BFTG - Forest

muirinho
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2078
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 12:10

Re: BFTG - Forest

by muirinho » 22 Nov 2021 10:42

Zip QPR still the highest gate this season at 14,928. We had 14,907 on Saturday.
The queues for the buses to and from Mereoak were the longest I have seen in ages on Saturday.


As we all know, gate and attendance are not the same thing. A number of season-ticket holders around us are only slowly trickling back to the games.

But I saw two separate "adults with young children" groups on the bus I normally take, who are not regulars - wonder if there was some promotion done through schools?

(* In both cases it looked like two friends/ siblings taking a group of children)

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 11:14

didn't hear of any family discount thing for this

There is a big one for Luton on 18th though. Lots of £1 kids and £10 adult tickets being sent out to youth clubs and schools. Should be a big crowd for that

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 42579
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Snowflake Royal » 22 Nov 2021 12:22

The Green Programme
RoyalBlue
tmesis You have to laugh at the fans singing "f*** the EFL". The rules are there is black and white. We broke them by a mile, and got about as lenient a punishment as we could have hoped. It's not exactly an injustice.


It's the rules themselves, rather than us being punished, why I say 'f*ck EFL'. Teams in the EPL can spend countless millions in a gamble to stay in that league. If the gamble doesn't pay off the EPL give them millions more in parachute payments. In stark contrast, if teams in the EFL spend millions in a gamble to get into the EPL and that gamble doesn't pay off the EFL deduct points from them and impose transfer/contract restrictions on top of that!


Exactly.
Claiming the EFL FFP is fair and just is like accepting Orwellian ‘double think’.

Allegedly Villa blatantly broke all the EFL FFP rules but got promoted and stayed up and thus ‘got away with it’.

Chelsea and City owners (not exclusively but most obviously) have ploughed money in to their Clubs.

City were banned from Europe for financial mismanagement and both Chelsea and City have been fined heavily but have avoided points deductions and European bans despite being found to have broken various financial regulations.

FFP stops Clubs from following the City and Chelsea process and by allowing parachute payments to Clubs relegated from the Premier League provides a massive advantage to those Clubs, even if those Clubs chose to break the rules to get to the Prem.

It’s the inconsistency of application of FFP and the ‘after the horse is bolted’; selective, morally bankrupt, vacuous claims for the greater good; which leads to the ‘f@?! the EFL chants!

That's a problem with the PL and it being a breakaway league run by the mega rich, not a fault with the FL and FFP.

Although FFP is far from perfect, pretty sure it's reduced the number of league clubs going into admin and serious financial trouble.

URZZZZ
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7365
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 18:30

Re: BFTG - Forest

by URZZZZ » 22 Nov 2021 12:25

Hound didn't hear of any family discount thing for this

There is a big one for Luton on 18th though. Lots of £1 kids and £10 adult tickets being sent out to youth clubs and schools. Should be a big crowd for that


Bringing flashbacks of that Burton game just before Christmas a few years ago with the cheap tickets, horrendous that day

Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 20225
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Stranded » 22 Nov 2021 12:34

Hound didn't hear of any family discount thing for this

There is a big one for Luton on 18th though. Lots of £1 kids and £10 adult tickets being sent out to youth clubs and schools. Should be a big crowd for that


Big anniversary game, with great ticket discounts attracting fans back before Xmas meaning the game is close to a sell out. Lump on Luton now.


Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 12:56

URZZZZ
Hound didn't hear of any family discount thing for this

There is a big one for Luton on 18th though. Lots of £1 kids and £10 adult tickets being sent out to youth clubs and schools. Should be a big crowd for that


Bringing flashbacks of that Burton game just before Christmas a few years ago with the cheap tickets, horrendous that day


ha totally, exactly what passed through my mind when I saw it

One of the worst performances I've ever seen that day. though Blackpool 2nd half this season came close

The Green Programme
Member
Posts: 255
Joined: 27 Oct 2018 13:12

Re: BFTG - Forest

by The Green Programme » 22 Nov 2021 14:10

Snowflake Royal
The Green Programme
RoyalBlue
It's the rules themselves, rather than us being punished, why I say 'f*ck EFL'. Teams in the EPL can spend countless millions in a gamble to stay in that league. If the gamble doesn't pay off the EPL give them millions more in parachute payments. In stark contrast, if teams in the EFL spend millions in a gamble to get into the EPL and that gamble doesn't pay off the EFL deduct points from them and impose transfer/contract restrictions on top of that!


Exactly.
Claiming the EFL FFP is fair and just is like accepting Orwellian ‘double think’.

Allegedly Villa blatantly broke all the EFL FFP rules but got promoted and stayed up and thus ‘got away with it’.

Chelsea and City owners (not exclusively but most obviously) have ploughed money in to their Clubs.

City were banned from Europe for financial mismanagement and both Chelsea and City have been fined heavily but have avoided points deductions and European bans despite being found to have broken various financial regulations.

FFP stops Clubs from following the City and Chelsea process and by allowing parachute payments to Clubs relegated from the Premier League provides a massive advantage to those Clubs, even if those Clubs chose to break the rules to get to the Prem.

It’s the inconsistency of application of FFP and the ‘after the horse is bolted’; selective, morally bankrupt, vacuous claims for the greater good; which leads to the ‘f@?! the EFL chants!

That's a problem with the PL and it being a breakaway league run by the mega rich, not a fault with the FL and FFP.

Although FFP is far from perfect, pretty sure it's reduced the number of league clubs going into admin and serious financial trouble.


It’s not a separate issue whilst promotion and relegation exists between the leagues.

The Clubs coming down from the Prem have a massive advantage. They can ignore FFP for two seasons whilst retaining most of their squad.

Whilst they are in the EFL, they are competing against Clubs who are restricted, even when (like us) they are owned by wealthy billionaires who are happy to pour money into the Club (like at Chelsea or City or on a lesser scale, Bournemouth).

I don’t see any evidence that there are less Clubs going to the wall because of FFP.

All Clubs who make it to the Prem break FFP rules. Those who get there , get away with it. Either by surviving up there, or by way of huge parachute payments.

Those who don’t get there are penalised.

Most ambitious Clubs have broken the rules or are breaking the rules.

It’s like Lance Armstrong in reverse (in his case they penalised the successful one who was only doing something that allegedly the whole sport was doing).

The EFL penalises those who don’t make it.

Thus making the prize for those who get away with it, even more glittering!

Reading FC’s mistake was not breaking the rules by a big enough extent; because if our owners had, we’d have gone up and either stayed up or come down with massive parachute payments.

The similarity in both cycling and football can easily be found in the arbitrary ‘singling out’ and all the hypocritical virtue signalling.

In football, from the likes of Palace’s ex-owner.

Hence the ‘f@!? The EFL’ chants.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6467
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: BFTG - Forest

by SCIAG » 22 Nov 2021 14:19

I don’t think Brentford or Huddersfield, for example, were in breach of FFP.

Worth noting that Lance Armstrong is far from the only cyclist of that era to be punished for doping violations. The Tour de France titles that were taken away from him weren’t given to other riders because the likes of Ullrich and Basso were also known dopers.

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 14:26

SCIAG I don’t think Brentford or Huddersfield, for example, were in breach of FFP.

Worth noting that Lance Armstrong is far from the only cyclist of that era to be punished for doping violations. The Tour de France titles that were taken away from him weren’t given to other riders because the likes of Ullrich and Basso were also known dopers.


nope they weren't, and fair play to them. But thats 2 teams in the last 5 years or so


Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 14:30

The Green Programme
Snowflake Royal
The Green Programme
Exactly.
Claiming the EFL FFP is fair and just is like accepting Orwellian ‘double think’.

Allegedly Villa blatantly broke all the EFL FFP rules but got promoted and stayed up and thus ‘got away with it’.

Chelsea and City owners (not exclusively but most obviously) have ploughed money in to their Clubs.

City were banned from Europe for financial mismanagement and both Chelsea and City have been fined heavily but have avoided points deductions and European bans despite being found to have broken various financial regulations.

FFP stops Clubs from following the City and Chelsea process and by allowing parachute payments to Clubs relegated from the Premier League provides a massive advantage to those Clubs, even if those Clubs chose to break the rules to get to the Prem.

It’s the inconsistency of application of FFP and the ‘after the horse is bolted’; selective, morally bankrupt, vacuous claims for the greater good; which leads to the ‘f@?! the EFL chants!

That's a problem with the PL and it being a breakaway league run by the mega rich, not a fault with the FL and FFP.

Although FFP is far from perfect, pretty sure it's reduced the number of league clubs going into admin and serious financial trouble.


I don’t see any evidence that there are less Clubs going to the wall because of FFP.

.


Still been plenty of teams recently who have been in the champ and gone into admin - Derby, Bolton, Wigan - all recent champ clubs who have gone in. Think there are a few who have serious financial issues but not gone into as well.

I think its a tough argument to make. Parachute payments has prob been the one big thing that has stopped that happening

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 42579
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Snowflake Royal » 22 Nov 2021 14:50

SCIAG I don’t think Brentford or Huddersfield, for example, were in breach of FFP.

Worth noting that Lance Armstrong is far from the only cyclist of that era to be punished for doping violations. The Tour de France titles that were taken away from him weren’t given to other riders because the likes of Ullrich and Basso were also known dopers.

Norwich and Burnley. West Brom ok too I think.

Wolves spent a lot but they'd had a low wage budget and previously made some profits so were probably ok.

Also, parachute payments are income, so affect the amount that can be spent within FFP, they don't allow you to break it.

Although of course parachute payments themselves are broken.

Getting away with it by being promoted is entirely the PL's fault for being a separate entity, not the FL's for having no jurisdiction

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 15:01

Wolves spent massively the year they went up, with huge bonus payments - I think some of the other teams didnt break FFP but were bloated by parachute payments - Burnley - Norwich second time around - think before they were in a big financial mess but managed to see Maddison for £25m which kept them going, and then managed to go up despite selling him

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 42579
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Snowflake Royal » 22 Nov 2021 15:25

Hound Wolves spent massively the year they went up, with huge bonus payments - I think some of the other teams didnt break FFP but were bloated by parachute payments - Burnley - Norwich second time around - think before they were in a big financial mess but managed to see Maddison for £25m which kept them going, and then managed to go up despite selling him

Yeah, but that's the point with Wolves, if you've been run carefully and well you can afford the odd splurge.


Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 15:31

Snowflake Royal
Hound Wolves spent massively the year they went up, with huge bonus payments - I think some of the other teams didnt break FFP but were bloated by parachute payments - Burnley - Norwich second time around - think before they were in a big financial mess but managed to see Maddison for £25m which kept them going, and then managed to go up despite selling him

Yeah, but that's the point with Wolves, if you've been run carefully and well you can afford the odd splurge.


not sure it could be classed as an odd splurge. nabbed from wiki so not sure how accurate but

When Wolves's accounts covering the 2017–18 season were published on 5 March 2019, they recorded a pre-tax loss of £57.16 million, of which around £20 million was due to bonuses paid to staff and players for achieving promotion to the Premier League.[4][5] It was noted that the loss, which was more than double the loss in the previous financial year, represented a deficit of more than a £1 million per week.[6]

£16m was spent on one player alone - Ruben Neves

and going back the season before looks like they spent 30 odd mill on transfers. So they basically cheated like fcuk

User avatar
Silver Fox
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 26240
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 10:02
Location: From the Andes to the indies in my undies

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Silver Fox » 22 Nov 2021 15:39

Wasn't Wolves transfer activity all being through one Portuguese agent some way of getting round some of the regulations?

User avatar
tidus_mi2
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7399
Joined: 15 Jun 2012 15:24

Re: BFTG - Forest

by tidus_mi2 » 22 Nov 2021 15:42

Silver Fox Wasn't Wolves transfer activity all being through one Portuguese agent some way of getting round some of the regulations?

Yeah Jorge Mendes, I remember him being referred to as a "Super Agent"

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 15:43

they lost 23m in season 16/17, after a profit of £5m the season before (which inc parachute payments)

so

+5
-23m
-35m (if they hadn't paid out the promotion bonuses)

would be north of £50m loss over 3 years, so same ballpark as us. With the bonuses is nearer to a 75m loss.

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11697
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: Relocated to LA

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Franchise FC » 22 Nov 2021 15:44

Hound
Snowflake Royal
Hound Wolves spent massively the year they went up, with huge bonus payments - I think some of the other teams didnt break FFP but were bloated by parachute payments - Burnley - Norwich second time around - think before they were in a big financial mess but managed to see Maddison for £25m which kept them going, and then managed to go up despite selling him

Yeah, but that's the point with Wolves, if you've been run carefully and well you can afford the odd splurge.


not sure it could be classed as an odd splurge. nabbed from wiki so not sure how accurate but

When Wolves's accounts covering the 2017–18 season were published on 5 March 2019, they recorded a pre-tax loss of £57.16 million, of which around £20 million was due to bonuses paid to staff and players for achieving promotion to the Premier League.[4][5] It was noted that the loss, which was more than double the loss in the previous financial year, represented a deficit of more than a £1 million per week.[6]

£16m was spent on one player alone - Ruben Neves

and going back the season before looks like they spent 30 odd mill on transfers. So they basically cheated like fcuk


Couple of things :
1. We know from our own position that the accounts filed at Companies House are not necessarily the numbers on which FFP is calculated
2. If the contracts are 'get promoted to get the bonuses' why would that be a problem at all with FFP. Don't go up, don't pay them, don't get into FFP trouble. If anything, this sounds like the absolutely perfect way to use the system. In our case, keep the wage structure to within £16m but offer the players a share of, say, £30m if they get promoted

User avatar
Hendo
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 21866
Joined: 25 Mar 2012 20:53
Location: Lambs to the cosmic slaughter

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hendo » 22 Nov 2021 15:45

Was fortunate enough to be in hospitality for this game. My uncle was gifted 2x tickets for the Royals Exclusive lounge and it was great.

Met Steve Richardson before the game and MOTM Tom Holmes after. Food was excellent; chorizo toad in the hole with a roasted tomato and chilli sauce for starters, pressed belly of pork with crackling crumbed baby apple, wholegrain mustard mash, Savoy cabbage and side jus for main with a salted caramel cheesecake for desert, really 9/10 stuff. Seats were amazing, couldn't have been more on the halfway line if I tried.

As for the game itself, thought it was pretty even and 1-1 was probably fair. Nightmare start, silly goal to give away tbh, even with it being a very good finish. Moore should've just taken him out as he was running through and picked up the probable booking. Feared the worst after that, but thought we grew into the game the more it went on and once Carroll came on, it was all Reading up until the last 5-10 mins where it was a bit more even. They obviously should've scored with the chance that Moore cleared off the line, but you take that bit of luck.

Wouldn't say anyone had a standout game, but also wouldn't say anyone had a terrible game.

Southwood made 1 excellent save in the second half but otherwise didn't have too much to do.

Yiadom looked a bit tired, but kept going which was good to see.

Moore at fault for the goal, but kept us in it with his goal-line clearance
Holmes very solid and rightly MOTM
Dann solid as well, great in the air and a nicely taken goal as well.

Rahman did well, got caught out of position a couple of times and the booking at the end was a horrific decision by the ref.

Laurent grew into the game, but doesn't look the same player as he did last year
Drinkwater also grew into the game, thought he had a poor first half but got better as the game went on, rightly taken off due to his booking.

Swift didn't have his most commanding game, teams are trying to mark him out the game, had a couple of decent bits of play though, probably should've done better with his chance in the first half when the 'keeper saved with his legs.

Ovie was a little anonymous, couple of flashes but nothing really of note. Should've held onto the ball when he played in Puscas first time in the first half when GP was offside.

Puscas had a decent game I thought, never looked like giving up and the introduction of Carroll spurred him on. I think having someone like that to come off the bench might give him a bit of a kick up the arse. You could see he thought he was coming off for AC at the time though.

Carroll was decent, obviously not match fit but looked sharp enough for a cameo from the bench. If nothing else, he forces the opposition to change their plans. Steve Cooper and the Swansea bench were in deep discussions for about 5 mins after he came on and they had to throw another defender on to deal with his threat. Would've loved him to get a goal, think it might come on Tuesday. There was one cross he played in which was incredible, whipped it in with so much pace, the only issue is that he is the one you would want on the end of it.

Brave from Pauno to go 4-4-2 at 0-1, but the right call. He has been lambasted for his subs in the past, but he got it absolutely right on Saturday.

With players potentially coming back as early as Tuesday, I am more optimistic than I was a few weeks ago.

Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25258
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Forest

by Hound » 22 Nov 2021 15:48

Franchise FC
Hound
Snowflake Royal Yeah, but that's the point with Wolves, if you've been run carefully and well you can afford the odd splurge.


not sure it could be classed as an odd splurge. nabbed from wiki so not sure how accurate but

When Wolves's accounts covering the 2017–18 season were published on 5 March 2019, they recorded a pre-tax loss of £57.16 million, of which around £20 million was due to bonuses paid to staff and players for achieving promotion to the Premier League.[4][5] It was noted that the loss, which was more than double the loss in the previous financial year, represented a deficit of more than a £1 million per week.[6]

£16m was spent on one player alone - Ruben Neves

and going back the season before looks like they spent 30 odd mill on transfers. So they basically cheated like fcuk


Couple of things :
1. We know from our own position that the accounts filed at Companies House are not necessarily the numbers on which FFP is calculated
2. If the contracts are 'get promoted to get the bonuses' why would that be a problem at all with FFP. Don't go up, don't pay them, don't get into FFP trouble. If anything, this sounds like the absolutely perfect way to use the system. In our case, keep the wage structure to within £16m but offer the players a share of, say, £30m if they get promoted


yeah answered above - still well over without the bonuses

reading through, they did invest in their training facilities as well, but no figures on that. Looking at the players they brought in and transfer fees paid, I'd have thought it very unlikely they stayed under. 7m for Carvalho, 13m for Costa plus big big wages.

if they hadn't of gone up, no way on earth they could have stayed under 39m for the three year period 16/17, 17/8 and 18/19 without making huge sales

The bonuses are playing the system though aren't they? Yeah its clever to some extent, but only doable because the EFL can't punish them for it. They lost way way over 39m because they paid them, so they did cheat FFP - just knowing they were untouchable

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 176 guests

It is currently 15 Nov 2024 23:30