| transfer embargos... on 16:42 - Apr 6 with 2032 views | stevec |
As EFL clubs have been forced to play a season when they’d have saved millions if the season had been abandoned and they’d furloughed the players, could they possibly sue the authority for enforced loss of earnings?
I’m struggling to think of another business that’s been forced to carry on with absolutely no possibility of covering their costs.
Whatever, FFP will be totally unenforceable now. |  | |  |
| transfer embargos... on 16:42 - Apr 6 with 2030 views | daveB |
| transfer embargos... on 16:12 - Apr 6 by QPR_John |
It would seem what you are saying is that FFP means that if you reach your target by breaking the rules you will only get punished if you fail to make the most of reaching said target. Interesting rule. |
Not really, i meant that Leicester were punished with a fine of around 3 million for a loss of 20million that season, we lost £90million I think that same season which is why our fine was larger. They were helped due to not getting instantly relegated avoiding having to desperately throw everything overboard to try and ensure they didn't break the rules again |  | | |
| transfer embargos... on 16:44 - Apr 6 with 2024 views | QPR_Jim |
| transfer embargos... on 15:28 - Apr 6 by daveB |
Lets be honest here we are all pretty biased where this is concerned, When other clubs get points deductions we think it should be more, when they are fined we think it should be more but when we were fined we think it should be a lot less.
We cheated as did Leicester but they made a better fist of the prem than us so never really had to worry about any punishment |
I think you've got to admit that the fine we got was weird by any stretch of the imagination.
They insisted that we're punished to the old rules which were superseded by that point but then didn't fine us the full amount under those rules. £22m of the fine was the shareholders writing off debt which the EFL don't allow for FFP purposes under normal conditions and I think they pulled us up on in previous accounts filed where our owners tried to use that to reduce losses.
The EFL are a strange bunch. |  | | |
| transfer embargos... on 17:26 - Apr 6 with 1953 views | PinnerPaul |
| transfer embargos... on 13:41 - Apr 6 by daveB |
was it over the top? We got a fine several years after the event and a transfer embargo for one window. The fine was only so big because we spent so much that season, if they had stuck with the original rules the fine would have been more than double what we ended up with. |
and we get 10 years (interest free) to pay it back. |  | | |
| transfer embargos... on 17:28 - Apr 6 with 1949 views | daveB |
| transfer embargos... on 16:44 - Apr 6 by QPR_Jim |
I think you've got to admit that the fine we got was weird by any stretch of the imagination.
They insisted that we're punished to the old rules which were superseded by that point but then didn't fine us the full amount under those rules. £22m of the fine was the shareholders writing off debt which the EFL don't allow for FFP purposes under normal conditions and I think they pulled us up on in previous accounts filed where our owners tried to use that to reduce losses.
The EFL are a strange bunch. |
We'd fought them with appeals for several years so in the end they had to reach a compromise where i thought both sides looked like they had lost but were both claiming victory | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 17:44 - Apr 6 with 1924 views | kensalriser |
| transfer embargos... on 15:50 - Apr 6 by SimplyNico |
Whilst it's all very serious, the hilarious thing about that article is that the Mail refer to "Wayne Rooney's Derby". |
Ridiculous. Everyone knows the correct terminology is Wayne Rooney's Derby County. |  |
| |
| transfer embargos... on 18:34 - Apr 6 with 1834 views | QPR_Jim |
| transfer embargos... on 17:28 - Apr 6 by daveB |
We'd fought them with appeals for several years so in the end they had to reach a compromise where i thought both sides looked like they had lost but were both claiming victory |
True, it certainly could have been worse if the EFL hadn't reached that compromise. In many ways a financial penalty on the owners is better for the club than a points deduction like Sheffield Wed have had, so maybe we were lucky. | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 18:57 - Apr 6 with 1801 views | Boston |
| transfer embargos... on 17:44 - Apr 6 by kensalriser |
Ridiculous. Everyone knows the correct terminology is Wayne Rooney's Derby County. |
Wayne County...hmm, sounds familiar.😀 | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| transfer embargos... on 19:11 - Apr 6 with 1777 views | The_Beast1976 |
| transfer embargos... on 12:24 - Apr 6 by superhoopdownunder |
Only club I would like to go out of business is Chelscum |
Hear hear. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 20:10 - Apr 6 with 1699 views | davman |
| transfer embargos... on 16:42 - Apr 6 by daveB |
Not really, i meant that Leicester were punished with a fine of around 3 million for a loss of 20million that season, we lost £90million I think that same season which is why our fine was larger. They were helped due to not getting instantly relegated avoiding having to desperately throw everything overboard to try and ensure they didn't break the rules again |
If you have your figures right, it is even more of a travesty.
Leicester - £3m for £20m loss
QPR - £41m for £80m loss (from memory £24m conversion of club debt by shareholders and the now infamous £1.7m per year over 10 years)
Yes, we smashed the rules, but we were smashed financially for it. No other team (apart from (hopefully) Weds this season has had a lasting punishment and theirs is only likely to result in one season in League One. The last four years have been punishment enough in reducing the wage bill season after season, but that £1.7m a year for the next 6-7 is a significant, long standing handicap. The fine of £41m is the BIGGEST ever in world sport to a single team. So, apart from saying "those were the rules that we signed up to", please justify how the fine can be justified...
Not saying we should get off scot free, but it isn't and never has been proportionate, something everyone recognised by changing the rules. |  |
| |
| transfer embargos... on 20:49 - Apr 6 with 1665 views | derbyhoop |
| transfer embargos... on 16:42 - Apr 6 by stevec |
As EFL clubs have been forced to play a season when they’d have saved millions if the season had been abandoned and they’d furloughed the players, could they possibly sue the authority for enforced loss of earnings?
I’m struggling to think of another business that’s been forced to carry on with absolutely no possibility of covering their costs.
Whatever, FFP will be totally unenforceable now. |
I’m struggling to think of another business that’s been forced to carry on with absolutely no possibility of covering their costs.
Hospitality
Fishing
SMEs exporting food products to EU |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| transfer embargos... on 21:18 - Apr 6 with 1641 views | BostonR |
| transfer embargos... on 20:10 - Apr 6 by davman |
If you have your figures right, it is even more of a travesty.
Leicester - £3m for £20m loss
QPR - £41m for £80m loss (from memory £24m conversion of club debt by shareholders and the now infamous £1.7m per year over 10 years)
Yes, we smashed the rules, but we were smashed financially for it. No other team (apart from (hopefully) Weds this season has had a lasting punishment and theirs is only likely to result in one season in League One. The last four years have been punishment enough in reducing the wage bill season after season, but that £1.7m a year for the next 6-7 is a significant, long standing handicap. The fine of £41m is the BIGGEST ever in world sport to a single team. So, apart from saying "those were the rules that we signed up to", please justify how the fine can be justified...
Not saying we should get off scot free, but it isn't and never has been proportionate, something everyone recognised by changing the rules. |
I doubt the club will complete those payments based on what is likely to happen shortly on FFP. There will be no Championship if they pursue it in its current form. Hopefully, Hoos has the lawyers ready. |  | | |
| transfer embargos... on 21:19 - Apr 6 with 1638 views | daveB |
| transfer embargos... on 20:10 - Apr 6 by davman |
If you have your figures right, it is even more of a travesty.
Leicester - £3m for £20m loss
QPR - £41m for £80m loss (from memory £24m conversion of club debt by shareholders and the now infamous £1.7m per year over 10 years)
Yes, we smashed the rules, but we were smashed financially for it. No other team (apart from (hopefully) Weds this season has had a lasting punishment and theirs is only likely to result in one season in League One. The last four years have been punishment enough in reducing the wage bill season after season, but that £1.7m a year for the next 6-7 is a significant, long standing handicap. The fine of £41m is the BIGGEST ever in world sport to a single team. So, apart from saying "those were the rules that we signed up to", please justify how the fine can be justified...
Not saying we should get off scot free, but it isn't and never has been proportionate, something everyone recognised by changing the rules. |
The last 4 years have nothing to do with any punishment from the EFL, that has been us trying to cut the losses and trying to run a stable club
The fine was £17million not 41 million and the repayments every year we are told is by the owners meaning the club are not handicapped every season
I think our losses for that season were something like £190 million so original rules were a £1million fine for every £10million lost hence the original fine being so big at around 80 million which was reduced in the end
This report sums it up well
https://www.westlondonsport.com/qpr/football-qpr-ffp-questions-answered [Post edited 6 Apr 2021 21:21]
| | | |
| transfer embargos... on 10:49 - Apr 7 with 1361 views | daveB |
I don't think anyone else has posted losses of £190million in one season since FFP came in. If anyone these days has anything like those losses they'll get a points deduction | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 10:52 - Apr 7 with 1354 views | Northernr |
Price of Football guy seemed to be suggesting last week that the Bet365 accounts show an £87m loss for Stoke City last year, which would be the Champ record. Small fry for the Coates, but waaaaaaaaaaaay over the rules. Something lost in translation somewhere I think, I can't believe it's that high. |  | | |
| transfer embargos... on 11:09 - Apr 7 with 1319 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| transfer embargos... on 10:52 - Apr 7 by Northernr |
Price of Football guy seemed to be suggesting last week that the Bet365 accounts show an £87m loss for Stoke City last year, which would be the Champ record. Small fry for the Coates, but waaaaaaaaaaaay over the rules. Something lost in translation somewhere I think, I can't believe it's that high. |
That's am awful lot of money to spend and only have Jordan Cousins as your first choice midfielder. |  |
| |
| transfer embargos... on 11:21 - Apr 7 with 1291 views | stowmarketrange |
| transfer embargos... on 11:09 - Apr 7 by CliveWilsonSaid |
That's am awful lot of money to spend and only have Jordan Cousins as your first choice midfielder. |
According to that report we had £180m written off by the owners after our premier league disasters.What did we have to show for that money? |  | | |
| transfer embargos... on 11:30 - Apr 7 with 1268 views | QPR_John |
| transfer embargos... on 10:49 - Apr 7 by daveB |
I don't think anyone else has posted losses of £190million in one season since FFP came in. If anyone these days has anything like those losses they'll get a points deduction |
I think you miss the point. The punishment given out to us was excessive and accepted to be so by the FL as they changed the rules. The fact they did not then reconsider our position is what I feel aggrieved about. You may say that the FL never expected a club to post a loss of £190M when they ruled that the punishment should be a percentage of the debt. However when drafting said rules they should have seen the possibility and at least set a cap. They realised their mistake and that they could be in trouble if a number of clubs were similarly punished but thought they could handle one club. That is why I think the punishment was unfair. Basically they wanted to save face. | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 11:30 - Apr 7 with 1268 views | daveB |
FFP rules were different for UEFA hence the Man City fine | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 11:32 - Apr 7 with 1258 views | QPR_John |
| transfer embargos... on 11:30 - Apr 7 by daveB |
FFP rules were different for UEFA hence the Man City fine |
Less draconian than the original FL rules. It really does make you wonder the real motive behind the original FL FFP rules. Basically the higher the level a club was playing the lesser the punishment for breaking FFP. Some might cynically say it was to keep the status quo [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 11:36]
| | | |
| transfer embargos... on 11:50 - Apr 7 with 1203 views | daveB |
| transfer embargos... on 11:32 - Apr 7 by QPR_John |
Less draconian than the original FL rules. It really does make you wonder the real motive behind the original FL FFP rules. Basically the higher the level a club was playing the lesser the punishment for breaking FFP. Some might cynically say it was to keep the status quo [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 11:36]
|
The plan was to stop another Man City happening which worked but for the EFL it was also to try and stop clubs spending themselves out of business and become more sustainable. For all the gripes about how we were dealt with after a decade of spend spend spend these rules have at least forced us down a different route which should mean QPR have a better chance of surviving long term | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 13:13 - Apr 7 with 1389 views | PinnerPaul |
| transfer embargos... on 11:30 - Apr 7 by daveB |
FFP rules were different for UEFA hence the Man City fine |
and that recent loss is a one off to do with timing of transfer income. | | | |
| transfer embargos... on 13:57 - Apr 7 with 1292 views | TGRRRSSS |
Most owners of Champ clubs couldn't manage the fine we got I don't think.
Stoke's can though. |  | | |
| transfer embargos... on 14:08 - Apr 7 with 1262 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| transfer embargos... on 11:21 - Apr 7 by stowmarketrange |
According to that report we had £180m written off by the owners after our premier league disasters.What did we have to show for that money? |
Well nothing but we did have 3 seasons trying to establish ourselves in the Premier League (unsuccessfully) and one season trying to get back into it (partially successfully). That would explain the high figure. It was a bad idea and it all went wrong as we know. | |
| |
| transfer embargos... on 16:25 - Apr 7 with 1173 views | QPR_John |
| transfer embargos... on 11:50 - Apr 7 by daveB |
The plan was to stop another Man City happening which worked but for the EFL it was also to try and stop clubs spending themselves out of business and become more sustainable. For all the gripes about how we were dealt with after a decade of spend spend spend these rules have at least forced us down a different route which should mean QPR have a better chance of surviving long term |
The truth is your first sentence should have ended after "happening". | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
