| FFP - why only us? 08:14 - May 6 with 10361 views | Northolt_Rs |
Watching Birmingham and Derby avoid any real FFP impact - the first by getting a meaningless points deduction and the latter by “selling their ground to the owner” - why are we the only club to be actually crippled by FFP ? Doesn’t seem particularly fair to me.
We must have the worst lawyers in the world working for us.
I wonder if Hoos and co. are complaining to the EFL about our clearly unfair treatment compared to others? If not, why not? |  |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |  |
| FFP - why only us? on 16:06 - May 6 with 2048 views | klonk |
| FFP - why only us? on 15:53 - May 6 by jonno |
Of course it is. So why don't the Club rent the stadium to Tune Group for, let's say £50m per year? Then the Club can afford to improve the squad and if done sensibly this time, become a promotion contender next season. It's no worse than Derby have done. |
... because that would be classed as a related-party transaction, which the league would reassess at 'fair-value' (probably more or less nothing, due to tune group not needing a football stadium in london). |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 16:49 - May 6 with 1967 views | Ned_Kennedys |
| FFP - why only us? on 16:06 - May 6 by klonk |
... because that would be classed as a related-party transaction, which the league would reassess at 'fair-value' (probably more or less nothing, due to tune group not needing a football stadium in london). |
So why would the EFL decide the owner of Derby County FC buying a football stadium in Derby from Derby County FC is not a 'related-party transaction' then? |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 17:28 - May 6 with 1904 views | klonk |
| FFP - why only us? on 16:49 - May 6 by Ned_Kennedys |
So why would the EFL decide the owner of Derby County FC buying a football stadium in Derby from Derby County FC is not a 'related-party transaction' then? |
firstly, i don't know how the efl have decided that... but i'm sure that it will have been classed as a 'related-party transaction', the question is whether the amount paid represents a fair value for that transaction.
derby's ffp accounts should only contain the following transactions - the profit (or loss) on the sale of the ground (calculated using the book value of the ground) and an annual charge for the leasing back of the ground from the owner (again calculated at a fair value).
in theory, it should be quite difficult to fiddle the figures... the accounts should include a valuation of the stadium's value - land and buildings should be revalued regularly to reflect real estate prices, so quite how derby could claim that a (roughly) 100% profit on the book value is a fair value will be interesting to say the least.
what this really shows is the short-termism of these rules... no one in their right mind would have assumed that ffp would lead to clubs getting rid of their grounds for a short-term cash flow solution. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 17:51 - May 6 with 1861 views | QPR_John |
| FFP - why only us? on 15:58 - May 6 by kingo |
It was in all the press. We were being told we would playing non league. |
Do you believe everything in the press. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 17:58 - May 6 with 1848 views | QPR_John |
| FFP - why only us? on 17:28 - May 6 by klonk |
firstly, i don't know how the efl have decided that... but i'm sure that it will have been classed as a 'related-party transaction', the question is whether the amount paid represents a fair value for that transaction.
derby's ffp accounts should only contain the following transactions - the profit (or loss) on the sale of the ground (calculated using the book value of the ground) and an annual charge for the leasing back of the ground from the owner (again calculated at a fair value).
in theory, it should be quite difficult to fiddle the figures... the accounts should include a valuation of the stadium's value - land and buildings should be revalued regularly to reflect real estate prices, so quite how derby could claim that a (roughly) 100% profit on the book value is a fair value will be interesting to say the least.
what this really shows is the short-termism of these rules... no one in their right mind would have assumed that ffp would lead to clubs getting rid of their grounds for a short-term cash flow solution. |
Surely once the transaction has been accepted by the FL it is open to any club to do he same thing | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 19:18 - May 6 with 1744 views | daveB |
We really need to stop playing the victim. We broke the rules with Faurlin and got away with it, we broke them again with FFP and that time got fined for it, could have been worse and could have been better but it's done now.
Our bigger problem is complying with the new rules than worrying about what everyone else is doing |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 19:22 - May 6 with 1737 views | Ned_Kennedys |
| FFP - why only us? on 19:18 - May 6 by daveB |
We really need to stop playing the victim. We broke the rules with Faurlin and got away with it, we broke them again with FFP and that time got fined for it, could have been worse and could have been better but it's done now.
Our bigger problem is complying with the new rules than worrying about what everyone else is doing |
Totally disagree: yeah we broke the 'rules' and got punished but now there are other teams breaking the rules and either getting away with it or being given pathetic 'punishments'. Its disgusting. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 23:07 - May 6 with 1587 views | QPR_John |
| FFP - why only us? on 19:18 - May 6 by daveB |
We really need to stop playing the victim. We broke the rules with Faurlin and got away with it, we broke them again with FFP and that time got fined for it, could have been worse and could have been better but it's done now.
Our bigger problem is complying with the new rules than worrying about what everyone else is doing |
Cannot understand your attitude. The complaint is we were punished under rules the FL realised were draconian but they went ahead even after changing them. Birminghams punishment was to drop from 15th to 17th how was that comparable with a transfer embargo and a £20M fine. A cynical person might even come to the conclusion that 9 points was calculated. Looks like a punishment but with a very good chance to have little effect. If the penalty is 9 points it is worth a gamble. Only Reading and Millwall would have been relegated with a 9 point penalty | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP - why only us? on 03:07 - May 7 with 1530 views | timcocking |
Exactly what i've always thought.
If i owned the club, i never would have paid that fine. If they closed us down, so be it, but on principle i never would have accepted what's been done to us. It seems we really are the only team who have to abide by FFP (the name still sticks in my throat). It was clearly unlawful.
Fcuking cants. |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:23 - May 7 with 1475 views | Roller |
| FFP - why only us? on 23:07 - May 6 by QPR_John |
Cannot understand your attitude. The complaint is we were punished under rules the FL realised were draconian but they went ahead even after changing them. Birminghams punishment was to drop from 15th to 17th how was that comparable with a transfer embargo and a £20M fine. A cynical person might even come to the conclusion that 9 points was calculated. Looks like a punishment but with a very good chance to have little effect. If the penalty is 9 points it is worth a gamble. Only Reading and Millwall would have been relegated with a 9 point penalty |
The 9 points was calculated, but not in the way you imply. If you read the tribunal's report on the EFL v Birmingham City it explains how. I'm sure that Dave won't mind me reproducing part of my column from AKUTRs on this.
For some time, it has been common knowledge that the Football League were in favour of using a points deduction as their preferred punishment, but the application of this has remained unclear. In the weeks and month leading up to the decision, all the talk had been of a 12-point penalty, so when the tribunal saw fit to only deduct 9 points from Birmingham there was a more than a muttering of consternation. However, the reasoning behind this was all explained in the disciplinary commission report.
The 12-point deduction, which we all heard so much about, is the EFL’s default position. However, this only applies for breaches over £15 million. For breaches under this amount, this notional figure is reduced according to a sliding scale. As an example, if a club is only up to £2 million over their FFP limit, the 12-point deduction is reduced by 9 points. Birmingham, who fell into the £8 million to £10 million bracket qualified for a reduction of 5 points and so their sanction was 7 points.
This points deduction is then subject to be increased depending on “aggravating factors”. On the face of it, Birmingham signing Kristian Pedersen last summer while under a transfer embargo would appear to fall into this category, but this was not regarded as such by the tribunal. Transfer embargo is a very misleading term, registration embargo is far more accurate. Clubs are entitled to sign whichever players they like, but their ruling authority, in this case the EFL, can refuse to register them. Back in 2015, Barcelona signed Arda Turan and Aleix Vidal while under a transfer embargo, neither player was registered until the following January. As the EFL did eventually ratify Pedersen’s registration before the season started, it didn’t qualify as an aggravating factor.
That is not to say that there weren’t any aggravating factors. Birmingham’s own forecast in June 2017 predicted that while they would just manage to satisfy the FFP requirements in the 2017/18 season, they would fail to do so for the following two seasons. Their response to this was to allow Harry Redknapp to sign 9 new permanent players and another 5 on loan at a cost of £23.75 million, nearly doubling the cost of the players’ wages in the process. The tribunal regarded this as an intentional breach of the rules and, as such, warranted the deduction of a further 3 points increasing Birmingham’s sanction to 10 points.
However, as Birmingham admitted that they’d breeched FFP, at a point at which they could hardly deny it, was rewarded with a further point being deducted from their sanction, reducing it to a final total of 9 points. I’ve not seen this mentioned elsewhere, but Birmingham were also required to pay the costs of the tribunal and the legal cost of the EFL. |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:31 - May 7 with 1465 views | Northolt_Rs |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:23 - May 7 by Roller |
The 9 points was calculated, but not in the way you imply. If you read the tribunal's report on the EFL v Birmingham City it explains how. I'm sure that Dave won't mind me reproducing part of my column from AKUTRs on this.
For some time, it has been common knowledge that the Football League were in favour of using a points deduction as their preferred punishment, but the application of this has remained unclear. In the weeks and month leading up to the decision, all the talk had been of a 12-point penalty, so when the tribunal saw fit to only deduct 9 points from Birmingham there was a more than a muttering of consternation. However, the reasoning behind this was all explained in the disciplinary commission report.
The 12-point deduction, which we all heard so much about, is the EFL’s default position. However, this only applies for breaches over £15 million. For breaches under this amount, this notional figure is reduced according to a sliding scale. As an example, if a club is only up to £2 million over their FFP limit, the 12-point deduction is reduced by 9 points. Birmingham, who fell into the £8 million to £10 million bracket qualified for a reduction of 5 points and so their sanction was 7 points.
This points deduction is then subject to be increased depending on “aggravating factors”. On the face of it, Birmingham signing Kristian Pedersen last summer while under a transfer embargo would appear to fall into this category, but this was not regarded as such by the tribunal. Transfer embargo is a very misleading term, registration embargo is far more accurate. Clubs are entitled to sign whichever players they like, but their ruling authority, in this case the EFL, can refuse to register them. Back in 2015, Barcelona signed Arda Turan and Aleix Vidal while under a transfer embargo, neither player was registered until the following January. As the EFL did eventually ratify Pedersen’s registration before the season started, it didn’t qualify as an aggravating factor.
That is not to say that there weren’t any aggravating factors. Birmingham’s own forecast in June 2017 predicted that while they would just manage to satisfy the FFP requirements in the 2017/18 season, they would fail to do so for the following two seasons. Their response to this was to allow Harry Redknapp to sign 9 new permanent players and another 5 on loan at a cost of £23.75 million, nearly doubling the cost of the players’ wages in the process. The tribunal regarded this as an intentional breach of the rules and, as such, warranted the deduction of a further 3 points increasing Birmingham’s sanction to 10 points.
However, as Birmingham admitted that they’d breeched FFP, at a point at which they could hardly deny it, was rewarded with a further point being deducted from their sanction, reducing it to a final total of 9 points. I’ve not seen this mentioned elsewhere, but Birmingham were also required to pay the costs of the tribunal and the legal cost of the EFL. |
Thanks for this great post. Having read through the details it looks even more obvious that Brum were treated far more leniently than we have been. The impact of the FFP penalty on both clubs is chalk and cheese. I still don’t understand how this can be fair. One club gets away pretty much with zero effect whilst the other is crippled as an ongoing business for years. | |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:35 - May 7 with 1462 views | kingo |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:23 - May 7 by Roller |
The 9 points was calculated, but not in the way you imply. If you read the tribunal's report on the EFL v Birmingham City it explains how. I'm sure that Dave won't mind me reproducing part of my column from AKUTRs on this.
For some time, it has been common knowledge that the Football League were in favour of using a points deduction as their preferred punishment, but the application of this has remained unclear. In the weeks and month leading up to the decision, all the talk had been of a 12-point penalty, so when the tribunal saw fit to only deduct 9 points from Birmingham there was a more than a muttering of consternation. However, the reasoning behind this was all explained in the disciplinary commission report.
The 12-point deduction, which we all heard so much about, is the EFL’s default position. However, this only applies for breaches over £15 million. For breaches under this amount, this notional figure is reduced according to a sliding scale. As an example, if a club is only up to £2 million over their FFP limit, the 12-point deduction is reduced by 9 points. Birmingham, who fell into the £8 million to £10 million bracket qualified for a reduction of 5 points and so their sanction was 7 points.
This points deduction is then subject to be increased depending on “aggravating factors”. On the face of it, Birmingham signing Kristian Pedersen last summer while under a transfer embargo would appear to fall into this category, but this was not regarded as such by the tribunal. Transfer embargo is a very misleading term, registration embargo is far more accurate. Clubs are entitled to sign whichever players they like, but their ruling authority, in this case the EFL, can refuse to register them. Back in 2015, Barcelona signed Arda Turan and Aleix Vidal while under a transfer embargo, neither player was registered until the following January. As the EFL did eventually ratify Pedersen’s registration before the season started, it didn’t qualify as an aggravating factor.
That is not to say that there weren’t any aggravating factors. Birmingham’s own forecast in June 2017 predicted that while they would just manage to satisfy the FFP requirements in the 2017/18 season, they would fail to do so for the following two seasons. Their response to this was to allow Harry Redknapp to sign 9 new permanent players and another 5 on loan at a cost of £23.75 million, nearly doubling the cost of the players’ wages in the process. The tribunal regarded this as an intentional breach of the rules and, as such, warranted the deduction of a further 3 points increasing Birmingham’s sanction to 10 points.
However, as Birmingham admitted that they’d breeched FFP, at a point at which they could hardly deny it, was rewarded with a further point being deducted from their sanction, reducing it to a final total of 9 points. I’ve not seen this mentioned elsewhere, but Birmingham were also required to pay the costs of the tribunal and the legal cost of the EFL. |
That reads like, we will put forward a formula with add ons for deliberate breach and then conjure up reasons for not imposing them. No addition for deliberately buying a player whilst on an embargo and 1 point deducted for owning up? |  |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:38 - May 7 with 1455 views | Northolt_Rs |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:35 - May 7 by kingo |
That reads like, we will put forward a formula with add ons for deliberate breach and then conjure up reasons for not imposing them. No addition for deliberately buying a player whilst on an embargo and 1 point deducted for owning up? |
Yep it’s bollox. | |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:50 - May 7 with 1442 views | stowmarketrange |
| FFP - why only us? on 17:58 - May 6 by QPR_John |
Surely once the transaction has been accepted by the FL it is open to any club to do he same thing |
They will change the rules once enough big clubs have taken advantage of it.Any other smaller or lower league clubs will then be fined heavily to help pay for the fa’s Christmas party in Dubai. |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:38 - May 7 with 1392 views | Roller |
| FFP - why only us? on 07:31 - May 7 by Northolt_Rs |
Thanks for this great post. Having read through the details it looks even more obvious that Brum were treated far more leniently than we have been. The impact of the FFP penalty on both clubs is chalk and cheese. I still don’t understand how this can be fair. One club gets away pretty much with zero effect whilst the other is crippled as an ongoing business for years. |
If we'd had that set of rules applied to us, we'd have entered this season on -12 points and would have been relegated. As it is, we got a fine which the owners are paying and does not affect any of our operational budgets. We are not crippled by that fine. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:49 - May 7 with 1365 views | daveB |
| FFP - why only us? on 19:22 - May 6 by Ned_Kennedys |
Totally disagree: yeah we broke the 'rules' and got punished but now there are other teams breaking the rules and either getting away with it or being given pathetic 'punishments'. Its disgusting. |
how is a 9 point deduction pathetic? | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:54 - May 7 with 1359 views | daveB |
| FFP - why only us? on 23:07 - May 6 by QPR_John |
Cannot understand your attitude. The complaint is we were punished under rules the FL realised were draconian but they went ahead even after changing them. Birminghams punishment was to drop from 15th to 17th how was that comparable with a transfer embargo and a £20M fine. A cynical person might even come to the conclusion that 9 points was calculated. Looks like a punishment but with a very good chance to have little effect. If the penalty is 9 points it is worth a gamble. Only Reading and Millwall would have been relegated with a 9 point penalty |
It's not comparable as the rules were different, there really is no point crying about that, it happened we have to get on with it just as other teams had to get on with it when we got away with the Faurlin transfer.
It's not the leagues fault that Birmingham have had a good season and losing 9 points didn't relegate them, if the punishment you want is for a team to be relegated then they'll struggle to fill the league next season
Overall I don't think FFP rules are workable but thats the same for everyone | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:54 - May 7 with 1358 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:38 - May 7 by Roller |
If we'd had that set of rules applied to us, we'd have entered this season on -12 points and would have been relegated. As it is, we got a fine which the owners are paying and does not affect any of our operational budgets. We are not crippled by that fine. |
Thanks for all the info, Roller. |  |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:16 - May 7 with 1328 views | terryb |
| FFP - why only us? on 19:18 - May 6 by daveB |
We really need to stop playing the victim. We broke the rules with Faurlin and got away with it, we broke them again with FFP and that time got fined for it, could have been worse and could have been better but it's done now.
Our bigger problem is complying with the new rules than worrying about what everyone else is doing |
Well said Dave.
I really do get fed up with all the "if that was us we would have been fined £ millions or had points deducted." Or even worse, "such & such happened at Leeds so we will be fined."
Were we treated leniently when we entered administration & didn't get a points deduction, or were we treated by the rules in place at the time?
I can't recall clubs that have had points deducted since for entering administration, complaining that they shouldn't be bacause Queens Park Rangers weren't.
We were not hard done by & no other club has got close to breaking FFP as badly as we did! [Post edited 7 May 2019 10:21]
| | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:22 - May 7 with 1322 views | stowmarketrange |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:16 - May 7 by terryb |
Well said Dave.
I really do get fed up with all the "if that was us we would have been fined £ millions or had points deducted." Or even worse, "such & such happened at Leeds so we will be fined."
Were we treated leniently when we entered administration & didn't get a points deduction, or were we treated by the rules in place at the time?
I can't recall clubs that have had points deducted since for entering administration, complaining that they shouldn't be bacause Queens Park Rangers weren't.
We were not hard done by & no other club has got close to breaking FFP as badly as we did! [Post edited 7 May 2019 10:21]
|
Apart from Bournemouth you mean.But they will earn so much from their time in the top division that it won’t be a problem for them. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:56 - May 7 with 1290 views | Toast_R |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:22 - May 7 by stowmarketrange |
Apart from Bournemouth you mean.But they will earn so much from their time in the top division that it won’t be a problem for them. |
And Wolves apparently... |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:42 - May 7 with 1252 views | terryb |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:22 - May 7 by stowmarketrange |
Apart from Bournemouth you mean.But they will earn so much from their time in the top division that it won’t be a problem for them. |
Bournemouth did not exceed FFP by anythink like £60 million!
Nor did Wolves. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 12:22 - May 7 with 1213 views | CamberleyR |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:42 - May 7 by terryb |
Bournemouth did not exceed FFP by anythink like £60 million!
Nor did Wolves. |
Bournemouth had a bloody good go at matching us though, they lost not far shy of £40m in winning the Championship in 2014/15 and this being on top of a £10m loss the previous season when the rules were a permitted £6m loss a season. Their slap on the wrist was a paltry £7m fine. |  |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 12:55 - May 7 with 1174 views | Ned_Kennedys |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:49 - May 7 by daveB |
how is a 9 point deduction pathetic? |
Because it moved them from the heady heights of 14th in the table to a non-perilous 17th position. It has not affected their season at all.
To act as any deterrent the 9 points should've been held over to the beginning of next season.
It beggars belief that some are willing to back the EFL over anything to do with FFP based on their gross incompetence in all aspects.
[Post edited 7 May 2019 12:58]
| | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 13:04 - May 7 with 1148 views | TGRRRSSS |
Birmingham were never going to get into the Play offs less still even win them if they had, they were giving a punishment which on paper looked harsh in reality it was a cop out.
Ours was based in part on the past and in part on our wealth (the owners) had they done that to Birmingham they'd be put in immediate administration anyway and EFL could not get the money.
We were went for very harshly and I am not sure our lawyers even did half the job so many on here are claiming.
Birmingham lost less relatively but under much less punitive measures.
We aren't whiter than white and nobody is saying we were, but if Birmingham and others got a far cleaner towel to clean themselves up with in that respect. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
