14 May 2013 13:17:49
i don`t know who we will be signing, only the forest hierarchy know that, what I do know is that there can be no excuses this time, we are not in the playoffs, so we know which division we are in next season, we now have plenty of time to get the players that billy wants, the players can have a billy pre- season. Redeye

1.) 14 May 2013
14 May 2013 13:35:06
Sooner or later someone will challenge the FFP legally and win as it is essentially an agreement in restraint of trade. If you want to break the bank and mortgage the company to pay top whack to some new key employee (s) then you can do so. Football is not above the law, remember the end of maximum wage, Bosman and maximum 3 foreigners per team? Football is not above the law.

Also picture the following scenario, chairman A owns several companies at home and abroad. His football club XYZ wants to sign player ABC. Chairman says to player ABC, sign for XYZ and I will pay you £10000 per week, at the same time my company LMN will pay you £50000 per week as a consultant so long as you are a player at XYZ. Also we will pay your wife / girlfriend £40 000 per week for secretarial skills which you need to perform your duties as a consultant, this is also paid by LMN. All perfectly legal and makes nonsense of FFP.

2.) 14 May 2013
Reading the above made me wish I had concentrated more at school! I tried to picture your scenario but after 3 lines my head exploded. Alphabet overload!

3.) 14 May 2013
Sorry I perhaps should have used made up names but I think you get the point, there are many ways around FFP

4.) 14 May 2013
Who is going to challenge FFP? In the championship it's been voted for voluntarily by the clubs. Basically they're saying if you want to play our game these are the rules. If you don't like them you're free to set up your own league. That's not restraint of trade. The only people who don't want FFP are player agents because in it they can see the end of the gravy train.

The scenario you describe might be legal (though you would pay a serious amount of tax and attract a lot of attention from HMRC) but it's specifically forbidden in the FA's rules (on page 63 in fact).

5.) 14 May 2013
Thought it was describing how MP's operate.

6.) 14 May 2013
Last time Billy had money and a pre season we ended up with 9 strikers and didn't start the season very well.

Hoping we can get some quality in instead of nearly men and get off to a flyer. :)

7.) 14 May 2013
I understood it, Which was wierd. Are you Fawaz?

8.) 14 May 2013
The clubs may have agreed to it voluntarily and in terms of income to the club via TV, turnstiles, programme and pie sales etc but that does not put them above the law. A player is free to accept a consultancy with another company. if this new company is owned by the football club owner so what? Even if you find a way to stop the player taking it you cannot stop his wife/ parents/ siblings/ children entering into whatever deals they please. That is restraint of trade and therefore unlawful. But then I suspect that most chairmen knew that when they voted for FFP thinking, even knowing it would and could not not apply to them. Every time football has gone to law, maximum wage, freedom of contract, maximum quota of foreigners it has lost. I repeat football is subject to the law, they cannot stop individuals or their next of kin entering into any deals which may suit them. FFP is therefore a non starter even if not challenged in law it will simply be circumvented.

9.) 15 May 2013
15 May 2013 00:07:34
The trouble with FFP is it takes no account of Premiership parachute payments. Wigan for example attract relatively modest sized crowds, they don't attract big sponsors but will have a massive financial advantage over Forest for the next 4 years. The likes of Fawaz are bridging that gap and should be allowed to waste, sorry I mean spend, their money however they want. I know a club like say Peterborough are unlikely to ever attract a rich Arab, but that's life.