| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 16:37 - Nov 17 with 1569 views | rsonist |
http://www.football-league.co.uk/championship/news/20131117/qpr-face-huge-fine-r
FL now reporting what the Mail are saying, without commenting themselves. Tacit endorsement you would have to think.
Edit: and if you look at the other news stories they have on there they're all dry facts and never conjecture like this. [Post edited 17 Nov 2013 16:40]
|  | |  |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 16:45 - Nov 17 with 1554 views | QPR_John |
Why the FL should be reporting a media story unless denying or confirming it I find odd.
"QPR can expect to receive a sizeable fine in January 2015 should they be promoted to the top flight at the end of the current season. The club could, however, temporarily avoid a fine if they fail to win promotion."
As I understand it the only way to fail to win promotion is play matches not trying to win. Surely contradictory to FL rules |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 16:52 - Nov 17 with 1542 views | qprewan |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 15:13 - Nov 17 by QPR_John |
"I agree with these rules as they are designed to stop clubs doing a Portsmouth or Leeds"
My putting teams even more in debt with the fine [Post edited 17 Nov 2013 15:22]
|
Yes, my point is that unscrupulous owners effectively bankrupted their clubs with unsustainable spending, Leeds a massive club have been out of the top division for years because of it and Portsmouth are lucky to exist at all and generations of fans will be condemned to lower league or non league football because of the reckless spending. As I said before if Tony Fernandes was not so committed to QPR (and we had better hope he is) then who do you think would be queing up to buy the club with its debts, wage bill and the possibility/ probability of a massive fine.? So yes it is fair because it is intended to stop this happenin in the first place and ensure that our children still have a club to support. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 17:11 - Nov 17 with 1510 views | QPR_John |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 16:52 - Nov 17 by qprewan |
Yes, my point is that unscrupulous owners effectively bankrupted their clubs with unsustainable spending, Leeds a massive club have been out of the top division for years because of it and Portsmouth are lucky to exist at all and generations of fans will be condemned to lower league or non league football because of the reckless spending. As I said before if Tony Fernandes was not so committed to QPR (and we had better hope he is) then who do you think would be queing up to buy the club with its debts, wage bill and the possibility/ probability of a massive fine.? So yes it is fair because it is intended to stop this happenin in the first place and ensure that our children still have a club to support. |
"ensure that our children still have a club to support"
But with nowhere to go, no dreams of success. Maybe that is the future and I am out of step [Post edited 17 Nov 2013 17:11]
| | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 18:19 - Nov 17 with 1424 views | SpiritofGregory |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 16:52 - Nov 17 by qprewan |
Yes, my point is that unscrupulous owners effectively bankrupted their clubs with unsustainable spending, Leeds a massive club have been out of the top division for years because of it and Portsmouth are lucky to exist at all and generations of fans will be condemned to lower league or non league football because of the reckless spending. As I said before if Tony Fernandes was not so committed to QPR (and we had better hope he is) then who do you think would be queing up to buy the club with its debts, wage bill and the possibility/ probability of a massive fine.? So yes it is fair because it is intended to stop this happenin in the first place and ensure that our children still have a club to support. |
What the FA have done is made the gap between the small a big clubs even wider. A club like QPR could only begin to dream of success following major investment. What will happen is the clubs without wealthy owners will have to act within the rules and others with wealthy owners will keep on spending and move forward because their owner/s will raise investment under the guise of sponsorship.
The FA are doing the same thing as politicians by saying all the buzz words whilst feathering their nests. I note that originally the idea was that any money made from fines would be distributed amongst the clubs that had adhered to the rules. The FA has changed this stating that the money will now go to charity which is convenient in that it makes them look good and at the same time charities won't question the amounts received as they will be grateful for any financial assistance they receive. If the money was distributed amongst clubs the FA would have to account for even penny. |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 18:28 - Nov 17 with 1422 views | QPRDave |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 17:11 - Nov 17 by QPR_John |
"ensure that our children still have a club to support"
But with nowhere to go, no dreams of success. Maybe that is the future and I am out of step [Post edited 17 Nov 2013 17:11]
|
Spot on John ......It seems to me that QPR and Tony and his partners are being blamed for football's ills. Seems to me it's ok for the scum or man city to spash the cash but hang on QPR need to know their place.
Neither Tony or his partners should be compared to the Portsmouth owners or Coventry or anyone else who have gone bust. |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 19:07 - Nov 17 with 1381 views | SpiritofGregory |
Jean Louis-Dupont who in 1995 defeated both Uefa and the Commission to prove that football's contract system denied Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman freedom of movement is ready to take his case to the European Court of Justice.
He will argue that the rule contravenes eu convention in that it restricts freedom of trade (negatively affecting the transfer market that smaller clubs so depend on). Movement of capital (restricting owners from spending their own money, stifling players/agent salaries).
He will also argue that the rules will retain the status quo in that it restricts smaller clubs from competing with bigger clubs who will remain successful and therefore receive the lion’s share of lucrative sponsorship deals.
I agree with Jean. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 19:31 - Nov 17 with 1364 views | QPRDave |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 19:07 - Nov 17 by SpiritofGregory |
Jean Louis-Dupont who in 1995 defeated both Uefa and the Commission to prove that football's contract system denied Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman freedom of movement is ready to take his case to the European Court of Justice.
He will argue that the rule contravenes eu convention in that it restricts freedom of trade (negatively affecting the transfer market that smaller clubs so depend on). Movement of capital (restricting owners from spending their own money, stifling players/agent salaries).
He will also argue that the rules will retain the status quo in that it restricts smaller clubs from competing with bigger clubs who will remain successful and therefore receive the lion’s share of lucrative sponsorship deals.
I agree with Jean. |
I think the fella has a good case | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 20:06 - Nov 17 with 1322 views | SpiritofGregory |
I read that when Platini was questioned about this he arrogantly proclaimed that he had spoken to the president of the EU Manuel Barroso who said that the commission were firmly behind uefa and that most clubs had signed up to it therefore he wasn't concerned.
No Michel the rules are illegal and contravene eu law.
I'm covinced that Platini and Blatter's motivation for the implementation of these rules was their sheer jealously at the spending power of English clubs due to investment from foreign wealthy owners. Michel must now be torn because now his beloved PSG have sugar daddies and wouldn't be challenging without them. Same can be said of Manaco. For the first time in years French teams are able to challenge in Europe through investment from multi billionare foreign owners - idiots. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 20:14 - Nov 17 with 1318 views | qprewan |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 18:28 - Nov 17 by QPRDave |
Spot on John ......It seems to me that QPR and Tony and his partners are being blamed for football's ills. Seems to me it's ok for the scum or man city to spash the cash but hang on QPR need to know their place.
Neither Tony or his partners should be compared to the Portsmouth owners or Coventry or anyone else who have gone bust. |
Just to be clear, I was not trying to liken TF to the owners of Pompey I was saying that these rules were an attempt to make a repeat of what happenedat these clubs less likely. I don't believe we will do a Portsmouth precisely because we do have Tony Fernandes. He has held his hand up and admitted his mistakes and will stay and sort things out. It is likely though that it is going to cost him a lot more of his own money - it also seems to me that a quick return to the premier is imperative and not just desirable. Also just to play devil's advocate, what would happen if Tfs airline businesses got into trouble? It does now seem that we are totally dependent on him and premiership money and that is really not an ideal situation to be in...... | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 20:42 - Nov 17 with 1290 views | derbyhoop |
Even by the standards of the Daily Fail that is shoddy journalism at its worst. I'll ignore all the speculation, ifs, understands etc.
In 2014/14 a club will be fined £1 for every £1 loss over £18m
So, It doesn't come in until next season, so why would we be fined in January 2014.?
I'm sure we made a massive loss in 2012/13. However, since then we have sold Samba for £12m , Mackie for £1m while recruiting (for fees) Austin, Phillips and Henry. In total, 20 players have left the club, either through sales, cancelled contracts or loan deals. Remy's loan is reputed to be bringing in £2m. Now I don't suppose, Krancjar and BAE are here for peanuts, but I would argue that the wage bill has been slashed dramatically in the last 6 month.
We are in receipt of £16m parachute payments and playing to 90% capacity crowds, so a turnover of £30m+ for 2013/14 is a reasonable guesstimate. If our costs are still way over £48m I'd be very surprised. In addition, about 50% of the first team squad, including those already on loan, expire in Jun 2014. I cannot see any circumstance where Zamora, Mbia, Park, SWP among others will be getting a new deal.
The FFP rules are a concern but do not justify the lurid headlines we have come to expect from the most sensationalist rag in the country. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 21:09 - Nov 17 with 1264 views | extratimeR |
Just watching Sunday Supplement on Sky this morning, (journalists were reviewing the Mail article), and you could sense they thought it was a very unlikely scenario, Sam Wallace of the Independent said the article should really refer to Blackburn Rovers not QPR.
Martin Samuels, (Daily Mail), took it apart piece by piece, explaining the calculations for the fine were meaningless as the FFP had not even started yet, that it would end up in the High Court if anyone tried to apply it, (as it stands at the moment), and that you couldn't really take it to seriously if the "fine" was going to charity.
Funny, nobody mentioned Man City or Paris St Germaine. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 21:14 - Nov 17 with 1259 views | 18StoneOfHoop |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 20:14 - Nov 17 by qprewan |
Just to be clear, I was not trying to liken TF to the owners of Pompey I was saying that these rules were an attempt to make a repeat of what happenedat these clubs less likely. I don't believe we will do a Portsmouth precisely because we do have Tony Fernandes. He has held his hand up and admitted his mistakes and will stay and sort things out. It is likely though that it is going to cost him a lot more of his own money - it also seems to me that a quick return to the premier is imperative and not just desirable. Also just to play devil's advocate, what would happen if Tfs airline businesses got into trouble? It does now seem that we are totally dependent on him and premiership money and that is really not an ideal situation to be in...... |
The more I read of the majority of this informed,clued up thread the more sanguine and relaxed about QPR and FFP I become.
FFS qprewan, Manchester United are 800 million pound in debt at a conservative estimate.. "..and that is really not an ideal situation to be in."
"Also just to play devil's advocate,what would happen if.."
.. the sky should fall on our heads and middle-aged monsters from mars descended on Shepherd's Bush Green dressed in full royal blue Samsung chelsea kit with tassels on the white socks??? 
With my special powers of prognostication,I can see the imminent future and I know that my emollient,calming wise words will have an immediate effect on bosh67 and let his strained Marty Feldman goggle eyes gently sink back into his skull in a soothing,restful position. [Post edited 17 Nov 2013 21:49]
|  |
| 'I'm 18 with a bullet.Got my finger on the trigger,I'm gonna pull it.."
Love,Peace and Fook Chelski!
More like 20StoneOfHoop now.
Let's face it I'm not getting any thinner.
Pass the cake and pies please. |
| |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 21:15 - Nov 17 with 1251 views | bosh67 |
Better not go up then! |  |
| |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 01:37 - Nov 18 with 1150 views | RangersAreBack |
(1) The 2 year grace period for all clubs is yet to expire.
(2) There is additional grace for any club relegated from the Premier League unless the club is immediately promoted.
(3) If QPR are promoted they will be judged against the Premier League's Financial Fair Play rules not the Football League Financial Fair Play rules.
(4) Only expenditure on players is taken into account, anything spent on infrastructure is ignored.
(5) The scheme appears intrinsicly flawed and will face legal challenges.
(6) QPR can easily sidestep this whole charade by announcing a sponsorship deal which injects owners' funds into the club. It's been done already by countless clubs (Wigan, Leicester, Manchester City, Arsenal, Newcastle, etc) without recourse.
(7) Thinking logically why would Fernandes and co hand £60 million to the Football League when they can plough it into the club and avoid this fine? Given we are on the cusp of the Premier League, new training ground, and potential stadium the board are easily going to spend this and more over the next few years. They may as well announce a sponsorship deal to cover the debt then use this money over time on infrastructure, which in turn will be exempt from future assessments. |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 04:55 - Nov 18 with 1132 views | CanadaRanger |
These regulations are going to be an accountant's paradise...
Internationally, there is a lot of noise being made by (typically opposition) politicians regarding the cost of major military purchases such as the F35 fighter jets. Governments would like to show the cost as what they pay for the jets at the time they are delivered, whereas the opposition (who want to show the Governments are being addicted to gross and unaffordable military spending) are getting articles written that calculate the cost of the fighters as the total lifetime cost, including fuel, parts, support crew, pilots, etc. Thus, to budget for an aircraft carrier (such as the one the US just sent to help in the Philippines disaster) in the "new terms" one would have to include all costs of sending it to help in the Philippines, plus the pay and pension contributions of the personnel helping with the rescue effort, plus the supplies used, helicopter fuel, etc - for every mission that Carrier is expected to have to carry out throughout its operational lifetime - and inflation - and cost of borrowing the money. Clearly a very much higher number than simple cost to build.
Now consider a totally hypothetical situation where a less than stellar Premier League Manager or Director of Football signs some journeyman has-been from a team that were once Champions of Europe for some significant up-front sum plus some bloated weekly wage for a period of several years.
In the first accounting model, the club declares the transfer fee, agents fees, and salary for whichever part of the first tax year it has to pay in that year, and then declares the salary in each consecutive year of the contract. Seems fair. But is it?
Trouble comes when the club gets relegated, and said journeyman carthorse thinks they are too good to play in the Championship, the club cannot recoup what it paid for the player and is still stuck with paying all or some of the salary, even when club revenues are diminished. The club declares losses, including the salary of the player who no longer contributes anything to the club, and could be in deeper trouble with the FA for the losses which were caused in previous years.
But what if the clubs were to use the same financial model that opposition parties internationally are trying to use to inflate (depending on one's point of view) the cost of major purchases that have a lifetime of many years (e.g., ships, perhaps 40 years)...
If so, then the complete cost of employing a player would be considered as having been spent (a loss) at the time the player signed his contract. The full cost of the player would include transfer fee, agents fees, salary over the time of the contract including bonuses, cost of support services to the player such as kit, kit washing, transportation to games, pension, injury insurance, medical services, training equipment needed by the player, etc, etc... In other words, the true TOTAL cost of employing him over the full period of his contract.
This would mean that the losses would be considered to have been incurred in the relegation year and not in the first or subsequent years back in the Championship (or lower divisions).
What should it be?
Personally, while I think the year by year approach (pay as you go) is more logical and concrete (you know what you actually spent), I see no reason why a current Manager should be blamed for the unwise financial expenditures of his predecessors (who presumably got fired for their troubles). |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 08:58 - Nov 18 with 1068 views | doogi55 |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 19:31 - Nov 17 by QPRDave |
I think the fella has a good case |
another reason to stay in the the eu the look on plattinis face when he looses the court case. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 09:13 - Nov 18 with 1058 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Heard the journalist on the radio last night and he was backtracking furiously "worst-case scenario...would have to deduct parachute payments...infrastructure payments exempt...an example of the kind of thing that might happen etc".
The issue is worth keeping an eye on but we were doing that anyway. This article is poorly researched, strewn withe errors and sensationalist. The Daily Mail strikes again. |  |
| |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 09:24 - Nov 18 with 1053 views | ElHoop |
The Mail isn't even worth bothering to not bother about. |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 09:41 - Nov 18 with 1040 views | TheBlob |
Well it may be a good omen.The last time we aspired to promotion there was a legal threat which presaged Doom. |  |
| |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 09:57 - Nov 18 with 1021 views | QPR_John |
I see it now appears to have been removed | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 10:00 - Nov 18 with 1019 views | stevec |
No real idea who this guy Ed Thompson is at financialfairplay.co.uk but one assumes he must have done a fair amount of research to put his head above the parapet.
I emailed him specifically about 'our 1st season in the Championship' scenario and got this reply;
Steve,
Thanks for the email.
When I first read the rules I initially thought the same. However you need to read them very carefully to see that in reality the first season in the championship is counted against the FFP test.
The confusion relates to the introduction of the rules and to the requirement to lodge accounts with the FL every December. Any newly relegated club doesn't have to hand in their accounts by 1 Dec (I.e those accoints that relate to their final season in the PL). This is the exemption.
However all accounts relating a footballing season in the Championship needs to be submitted (by Dec after season finishes)
So in summary, Nick Harris is right in that QPR need to keep to FFP limits this season or face sanction. Whatever the numbers are for QPR, they are likely to miss the targets this season and either pay Fair Play Tax (if promoted), or have embargo take effect 1Jan 2015 if stay down.
Hope that makes sense
Ed
FFP may be a lot more straight forward than it seems, in which case the club is facing a big problem. Whether TF can conjure up say 30-40 mill in a one season sponsorship deal to head off the fines, remains to be seen. |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 11:24 - Nov 18 with 951 views | QPR_Jim |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 04:55 - Nov 18 by CanadaRanger |
These regulations are going to be an accountant's paradise...
Internationally, there is a lot of noise being made by (typically opposition) politicians regarding the cost of major military purchases such as the F35 fighter jets. Governments would like to show the cost as what they pay for the jets at the time they are delivered, whereas the opposition (who want to show the Governments are being addicted to gross and unaffordable military spending) are getting articles written that calculate the cost of the fighters as the total lifetime cost, including fuel, parts, support crew, pilots, etc. Thus, to budget for an aircraft carrier (such as the one the US just sent to help in the Philippines disaster) in the "new terms" one would have to include all costs of sending it to help in the Philippines, plus the pay and pension contributions of the personnel helping with the rescue effort, plus the supplies used, helicopter fuel, etc - for every mission that Carrier is expected to have to carry out throughout its operational lifetime - and inflation - and cost of borrowing the money. Clearly a very much higher number than simple cost to build.
Now consider a totally hypothetical situation where a less than stellar Premier League Manager or Director of Football signs some journeyman has-been from a team that were once Champions of Europe for some significant up-front sum plus some bloated weekly wage for a period of several years.
In the first accounting model, the club declares the transfer fee, agents fees, and salary for whichever part of the first tax year it has to pay in that year, and then declares the salary in each consecutive year of the contract. Seems fair. But is it?
Trouble comes when the club gets relegated, and said journeyman carthorse thinks they are too good to play in the Championship, the club cannot recoup what it paid for the player and is still stuck with paying all or some of the salary, even when club revenues are diminished. The club declares losses, including the salary of the player who no longer contributes anything to the club, and could be in deeper trouble with the FA for the losses which were caused in previous years.
But what if the clubs were to use the same financial model that opposition parties internationally are trying to use to inflate (depending on one's point of view) the cost of major purchases that have a lifetime of many years (e.g., ships, perhaps 40 years)...
If so, then the complete cost of employing a player would be considered as having been spent (a loss) at the time the player signed his contract. The full cost of the player would include transfer fee, agents fees, salary over the time of the contract including bonuses, cost of support services to the player such as kit, kit washing, transportation to games, pension, injury insurance, medical services, training equipment needed by the player, etc, etc... In other words, the true TOTAL cost of employing him over the full period of his contract.
This would mean that the losses would be considered to have been incurred in the relegation year and not in the first or subsequent years back in the Championship (or lower divisions).
What should it be?
Personally, while I think the year by year approach (pay as you go) is more logical and concrete (you know what you actually spent), I see no reason why a current Manager should be blamed for the unwise financial expenditures of his predecessors (who presumably got fired for their troubles). |
I thought the fair play rules stipulated that fees are spread over the duration of the contract. Although I'm not sure how that works if you extend their contract after 3 years.
The transfer of Samba does make me wonder about whether there is an accountancy loop hole. We spent big on him in Jan knowing it was unlikely to save us and seemingly having a clause to sell him back to his original club. So it appears to me like a method of banking money by creating debt whilst in the Premier League which can be wiped off after relegation to show as a profit on the following seasons accounts. This then reduces the losses for the season after relegation to give more favourable accounts which will be examined under the FFP rules. |  | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 11:48 - Nov 18 with 929 views | CanadaRanger |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 11:24 - Nov 18 by QPR_Jim |
I thought the fair play rules stipulated that fees are spread over the duration of the contract. Although I'm not sure how that works if you extend their contract after 3 years.
The transfer of Samba does make me wonder about whether there is an accountancy loop hole. We spent big on him in Jan knowing it was unlikely to save us and seemingly having a clause to sell him back to his original club. So it appears to me like a method of banking money by creating debt whilst in the Premier League which can be wiped off after relegation to show as a profit on the following seasons accounts. This then reduces the losses for the season after relegation to give more favourable accounts which will be examined under the FFP rules. |
Good point.
In other (potentially related) news, naming rights for a Championship stadium for 10 years seem to be worth around 7 million pounds...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24930477
Derby County: Pride Park to be renamed the iPro Stadium
Derby County are to rename Pride Park the iPro Stadium in a 10-year sponsorship deal worth £7m. | | | |
| FINE !!! ???? - Just linking what got sent to me on 12:00 - Nov 18 with 917 views | adhoc_qpr |
We'll see how it pans out, we know that our spend and wages were never as high as the plucked out of the air figures the media quotes anyway (although let's not kid ourselves, it was a hell of a splurge!)
We have a hell of a lot of wages off the books already, large parachute payments plus Cesar likely off in Jan, minimum £8m for Remy in Jan/July to balance the books too.
I'd guess at least half the Prem clubs will be in breach, plus other Champo sides like Forest and Leicester, so there will be a lot of loopholes and work-arounds uncovered and exploited. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
