Forum | Times article on FFP and QPR by itsbiga

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Times article on FFP and QPR 17:32 - May 12 with 6628 views

Oli Kay The Times;

In the euphoria of Queens Park Rangers’ promotion to the Barclays Premier League last May, Tony Fernandes was asked whether he would fight the threat of a record fine over any breach of the Football League’s financial regulations. “What do you think?” he asked, breathlessly. “It’s my middle name. I’m ‘Fight It’ Fernandes.”
For QPR’s sake, one hopes that their case, as they prepare for a legal battle with the Football League, is based on something more solid and more reliable than their chairman’s belligerence.
This is a serious issue for English football because QPR, their relegation from the Premier League confirmed on Sunday, face the threat of a fine of up to £57.9 million for breaches of Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. Should an arbitration panel reject QPR’s challenge to the legality of FFP, the London club’s financial brinkmanship of recent years will result in the heaviest sanctions the English game has known. Should QPR succeed in watering down any sanction, let alone overturning it, the Football League will be thrown into a state of severe turmoil.
Fernandes and QPR can hardly claim to have been taken by surprise. Having avoided relegation from the Premier League by the skin of their teeth three years ago, they had had plenty of time to prepare for FFP by the time they went down to the Sky Bet Championship in May 2013. Yet, faced with regulations that permitted a maximum loss of £8 million for Championship clubs in 2013-14, QPR followed an extensive cost-cutting exercise (offloading Christopher Samba, Jose Bosingwa, Park Ji Sung, Djibril CissÃ© and other big earners) by signing Richard Dunne, Karl Henry, Charlie Austin and others. They ended up with an operating loss of £69.7 million, imagining that the Football League would overlook that they benefited from a £60 million equity investment from Fernandes.
That QPR were promoted last May, by the skin of their teeth with victory over Derby County in the play-off final, saw them escape the Football League’s jurisdiction last summer, but only for as long as they could stay in the Premier League. That in itself is symptomatic of English football’s dysfunction – spend your way to the top flight and financial fair play regulations cannot hurt you – but QPR thought they would spend enough in the Premier League to get away with it. The problem for the Fernandes regime has always been the misplaced belief that you can get rid of a problem by throwing money at it.
Fernandes is not, on the face of it, one of the bad guys. The bad guys are those owners who, as at Newcastle United, Birmingham City, Blackpool, Coventry City and far too many other clubs in recent years, have exploited historic institutions without showing a shred of respect or regard for the town and people they represent. Fernandes has the right amount of respect and empathy for what QPR is supposed to represent. What he has not shown – what his regime at Loftus Road has never shown, nor even hinted at, no matter who the man in charge of the team – is the intelligence and responsibility to act on more than impulse.
That impulsiveness comes from the top of the club. Speak to agents and they will tell you that, no matter how poor the recruitment by Neil Warnock, Mark Hughes and Harry Redknapp, there has been a culture of astounding extravagance at Loftus Road. Their wage bill for 2013-14 – in the Championship – was £75.3 million, which was close to those at Borussia Dortmund and Atletico Madrid and far beyond those at Stoke City and Swansea City, clubs who have found stability in the Premier League without resorting to chequebook management.
Fernandes, the group chief executive officer of AirAsia, is just the latest highly successful businessman to leave his principles at the gates when entering the football world. Owing to the sums involved in the broadcast deals, it has become hard to record a loss in the Premier League but there is no shortage of Football League clubs who have overstretched in desperate pursuit of promotion.
Blackburn Rovers, Leeds United and Nottingham Forest have endured transfer embargos as punishment for their losses. QPR just about managed to escape the Football League’s jurisdiction, but, when a club is run as haphazardly as they have been, both and off the pitch, it is only a question of running, not hiding.
For Fernandes, the instinct is not to hide but to fight. It is an instinct that has rarely been shared by the modern-day QPR. At Football League level – if not on a European level – FFP exists to save clubs from themselves. That is an instinct that QPR lack. Their only answer, it seems, has been to come out fighting – whether in the transfer market or in the courts. So far, at least, it has done them far more harm than good.

Poll:

Serious concern we'll double drop?

Times article on FFP and QPR on 09:41 - May 13 with 1984 views

NW5Hoop

It's a myth that Football League FFP was introduced adnd we were then threatened with retrospective punishment. The Football League approved FFP in April 2012 — during our first season in the Premier League — with the promise that punishments would come into place for figures during the 2013/14 season. The club knew perfectly well what the consequences would be if they continued to spend recklessly and got relegated. Unfortunately both those things happened.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 09:47 - May 13 with 1977 views

BasingstokeR

Times article on FFP and QPR on 09:08 - May 13 by Mvpeter
How else would you describe keeping the wage bill as high as 75.3? And pretty significant transfer fees. And a million coaches. And Harry Redknapp. Clearly spending as much money as possible and breaking FFP was the goal.

I'd describe what you've laid out there as understanding the rules, getting legal advice and making business decsisions.

Whether those decisions turn out to be right (looking unlikely at the moment, definitely a risk), displaying arrogance, or even foolish; that's not "completely ignoring" the rules.

Are you saying the club have made zero decisions, not a single one that's been slightly affected in any way by the FFP rules?

[Post edited 13 May 2015 9:48]

Times article on FFP and QPR on 09:51 - May 13 with 1969 views

Mvpeter

Times article on FFP and QPR on 09:41 - May 13 by NW5Hoop

People would rather blame everything but ourselves. The BBC, the Government, the F.A, the Football League, the Premier League, every journalist, every former player, every former manager and the laws of probability are engaged in one giant conspiracy to punish and criticise us for everything we do for absolutely no reason. We're just swell, Teflons the greatest chairman of all time and bagpuss is our king.

Poll:

Who should be our left back?

Times article on FFP and QPR on 10:06 - May 13 with 1940 views

BasingstokeR

Times article on FFP and QPR on 09:51 - May 13 by Mvpeter

I think there's very few who aren't critical of the clubs approach in any way.

But I think it'd be wrong to ignore that the Football League aren't beyond reproach and that FFP in its current form is not a good model, let alone anywhere near perfect and it should be questioned.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 10:10 - May 13 with 1934 views

EastR

The equivalent of FFP in any other business sector would be deemed illegal by the courts for what it is — a restraint of trade. If some mug of a CEO wants to waste his shareholder funds on a mismanaged pursuit for a place at their respective competitors top table then they are free to do so. The cost of that cost far that we know has been at least £60m.

Poll:

Is time up for Ainsworth?

Times article on FFP and QPR on 10:15 - May 13 with 1922 views

QPR_John

Times article on FFP and QPR on 09:41 - May 13 by NW5Hoop

The rules in place during 2012/13 were clearly unfair and accepted as such by the FL as they have been changed.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 10:40 - May 13 with 1879 views

eastside_r

Times article on FFP and QPR on 10:15 - May 13 by QPR_John
The rules in place during 2012/13 were clearly unfair and accepted as such by the FL as they have been changed.

This.

It is a basic tenet in English law that you cannot enforce an unfair term.

I would say that all QPR’s lawyers need to do is demonstrate that there is at least one aspect of the FL’s FFP which is unfair.

I think that the FL themselves have conceded that the regulations, as originally set out, were inconsistent and therefore unenforceable.

[Post edited 13 May 2015 12:35]

Times article on FFP and QPR on 11:49 - May 13 with 1835 views

QPR1882

Times article on FFP and QPR on 10:40 - May 13 by eastside_r
This. It is a basic tenet in English law that you cannot enforce an unfair term. I would say that all QPR’s lawyers need to do is demonstrate that there is at least one aspect of the FL’s FFP which is unfair. I think that the FL themselves have conceded that the regulations, as originally set out, were inconsistent and therefore unenforceable. [Post edited 13 May 2015 12:35]

Can someone explain this to me.

why is there any charge against QPR ?

The owner of any business is allowed to invest his personal funds in his own business if he wants..I think part of the ffp rules was to stop owners who do it then walking away leaving a club in freefall owing them tons..tony wrote it off...so what problem can they possibly have with that..? it goes against the very reasons ffp were put in place..ie to protect clubs from financial ruin...

Times article on FFP and QPR on 12:20 - May 13 with 1813 views

Chicken

Times article on FFP and QPR on 22:29 - May 12 by BostonR
I have heard an interesting take on this subject tonight. Essentially, we refuse to be relegated on the basis that we are subject to a different set of rules that are not of are making. Both the PL and FL are concerned that such a legal claim could delay the start of the PL and the Championship next season.

Did Baldrick come up with this cunning plan?

Times article on FFP and QPR on 12:52 - May 13 with 1763 views

R_from_afar

Times article on FFP and QPR on 19:48 - May 12 by barbicanranger

"Fernandes and QPR can hardly claim to have been taken by surprise. Having avoided relegation from the Premier League by the skin of their teeth three years ago, they had had plenty of time to prepare for FFP by the time they went down to the Sky Bet Championship in May 2013."

Got as far as this.

This is f'ing BS. And this is my root problem with FFP. And typical of a journo who mainly covers premier league. On surviving in May 2013 what were we supposed to do? Prepare to be relegated the following season? Cut costs and sell players? NO - invest and plan to remain in the premier league and probably spend more to consolidate our position. What a nob. When will a journo finally write a balanced piece on this? The current rules are unfair - I would gladly draw up a few rules or a framework that is fair.

Excellent points. It's very easy to just follow the herd and whine on about how we overspent, without taking any time to look at the practical alternatives to what we did. What could we have done? You can't create a fantastic youth system in one summer, as an example.

The article is totally lacking in context too, with no acknowledgement of how the odds are stacked against small teams in terms of revenues and competing for players.

I wonder if the article helped him pass his GCSE in journalism.

RFA

"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."

Times article on FFP and QPR on 12:58 - May 13 with 1755 views

R_from_afar

Times article on FFP and QPR on 20:03 - May 12 by TheBlob
So if you make a loss you get a fine?Where else does this happen?Are Morrisons going to get a kicking for last years's £800m loss?

Spot on. "Your revenues were not high enough to permit that level of spending. To help you with that, here's a £58m fine to shove on your balance sheet. That should make all the difference".

Still, the main thing is that something is being seen to be done. An example is being made.

Tick that box, pat each other on the back and pretend that the fact that ManUre spent our potential fine plus a further £1m on top on just one player is good for the game.

The football "authorities" are beyond contempt when it comes to FFP.

RFA

"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."

Times article on FFP and QPR on 13:05 - May 13 with 1740 views

francisbowles

It's ridiculous, some of our big earners, Barton, SWP, Young, (Tarabt?) were on long contracts before these rules were agreed in April 2012.

Also when you are relegated, clubs know you need to shift players so offers on transfers or wages for loans are minimal.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 13:10 - May 13 with 1739 views

robith

Times article on FFP and QPR on 20:03 - May 12 by TheBlob
So if you make a loss you get a fine?Where else does this happen?Are Morrisons going to get a kicking for last years's £800m loss?

Always been baffled by this!

You spent too much money! Your punishment is spending more money

Times article on FFP and QPR on 15:18 - May 13 with 1670 views

jonno

Times article on FFP and QPR on 23:36 - May 12 by Northernr
They gave Watford a transfer embargo two years ago and Watford found that by writing to the league and asking for special permission to make a signing the signing was always granted special permission. So they did, a dozen times.

Of course. And if the Club are prepared to fight the FL over FFP then I am sure they would do the same over any transfer "embargo" as well.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 06:17 - May 14 with 1523 views

barbicanranger

Times article on FFP and QPR on 11:49 - May 13 by QPR1882

Totally agree with this and this would form the basis of my interpretation of fair play, in addition to each club having the same budget for purchases and player salaries - that would be fair - rather than saying small clubs with small revenues have to spend small - how is that fair? How can they compete and how can they aspire to grow and climb the premier league? And how is it fair to introduce it now when 4 clubs who regularly over spent have a stronghold on 3 of top 4 places in premier league. It's utter BS.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 08:25 - May 14 with 1473 views

Northernr

The thing that gets me throughout all of this is what is FFP there for? Is it to level the playing field? Because if it is, we should obviously be punished. But given the FFP rules seem to be set up to keep the big clubs big and successful and the little clubs little and sht I'm not sure leveling the playing field is the intention here.

More likely, the FFP regulations are there to stop a dozen clubs every year going into administration. The FL always bang on very proudly about how they haven't lost a club into admin for 18 months now or something like that. So it's actually there to stop owners spending wildly and hanging the debt round the club's neck. In that respect, it;s worked perfectly for us, as the owners had to swallow £60m.

So I'm not sure why we should be punished. We're a perfect example of the rules working.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 08:41 - May 14 with 1459 views

Blue_Castello

Times article on FFP and QPR on 10:40 - May 13 by eastside_r
This. It is a basic tenet in English law that you cannot enforce an unfair term. I would say that all QPR’s lawyers need to do is demonstrate that there is at least one aspect of the FL’s FFP which is unfair. I think that the FL themselves have conceded that the regulations, as originally set out, were inconsistent and therefore unenforceable. [Post edited 13 May 2015 12:35]

Spot on - the rules have already been changed by the Football League, surely by doing so they have admitted that their was a massive failure in the construction of the original rules.

IF a case goes through the English judicial system and you can find historical case law to support then you have every chance of winning as it had set a precedent. I' really would like to know a solicitors take on this, if new rules have been established that supersede the old system, can these be used in evidence to prove the old system was flawed.
Surely the only reason the old rules were changed was because the Football Leagues hierarchy decided the old rules were unworkable and far too onerous.

I don't understand the people on this thread who actually want us to be fined, mistakes have been made but surely investors should be allowed to speculate with their own funds.
The rules were put in place to stop clubs going bust and presumably to create a more level playing field,those rules fly out the Fing window once you get promoted

Times article on FFP and QPR on 08:55 - May 14 with 1439 views

TGRRRSSS

Times article on FFP and QPR on 23:36 - May 12 by Northernr
They gave Watford a transfer embargo two years ago and Watford found that by writing to the league and asking for special permission to make a signing the signing was always granted special permission. So they did, a dozen times.

Excellent thinking, will such a brainy idea be thought up in W12 however???

Times article on FFP and QPR on 08:57 - May 14 with 1436 views

Mytch_QPR

There is a 'think outside the box' solution that the FA could adopt here. TF stands down as chairman and forms a 'Gang Of Three' (G3) with Beard and Redknapp.

In future, when any football league club starts spending beyond their means, they must agree to hand over all transfer dealings and contract negotiations to the G3 with immediate effect.

The benefits of this are two fold: first of all, we could be deemed to have already paid our fine - and suffered relegation for good measure, and secondly the threat of these wasteful maniacs seizing control of the chequebook would surely be a massive deterrent to any club who are considering going on a spending spree.

I think I'll write to the FA and suggest it. Whilst we're on the subject of the FA, isn't it slightly ironic that they are potentially dishing out fines for financial mismanagement whilst trying to repay their massive debts on the Wembley rebuild by whoring it out to One Direction, the NFL travelling circus and anyone / everyone else?

	"Thank you for supporting Queens Park Rangers Steep Staircase"... and I thought I'd signed up for a rollercoaster.
Poll:	Next temporary manager (the wheel of misfortune) - as requested by 18 Stone

Times article on FFP and QPR on 08:59 - May 14 with 1431 views

TGRRRSSS

FFP was originally a laudable one make sure clubs didnt go out of business.

However it got hi jacked by those clubs at the top who realised it could be used to seal off the top table all over the place.
They knew even if they had to spend less others had even less again and therefore...

As for Kay he's had an agenda with QPR along with a few journalists around the top few paps for a long time now.
Some of it possibly going back to Hughes getting the tin tack (remember that City fan warning on here?)
Even Arry's arrival didnt stop it though he himself was by and large left alone.
All that being said we do seem to still be a shambles, but on the other hand if we'd finished 14th, there would be no mention of it.

Times article on FFP and QPR on 13:33 - May 14 with 1287 views

R_from_afar

To be honest, QPR are real amateurs when it comes to managing debt. Now *these* people are the masters:

"It will not please United fans to know that gross club debt has increased from £351.7million this time last year to £395.4million now — an increase of 12.4 per cent.

According to United, the figure went up "primarily because of movements in USD/GBP exchange rate from 1.6662 at 31 March 2014 to 1.4861 at 31 March 2015".

All that profligate spending by Redcrapp and Hughesless and still we can't perfect the art of losing money.

RFA

"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."

Times article on FFP and QPR on 13:37 - May 14 with 1281 views

PinnerPaul

Times article on FFP and QPR on 20:44 - May 12 by Northernr

There are a fair few "QPR have been relegated, we need 700 words for tomorrow" articles going around from journalists who usually spend their entire time covering the Manchesters, the Liverpools, Chelsea, Arsenal and, occasionally, Spurs. They're not written for you lot, they're written for your standard armchair sports fan who says he supports Liverpool and goes once a year, reads a piece on QPR and considers himself educated, thinks B Teams in the lower divisions is a fcking great idea.

Thanks Clive, that will save me getting annoyed by future articles in the summer!

Times article on FFP and QPR on 14:17 - May 14 with 1249 views

daveB

Times article on FFP and QPR on 08:25 - May 14 by Northernr

I still don't understand how you have one set of rules for one league then if you are relegated you have a different set of rules and need to comply immediately. It should be one set of rules across all divisions with the losses on a downward scale as you go down the divisions based on tv revenue. That way if you fail the punishment is a January transfer embargo whether you are promoted or not.

Relegated clubs should get a year to get their house in order as you can't rip up contracts signed when working under different rules. I think that's what they have done now but we're still under the old rules.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread