| FFP decision in - not good 14:01 - Oct 24 with 55243 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 00:46 - Oct 25 with 3448 views | isawqpratwcity |
So...
With the appeal process set into action, I suppose we just carry on as before? Although it would help if we reduced our squad more aggressively. |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 01:39 - Oct 25 with 3401 views | TonyHongKong |
| FFP decision in - not good on 00:46 - Oct 25 by isawqpratwcity |
So...
With the appeal process set into action, I suppose we just carry on as before? Although it would help if we reduced our squad more aggressively. |
Best option is to just not renew players contracts and replace with up-coming youngsters. It will gradually reduce our excessive wage bill. Selling a couple in Jan would help as well. |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 02:32 - Oct 25 with 3372 views | Pommyhoop |
 |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 03:25 - Oct 25 with 3349 views | VancouverHoop |
The issue I've never seen directly addressed in this cluster***k, is how realistic would it have been to dump a massively bloated squad on mega-money over a single Summer in 2013? OK, fair enough, so we didn't try very hard – or at all actually. Nevertheless the time scale involved would have surely made it next to impossible. The league must surely bear some responsibility for the introduction and implementation of an unworkable rule. Something which they tacitly acknowledged when they radically overhauled it. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 05:37 - Oct 25 with 3295 views | Hunterhoop |
| FFP decision in - not good on 03:25 - Oct 25 by VancouverHoop |
The issue I've never seen directly addressed in this cluster***k, is how realistic would it have been to dump a massively bloated squad on mega-money over a single Summer in 2013? OK, fair enough, so we didn't try very hard – or at all actually. Nevertheless the time scale involved would have surely made it next to impossible. The league must surely bear some responsibility for the introduction and implementation of an unworkable rule. Something which they tacitly acknowledged when they radically overhauled it. |
Indeed. Which is why applying the original rules, flawed by the FL's admission is clearly unfair, meaning the fine is disproportionate, both for the crime and for what such a fine would be today under the updated rules.
It's like being found guilty for a crime, which had only just been made legally a crime. More so, whilst at the time we committed the crime it was punishable by hanging, it was since revised to only being punishable by a custodial sentence. Our case has been heard, and decided after this point, and yet the decision is to punish us by hanging, even though that's no longer the statutory punishment, as the court deemed it disproportionate!
It's absurd. And won't happen in any other situation/breach of law. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not on 06:58 - Oct 25 with 3238 views | philc |
| FFP decision in - not on 21:59 - Oct 24 by daveB |
it could potentially bankrupt us although the easy answer would be to not spend money the club didn't have to get promoted which we obviously can't change now |
There is the alternative view that as they owners converted the debt to shares that we did have the money. All business raise working capital in this way it's how they grow, wasting it on wages etc. Is not the the best way of spending it, but only the shareholders loose out. What happens if the club tell the FL that they can't afford to the pay the fine, which we obviously can't, will they put us in administration? Our whole squad is not worth that much, what's the value of the ground?we don't own the training ground. We are a limited company meaning it's the club who are liable not the shareholders, their liability ends with their investments, unless they have broken the law and then it's only the Directors who are liable.
We should accept the ruling and ask the FL for time to pay as the the alternative is the club will fold, let the FL decide. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not on 07:05 - Oct 25 with 3225 views | TonyHongKong |
| FFP decision in - not on 06:58 - Oct 25 by philc |
There is the alternative view that as they owners converted the debt to shares that we did have the money. All business raise working capital in this way it's how they grow, wasting it on wages etc. Is not the the best way of spending it, but only the shareholders loose out. What happens if the club tell the FL that they can't afford to the pay the fine, which we obviously can't, will they put us in administration? Our whole squad is not worth that much, what's the value of the ground?we don't own the training ground. We are a limited company meaning it's the club who are liable not the shareholders, their liability ends with their investments, unless they have broken the law and then it's only the Directors who are liable.
We should accept the ruling and ask the FL for time to pay as the the alternative is the club will fold, let the FL decide. |
Good read on this if any of you have time....
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-brought-qprs-fi
With players on 70K a week, no wonder we got into a right old mess. Unbelievable thinking really. | |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 07:32 - Oct 25 with 3187 views | daveB |
| FFP decision in - not good on 03:25 - Oct 25 by VancouverHoop |
The issue I've never seen directly addressed in this cluster***k, is how realistic would it have been to dump a massively bloated squad on mega-money over a single Summer in 2013? OK, fair enough, so we didn't try very hard – or at all actually. Nevertheless the time scale involved would have surely made it next to impossible. The league must surely bear some responsibility for the introduction and implementation of an unworkable rule. Something which they tacitly acknowledged when they radically overhauled it. |
It was always going to be near impossible to shift the high earner and pass FFP that season and that has been reflected in the change of rules to being over 3 years now but we did then sign an extra 19+ players that season as well as still having a lot of high earners in the team which was avoidable.
I do agree with those saying the owners wrote the money off so it shouldn't be an issue and that the rules at the time were unworkable but four other clubs were punished under those rules they can't really do anything other than pursuit us as well. I don't think the football league want to issue this kind of fine and would like this to go away as much as we would but they don't really have a choice |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP decision in - not good on 07:35 - Oct 25 with 3186 views | daveB |
| FFP decision in - not good on 00:34 - Oct 25 by Brightonhoop |
Usually agree with you Dave but 'deserves everything we get' is a bit harsh in the full context.
There's a substantial risk that if settled at say £50 Mil, the FL would view the settlement in the Accounts as an overspend next season. Because they haven't ruled it out. The best I can find through Google is 'not sure.' Meaning we could get fined again next season for settling this fine. That's beyond absurd. Fck me, even the Yorkshire Ripper only paid once. He couldn't be sentenced twice. We could be ad infinituum. So you have to question the validity of the sentence. Which singularly threatens the existence of the Club. Twice, three times where does it end? Is the objective to protect Clubs fom unscrupulous owners or make a level playing field financial? Both objectives imho are honestly bollocks. Rednapps for hire again. The one thing that would dramatically imrove English Football er se is banning Harry fcking Redna ever running and killing another English Football Club. Yet he drags his sorry bones about the land as a gun for hire. And there are dozens of them like him. So wtf is the FL's remit? It's flawed. I think the FL need to go back to the drawing board or risk blowing up themselves on this one. We done it wrong, but to serve a fine on a Club this size of that proportion, as the bigget sporting fine in history, is just absured. And it wasn't decided overnight, but over two years, so there must be alot of grey areas in that conclusion that they were not confident of in the first 8 weeks for examle. Two years.
I do see where you're coming from. But this is a grotesque scandal. And not just becuase it is Rangers. We did it wrong but the biggest fine in sporting history? Come on. |
I do completely disagree with the size of the punishment, it is ridiculous and would finish us as a club at this level for at least one generation but I just think we knew the rules and as a club put egos and personal glory ahead of abiding with them | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 07:40 - Oct 25 with 3175 views | Northolt_Rs |
| FFP decision in - not good on 07:35 - Oct 25 by daveB |
I do completely disagree with the size of the punishment, it is ridiculous and would finish us as a club at this level for at least one generation but I just think we knew the rules and as a club put egos and personal glory ahead of abiding with them |
Except it was all one man’s doing.... Not all of us associated with our club. |  |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 08:01 - Oct 25 with 3125 views | RangersDave |
Ironically, we really were the ‘turkey that voted for Christmas’ weren’t We? |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 08:17 - Oct 25 with 3095 views | Blue_Castello |
| FFP decision in - not good on 00:11 - Oct 25 by BasingstokeR |
It’s not about making anything ok, and I’m not disputing any rule break - it’s about whether the punishments (not yet served) are right (proportionate).
“deserve everything we get” with no reservations???
Do you agree with the original EFL FFP punishments regime in principle based on the stated objectives of FFP? (The EFL don’t so changed them) |
We have waited two years for this decision and surely if the rules were 100% correct we would have been fined within 2/3 months, this just doesn't make sense why it has taken so long for 3 QCs to come to a decision.
Dave is obviously correct we broke the OLD rules, mainly due to Harry fecking Redcrap wanting to buy every player under the sun when we didn't need them, so we should be punished.
However those rules after a few seasons of experimentation were deemed unworkable, unfair, impractical and unjust by the Football League so were changed to less punitive legislation.
Surely we should be arguing our case on appeal that the Football League by their own admission accepted they got their rules wrong and that we should be given a lesser fine which is more proportionate to the current rules.
Anyway that's what I'm hoping has a chance of happening but I'm not holding my breath, when has common sense had a chance in today's madhouse of professional football......  | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 08:34 - Oct 25 with 3053 views | TacticalR |
| FFP decision in - not good on 00:22 - Oct 25 by johncharles |
And castration and burning at the stake. |
We'll probably get away with a crucifixion. |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 09:02 - Oct 25 with 2999 views | Phildo |
| FFP decision in - not good on 07:40 - Oct 25 by Northolt_Rs |
Except it was all one man’s doing.... Not all of us associated with our club. |
yes and no ... remember the excitement when we signed for example Hoilett (mea culpa - me included)? |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 09:07 - Oct 25 with 2980 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good on 09:02 - Oct 25 by Phildo |
yes and no ... remember the excitement when we signed for example Hoilett (mea culpa - me included)? |
Yeh we were all excited. I remember calming somebody on here who thought we could push for the top four, but even I thought we'd arrived and would be top half. But it's not our job to run the business, balance the books, avoid this sort of thing. I actually think what a section of the QPR support does now, going after the people who are trying to clean this up demanding more signings more sackings, when we're clearly in a difficult spot, is worse than getting swept up in what was an exciting time.
End of the day Redknapp, Beard, Hughes, etc have all had a hand in this, you can throw the fan base in as well if you want though I don't agree. But it's the guy at the top's responsibility. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 09:11 - Oct 25 with 2969 views | hopphoops |
Oh well, I won't miss the international breaks. Or even hate the groundshare with Fulham until we get to move in to the CarGiant stadium. |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 09:58 - Oct 25 with 2841 views | stevec |
Might be my lack of internet skills but I'm sure last week the QPR website had an article showing the first spade going in the ground at the Old Oak Common site, búggered if I can find it now, maybe it's been conveniently lifted.
No new ground, of course, but it did mention how the development of 600 houses was part of the sustainability of QPR. Forgive my cynicism but what is the actual stake QPR football club hold in that development?
As far as the fines go, they are not and never are profit and loss items so wouldn't affect any future FFP. At last, some good news. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:02 - Oct 25 with 2830 views | Metallica_Hoop |
It doesn't look good but let's see what happens first. |  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:15 - Oct 25 with 2794 views | essextaxiboy |
| FFP decision in - not good on 09:07 - Oct 25 by Northernr |
Yeh we were all excited. I remember calming somebody on here who thought we could push for the top four, but even I thought we'd arrived and would be top half. But it's not our job to run the business, balance the books, avoid this sort of thing. I actually think what a section of the QPR support does now, going after the people who are trying to clean this up demanding more signings more sackings, when we're clearly in a difficult spot, is worse than getting swept up in what was an exciting time.
End of the day Redknapp, Beard, Hughes, etc have all had a hand in this, you can throw the fan base in as well if you want though I don't agree. But it's the guy at the top's responsibility. |
I have to hold my hands up and say I think that was me . I still have trouble accepting mediocrity before a ball is kicked in August I also stuck with Redknapp longer than anyone else . That was entirelyin a " dont change the manager again " and supporting the bloke in the Rangers dugout standpoint .The bloke is a liar and bad news for anywhere he turns up at . The other two also carry the can .but TF appointed them all .... [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 10:16]
|  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:19 - Oct 25 with 2781 views | queensparker |
Very interesting and a nice listen at this point.
Hoos is a real bonus to this club. We need to keep him |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:37 - Oct 25 with 2732 views | philc |
It is the size of the fine that is the issue, we broke the rules and have to accept there is a punishment. How they ruled the fine was not disproportionate I do not understand, it is double the amount that Man City and PSG were fined with all their income. What is our annual income? There's is no way that we can afford to pay the fine and that is why the FL are wrong. Punishment should be appropriate for the crime, no one died, the club does amazing work in the community so who do the FL think they are punishing. We need to start the PR push, luckily we have a lot credit for our activities and get public opinion behind us and not just football fans. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:38 - Oct 25 with 2731 views | BerkoRanger |
Of course there is another option - the owners could sell the club and its possible fine for £1. I suspect there are plenty of foreign billionaires who would love to own a high profile London Football Club.  | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 11:22 - Oct 25 with 2615 views | loftus77 |
It’s difficult for any of us to know at this stage what is/has been going on ion terms of FFP. I think we all knew it was the ‘elephant in the room’ and now we know why.
The decision is obviously bad news but, trying to be positive, this surely completely takes any ‘heat’ (if there ever was any) off Ollie, Les, Marc Bircham or anyone involved in the footballing side of the club now? This is not their fault and is nothing to do with them. I imagine we’ll all look at our on-field performance and expectations this season from now on in a totally different light (ie unquestioning and understanding support from the fans). This can only help the first team.
Before this announcement, I was dreading relegation to League One this season. Not now. Such an outcome would be the least of our problems IMHO. Relegation is now probably inevitable this season or next, you would think, but at least we can be fully prepared for it and plan for the future under this club’s new structure which looks positive in every way. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 11:27 - Oct 25 with 2599 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| FFP decision in - not good on 09:07 - Oct 25 by Northernr |
Yeh we were all excited. I remember calming somebody on here who thought we could push for the top four, but even I thought we'd arrived and would be top half. But it's not our job to run the business, balance the books, avoid this sort of thing. I actually think what a section of the QPR support does now, going after the people who are trying to clean this up demanding more signings more sackings, when we're clearly in a difficult spot, is worse than getting swept up in what was an exciting time.
End of the day Redknapp, Beard, Hughes, etc have all had a hand in this, you can throw the fan base in as well if you want though I don't agree. But it's the guy at the top's responsibility. |
To be fair, Hoilett on paper was a good signing. No problems with it then, fact it didn't work out was not obvious at the time of signing.
However, the response to many other signings certainly raised questions. I can't think of a single Rfosi who thought Sandro was a wise choice, and many of us were if not raising a red flag up a pole, we were certainly unfurling it over signings like: Cisse, Zamora, SWP, JSP and Ferdinand, R. Many wandered the rationale behind the likes fo El Pirate and Young, Cesar, Ferdinand A, the African lads and assorted other a-holes that didn't stack up then.
Of course, older Rfosi and by that anyone over the age of 3 when Tony Pony arrived, could have seen this coming in view of our propensity to clutch calamity from the jaws of respectability. In fact, it's harder to think of anyone espousing views that Tony Pony was on the right path at any time since August 2011.
Frankly, as you and many of us have opined, this has been a train wreck coming since Uncle Jim sold us down the swanny. I am reminded of how similar we are to British Leyland - taking something good, ran well and much loved by all as the Minis from the Italian Job, and after throwing millions at it, we've ended up with a universally despised Austin Allegro and gone bust in the process.
I wrote in AKUTRs a good while back that if we continue to lurch from one disaster to another, the patience of many will wear thin. Many could just say balls to it, we've got better things to do then be constantly belittled and humiliated by overpaid oafs not bothering to try on the field, to a succession of idiotic personalities in the boardroom forgetting to bring their abacuses and commonsense to the workplace with them.
I've put in the bucket once; bought season tickets when it wasn't evident we'd see out the season; shelled out to travel far and wide and then expected to pay huge sums after years of dross when we finally return to the promised land of the EPL. I'll be jiggered if Tony Pony is getting a penny of my hard earned to bail him out the effing clown.
The cost of salvaging this money Titanic of QPR debt is beyond us as a fanbase. No way we're going to whip out £40m plus to save our skins. While I do think an appeal to a sensible court will see the fine apportioned properly, I fear by the time the saga concludes, Tony Pony will be sat in a stadium with a few die hards for company.
And while I am ranting, anyone calling for Ollie's head as of yesterday, wants shooting! Any players not putting in a shift, wants shooting! And if I hear or see that smug fool that has ruined us ever utters that he's learned his lessons, then anyone who doesn't tell him to shut his fat chops, wants shooting! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
