Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
FFP Decision Incoming?! 02:59 - May 17 with 13796 viewsFredManRave

Could be as soon as next week according to The Times article.

I'm apolitical so I'm not registered with The Times but if anybody is and could post the full article I'm sure we'd all appreciate it...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/qpr-set-for-verdict-over-fine-jh58rhz3d

Queens Park Rangers will learn this month whether they will face a fine of £57.9 million for a possible breach of spending limits in winning promotion to the Premier League three years ago.

The west London club’s dispute with the Football League will be heard by an arbitration panel, made up of three QCs, at a hearing next week.

If QPR win the argument, it could have a knock-on effect for Bournemouth and Leicester City, who have also challenged the League’s attempts to impose a fine on them for recording sizeable losses during their promotion to the top flight. Leicester claim the regulations were “unlawful”.

QPR, who were relegated after just one season back in the Premier League, challenged the legality and accounting principles of…

I've got the Power.
Poll: MOM from todays Teasing at Teesside?

0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 17:31 - May 17 with 2311 viewsSimonJames

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 11:26 - May 17 by BazzaInTheLoft

My question is, how do we pin it all on Les?


No. Since he's already in the sh1t, we should pin it on Joey Barton.

100% of people who drink water will die.

0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 18:07 - May 17 with 2264 viewsdistortR

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 11:08 - May 17 by BazzaInTheLoft

I'd welcome a transfer embargo at QPR.

We need a break from that bi annual circus.

As Norf said, strenghten the fit and proper person test.
[Post edited 17 May 2017 11:10]


Can we back-date it? So we have to give Smith and Goss back, and the buggers who sold them to us have to return our money? Freeman get's to stay under an 'exceptional circumstances' sub-clause, exceptional in that he actually can pass the ball to a team-mate AND run.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 18:09 - May 17 with 2260 viewsTacticalR

I think we need to strengthen the clueless persons test.

Air hostess clique

2
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 18:24 - May 17 with 2219 viewsE17hoop

Let's do a sweep for the size of the fine - I'll go for £11.5m

It's always noisiest at the shallow end
Poll: When you go to QPR games, what do you think will happen?

1
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 18:32 - May 17 with 2206 viewsqpr1976

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 16:35 - May 17 by QPR_John

Did they not change the original FFP rules (the rules we are charged with contravening) and those in force in 2013 are different and less strict
[Post edited 17 May 2017 16:36]


They have been changed regularly. At least 3 times.

Originally all fines were going to be split between the remaining FL clubs, thus a £50m fine + £500k to each club - No wonder clubs in Div 1 & 2 agreed to it.
Then they changed it so all fine's would be donated to charity.
Most recently the limit of losses went from approx. £8m a year to about £80m over 3 years.

Problem is the likes of Forest & Blackburn have taken their fines & Embargo's on the chin, whilst we have stood our ground, with Leicester & Bournemouth watching closely from the wings.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 18:39 - May 17 with 2199 viewsdistortR

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 18:32 - May 17 by qpr1976

They have been changed regularly. At least 3 times.

Originally all fines were going to be split between the remaining FL clubs, thus a £50m fine + £500k to each club - No wonder clubs in Div 1 & 2 agreed to it.
Then they changed it so all fine's would be donated to charity.
Most recently the limit of losses went from approx. £8m a year to about £80m over 3 years.

Problem is the likes of Forest & Blackburn have taken their fines & Embargo's on the chin, whilst we have stood our ground, with Leicester & Bournemouth watching closely from the wings.


Did Forest and Blackburn incur the losses in a similar manner to us? If they did, and we win the case, then the ramifications are huge - not only in terms of the fines paid, but also the effect of the transfer embargos. The authorities have an awful lot to lose, potentially.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 20:19 - May 17 with 2094 viewsjohncharles

The best course for the FL is to abandon the whole thing now. Sure it'll cost them a lot of money and credibility but it's only going to get worse. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Strong and stable my arse.

0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 21:26 - May 17 with 2003 viewsbosh67

I think it will be a suspended fine and a transfer embargo.

Never knowingly right.
Poll: How long before new signings become quivering wrecks of the players they were?

0
Login to get fewer ads

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 22:17 - May 17 with 1937 viewsAntti_Heinola

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 11:08 - May 17 by Northernr

The main thrust of QPR's argument is we'd entered into the (ludicrous) player contracts before the rules came in and couldn't just rip them up which seems pretty reasonable to me.

The whole thing is a farce. If you're that bothered about club debt then simply make the rule you can spend as much as you like but owners have to write off any losses and not put the liability on the club, which ours have done.

Better still do away with it altogether and just enforce a proper fit and proper owner test.


In principle I agree with the fit and proper test thing, obviously. We all do. But I feel like the FL get a bad rap. Because what, exactly, can they do? Legally speaking? They can try and stop someone, but then they could get taken to court, they'd probably lose, because what power do they have over who owns a company regardless of whether they compete in their league. They could maybe dock points of a club who appoint someone they've warned was not fit or proper maybe? I dunno. Feels extremely difficult.

Bare bones.

0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 23:19 - May 17 with 1860 viewsqpr1976

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 21:26 - May 17 by bosh67

I think it will be a suspended fine and a transfer embargo.


I think DaveB pointed out earlier in the thread that a transfer embargo is not possible as we got re-promoted. It would only be an option if we had not have gone up again.
1
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 23:58 - May 17 with 1832 viewsBrightonhoop

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 23:19 - May 17 by qpr1976

I think DaveB pointed out earlier in the thread that a transfer embargo is not possible as we got re-promoted. It would only be an option if we had not have gone up again.


As someone else noted above, Dave? We need to back TF to the hilt on this one. It is staggering that Joachim as an agent can hide behind Hughes for many of our worst signings all those years after the Tevez scandal.

I hope we have not agreed to a binding outcome. And tell them to grab their their ankles. I doubt they have any case in Law and it would run into all kinds of difficulties if they tried. The FL should ditch FFP completely and work on the fit and proper persons, both in terms of malicious intent (money laundering) and utter incompetence. With an annual MoT after anyone has passed. Through all four Leagues.

It will never happen. So we should tell them to shove it.
1
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 00:15 - May 18 with 1821 viewsLythamR

Given how long this has taken to get to this point i would not be surprised if the high and low parameters of a fine have already been agreed behind closed doors between the parties

I cannot see the club agreeing to a binding arbitration ruling with the potential for a 50M + fine. I could see them agreeing on a minimum and a potential maximum of around 8m
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 01:13 - May 18 with 1789 viewsdavman

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 15:14 - May 17 by Northernr

Would have to appear in next year's accounts.


...and it'd probably count towards this season's FFP calculations resulting in a fine, which will appear in next season's accounts, which will result in another FFP failure and another fine, which will appear in the next season's accounts...

...and so on...

Hopefully, the owners will swallow any fine...

Can we go out yet?
Poll: What would you take for Willock if a bid comes this month?

0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 07:37 - May 18 with 1695 viewsqpr1976

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 01:13 - May 18 by davman

...and it'd probably count towards this season's FFP calculations resulting in a fine, which will appear in next season's accounts, which will result in another FFP failure and another fine, which will appear in the next season's accounts...

...and so on...

Hopefully, the owners will swallow any fine...


Pretty sure it doesn't work like that. Any fines incurred do not count against the following year. Could be wrong but pretty sure I read that somewhere a while ago.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 07:54 - May 18 with 1677 viewsCroydonCaptJack

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 07:37 - May 18 by qpr1976

Pretty sure it doesn't work like that. Any fines incurred do not count against the following year. Could be wrong but pretty sure I read that somewhere a while ago.


I agree, I am pretty sure they don't count.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:22 - May 18 with 1580 viewsterryb

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 16:35 - May 17 by QPR_John

Did they not change the original FFP rules (the rules we are charged with contravening) and those in force in 2013 are different and less strict
[Post edited 17 May 2017 16:36]


They have certainly changed the rules, but we are charged with breaking the rules that were in place at that time. Exactly the same as Leicester are.

Does nobody think that if the FL didn't think they had a good chance of winning, they would have accepted our offer to pay £8 million as a fine? At least, I think I've read that we made that offer.

Instead, they are still demanding that the full amount is paid. I can't see how this can be a gimme to Rangers.

I don't even see how the "writing off" of the loan would help. It didn't happen in the financial accounts that we are charged with & would appear to have saved us from action for the season 2015-16. It can't be used twice.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:24 - May 18 with 1570 viewsPinnerPaul

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 12:01 - May 17 by nadera78

Depending on the format it could be a binding decision.


You can't contract out of law of the land, either side could go to a "proper" court of law if they wished.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:26 - May 18 with 1562 viewsNorthernr

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:22 - May 18 by terryb

They have certainly changed the rules, but we are charged with breaking the rules that were in place at that time. Exactly the same as Leicester are.

Does nobody think that if the FL didn't think they had a good chance of winning, they would have accepted our offer to pay £8 million as a fine? At least, I think I've read that we made that offer.

Instead, they are still demanding that the full amount is paid. I can't see how this can be a gimme to Rangers.

I don't even see how the "writing off" of the loan would help. It didn't happen in the financial accounts that we are charged with & would appear to have saved us from action for the season 2015-16. It can't be used twice.


I don't think we've ever made that offer.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:32 - May 18 with 1541 viewsPinnerPaul

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:22 - May 18 by terryb

They have certainly changed the rules, but we are charged with breaking the rules that were in place at that time. Exactly the same as Leicester are.

Does nobody think that if the FL didn't think they had a good chance of winning, they would have accepted our offer to pay £8 million as a fine? At least, I think I've read that we made that offer.

Instead, they are still demanding that the full amount is paid. I can't see how this can be a gimme to Rangers.

I don't even see how the "writing off" of the loan would help. It didn't happen in the financial accounts that we are charged with & would appear to have saved us from action for the season 2015-16. It can't be used twice.


Write offs aren't confined to 1 year only.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:33 - May 18 with 1540 viewsterryb

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:26 - May 18 by Northernr

I don't think we've ever made that offer.


You could well be right Clive.

I'm fairly sure I've read that we did, but that may have just been media/social network speculation.

I don't think I can be alone on this as a few posters mention this figure as a likely outcome. They must have some reason to name that amount.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:48 - May 18 with 1508 viewsDorse

I honestly think that the FFP regulations were created out of the best intentions but when a club is actually able to write those debts off it is difficult to see how they can apply.

Take Chelsea - in 2009 Abramovitch wrote off £340m. By 2015, Los Scumbos had received £1bn from him. I know the FFP rules don't apply in the Prem but my point is that their owner / Evil Overlord can suck up that debt and it doesn't affect the club. By comparison, the debt write-off / share transfer from Tony et al is small beer.

Furthermore, if they have a go at QPR, how many more clubs will get the same working over? I would bet there are more than a couple of clubs sweating this one.

'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!'

1
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:48 - May 18 with 1508 viewsNorthernr

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 22:17 - May 17 by Antti_Heinola

In principle I agree with the fit and proper test thing, obviously. We all do. But I feel like the FL get a bad rap. Because what, exactly, can they do? Legally speaking? They can try and stop someone, but then they could get taken to court, they'd probably lose, because what power do they have over who owns a company regardless of whether they compete in their league. They could maybe dock points of a club who appoint someone they've warned was not fit or proper maybe? I dunno. Feels extremely difficult.


Well in that case how are they allowed to tell public limited companies what they can and can't spend? How much loss they're allowed to make? How can they tell owners what debt they can and can't write off?

I remember reading in one of David Conn's book the chairman at Crewe, of all places, being dead against FFP because he said if they wanted, as part of a long term business plan at a well run club, to spend some money and gamble one season on getting promoted then they should be allowed to do that - and we've seen examples of that working well at Bournemouth and Leicester - without being punished for it.

The league seem to think they're able to do that legally so there's no reason at all why they cannot say if you want to be a member of our league and compete in our competitions then you must not be owned wholly or in part by anybody who:
- has ever been declared bankrupt
- has ever been a senior director or executive at a company that has gone into administration or been liquidated
- has ever had a non-motoring criminal conviction for which prison is a sentencing option (including spent convictions)
- has ever owned a football club that has entered administration before.

They could have a committee which interviews perspective owners and has to rubber stamp takeovers.

They could have a rule that says owners domiciled outside the UK must appoint a CEO with experience of running British football clubs to run the club in their absence (big part of our problems early doors was Phil Beard was minding the shop while Fernandes was all over the fcking world doing other stuff, if only we'd had Hoos then).

They could have a rule that says debt must be swallowed/written off by owners and not loaded onto a club's balance sheet otherwise the club won't be given fixtures for the following season.

They could have a rule (as in Germany) where no one person or company can own more than 49% of the club.

They could have a rule that says owners relinquish all control of a club and it is immediately placed into administration if they fail to pay the wages for three months in a row.

There could be a rule forbidding money being taken out of the football club and paid to the owners' other businesses - which is what Oyston did with all of Blackpool's Premier League money.

In a world where they think they can tell private businesses how much profit and loss they're allowed to make, they can pretty much do what they like - it's business, but it's also a football competition and you have to play by the league's rules. But they've no appetite to tackle rogue owners, which is one of their three biggest problems (EPPP and the growing cntishness of the Premier League being the other two).

And little wonder. Shaun Harvey, the incompetent buffoon now running the joint, was the guy at Leeds who helped Ken Bates to put the club into administration one day and then buy it straight back the next handing the creditors (including loads of small, indie, local businesses in Leeds) one Werthers Original in the pound.

This post has been edited by an administrator
1
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 12:40 - May 18 with 1410 viewsdaveB

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 10:22 - May 18 by terryb

They have certainly changed the rules, but we are charged with breaking the rules that were in place at that time. Exactly the same as Leicester are.

Does nobody think that if the FL didn't think they had a good chance of winning, they would have accepted our offer to pay £8 million as a fine? At least, I think I've read that we made that offer.

Instead, they are still demanding that the full amount is paid. I can't see how this can be a gimme to Rangers.

I don't even see how the "writing off" of the loan would help. It didn't happen in the financial accounts that we are charged with & would appear to have saved us from action for the season 2015-16. It can't be used twice.


I think both sides have a strong case. The rules ensured that the owners wrote off the losses that season so really if they rules are in place to help clubs then they worked and rather than the club being an extra 60 million or so in debt they only lost 8 million.

The league will argue though that whilst other clubs complied with the rules and had to struggle along when they got injuries or suspensions QPR kept signing players. Austin's injury saw us sign Maiga, Keane, Doyle and Morrison to cover a player we spent 4 million on with money we shouldn't have been spending according to the rules. We signed Cheverton on a short term deal and an American defender as well to fill the bench plus Aaron Hughes to cover injuries.

I think the case could easily go either way, a fine somewhere in the middle seems the most likely scenario but who knows
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 12:52 - May 18 with 1382 viewsElHoop

If it goes to arbitration then presumably we can't be guilty of something if we were already committed to it at the time it was made illegal. So, given the length of the discussions to date, the argument must be over what we could and could not have reasonably be expected to have done to have avoided the extent of the breach which occurred. It sounds potentially horrendously complicated and if the panel starts from scratch then it could take weeks to go through it all, as they won't have much of a clue what the issues are when they start. If both sides agree on the amounts involved but not the degree to which amounts were avoidable then that might make it easier, but we don't know the nature of the disagreement. If we disagree on both the actual amount of the losses and on whether they were avoidable, then it could take forever and be expensive in legal costs.
0
FFP Decision Incoming?! on 13:20 - May 18 with 1330 viewsdaveB

FFP Decision Incoming?! on 12:52 - May 18 by ElHoop

If it goes to arbitration then presumably we can't be guilty of something if we were already committed to it at the time it was made illegal. So, given the length of the discussions to date, the argument must be over what we could and could not have reasonably be expected to have done to have avoided the extent of the breach which occurred. It sounds potentially horrendously complicated and if the panel starts from scratch then it could take weeks to go through it all, as they won't have much of a clue what the issues are when they start. If both sides agree on the amounts involved but not the degree to which amounts were avoidable then that might make it easier, but we don't know the nature of the disagreement. If we disagree on both the actual amount of the losses and on whether they were avoidable, then it could take forever and be expensive in legal costs.


There is nothing we could have done about contracts handed out before rules came in but plenty we could have done abut the number of signings and amount we spent we made after we got relegated and knew what the rules were
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024