Why would Premier League punish Forest for being big club again?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

C

Camden Blade

Active Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
3,038
Location
NW5
From the Sunday Times

MARTIN SAMUEL
Why would Premier League punish Forest for being big club again?
Martin Samuel
Saturday January 06 2024, 6.00pm, The Times
Now we wait. Where are Nottingham Forest? Are they up, are they down? Will they be relegated for showing unacceptable ambition, of the type our modern Premier League despises? Will Everton? All shall be revealed this month when the league’s accountants deliver their verdict. The football? That’s just something we do for television these days. It doesn’t much matter any more. It’s for the cameras, really, to give some former players a job. The real league table takes shape in a back office, out of sight. They will let us know what it looks like, when it suits them.

Evangelos Marinakis should just have accepted his fate, like the board at Norwich City. Remember the 2019-20 season when Norwich spent no money and meekly returned to the Championship, 13 points adrift of any other club and with a goal difference of minus 49? Oh, how we cheered. Lauded by their heart and style of play, even if it won them just five games all season. That’s how to do it, we wisely agreed. Don’t risk, don’t challenge. Consolidate. Balance. Build. And look where they’ve consolidated to now: 13th, in the Championship.

So that’s the modern Premier League’s idea of good common sense. Forest, on the other hand, are supposedly a basket-case club. Got into the Premier League and, inexplicably, tried to stay there. Bought players, improved the squad, not always rationally, and not always successfully, but always with the idea of having a go. And having a go used to be a good thing. It’s not as if Forest have been placed in jeopardy. They’re not skint. They’re not even struggling financially. Marinakis has the wealth to do this and, as a result, even when form has dipped, the City Ground remains a vibrant, positive place. The fans stayed loyal to Steve Cooper, the former head coach, despite adversity.

That doesn’t happen if people are furious. Had the locals felt short-changed by the Marinakis regime they would have taken it out on the owner, and then the head coach, when the downturn came. That both remained largely in credit — although Cooper wasn’t, with Marinakis, by the end — is testament to the constructive nature of having a go.

Forest haven’t always got it right, and the constant churn of playing staff made it hard for Cooper. Unless Marinakis changes his way it will be difficult for his successor, Nuno Espírito Santo, too. But there is the basis of a good team there, there is ambition, and they have made memories. Forest look a big club again. But the presumption is they will now be punished for this.

Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Manchester United, have all lost to Forest in their first two seasons of Premier League football under Marinakis’s ownership. They reached the semi-final of last season’s Carabao Cup too, eliminating Tottenham Hotspur on the way. If that was achieved while teetering on a financial precipice there would be cause for alarm. Yet there is no suggestion Marinakis cannot support his investment. Rather, he has rejuvenated a club that lay sleeping. It has been a good watch.

Marinakis assumed control in 2017 and stated an aim to qualify for Europe within five years. Four years later Forest sat bottom of the Championship when Cooper arrived. So, yes, the owner is behind schedule. Yet could Forest qualify for Europe in the future under his stewardship? Is it possible that, with the right players and more coherence, Forest could be where Villa, West Ham United or Brighton & Hove Albion are now? Of course. The club have hope, they have ambitious goals. Sadly, in Richard Masters’s Premier League, that increasingly causes alarm.

Everton showed ambition when they took on Carlo Ancelotti and brought players such as James Rodríguez to our league. How dare they? The narrative since is that the club overreached — but this ignores that by December 26, 2020, Ancelotti and the money spent backing him had taken Everton to second in the league. So it wasn’t the foolhardy escapade now painted. Yet ultimately that adventure contributed to a ten-point deduction, and maybe more now the Premier League accountants are marking Everton’s homework again.

Meaning, we wait. The league table we think we know could bear no relation to reality. Forest may be relocated south of Sheffield United and Luton Town, Everton may again swap places with Burnley. And for what? Having a go, having a crack, for falling foul of unnecessary, protectionist rules by displaying the type of ambition every fan desires for his or her club. The very thing that makes football compelling is becoming a crime now. All they want is good little boys, who will keep quiet, keep their heads down, not frighten the horses and accept their dismal fate.
 

Does anyone know how much we'd have to have spent this year for us to have breached FFP rules? How nuts would we have to have gone?
Personally my thoughts are.. if a team overspends and the shit hits the fan (in terms of financial ruin), then that's the way the cookie crumbles. Gives the rest of us a chance to move up the ladder when that happens, and what could be fairer than that?
 
It's a hypocritical article. He's applauding them for spending but criticising them for high player churn. Or maybe he's articulating it was down to poor purchases/management and not "how" much they spent.

I don't think Samuels fully understands the theory of FFP. However, it pains me to say his team West Ham are a "relatively" financially well run club and managed to reduce overall debt compared to other clubs.
 
Melbourne Blade said:
It's a hypocritical article. He's applauding them for spending but criticising them for high player churn. Or maybe he's articulating it was down to poor purchases/management and not "how" much they spent.

I don't think Samuels fully understands the theory of FFP. However, it pains me to say his team West Ham are a "relatively" financially well run club and managed to reduce overall debt compared to other clubs.
Click to expand...
Must be quite easy when the government gives you a nice new stadium for not very much and doubles your ticket revenue overnight!
 
ThatJa said:
He's a cunt

But he's a cunt that's got a point, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
He’s written a whole article to have a dig at teams that can’t afford to throw cash away and ‘have a go’ in the PL.

He has got a point but he’s forgetting that the owners of said clubs do this because they aren’t as rich as the bigger boys!

Would he go to Joe Bloggs Transport Ltd in Sheffield with 4 lorries and a few vans and give them shit for not spending shitloads of money in order to become the next DHL?! Doubtful.

The man is a fucking cretin.
 
Melbourne Blade said:
It's a hypocritical article. He's applauding them for spending but criticising them for high player churn. Or maybe he's articulating it was down to poor purchases/management and not "how" much they spent.

I don't think Samuels fully understands the theory of FFP. However, it pains me to say his team West Ham are a "relatively" financially well run club and managed to reduce overall debt compared to other clubs.
Click to expand...
Funny that given they got gifted a stadium for chocolate buttons.

How many of us would be flush if the government gave us our abodes for next to nothing?!
 

Surely the whole point of Fair Play is to stop clubs going bankrupt and out of business and the only people affected are the Supporters and staff - chairman come and go!

For info :-

West Ham's current rental fee of the London Stadium increased from £2.5million to £3.6million in 2022, but their highly-rewarding deal see's them take all of the ticket money without having to foot the cost for heating, cleaning, or maintenance.
 
I can't stand him, but that is a decent article. Basically saying any club outside of the very big clubs who dare to spend money over their FFP allowed amount even if they have owners who can afford it will be punished with point deductions, and what this is effectively doing is ensuring the status quo at the top end of the table.

Also makes the point that teams like us and Norwich that do play by the rules are never going to compete and basically don't stand a chance and they just want us as easy points fodder for the big boys, basically to make up the numbers but not rock the boat.

The counter argument will always be irresponsible owners shouldn't be allowed to put a club's existence in jepody by recklessly spending money they haven't got which is definitely true so it is a difficult one. Even if an owner can demonstrate they have the cash and will provide the funds without being loans etc what would happen if they want to walk away, leaving players on huge contracts that the club couldn't cover and probably couldn't sell without the owner injecting money every week.

It is a difficult one, but at present the league is definitely setup to give a massive financial advantage to the traditional big clubs and to ensure other clubs will find it hard to compete over the long term. You might get the odd challenge from well run clubs like Brighton, but all that happens if they are forced to sell their better players to the big clubs for silly money so eventually ensuring the status quo remains.
 
Westham owners knew that the stadium would sit there doing nothing so they edged their bets and got the deal of a life time, years ago thw Don Valley stadium was courted to us as a new home not that I wanted it but similar scenario
 
Everton and forest would both be on the verge of going out of existence if they were relegated so whilst I take his point they should be allowed to spend what they want ,the rules are the rules and if you break them you should be punished
Funnily enough that's something Samuel's always seems to have a problem with and I'm sure he would be the first to write a hot take article about how u fair it all is when one of those clubs doesn't exist anymore because the owner spent money the club couldn't afford
 
Camden Blade said:
From the Sunday Times

MARTIN SAMUEL
Why would Premier League punish Forest for being big club again?
Martin Samuel
Saturday January 06 2024, 6.00pm, The Times
Now we wait. Where are Nottingham Forest? Are they up, are they down? Will they be relegated for showing unacceptable ambition, of the type our modern Premier League despises? Will Everton? All shall be revealed this month when the league’s accountants deliver their verdict. The football? That’s just something we do for television these days. It doesn’t much matter any more. It’s for the cameras, really, to give some former players a job. The real league table takes shape in a back office, out of sight. They will let us know what it looks like, when it suits them.

Evangelos Marinakis should just have accepted his fate, like the board at Norwich City. Remember the 2019-20 season when Norwich spent no money and meekly returned to the Championship, 13 points adrift of any other club and with a goal difference of minus 49? Oh, how we cheered. Lauded by their heart and style of play, even if it won them just five games all season. That’s how to do it, we wisely agreed. Don’t risk, don’t challenge. Consolidate. Balance. Build. And look where they’ve consolidated to now: 13th, in the Championship.

So that’s the modern Premier League’s idea of good common sense. Forest, on the other hand, are supposedly a basket-case club. Got into the Premier League and, inexplicably, tried to stay there. Bought players, improved the squad, not always rationally, and not always successfully, but always with the idea of having a go. And having a go used to be a good thing. It’s not as if Forest have been placed in jeopardy. They’re not skint. They’re not even struggling financially. Marinakis has the wealth to do this and, as a result, even when form has dipped, the City Ground remains a vibrant, positive place. The fans stayed loyal to Steve Cooper, the former head coach, despite adversity.

That doesn’t happen if people are furious. Had the locals felt short-changed by the Marinakis regime they would have taken it out on the owner, and then the head coach, when the downturn came. That both remained largely in credit — although Cooper wasn’t, with Marinakis, by the end — is testament to the constructive nature of having a go.

Forest haven’t always got it right, and the constant churn of playing staff made it hard for Cooper. Unless Marinakis changes his way it will be difficult for his successor, Nuno Espírito Santo, too. But there is the basis of a good team there, there is ambition, and they have made memories. Forest look a big club again. But the presumption is they will now be punished for this.

Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Manchester United, have all lost to Forest in their first two seasons of Premier League football under Marinakis’s ownership. They reached the semi-final of last season’s Carabao Cup too, eliminating Tottenham Hotspur on the way. If that was achieved while teetering on a financial precipice there would be cause for alarm. Yet there is no suggestion Marinakis cannot support his investment. Rather, he has rejuvenated a club that lay sleeping. It has been a good watch.

Marinakis assumed control in 2017 and stated an aim to qualify for Europe within five years. Four years later Forest sat bottom of the Championship when Cooper arrived. So, yes, the owner is behind schedule. Yet could Forest qualify for Europe in the future under his stewardship? Is it possible that, with the right players and more coherence, Forest could be where Villa, West Ham United or Brighton & Hove Albion are now? Of course. The club have hope, they have ambitious goals. Sadly, in Richard Masters’s Premier League, that increasingly causes alarm.

Everton showed ambition when they took on Carlo Ancelotti and brought players such as James Rodríguez to our league. How dare they? The narrative since is that the club overreached — but this ignores that by December 26, 2020, Ancelotti and the money spent backing him had taken Everton to second in the league. So it wasn’t the foolhardy escapade now painted. Yet ultimately that adventure contributed to a ten-point deduction, and maybe more now the Premier League accountants are marking Everton’s homework again.

Meaning, we wait. The league table we think we know could bear no relation to reality. Forest may be relocated south of Sheffield United and Luton Town, Everton may again swap places with Burnley. And for what? Having a go, having a crack, for falling foul of unnecessary, protectionist rules by displaying the type of ambition every fan desires for his or her club. The very thing that makes football compelling is becoming a crime now. All they want is good little boys, who will keep quiet, keep their heads down, not frighten the horses and accept their dismal fate.
Click to expand...
That is typical of him ! He's full of elitism ! sport is all about competing not the few who have rich owners.
On the day football welcomes any team that competes and wins (FA Cup 3rd round) .He wants to wash his mouth out. Luton,Wimbledon under Harry have done incredible things he would destroy all that.
Football changed thanks to Jimmy Hill & George Eastham ! Money was god from then on level playing field gone forever.
'Bosman 'just rubbed salt in the wounds.

It seems he wants to destroy all competition in favour of the rich few.
FFP is the last chance to stop total takeover of the rich and ruin what's left of a fantastic pyramid structure we have in England.
Sport not just football is driven by the enthusiasm of people not the prawn sandwich brigade .
Kill competition and sports dead
 
finlaytheblade said:
That is typical of him ! He's full of elitism ! sport is all about competing not the few who have rich owners.
On the day football welcomes any team that competes and wins (FA Cup 3rd round) .He wants to wash his mouth out. Luton,Wimbledon under Harry have done incredible things he would destroy all that.
Football changed thanks to Jimmy Hill & George Eastham ! Money was god from then on level playing field gone forever.
'Bosman 'just rubbed salt in the wounds.

It seems he wants to destroy all competition in favour of the rich few.
FFP is the last chance to stop total takeover of the rich and ruin what's left of a fantastic pyramid structure we have in England.
Sport not just football is driven by the enthusiasm of people not the prawn sandwich brigade .
Kill competition and sports dead
Click to expand...
A level playing field would involve a consistent salary cap, but we live in a global market.
 
Frank the tank said:
Everton and forest would both be on the verge of going out of existence if they were relegated so whilst I take his point they should be allowed to spend what they want ,the rules are the rules and if you break them you should be punished
Funnily enough that's something Samuel's always seems to have a problem with and I'm sure he would be the first to write a hot take article about how u fair it all is when one of those clubs doesn't exist anymore because the owner spent money the club couldn't afford
Click to expand...
This is the point that is being missed by Samuel, but I read it like he’s being a little sarcastic to make his point

We all want to have fresh teams breaking into the top 10, top 6 and top 2. But when they do and in order for them to do they have to spend. Man City, Spurs and Chelsea all forced their way in by spending. Leicester broke the mould but they’ve been pushed back down.

Many fans want to see the best, most exciting players play for their club(this appears to be Samuel’s dig at fans), but to do this the clubs need to spend which fans applaud because spending is good. Yet if they don’t spend fans call for heads of managers and owners

The rules are there for a reason to keep a level playing field, but what it does is keep the biggest spenders who were at the top when the rules came in, at the top. That’s unfair as they have the infrastructure in place to earn big revenues and not break the rules as well (though city run this line very close or beyond)

Personally I see the likes of Forest and Everton being everything I hate about the game. Why can’t they follow the rules?

One big club will eventually go pop because of their spending or rule breaking and hopefully it’s not us. I think we’ve learnt from our last relegation and we have to cut our cloth accordingly
 
Norwich isn’t really a comparison, their owners didn’t want to spend money. Their owners took bigger dividends instead after they got in Prem.
 
SwissBlade said:
This is the point that is being missed by Samuel, but I read it like he’s being a little sarcastic to make his point

We all want to have fresh teams breaking into the top 10, top 6 and top 2. But when they do and in order for them to do they have to spend. Man City, Spurs and Chelsea all forced their way in by spending. Leicester broke the mould but they’ve been pushed back down.

Many fans want to see the best, most exciting players play for their club(this appears to be Samuel’s dig at fans), but to do this the clubs need to spend which fans applaud because spending is good. Yet if they don’t spend fans call for heads of managers and owners

The rules are there for a reason to keep a level playing field, but what it does is keep the biggest spenders who were at the top when the rules came in, at the top. That’s unfair as they have the infrastructure in place to earn big revenues and not break the rules as well (though city run this line very close or beyond)

Personally I see the likes of Forest and Everton being everything I hate about the game. Why can’t they follow the rules?

One big club will eventually go pop because of their spending or rule breaking and hopefully it’s not us. I think we’ve learnt from our last relegation and we have to cut our cloth accordingly
Click to expand...
Exactly
Let's say for example ffp says you can spend what you want now we don't care anymore

There is no way liverpool or arsenal would be able to keep up with the two Manchester clubs Chelsea and Newcastle, they would be fighting tooth and nail with villa and spurs to try and get in that 4th spot if one of the big spenders slips up

That's all the ffp is interested in ,remember that the only reason citeh are in so much trouble is because bayern munich hired detectives to uncover theirs and psg's accounting strategy
The pretense with ffp was that it was to save clubs from dodgy owners doing a Portsmouth or Derby but it's funny how it seems to work more at retaining the status quo
The efl seem to have the responsibility of punishing clubs for over spending and the premier league seems to be trying to protect its established more glamorous members
 
Well aye, all very good points; it'd be bloody funny if Forest (and possibly Everton) are docked and give us half a chance though wouldn't it? And he's worried enough to be writing an article on it.....
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom