The latest Nottingham Forest news as the club awaits the decision of their hearing for suspected Profitability and Sustainability Rules violations.
Simon Jordan believes Nottingham Forest is being treated unfairly under the existing Profitability and Sustainability Rules.
The Reds are accused of violating current laws, which limit the amount clubs can lose over a three-year period.
Forest has been accused of exceeding that limit and is awaiting the conclusion of an independent commission hearing, which was held last week and will determine who would administer any sanctions.
However, former Crystal Palace owner Jordan points out that once promoted, Forest were constrained by the existing rules, which state that losses could not exceed an average of £13 million per year in the Championship and £35 million in the top division. Forest had two qualifying years with lower figures, putting them at a spending disadvantage at a time when they needed to invest to maintain their hard-earned position.
“I think there is an element of Financial Fair Play that’s a blunt instrument,” Jordan told talkSPORT’s White and Jordan show. “I believe the fine imposed on Nottingham Forest is unreasonable because clubs promoted from the EFL to the Premier League should be given some leeway.
“The reason Forest are getting hammered is that they are carrying two years of EFL losses and one year of Premier League losses, which means they were not supposed to have £105 million in losses. They are only allowed to have £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 skeptical of Forest’s claim that they are being penalized by refusing to pay top cash for Brennan Johnson. The winger was sold to Tottenham last summer, but the revenue was too late to be included in the three-year accounting period currently under review.
“It’s also not the same as getting a player and selling him three months later and perhaps claiming that you only sold him three months later to achieve a higher market value, and he should be taken back three months earlier so you can move into the prior year.
“It is not the same argument, but I agree that there needs to be greater understanding. Is 85% of turnover on wages better than a £35 million loss per season? That is the question, because if it is, it is heading in the correct path.
“So, if Nottingham Forest’s turnover is £200 million, round it up for the sake of this conversation, you can spend £170 million on wages and associated depreciation.” What are you doing now? If you’re currently spending less than that, you’re making progress.
“I’m in between FFP (Profit and Sustainability) being a blunt weapon that needs to be refined and the idea that overregulation stifles capitalism in the sport…
“But it’s unfair to Forest because when you go up, you should leave the past behind. The Championship’s drag and tag impact should not have carried over to the Premier League for Nottingham Forest.
