| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? 14:05 - Jul 19 with 3157 views | saxbend |
I've been trying to have this argument on Twitter and it seems that people think I'm saying something different from what I'm intending to. So I'm going to try here without that 280 character limit and see if I can figure out where the communication is breaking down. Could be at my end, could be at theirs.
Now then. There's this rumour going around that as part of the deal to sell Darnell Furlong to West Brom at the start of the season, a clause was included saying that should the baggies get promoted, they would pay an additional fee to us.
Here we are going into the last game of the season where a win for them, against us, guarantees them promotion.
Now as far as I'm concerned whether or not the clause is actually there, is not the most important thing. What is important, is whether or not the league rules allow such a clause to be there.
I am sure, despite having to admit my pro Rangers bias on this, that QPR would never ever consider a financial incentive to throw a game, and I'm quite sure that West Brom have far too much integrity to look at the fixture list and consider the benefits of making the offer of such a payment when approaching us to buy Darnell. Out of pure trust and faith in the integrity of both clubs I would bet any amount of money on nothing dodgy having gone on there.
That is the part that my interlocutors on Twitter haven't understood. They think I'm accusing either or both clubs of being unscrupulous. I absolutely am not.
What I AM saying, is that if (and I mean if because I don't actually know what the rules say here), the rules allow for the possibility of such a clause, that means that the rules themselves, not any of the clubs or players, bring the game into disrepute.
At this point, I think I need to explain what I mean about disrepute, because again, some of the people on Twitter seem to think by using the word disrepute I am necessarily levelling an accusation at QPR, or West Brom, or both, and again, I am not.
The fact that fans are speculating on the possibility, is a form of disrepute. We have reached this situation with the game a few days away, everything riding on it, and there are discussions taking place among fans and other members of the public, speculating about this as a possibility. Even if not one person actually believes that QPR or West Brom would stoop so low, that discussion is taking place, and that is detrimental to the reputation of the game and its integrity. Hence I am questioning the integrity of the league itself. Not the clubs, but the league: The organisation ultimately responsible for deciding the rules of the game and the rules surrounding business done between clubs and the effects they have on the game.
And just to strengthen the point, let's suppose (and this doesn't take a lot of imagination because it's very unlikely that this is the first time such a situation has arisen) that instead of QPR, the selling club facing the promotion candidates were a club facing the threat of administration, a points deduction and relegation, all of which could be avoided if the club received the amount of money in a transfer deal promotion clause. Let's imagine that that small payment would make an even bigger difference to the future of the receiving club, than promotion would to the other club. There'd be a breaking point somewhere, and even if the breaking point isn't there, you can bet that the speculation about it would go on and on, damaging the reputation of both clubs (possibly through no fault of their own if they were trying to be scrupulous and play the game fairly the whole time), as well as the league itself.
So for these reasons, I am very serious about why the mere possibility, allowed within the rules, for this type of transfer clause between teams in the same division, brings the game into disrepute.
Anyone here who reads all of this and still thinks I'm accusing QPR or West Brom of match fixing, please explain where I've gone wrong. [Post edited 19 Jul 2020 14:15]
|  | | |  |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 14:07 - Jul 19 with 3145 views | flynnbo |
Welcome back Saxbend-been a long time. |  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 14:39 - Jul 19 with 3042 views | Hunterhoop |
You raise some good points. I’d suggest this is an eventuality that hadn’t been fully realised by the EFL, and therefore could exist or have already taken place. I agree that rightly, this sort of clause, or any sort of clause where the party receiving financial benefit can influence the result, probably should be banned for the game’s credibility. It’s no different to receiving an extra million for a forward if he bags 20 and you are playing them when he’s on 18 or 19...
All that said, it the clause is allowed, and the club don’t clearly play a weakened team to throw a fixture, why not use this match to try out new systems, new pairings and youth players? I support QPR, not Brentford or West Brom. If we get a million of West Brom go up, then we should want West Brom to go up. £1m is a decent chunk extra on our revenue. It’s probably two first team squad player’s salary for a season...or a top starter’s salary. We should be protecting our interests and obtaining that money, albeit without breaching the rules are letting WBA walk it into the bet.
If this clause is in the rules, that is not our fault. And I think this deal was one after we knew the fixture list...so it could have been foreseen. [Post edited 19 Jul 2020 14:58]
|  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 14:48 - Jul 19 with 3018 views | saxbend |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 14:39 - Jul 19 by Hunterhoop |
You raise some good points. I’d suggest this is an eventuality that hadn’t been fully realised by the EFL, and therefore could exist or have already taken place. I agree that rightly, this sort of clause, or any sort of clause where the party receiving financial benefit can influence the result, probably should be banned for the game’s credibility. It’s no different to receiving an extra million for a forward if he bags 20 and you are playing them when he’s on 18 or 19...
All that said, it the clause is allowed, and the club don’t clearly play a weakened team to throw a fixture, why not use this match to try out new systems, new pairings and youth players? I support QPR, not Brentford or West Brom. If we get a million of West Brom go up, then we should want West Brom to go up. £1m is a decent chunk extra on our revenue. It’s probably two first team squad player’s salary for a season...or a top starter’s salary. We should be protecting our interests and obtaining that money, albeit without breaching the rules are letting WBA walk it into the bet.
If this clause is in the rules, that is not our fault. And I think this deal was one after we knew the fixture list...so it could have been foreseen. [Post edited 19 Jul 2020 14:58]
|
It's definitely not our fault, and it's not West Brom's either. And to an extent it's hard to blame Brentford fans or Fulham fans if they start making accusations afterwards. The rules have led to this situation arising. I suppose you could add it to the enormous pile of unfair elements of the game that the authorities hastily justify with the fact that no human being decides which clubs the unfair elements affect, but as you say, this wasn't foreseen by the EFL (or indeed the EDL but they're all morons so no surprise there), and as far as I am concerned it should have been. People running the football league and the fa are paid more than most managers for a reason, and that reason is that their job is to spot things like this well in advance and protect the integrity of the game, the competitions and the clubs. | | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 15:09 - Jul 19 with 2979 views | joe90 |
I see the point you're making. I don't think the example you give is one I'd give of the league bringing the game into disrepute.
Just look at the Wigan administration scandal - that's the league bringing the game into disrepute! |  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 16:08 - Jul 19 with 2904 views | qpr_1968 |
yes, the rules themselves bring the game into disrepute.
excuse the pun, but either club can't win, whatever the result. |  |
| |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 16:58 - Jul 19 with 2789 views | terryb |
I would suspect that this would be a common clause in thransfer negoiations. For instance, Palace may have had a clause in the transfer of their right back (name forgotten at the moment) to Manchester United that they would receive x amount if United won the Premier. Also, Brentford/ Fulham could have bought a player from Barnsley/Wigan that would have the same clause.
I do understand what you are saying vbut I don't think that this does bring the EFL into disrepute.
What would bring the EFL into disrepute would be the matches affecting relegation going ahead on Wednesday without the clubs knowing what, if any, sanctions will be given to Wigan & Sheffield Wednesday. I include Wigan as I think that it was reported that they had appealed. | | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 17:15 - Jul 19 with 2750 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Very good point, saxbend.
Not one I'd thought of before. |  |
| |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 17:16 - Jul 19 with 2750 views | karl |
Hibs received a 'bonus' payment for John McGinn gaining promotion with Villa last year. Widely reported by the club as fact.
Obviously no risk of collusion between those 2 clubs but added to support that these clauses exist |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:02 - Jul 19 with 2672 views | stevec |
Does anyone know if this Furlong story is true?
Even the EFL can’t be stupid enough to allow this type of incentive between two teams in the same Division. |  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:06 - Jul 19 with 2666 views | Northernr |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:02 - Jul 19 by stevec |
Does anyone know if this Furlong story is true?
Even the EFL can’t be stupid enough to allow this type of incentive between two teams in the same Division. |
It's true and these clauses are standard in every deal. There are almost always extra payments depending on how the player does and how the club he's joining does. If we sold Eze to Leicester for £X and didn't have clauses in the deal saying we get another payment if they make the Champions League, another payment when he gets an England cap etc you would be the first one on here talking about what a shambles we are, how badly run we are, what dreadful deals we drive. |  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:31 - Jul 19 with 2594 views | slmrstid |
I'm not so sure its the league bringing the game into disrepute and I agree with saxbend that there's no way that the original way the deal will have been structured by WBA or QPR would have had the intention of breaching any moral codes.
BUT of course no-one could have predicted the way that results would pan out over 45 games leaving us in this position.
IF the clause exists it does almost beg the question of whether it unintentionally becomes an indirect bribe, perhaps more on QPRs side than WBAs. If West Brom win its a tiny fee anyway with what they'd have coming, for QPR its a significant amount of extra income.
I'm sure QPR will not throw the game. We'll lose because West Brom need to win and are better than us.
But it is an interesting dimension. And any Brentford fan that whines, they shouldn't have lost to Stoke yesterday. |  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:35 - Jul 19 with 2583 views | Northernr |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:31 - Jul 19 by slmrstid |
I'm not so sure its the league bringing the game into disrepute and I agree with saxbend that there's no way that the original way the deal will have been structured by WBA or QPR would have had the intention of breaching any moral codes.
BUT of course no-one could have predicted the way that results would pan out over 45 games leaving us in this position.
IF the clause exists it does almost beg the question of whether it unintentionally becomes an indirect bribe, perhaps more on QPRs side than WBAs. If West Brom win its a tiny fee anyway with what they'd have coming, for QPR its a significant amount of extra income.
I'm sure QPR will not throw the game. We'll lose because West Brom need to win and are better than us.
But it is an interesting dimension. And any Brentford fan that whines, they shouldn't have lost to Stoke yesterday. |
Brentford will have clauses in the Maupay deal that pays them extra if Brighton get into Europe, or he gets French caps. If Brentford are in the Premier League next season and playing seventh placed Brighton just before the Euros, should they let Brighton win and Maupay score a hat trick so they can get in the Europa League and he can get in the France squad?
These clauses are standard, these things happen all the time. | | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:50 - Jul 19 with 2539 views | qprxtc |
The league never recovered from repute, dis or ir, since 1976. |  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:59 - Jul 19 with 2520 views | stevec |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:06 - Jul 19 by Northernr |
It's true and these clauses are standard in every deal. There are almost always extra payments depending on how the player does and how the club he's joining does. If we sold Eze to Leicester for £X and didn't have clauses in the deal saying we get another payment if they make the Champions League, another payment when he gets an England cap etc you would be the first one on here talking about what a shambles we are, how badly run we are, what dreadful deals we drive. |
Yeah I get that but there’s a world of difference between clauses written in where the selling club can have no influence, such as England caps or Champions League qualification when we’re in the Championship, but it’s total madness to allow a clause whereby we can influence the outcome which we clearly can with the WBA game. | | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 19:05 - Jul 19 with 2509 views | Northernr |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:59 - Jul 19 by stevec |
Yeah I get that but there’s a world of difference between clauses written in where the selling club can have no influence, such as England caps or Champions League qualification when we’re in the Championship, but it’s total madness to allow a clause whereby we can influence the outcome which we clearly can with the WBA game. |
It's inevitable when selling to clubs in the same league is it not? Like I say let's say Brentford get promoted, have a game with Brighton towards the end of next season, big Brighton win moves them closer to Europa League, Maupay scoring moves him closer to the French squad for the Euros, both of which trigger payments.
You can argue that these clauses should be against the rules if you like. But atm they're not and if QPR didn't have them in these deals I know for a fact you'd be one of the most vocal critics of the club for omitting them. If you're selling a player to West Brom last summer, of course you have a clause in there for some more money if they get promoted. I wouldn't be surprised if Brentford themselves don't stand to make a bit of extra money on Sawyers if they go up. | | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 19:10 - Jul 19 with 2492 views | switchingcode |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 18:35 - Jul 19 by Northernr |
Brentford will have clauses in the Maupay deal that pays them extra if Brighton get into Europe, or he gets French caps. If Brentford are in the Premier League next season and playing seventh placed Brighton just before the Euros, should they let Brighton win and Maupay score a hat trick so they can get in the Europa League and he can get in the France squad?
These clauses are standard, these things happen all the time. |
We have had clauses over the last years which have earned us good money add ons
Gray at Burnley
Hogan at Villa
Tarkowski at Burnley
All had promotion add ons and played against us
No moans from me anyone who thinks Warburton is going to say
“Ok lads want you to go out and lose tonight as there is a bit of money in it for the club”
Needs treatment | | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 19:59 - Jul 19 with 2415 views | enfieldargh |
See where your coming from agree with you.
I think the EFL is a seriously flawed organisation but is also having to deal with unscrupulous owners and an unworkable set of rules.(That they put in place).
Don't know whether we notified clubs Darnell was for sale or not.
However WBA enquired, then offered a sum which we eventually ended up having to put add-ons in place.
By this time DF would have been turned by bigger wages so we being in need of money are left little option.
Cant see us faking the game.
Saxbend nice to hear from you. |  |
| |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 14:19 - Jul 20 with 2224 views | saxbend |
I was very angry that day. | | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 16:25 - Jul 20 with 2141 views | timcocking |
Have to say i don't care. |  | | |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 16:49 - Jul 20 with 2121 views | FrankRightguard |
| Is the league bringing the game into disrepute? on 19:10 - Jul 19 by switchingcode |
We have had clauses over the last years which have earned us good money add ons
Gray at Burnley
Hogan at Villa
Tarkowski at Burnley
All had promotion add ons and played against us
No moans from me anyone who thinks Warburton is going to say
“Ok lads want you to go out and lose tonight as there is a bit of money in it for the club”
Needs treatment |
This. I can’t believe it’s even a discussion |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
