The most recent information on Nottingham Forest while they wait to hear the case about potential violations of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules
According to Simon Jordan, Nottingham Forest is treated unfairly by the existing Profitability & Sustainability Rules.
The Reds are accused of breaking the rules that now restrict how much a club can lose in a three-year span.
Forest is facing charges of going over that limit, and they are waiting to hear back from an independent committee that held a hearing last week to determine whether to impose any sanctions.
Jordan, the former owner of Crystal Palace, points out that after Forest was promoted, the current regulations, which state that losses cannot surpass an average of £13 million in the Championship and £35 million in the top division annually, put a stop to them. When Forest needed to make investments to maintain their hard-earned status, they were at a financial disadvantage because two of their qualifying years were at the lower level.
“I believe that there is a component of Financial Fair Play that is a blunt tool,” Jordan stated on the White and Jordan programme on talkSPORT. “I believe that Nottingham Forest should have had some kind of exemption from sanctions since they were promoted from the EFL to the Premier League.
“Forest is losing badly because they can’t afford to have losses totaling £105 million because they’re carrying up two EFL years’ worth of losses and one Premier League year’s worth of losses. Their allotment is limited at £60 million.
“It doesn’t alter the fact that their owner was profligate and spent far too much money, had to get the balance right, knew what he was doing.”
Jordan is less convinced by the contention that Forest are being punished for holding out for top dollar for Brennan Johnson. The winger was sold to Tottenham last summer – but too late to having the revenue included in the three year accounting period currently under the microscope.
“It’s also not the same that you can get a player and sell him three months later and potentially suggest that you’ve only sold him three months later to get better market value and he should be taken back to three months earlier so you can go into the previous year.
“It is not the same argument but I do agree there needs to be a better sophistication. Now is 85% of turnover on wages better than £35 million a season losses? That’s the question, because if it is, it’s moving in the right direction.
For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say Nottingham Forest has a turnover of £200 million. In that case, you can spend £170 million on wages and related depreciation. What are you doing right now? You’re moving in the right direction if you’re currently spending less than that.
I’m torn between the notion that excessive regulation stifles entrepreneurship in sports and the idea that Profit & Sustainability, or FFP, is a blunt instrument that requires smart use.
However, Forest is being treated unfairly because, as you rise, the past ought to fade into the past. Nottingham Forest shouldn’t have been forced to play in the Premier League with the drag and tag mentality from the Championship.
