--- source: thedugout.football generated: 2026-06-09T18:32:03.034Z last_updated: 2026-06-09T06:00:00+00:00 data_provider: API-Football canonical: https://thedugout.football/clubs/nottingham-forest/news/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubm90dGluZ2hhbXBvc3QuY29tL3Nwb3J0L2Zvb3RiYWxsL3RyYW5zZmVyLW5ld3Mvbm90dGluZ2hhbS1mb3Jlc3QtdHJhbnNmZXJzLWVsbGlvdC1hbmRlcnNvbi0xMTAwNDEzNQ --- # Anderson, transfers, new rules - Nottingham Forest financial state of play - **Source:** - **Published:** 9 Jun - **Club:** Nottingham Forest - **Original URL:** https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/football/transfer-news/nottingham-forest-transfers-elliot-anderson-11004135 A quick return to Europe is the aim. Recruitment, behind-the-scenes changes and Vitor Pereira getting time with his squad will all be geared towards pushing for that goal. After a relegation scare and having got a taste for competing on the continent, there is a lot riding on the coming weeks at the City Ground. And that is before a significant regulatory change is thrown into the mix. JOIN US ON FACEBOOK! Get all the Nottingham Forest latest via our Facebook page Earlier this year, the club published their accounts for the year ended June 30 2025. They showed an operating loss of almost £65 million, converting to a loss before tax of £78.9m. On the pitch, of course, the Reds were very much in the black over the course of that year. A special campaign ended with European football secured courtesy of a seventh-placed finish. We will have to wait until early next year to find out for certain what impact finishing 16th in the Premier League and making it to the Europa League semi-finals this time around will have on the club’s books. But senior lecturer in football finance at the University Campus of Football Business Claire O’Neill has run the calculations for some data-backed estimations. “Costs are always difficult to estimate,” says O’Neill. “But one of the things we can expect in this year's financials will be significant costs in relation to the termination fees likely associated with the kind of manager merry-go-round we had going on at Forest.” Pereira became the club’s fourth head coach of the campaign in February. The Portuguese followed on from Sean Dyche (who lasted 114 days in charge), Ange Postecoglou (who managed 39 days) and Nuno Espirito Santo (who was axed three games into the season). The other main expenditure concerns players’ wages. O’Neill anticipates the figure will not be too far off the cost for the previous year. She says: “For 2024/25, the wages to revenue - the notion of how much of your revenue is being eaten up by your wage bill - at Forest was 75 per cent. I can't imagine it would have dropped below that, if anything it may well have gone up, and so arguably they are sailing quite high in terms of the cost base there, but costs are very hard to estimate.” The Reds posted record revenues of £221.7m for the year to June 2025. Battling at the top end of the league table is sure to have helped on that front. Does it follow, therefore, that a survival scrap will have dented that figure? Well, perhaps not as much as might be expected - certainly where broadcast income is concerned. “You might instinctively think broadcast is going to have absolutely plummeted because they finished lower down the table,” O’Neill says. “Broadly speaking, the higher you finish in the Premier League table, the bigger the share of the broadcast pot you get. But what may cushion that fall in positions somewhat is that this season we saw the commencement of the new four-year broadcast cycle.” As a result of the new cycle, teams can expect an uplift in cash from broadcast revenue - both in domestic and international distributions. O’Neill estimates Forest will receive in the region of £140m for 2025/26 from the Premier League’s central distribution pot, with the bulk of that coming from broadcast. By comparison, Forest received £152.5m for 2024/25, when they finished seventh. A drop of somewhere in the region of £12m, then - a fall but perhaps not as much as might be expected for finishing nine places further down the table. Additionally, Forest can expect to pick up in the region of £25m broadcast revenue for reaching the Europa League semi-finals. That makes a total of £165m broadcast revenue from UEFA and the Premier League combined, compared to £159m for 2024/25. O’Neill estimates match day revenue for 2025/26 will add roughly another £25m to the pot. Meanwhile, commercial revenue is likely to be upwards of the £43.6m for 2024/25, based on “European exposure and the kind of contractual gains they might have derived from being in European competition”, plus a one-year shirt sponsorship deal with Bally’s Corporation. Commercially, perhaps not too much. A new sponsor will be needed to replace Bally’s due to Premier League clubs agreeing to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of match shirts, starting from this coming season. The Bally’s deal was reportedly worth around £8m. O’Neill reckons there is the possibility the club could improve on that figure. “They have been in Europe and they have been quite successful recently, and they'll be gunning for that again,” she says. “I don't see any reason why they couldn't potentially secure a non-gambling operator front of shirt sponsor for upwards of £8m.” Reaching the Europa League semi-finals will have banked Forest around £32m, made up of £25m broadcast revenue and roughly £7m match day income. There will likely also have been commercial contractual gains from the kudos of competing on the continent and the added exposure it brings. There is a difference to make up, therefore. But here is the twist in the tale, the introduction of SCR might actually help the Reds offset missing out on that £32m additional cash in the coming season. “You think of a club not in Europe and you tend to think all is lost. Financially, I don't think that is the case at the moment,” O’Neill says. The change to SCR brings the Premier League’s regulations closer to those implemented by UEFA. Clubs’ on-pitch spending will be limited to 85 per cent of their football-related revenue and net profit/loss from player sales - albeit there is a little bit of leeway involved. Additionally, whereas PSR was assessed on a rolling three-year basis, the new rules are set against an annual assessment. “What PSR focused on was what we accountants call the bottom line,” O’Neill explains. “It was very much profit focused. “What we’ve moved to now, under Squad Cost Ratio, is directly regulating player expenditure. They’re going for the jugular. It’s like a very enhanced wages to revenue ratio; how much of what you've got coming in can you spend on players. What that's saying is you cannot spend more than 85 per cent of your revenue, plus profit on player sales, on your wages and amortisation. “What that will mean is revenue and profit on player sales will more than ever be key to ability to invest on the pitch. It will be maximising your revenues and your profit on player sales to be able to spend more on wages and player transfers through amortisation.” Here’s where Forest might have a bit more leeway than some of their rivals. UEFA impose a similar SCR for clubs competing in Europe, but their ratio is a more restrictive 70 per cent. “By not being in Europe next season, one of the financial advantages Forest may have is that they will have greater on-pitch expenditure capacity relative to their income coming in, compared to those who are competing in European competition,” O’Neill says. “They've got the 85 per cent to play with, compared to their counterparts playing in Europe that will have to abide by the 70 per cent rule. “So what Forest will be looking to do going forward is maximising that squad cost ratio position through maximising revenues as best they can, but also looking to be strategic around profits generated on player sales.” That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? Or the £100m-plus question, as it were. Forest appear to be in a decent position financially this summer. Their 2024/25 accounts showed a drop in profits from player sales from £100m to £7m, but the 2025/26 figure will be helped by the sale of Anthony Elanga to Newcastle United last July. O’Neill estimates the profit derived from that sale to be in the region of £46m, based on the amortisation as a result of Elanga penning a five-year deal when he joined the Reds from Manchester United for £15m in 2023. “There will be other bits of transfers to account for as well so I reckon the profit on player sales for 25/26 will be upwards of £50m, in or around there,” she says. “Obviously, Anthony Elanga being the big one that's buoying that up.” Forest do not appear to be in a forced-sale position. They have already rejected an undisclosed bid from Manchester City, although it is unlikely that will be the end of the matter. As always regarding potential transfers, there are all kinds of factors to be weighed up. When it comes to cold-hard finances, it depends how much headroom the Reds want to allow themselves - and the timing of any sale ties into that. City, it is believed, are keen to wrap up a deal for Anderson before England’s World Cup begins on June 17. They would surely have to cough up a substantial sum for that to happen, but if they do and Forest accept, a deal done before the end of this month would go in the 2025/26 accounts. Such a sale, of any player not just the Three Lions ace, would help to offset the aforementioned termination fees associated with the past year’s managerial changes. “They may look to offset those costs in some way by deriving some profits to try to balance out their 25/26 PSR position, because they have still got to comply with PSR up until the end of this season,” O’Neill outlines. There is, however, no suggestion Forest are sailing close to the wind with PSR compliance. If the decision is made to sell Anderson, it will be on the club’s terms - and holding out for maximum value may be the way to go. The midfielder moved to the City Ground from Newcastle for £35m in the summer of 2024, signing a five-year deal. Forest believe he is now worth upwards of £100m, if not significantly more - especially if he has a successful World Cup. To go with the conservative valuation, O’Neill estimates a £100m fee would represent in the region of £80m accounting profit - that is on the basis of a July sale and therefore going into the 2026/27 accounts. “What that would provide them with for 26/27 is cashflow for a season not in European competition and also SCR regulatory headroom because that profit derived on the player sale would go into the bottom half of the Squad Cost Ratio,” O’Neill says. “Of course it's not simply about selling players, it's about on-pitch performance as well. “But financially, that sale alone, deriving a profit of potentially around £80m would almost more than compensate financially for the lack of European football. But obviously it's not just about that.” Indeed, it’s about so many things; transfers are one big juggling act. Could a big lump of cash from City fund the addition of several players? An £80m profit on Anderson would certainly offset the £32m for not being involved in Europe by providing a cash-flow cushion and SCR headroom. But would retaining the 23-year-old give Forest a better chance of securing an immediate return to the continent? The club have much to consider. As always, it’s more nuanced than that. SCR directly regulates player expenditure and means maximising revenue will be key. But the age-old debate over how to bridge the gap to the Premier League big boys isn’t going away. “This is always the argument around regulations that sit around a ratio like this,” O’Neill admits. “You’re always limited on your spend relative to your income. Obviously clubs with much greater income have the ability to spend more. Certainly in academia, that is always the question mark that hangs over ratios as a regulation. “It is very much down to being strategic, balancing selling players to generate profits but also still having a decent squad to perform, and then maximising revenues and diversifying your revenue streams or building new stadia and increasing capacity that way. “It’s an age-old question. It was the same under the old rules as well, which was in effect a break-even type rule. Some clubs have more than others to spend.”