| Just linking what got sent to me on 23:39 - Nov 16 with 4183 views | Bluce_Ree |
Yeah, that seems to have been written by a man who likes to guess things. |  |
| Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. He runs like a cheetah, his crosses couldn't be sweeter. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. |
|  |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 23:39 - Nov 16 with 4176 views | hoopstilidie |
Meh.
Cobblers article with little to no facts. |  |
| |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 00:18 - Nov 17 with 4103 views | Northernr |
They've essentially taken the rules, taken a source, assembled the absolute worst possible scenario (that will never happen) and headlined it. It's the mail.
We will be fined if we go up this year. If it's £60m I'll give you the money myself. |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 00:42 - Nov 17 with 4055 views | SpiritofGregory |
Just do a Man City. Arrange a sponsorship deal with Air Asia - no worries.
The FA won't be able to get a penny from us. |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 01:34 - Nov 17 with 4000 views | INFIRMARY |
Complete and utter BoLLo@ks |  |
| |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 02:24 - Nov 17 with 3974 views | FDC |
"Believed to be"
"Perhaps leading to meltdown"
"If", "could be"
What embarrassing "journalism".
Does anyone have a less hysterical account of this situation? |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 02:32 - Nov 17 with 3966 views | RangersAreBack |
Lazy journalism from the Daily Fail. Take a forthcoming rule that's been common knowledge for a while, choose an obvious target and fill column inches with utter speculation.
QPR will smooth out those accounts well before December 1st, 2014 and there won't be a damn thing the football league can do about it. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just linking what got sent to me on 04:51 - Nov 17 with 3913 views | danehoop |
I think I feel a lot less concerned by this under the current administration than when we had the dodgy waiter in charge.
The biggest hole in what passes for a story in the fail is that basically they have no current financial data and no financial accounts. So essentially total speculation.
As for the "source"- about as reliable as the pencil necked boy who lives in a bin in Poland.
The clubs comment was about as close to DOFUKOF as possible using diplomatic language.
Feel that we have lots of interesting new sponsorship arrangements in place when the next accounts are published. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 08:49 - Nov 17 with 3743 views | komradkirk |
Didnt our chairman tell the assembled press our biggest earner was on on 65,OOO K not 100,OOOK.
Maybe this scribe was sick that day. |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 08:49 - Nov 17 with 3701 views | JonDoeman |
These rules don't apply this season. And that's why we need promotion, not the Fckin FA cup..!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition.
From the 2014/15 season, sanctions will be introduced that will differ depending on whether the club ultimately remained in the Championship, was promoted to the Premier League or was relegated to League 1. |  |
| |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 09:57 - Nov 17 with 3573 views | CanadaRanger |
General question: Just wondering how far journalistic protection goes.
If incorrect information about any company's financial position is published in the press such that it does or may improperly affect the value of the shares, or the ability of shareholders to sell those shares,, could the publisher of the incorect information be in hot water?
Football clubs are usually owned by companies with shareholders. |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 09:59 - Nov 17 with 3561 views | Fearless |
Happier ? :) |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 10:10 - Nov 17 with 3507 views | rsonist |
The specific numbers may well have been pulled from thin air but I'm surprised at the lack of concern from some of you - the losses will clearly still be colossal whatever they are. FL sanctions and the Fair Play Tax are (somewhat confusingly) different things and the latter WILL BE applicable to us if we get promoted this season. And in this instance I think there are limits to the magic of creative accounting unfortunately.
Does underline the enormity of the need to get promoted this season. If we don't the transfer embargo will be pretty much indefinite. (Not that it bothered Watford and Portsmouth...). In comparison the option of being in the Premier League with vastly reduced TV money for a season is obviously preferable.
The bit about the fine money no longer going back to complying clubs but to charity is interesting. Presumably the FL realised that it was more in other clubs interests to let us go up so they could pick up an extra £2m or whatever. |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 10:14 - Nov 17 with 3496 views | Blue_Castello |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 08:49 - Nov 17 by JonDoeman |
These rules don't apply this season. And that's why we need promotion, not the Fckin FA cup..!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition.
From the 2014/15 season, sanctions will be introduced that will differ depending on whether the club ultimately remained in the Championship, was promoted to the Premier League or was relegated to League 1. |
Jon - Where exactly did you get the extract that you've presumably copied, is it from the Football leagues website.
If that information is correct then sanctions don't apply till next season and Nick Harris of the Daily Mail has made himself look a complete and utter tool. The Mail has given the article massive column inches on the Internet and probably in todays paper, how do you think the Sports Editor will view this if he got one simple fact wrong, "the ruling does not apply till next season".
Ive just answered my own question by going to the Football Leagues website, decided not to be lazy, there it is in black and white, NO sanctions in the first two seasons.
What exactly couldn't Nick Harris understand when he read the rules....?
Pleased the club hasn't made any comment, we just get on with putting our own house in order as has been the case for the last 5/6 months. [Post edited 17 Nov 2013 10:25]
|  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 10:21 - Nov 17 with 3469 views | WadR |
"Queens Park Rangers are on course to be hit with the biggest fine in British football history, which, in a worse-case scenario, could top £60 million.
Ironically, it will be imposed because of the amount of money they are losing "
How is that ironic? From that point on I knew the whole article would be a load of nonsense. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 10:27 - Nov 17 with 3426 views | N12Hoop |
The reason I'm taking this with a pinch of salt is that I really can't believe that those running the club are unaware of any potential issues and will now only realise it thanks to the brilliant investigative work of The Mail. They will clearly have thought this through.
As an aside, I still can't see how the fair play rules are legal and not a complete breach of some obscure European Law given that rather than prevent unfair competition, the rules will seek to stop competition entirely. |  |
| |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 10:34 - Nov 17 with 3399 views | Pablo_Hoopsta |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 10:14 - Nov 17 by Blue_Castello |
Jon - Where exactly did you get the extract that you've presumably copied, is it from the Football leagues website.
If that information is correct then sanctions don't apply till next season and Nick Harris of the Daily Mail has made himself look a complete and utter tool. The Mail has given the article massive column inches on the Internet and probably in todays paper, how do you think the Sports Editor will view this if he got one simple fact wrong, "the ruling does not apply till next season".
Ive just answered my own question by going to the Football Leagues website, decided not to be lazy, there it is in black and white, NO sanctions in the first two seasons.
What exactly couldn't Nick Harris understand when he read the rules....?
Pleased the club hasn't made any comment, we just get on with putting our own house in order as has been the case for the last 5/6 months. [Post edited 17 Nov 2013 10:25]
|
Text in full:
+++QTE+++
Sanctions
Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition.
From the 2014/15 season, sanctions will be introduced that will differ depending on whether the club ultimately remained in the Championship, was promoted to the Premier League or was relegated to League 1.
i. Sanctions for clubs remaining in the Championship
Clubs that fail to comply with the Financial Fair Play regulations (from December 1st 2014) will be subject to a transfer embargo. This embargo will come in to force ahead of the subsequent transfer window beginning on January 1, 2015.
The embargo will remain in place until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations (either for the previous reporting period or a future reporting period).
ii. Sanctions for clubs promoted to the Premier League
Clubs promoted to the Premier League will be required to provide Financial Fair Play information for their promotion season by December 1. Any club found to have breached Financial Fair Play regulations will be required to pay a 'Fair Play Tax' on the excess by which the club failed to fulfil the Fair Play requirement, ranging from 1% on the first £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m.
The Fair Play Tax will be applied at the following thresholds:
(a) 1% of the excess between £1 and £100,000;
(b) 20% of the excess between £100,001 and £500,000;
(c) 40% of the excess between £500,001 and £1,000,000;
(d) 60% of the excess between £1,000,001 and £5,000,000;
(e) 80% of the excess between £5,000,001 and £10,000,000; and
(f) 100% of the excess over £10,000,000
Any proceeds will be distributed equally amongst clubs that have complied with the Financial Fair Play regulations for the season in question.
The Football League is currently in the process of consulting with the Premier League regarding the implementation of these Financial Fair Play regulations.
+++UQTE+++
http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html |  | | |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 10:47 - Nov 17 with 3354 views | NW5Hoop |
| Just linking what got sent to me on 09:57 - Nov 17 by CanadaRanger |
General question: Just wondering how far journalistic protection goes.
If incorrect information about any company's financial position is published in the press such that it does or may improperly affect the value of the shares, or the ability of shareholders to sell those shares,, could the publisher of the incorect information be in hot water?
Football clubs are usually owned by companies with shareholders. |
If shareholders, or those with a financial interest in the shares, leak privileged information, they are subject to the sanctions relating to insider trading.
If a journalist publishes information that proves to be false, they could be sued for libel.
I'd wait for the club to issue a complete and detailed denial before assuming there's nothing in the story.
As it stands, I suspect Clive is right: there's an extrapolation to reach the worst possible outcome. And I'm sure it would be subject to goodness knows how many appeals and trips to the high court.
They're talking about this on Sunday Supplement right now. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 10:52 - Nov 17 with 3338 views | danehoop |
Actually there are a number of points on legality which have yet to be resolved. Probably the most pressing for Uefa is one by the lawyer behind the Bosman ruling. He has basically argued that the whole FFP process breaches EU competition rules by distorting the market and is a restraint of trade of smaller clubs. platini isn't happy and has started throwing some barbed insults at the lawyer, which is odd as he had been working for UEFA quite a lot.
I have a feeling that despite the EU seeming to have sympathy in clubs being required to spend within their means (no sense of irony there) the current rules seem to support the lawyers position, I.e. That companies have the right to seek loans and leverage in the short term to support the growth of their business and to compete with existing companies. The whole thing may well be thrown out in its current form in the next few months anyway.
Add to that that any companies listed on the stock exchange may also argue that disclosure of the sort of information now being demanded by Uefa could be construed as market sensitive if produced out of time with there expected accounting period. That may well be the thing that causes more delay if the Pre clubs take a disliking to it. | |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 11:01 - Nov 17 with 3313 views | ted_hendrix |
If you think about it our demise coincided with the demise of the Harp Café, the minute Richard hung up his frying pans for the last time things started going wrong. |  |
| My Father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic. |
| |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 11:49 - Nov 17 with 3184 views | Toast_R |
It's funny that the punishment for losing too much money is being made to lose even more money.
Should the FA be punished for the ridiculous amounts of money they spent and wasted on employing England managers in the last 12 year's? |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 12:20 - Nov 17 with 3096 views | Blue_Castello |
Interesting ? - The article in the mail online was receiving comments and not surprisingly had gone crazy with anti-Harry sentiment saying its all his fault.
The comments are moderated and I posted a couple of lines saying the truth is out there, providing a link to the Football League Fair Play rules, and they should get their facts right before publishing.
Since then the number of comments has stayed at 92 and there hasn't been any more published.
May just be a coincidence......???? | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 12:25 - Nov 17 with 3084 views | rsonist |
Regardless of a prospective legal quarrel the rules of the competition that we are currently in now are as they are. And there is an on-record quote from an FL spokesman there in the article explicitly stating that implementation of the sanctions begins 14-15 but is applicable for 13-14. Talk of suing the newspaper for reporting it is irrelevant grasping at straws. The situation is serious. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.