 3 years of prem TV revenue bumping there income that champ clubs will not have had abd then have the added bonus of greater allowable losses vs a promoted side.

Secondly and more importantly Forrest may well have got up sating within the £26 million threshold yes. If they were then allowed to spend up to £35 million for those two years when they got into the prem would they have more to spend the first year than established prem clubs? Yes. Is that unfair? No! Over the three year period even if the allowable losses enable them to spend more in year 3 because of this they have still then had the same allowable losses as anyone else in the division. The point is the established prem clubs have already spent that money building their squads in year 1 and 2. By allowing them to spend the same money in one year to reach the same allowable loss limit means it is a level playing field as all have been allowed £105 million over that 3 years no matter when the loss happened. Promoted teams need to catch up and this would be fair.

This isn't my model as well. Forrest are arguing how unfair the current system is with allowable losses being less for promoted clubs and most of the media have full sympathy with that as most agree it is not fair as not a level playing field for clubs in the same competition. I haven't seen anyone argue that the current rules are fair in this respect.

Whilst those rules are in place however it is not a defence for Forrest and they should be punished just for fairness to us and even more so Bournemouth. We have both stuck to these rules that have disadvantaged us in the same way and have stayed up. Bournemouth like Forrest had two years in the championship so their allowable losses would have been the same. Forrest knew the rules even if they do not create a level playing field vs the rest of the prem and they broke them anyway when Bournemouth and we adhered to them. Rightly punished then.

In terms of what happens to relegated clubs that is a whole other debate. That system is completely unfair as well as relegated sides have a huge advantage. The whole system basically just doesn't work.

Our losses weren't greater than £13m in the promotion season - if they were, we'd have been sanctioned in respect of that. So that line of argument doesn't really go anywhere.

Forest making the same argument doesn't count for much either. They made numerous arguments in mitigation, including the absurd claim that they'd gained no "sporting advantage" by overspending. They were all quite rightly rejected.

Unfortunately we just have an asymmetry between the economics of the PL and the Championship, to some extent softened by parachute payments, but you cannot escape that maths. Think I'll leave the discussion there.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain there's different governing bodies here so if your losses are higher than your allowed but you get promoted, unless you get relegated, no action can be taken? Or at least, that was always the argument about how we, Bournemouth and Wolves worked around it.

There are different bodies and there have been a few issues about the EFL enforcing sanctions against a club now in the PL, and vice versa, in particular if the sanction is a points deduction. No one has ever just been let off the hook, that is one of those pub/FOF fallacies like Parker being credited with playing Calum Chambers at DM.

I'm almost certain that's not correct. The argument that teams that abuse the system in the championship, but get promotion, has never resulted in punishment, unless they get relegated in due course? At least, that's what was constantly reported when say, Bournemouth, completely abused it many seasons ago.

Maybe I'm wrong but has anyone upon promotion, been handed punishments for things done in championship?

Well taking one of your examples, Bournemouth, they were fined

I'm just looking at it and it does look like fines can be pushed but points deductions and embargo's can't unless the premier league body agrees to it. Which feels strange as the Bournemouth fine feels well understated considering the losses they were making.