| FFP decision in - not good 14:01 - Oct 24 with 55646 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 11:39 - Oct 25 with 3032 views | traininvain |
Does all beg the question as to why Fernandes etc didn't come up with a more imaginative excuse for the £60m write off.
Man City's owners came up with some sponsorship payment and PSG's owners seem to have done something similar with Neymar and the 2022 World Cup. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 11:40 - Oct 25 with 3025 views | Hadders |
I admit to being embarrassingly ignorant about financial and business matters, so please forgive me for some naive questions. How much money did we make by getting promoted in 2013-14 (including the parachute payments)? The press regularly refer to the Play Off Final as having "the richest prize in football", after all. And how does that figure compare to this possible fine? If spending in 2013-14 was a gamble, consciously breaking the rules, could it have paid off in spite of our immediate relegation? Final naive question: Why don't players signed to Premier League clubs have significant wage reductions written into their contracts in the event of relegation? [Post edited 27 Oct 2017 20:28]
|  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 11:40 - Oct 25 with 3025 views | CroydonCaptJack |
I am not sure they are direct quotes although that was the gist. I might need to listen again. I am not a fan of that site to be honest. Its hard to read the article with the screen moving and adverts flashing (call me old-fashioned) |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 12:08 - Oct 25 with 2957 views | bob566 |
i have to say that makes me feel a lot more positive. FFP my arse. How the F**** can Monaco afford to have Radamar Falcao on their books etc. I appreciate they made a S*** load of cash off mbappe and this current crop of youngsters but prior to that they get gates of a few thousand if they're lucky. They've been mixing it up for ages in the champions league with a tiny fanbase. I don't think for one minute that they have a huge commercial market abroad. So how come they've never been investigated. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 12:17 - Oct 25 with 2930 views | paulparker |
The buck stops at Fernades feet, we can blame , Beard, Arry, Hughes and everyone else
but the decision to go on a mad spending spree was TF we even voted in favour of this FFP ,
he runs the clubs its his fcuk up, maybe now the vast majority will wake up and smell the coffee to what an absolute arse clown the man is
the best thing for our club is if he does one and the sooner the better its been 6 years of abject failure and he has run the club like caterham into the ground
if we have to play in the conference then so be it , the club wont die |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 12:20 - Oct 25 with 2920 views | TheChef |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:38 - Oct 25 by 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.  |
Better the devil you know and all that... |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 12:30 - Oct 25 with 2888 views | isawqpratwcity |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:38 - Oct 25 by 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. |
It's well possible that the club isn't worth £40 mill, even if the fine is as low as that. Fernandes paid a rumoured £35 mill for 66% in 2011 as a newly-minted Premier outfit. As a Championship club tending more downwards than up, we're not a particularly attractive proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Park_Rangers_F.C.#Ownership_and_finances |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP decision in - not good on 12:31 - Oct 25 with 2878 views | qpr1976 |
| FFP decision in - not good on 21:00 - Oct 24 by QPR_John |
Very true but it is the FL we are dealing with. I cannot give chapter or verse but I did read somewhere that any fines count as a loss against a club for FFP purposes |
Sorry john, I don't think that is the case.
My understanding is any fine does NOT count towards FFP the following year. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 12:38 - Oct 25 with 2841 views | smegma |
| 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 |
When you consider this is the last season of the parachute payments and by the end of it will have trousered circa £64m over 4 years, I can see why the alleged amount (pick any figure between £40m and £58m depending on which news outlet you read) I don't think it's disproportianate.
I can't believe I'm saying this about the football authorities.
BTW I just googled the PL parachute info page and it claims we get £64m in four yearly payments of 2014/15 £24m. 15/16 £19.3 . 16/17 £9.6m and 17/18 £9.6m. Now that adds up to £62.5m.
And the PL claim that we can't count properly !!! Is it any wonder the football world is fvcked????? | | | |
| FFP decision in - not on 12:39 - Oct 25 with 2830 views | qpr1976 |
| FFP decision in - not on 21:58 - Oct 24 by daveB |
That is very true, I do agree the rules are very flawed and have been changed since to reflect that. I don't agree with FFP at all but sadly we voted in favour of this to start with so it's too late to say they are wrong now |
I'm not entirely sure we did vote it in. I seem to recall we were in the Prem when the rules were introduced. So we didn't get a vote. That said, we probably had to sign up to them once relegated back to the FL.
Also the rules have now been changed 3 times. Initially the fines were split between all other clubs in that division (no wonder they got voted in !), then the fines were to be given to charities. And now the final change allows greater losses over 3 years. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 12:45 - Oct 25 with 2811 views | qpr1976 |
| FFP decision in - not good on 22:48 - Oct 24 by ted_hendrix |
In my ignorance is there a possibility of a points deduction too? on the scale of say Luton |
The points deductions were for -
1) Going into Administration (or CVA) for the 3rd times in less than 10 years.
-10 points for the 1st Admin, - 15 points for the 2nd & -20 pts for the 3rd.
2) Being found guilty of 56 breaches of financial irregularities. -10pts I think.
So NO, nothing like us. [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 13:08]
| | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:36 - Oct 25 with 2679 views | TGRRRSSS |
Who the hell are our lawyers?
And crucial question is Mittal, and Bhatia still involved at all???...
Cant help thinking if they were our lawyers would have royally tucked up EFL in Litigation from now till doomsday, assume we got UNcle Bungle's we are lawyers for you Air Asia style lawyers instead...
Shaun Harvey - Best not write my views on him.
For those trying to be fair etc to the EFL I give you Wolves, MIddlesborough and Sheffield Wednesday, and ASton Villa etc etc.
This is because the EFL screwed this up before and I cannot believe are lawyers arent better than this. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:47 - Oct 25 with 2655 views | RangersDave |
You have to wonder the possibility of huge pressure being brought to bear if villa, brum, and wolves dont go up this season, and make a cabal with rangers, Blackburn and florist, to push to get the rules overturned?
I wonder, if faced with such firepower, the other teams might fall into line and vote for more lenient fines etc or just to get rid of totally? |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:48 - Oct 25 with 2647 views | TGRRRSSS |
Yes but they have been thats what I cannot believe about this and I question our lawyers big time. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:48 - Oct 25 with 2650 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:36 - Oct 25 by TGRRRSSS |
Who the hell are our lawyers?
And crucial question is Mittal, and Bhatia still involved at all???...
Cant help thinking if they were our lawyers would have royally tucked up EFL in Litigation from now till doomsday, assume we got UNcle Bungle's we are lawyers for you Air Asia style lawyers instead...
Shaun Harvey - Best not write my views on him.
For those trying to be fair etc to the EFL I give you Wolves, MIddlesborough and Sheffield Wednesday, and ASton Villa etc etc.
This is because the EFL screwed this up before and I cannot believe are lawyers arent better than this. |
To be fair our lawyers, one of whom used to post on here and is about as good as it gets in sports law these days, have got us out of plenty of scrapes in the past, most notably the Faurlin debacle when we were also bang to rights. They've tied it up for two and a half years and will probably keep it going another two now. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:52 - Oct 25 with 2631 views | TGRRRSSS |
Nico and Blackstone Chambers then??? | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:11 - Oct 25 with 2406 views | WatfordR |
| FFP decision in - not good on 23:29 - Oct 24 by daveB |
if the rules changed and you were allowed to punch the ball in the net that still wouldn't make what happened under the old rules OK.
It seems pretty black and white to me, we broke the rules and deserve everything we get. Problem is no one at the football league thought a club would be as mad as us and break the rules to this extent so now no one really wants to enforce this but they have to.
I'm sure a compromise will be reached eventually but if I didn't support QPR i'd be praising the football league for seeing this through |
I respect you as a poster dave, but on this occasion I can't agree that "we broke the rules and we deserve everything we get".
This problem arises because the FL put in place a set of rules which were poorly thought through and not fit for purpose. That much has been acknowledged as they have been changed since (I personally find it astonishing that they could stand up in court as they amount to a restraint of trade, but that's neither here nor there).
This might seem a little extreme to some, but the comparison I'd make is saying the imprisonment of gays up to 50 years ago was deserved because they broke the rules. How ridiculous does that sound nowadays? It would be even more ridiculous if someone was charged in 1970 because in 1965 they broke the law as it stood in 1965.
The comparison I think is reasonable because what the FL are saying is we are going to charge a business owner with doing what business owners do, what is in their nature to do, i.e. take risks, hopefully to make money, but at the risk of also making a loss.
In our case, losses were racked up. Some of the money lost obviously belonged to the club (by way of income from our commercial activities), but the majority of the loss was accrued by the owners, and they have acknowledged that by converting that debt to equity. Why on earth should they have to pay that debt twice, effectively what they are being told to do. Forget what the rules say, there is no common sense, no logic and certainly no protection for the club which is what these rules were put in place to do.
Praising the FL for seeing this through..well, in my view you're praising the FL for creating a problem through their incompetence. Half arsed rules poorly worked through before they are put in place.No reason for praise as far as I can see. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:14 - Oct 25 with 2399 views | Hayesender |
In hindsight, would any of yoos rather we hadn't had that day at Wembley for a mid-table well run and financially sound championship club? |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:20 - Oct 25 with 2383 views | hoopdog |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:14 - Oct 25 by Hayesender |
In hindsight, would any of yoos rather we hadn't had that day at Wembley for a mid-table well run and financially sound championship club? |
We would still have over spent , and still be in sh%t at | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:42 - Oct 25 with 2328 views | paulparker |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:14 - Oct 25 by Hayesender |
In hindsight, would any of yoos rather we hadn't had that day at Wembley for a mid-table well run and financially sound championship club? |
I loved Wembley don't get me wrong and it will never happen again the way we won it and by god if any set of fans deserved a day in the sun it was us
but if you offered me the chance of that or the Warnock promotion year then I will take the Warnock promotion year all day long | |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:07 - Oct 25 with 2269 views | qpr1976 |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:42 - Oct 25 by paulparker |
I loved Wembley don't get me wrong and it will never happen again the way we won it and by god if any set of fans deserved a day in the sun it was us
but if you offered me the chance of that or the Warnock promotion year then I will take the Warnock promotion year all day long |
Agreed, but I don't think he is offering you that choice.
It is PlayOff promotion at Wembley or mid table obscurity but on a more stable footing. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:10 - Oct 25 with 2260 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| FFP decision in - not good on 16:42 - Oct 25 by paulparker |
I loved Wembley don't get me wrong and it will never happen again the way we won it and by god if any set of fans deserved a day in the sun it was us
but if you offered me the chance of that or the Warnock promotion year then I will take the Warnock promotion year all day long |
Yes but even the end of that was spoiled by Alegate.
For a sheer one off moment the play off final is my favourite. And I have been going forty odd years. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:13 - Oct 25 with 2253 views | terryb |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:07 - Oct 25 by qpr1976 |
Agreed, but I don't think he is offering you that choice.
It is PlayOff promotion at Wembley or mid table obscurity but on a more stable footing. |
Mid table obscurity all day long.
Personally, I much preferred Hillsborough 2004 to Wembley 2014. Partly because I greatly despised Harold Redknapp, but mainly because I did not like how the club was being managed.
Villa Park 1968 was the best of the lot though! | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:17 - Oct 25 with 2238 views | QPR_John |
Sorry to be lazy by not looking them up myself but I am sure somebody has these figures. What is our debt and have the FL ignored the debt to equity ( don't know if that is the correct wording) by the owners. [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 17:19]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
