| FFP decision in - not good 14:01 - Oct 24 with 55338 views | Northernr |
Arbitration found in favour of the league, basically protecting its role as a lawmaker that can set the rules for its competition as it sees fit. It leaves QPR liable to paying the fine in full, £40m-£60m
https://www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/qpr-financial-fair-play-dispute/
The club will be launching an appeal against this which will basically drag the whole thing on for another two years or so. They've a good chance in that, on the grounds of proptionality - you can fine HSBC £1.4bn but you can't fine the local Spar Shop the same amount for the same offence. Basically leaves the whole club, everybody that works there, the training ground development and us supporters in limbo for another two years. But yeh, at least Harry won us a promotion right?
Hopefully critics of Ferdinand, Hoos, Holloway, even Hasselbaink, and basically everybody that's been left to clear up the mess left by Hughes, Redknapp, Beard and most of all Fernandes previously now appreciate what a fcking tight spot they're all in.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |  |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:29 - Oct 24 with 3295 views | barbicanranger |
What a mess both from the club and the FL. It's the cherry on top of those terrible years of overspending and "bad sorts" at the club. Not to mention what is the purpose of FFP, infinite examples of equal or worse losses yet it's us that gets this fine (not saying our spending that year wasn't out of control). [Post edited 24 Oct 2017 16:29]
|  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:33 - Oct 24 with 3265 views | Ferdy |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:19 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
The rules changed in the meantime. They realised, partly because of us, that they weren't workable. |
Well surely common sense will prevail. Yes we broke the rules. Yes we should be punished. But effectively putting the club out of business will not suit anyone.
As the rules have changed I would have thought a decent lawyer will be able to prove that the punishment initially imposed by the EFL does not fit the crime and serves no purpose.
I would have though an embargo or points deduction would have been a better punishment, if the EFL are truly worried about overspending that is. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:34 - Oct 24 with 3258 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:33 - Oct 24 by Ferdy |
Well surely common sense will prevail. Yes we broke the rules. Yes we should be punished. But effectively putting the club out of business will not suit anyone.
As the rules have changed I would have thought a decent lawyer will be able to prove that the punishment initially imposed by the EFL does not fit the crime and serves no purpose.
I would have though an embargo or points deduction would have been a better punishment, if the EFL are truly worried about overspending that is. |
It would be more sensible to apply the current rules retrospectively. problem is, Blackburn and Forest were punished under the old rules, and in Blackburn's case it led to them being relegated, so they'd be able to come looking for some serious compo if the league let us off.
It's a complete mess. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:35 - Oct 24 with 3256 views | Ferdy |
I suspect that the football league may also be a little embarrassed and secretly enjoying this after the Faurlin saga a few years ago. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:35 - Oct 24 with 3256 views | robith |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:00 - Oct 24 by Phildo |
interesting stuff. What does it mean apropos Remy being available for the play offs and re signing Charlie Austin in January? Actually don't answer I will go on twitter to find out the answer.... |
ANNOUNCE RAVEL PHILDO, FFS WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANNOUNCE RAVEL [Post edited 24 Oct 2017 16:36]
|  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:37 - Oct 24 with 3237 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:01 - Oct 24 by Brightonhoop |
Highly unlikely, such a nuclear option would destroy reputations of all involved.
What I dont get is proportionality, seems to be a piece of string. If the fine was double £100 to £120 million, is that still proportional? Obviously ny fine/sanction has to be a deterrant to others, but surely a £10 Mil fine and transfer embargo for 2 seasons with the threat of a points deduction for further transgressions would put most in check? Especially since the rules have been downgraded since to be less punitive.....
And all in the context of Sky and the Prem which not only set the scene for collosal spending 25 years ago, but have also all but bankrupted England on the International stage.... It's hard to imagine a good future for football on this basis. Stating the bleedin' obvious but what an almighty mess. |
That's what I think. The inequality is laughable. Also I think i'm right in saying that if we were to get promoted in the meantime then whilst in the premier league we can't be fined. Which makes it even more dumb. Does the football league really want to be seen as a shark pit for teams falling out of the premiership?
What does worry me is that because we're QPR they're going to try to make an example of us and I'm not sure too many people outside the club would care. |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:38 - Oct 24 with 3236 views | vanrrrr |
balls.
could this possibly mean that Fernandes et al sell up, new owners come in and as part of approval do a backroom deal with FL to settle outstanding claims? clutching at straws a bit but another two or three years of penury may not appeal to foreign backers who may have been looking a a quick profit or a mega stadia/complex in West London..?
This way club gets back on a solid footing ( assuming new owners not mentalists), FL can claim enforcement and Fernandes etc can get an exit. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 16:41 - Oct 24 with 3205 views | RANGERS4EVER |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 15:57 - Oct 24 by connell10 |
All sounds a bit like a stich up to me! How can wolves spend so much money but nothing is being done about them??? |
Hard to say Wolves as an example considering this is their first real big spending season, they are doing very well, and we don't really know anything about their financial gain/loss. Just because they spent a bit of money doesn't mean they are exactly breaking rules.
We did break a rule, however still seems a bit of a stitch up. £60m? f*ck me, bankrupting a club under a rule called 'FINANCIAL fair play' seems a bit ridiculous |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:44 - Oct 24 with 3174 views | colinallcars |
I would prefer demotion rather than a fine. It wouldn't be so bad....no more Sky TV, no more international breaks, no more scumbags like JET or Caulker. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:50 - Oct 24 with 3120 views | Ferdy |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:34 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
It would be more sensible to apply the current rules retrospectively. problem is, Blackburn and Forest were punished under the old rules, and in Blackburn's case it led to them being relegated, so they'd be able to come looking for some serious compo if the league let us off.
It's a complete mess. |
That would be sensible but this Harvey character at the EFL looks like an absolute helmet.
I think the old undisclosed settlement would work best for everyone although i'm sure it would have to be included in the year end financial results.
Total shambles. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:53 - Oct 24 with 3110 views | smegma |
| FFP decision in - not good on 14:39 - Oct 24 by switchingcode |
Piss off,but your own  |
I'm sorry but could you translate that into English please ?? | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 17:03 - Oct 24 with 3026 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 16:41 - Oct 24 by RANGERS4EVER |
Hard to say Wolves as an example considering this is their first real big spending season, they are doing very well, and we don't really know anything about their financial gain/loss. Just because they spent a bit of money doesn't mean they are exactly breaking rules.
We did break a rule, however still seems a bit of a stitch up. £60m? f*ck me, bankrupting a club under a rule called 'FINANCIAL fair play' seems a bit ridiculous |
Wolves are basically doing what we did - ignoring the rules and gambling. If you get there, and stay there, it's fine - as Leicester and Bournemouth. If you miss, or come back, it's not fine, as us and Blackburn are finding. Sheff Wed are next if they don't go up this year, they've smashed the rules over the last two seasons and it's now judged on a rolling three year basis so they'll be getting hammered next year if they don't go up this. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:03 - Oct 24 with 3026 views | TacticalR |
Is this what Holloway meant back in July?
"QPR Fans don't know that the bomb has gone off"
|  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:11 - Oct 24 with 2982 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:03 - Oct 24 by TacticalR |
Is this what Holloway meant back in July?
"QPR Fans don't know that the bomb has gone off"
|
No. Club only found out this decision in last few days. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:12 - Oct 24 with 2970 views | PunteR |
| FFP decision in - not good on 14:19 - Oct 24 by paulparker |
At least Tony is learning by his mistakes
 |
Flying High..  |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:16 - Oct 24 with 2945 views | Hooped_Pullie |
Rolling down to the appeals process, it is very hard to see how the powers that be could sanction a £60 million pound fine AND wave through a £60 million debt-to-equity writeoff as well - hope there for the overturning.
Incidentally (and apologies if this has been covered elsewhere) but there's a very good article on the Pozzo's Watford FC masterplan appeared on the BBC Sport website today. Well worth a read. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:21 - Oct 24 with 2920 views | Mytch_QPR |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:38 - Oct 24 by vanrrrr |
balls.
could this possibly mean that Fernandes et al sell up, new owners come in and as part of approval do a backroom deal with FL to settle outstanding claims? clutching at straws a bit but another two or three years of penury may not appeal to foreign backers who may have been looking a a quick profit or a mega stadia/complex in West London..?
This way club gets back on a solid footing ( assuming new owners not mentalists), FL can claim enforcement and Fernandes etc can get an exit. |
Since when did QPR and profit ever get mentioned in the same sentence? The club has been a bottomless pit and a new stadium is pointless if we don't have the fans to fill it. |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 17:21 - Oct 24 with 2920 views | switchingcode |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 17:03 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
Wolves are basically doing what we did - ignoring the rules and gambling. If you get there, and stay there, it's fine - as Leicester and Bournemouth. If you miss, or come back, it's not fine, as us and Blackburn are finding. Sheff Wed are next if they don't go up this year, they've smashed the rules over the last two seasons and it's now judged on a rolling three year basis so they'll be getting hammered next year if they don't go up this. |
Where do you get this information regarding Wolves and Sheffield Wednesday. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:25 - Oct 24 with 2893 views | WatfordR |
Who exactly is being fined here? If it is the owners of the club (still QPR Holdings Ltd?) then could they appeal the decision and in the meantime transfer ownership of the club to a new limited company? Would the new company still be liable if the appeal was lost? |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:25 - Oct 24 with 2893 views | WrightUp5hit___ |
While the redoubtable Lee Hoos has announced that the club will appeal the decision, and my while memory isn't quite what it was, my recollection was that this was going to be binding arbitration. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:28 - Oct 24 with 2873 views | switchingcode |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:53 - Oct 24 by smegma |
I'm sorry but could you translate that into English please ?? |
Meant to read Buy your own | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 17:30 - Oct 24 with 2860 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good (n/t) on 17:21 - Oct 24 by switchingcode |
Where do you get this information regarding Wolves and Sheffield Wednesday. |
Looking at who they've bought, how much they've spent, and what their turnover is with my eyes. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:31 - Oct 24 with 2855 views | hoopdog |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:19 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
The rules changed in the meantime. They realised, partly because of us, that they weren't workable. |
What can the EFL do if we refuse to pay ? Drum us out of the league to what level ? [Post edited 24 Oct 2017 17:34]
| | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:32 - Oct 24 with 2845 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:31 - Oct 24 by hoopdog |
What can the EFL do if we refuse to pay ? Drum us out of the league to what level ? [Post edited 24 Oct 2017 17:34]
|
Well technically if we just said we're not paying then we wouldn't get fixtures for next season and we'd have to apply to a non-league level for re-admission. That's a bit of an extreme scenario though. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:35 - Oct 24 with 2827 views | Ferdy |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:31 - Oct 24 by hoopdog |
What can the EFL do if we refuse to pay ? Drum us out of the league to what level ? [Post edited 24 Oct 2017 17:34]
|
We are assigned either Trevor Kettle or Gurnham Singh as our permanent officials. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
