| FFP 06:50 - Jan 31 with 9273 views | CorbyQPR |
This was posted on Twitter last night, true or not?
I think people are missing the point current FFP rules are based on losses accrued over a 3 year period, for us includes 1 year in prem so we cannot spend now or risk transfer embargo in summer, where in the summer prem losses fall out of equation and shackles can come off #QPR |  | | |  |
| FFP on 07:13 - Jan 31 with 6329 views | daveB |
it is done over 3 seasons so doesn't include the prem is the 3 years we've been in this year, Clive explains it far better than I ever could but if we pass this year with a lot of players out of contract it gives the club a real chance to build again in the summer |  | | |
| FFP on 08:39 - Jan 31 with 6069 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| FFP on 07:13 - Jan 31 by daveB |
it is done over 3 seasons so doesn't include the prem is the 3 years we've been in this year, Clive explains it far better than I ever could but if we pass this year with a lot of players out of contract it gives the club a real chance to build again in the summer |
Except this will be the last time we get the parachute payment (I believe) so we will need to get it right. It is certainly a small window of opportunity at least. |  | | |
| FFP on 09:20 - Jan 31 with 5957 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
I don't think the "shackles will come off". There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to become more competitive over the next few years. That's the most i'm hoping for. |  |
| |
| FFP on 09:51 - Jan 31 with 5859 views | DesertBoot |
We have so many players on our books, several not getting a sniff of first-team action when they should be.
FFP or not, there are teams several places higher up the table with smaller squads and seemingly lesser quality players. |  |
| Wish I could be like David Watts |
| |
| FFP on 09:54 - Jan 31 with 5833 views | stevec |
| FFP on 09:20 - Jan 31 by CliveWilsonSaid |
I don't think the "shackles will come off". There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to become more competitive over the next few years. That's the most i'm hoping for. |
So if you get relegated to the Championship with a £100mill wage bill you are STILL shackled within this 3 year wall ? think you get £40 mill parachute first year only so you'd most likely breach the 3 year limit in the first season.
As you say, can't see the shackles coming off next season and unlikely the season after that. Here's to 2020/21 season when we can next go mental. Assume that is what Wolves have done? |  | | |
| FFP on 09:57 - Jan 31 with 5824 views | terryb |
| FFP on 08:39 - Jan 31 by CroydonCaptJack |
Except this will be the last time we get the parachute payment (I believe) so we will need to get it right. It is certainly a small window of opportunity at least. |
We shouldn't need the parachute payments then though.
They are designed to help meet the contracted salaries of "Premier" players.
We will have nobody left that is on a contract from our last brief visit to that league. | | | |
| FFP on 10:07 - Jan 31 with 5789 views | daveB |
| FFP on 09:54 - Jan 31 by stevec |
So if you get relegated to the Championship with a £100mill wage bill you are STILL shackled within this 3 year wall ? think you get £40 mill parachute first year only so you'd most likely breach the 3 year limit in the first season.
As you say, can't see the shackles coming off next season and unlikely the season after that. Here's to 2020/21 season when we can next go mental. Assume that is what Wolves have done? |
surely it would be better to just not go mental again and avoid having to go through this again. | | | |
| FFP on 10:58 - Jan 31 with 5632 views | QPR_John |
Surely if or whenever we pay the £40M fine then that year we fail FFP as I doubt any income will cover it. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP on 12:57 - Jan 31 with 5402 views | daveB |
| FFP on 10:58 - Jan 31 by QPR_John |
Surely if or whenever we pay the £40M fine then that year we fail FFP as I doubt any income will cover it. |
fine doesn't count towards FFP | | | |
| FFP on 13:12 - Jan 31 with 5338 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| FFP on 09:57 - Jan 31 by terryb |
We shouldn't need the parachute payments then though.
They are designed to help meet the contracted salaries of "Premier" players.
We will have nobody left that is on a contract from our last brief visit to that league. |
That is very true but it will still be income we wont have the following season. | | | |
| FFP on 14:15 - Jan 31 with 5160 views | terryb |
| FFP on 13:12 - Jan 31 by CroydonCaptJack |
That is very true but it will still be income we wont have the following season. |
Totally agree with that, but if we failed FFP because we have offered players/officials contracts that we can't afford in the last three years, we would deserve to face an embargo.
As well as having been top heavy with players, that may also apply to the management/coaching staff. Another reason for being stuck with Holloway & Bircham for at least the end of this season! | | | |
| FFP on 14:47 - Jan 31 with 5080 views | Northernr |
Not true. The Premier League and Football League FFP rules are different. Our three years started after relegation so the first set of results we'll be judged by are the ones for this season released this time next year. |  | | |
| FFP on 15:02 - Jan 31 with 5023 views | kingsburyR |
Not to complicate issues but FFP is changing AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Desperate attempt to try and control transfer fees and wages! |  |
| Dont know why we bother. .... but we do! |
| |
| FFP on 15:17 - Jan 31 with 4978 views | colinallcars |
Is it true that the owner of a club is not allowed to pay the fine out of his own pocket if he was so minded ? If the fine has to be paid from the club's revenue then surely that would be impossible otherwise the club would have had sufficient funds to avoid the fine in the first place |  | | |
| FFP on 16:37 - Jan 31 with 4878 views | QPR_John |
| FFP on 15:17 - Jan 31 by colinallcars |
Is it true that the owner of a club is not allowed to pay the fine out of his own pocket if he was so minded ? If the fine has to be paid from the club's revenue then surely that would be impossible otherwise the club would have had sufficient funds to avoid the fine in the first place |
That's as I see it. Under FFP a £40M fine would if enforced kill the club as we simply would not have it to pay. I cannot see the FL letting that happen maybe that's the reason for the delay in imposing the fine [Post edited 31 Jan 2018 16:41]
| | | |
| FFP on 16:41 - Jan 31 with 4863 views | QPR_John |
| FFP on 12:57 - Jan 31 by daveB |
fine doesn't count towards FFP |
Hopefully you are correct and obviously that would make sense but I have not seen any info on sites trying to explain FFP referring to the fine and sense and the FL are hardly bedfellows. | | | |
| FFP on 17:03 - Jan 31 with 4795 views | colinallcars |
| FFP on 16:37 - Jan 31 by QPR_John |
That's as I see it. Under FFP a £40M fine would if enforced kill the club as we simply would not have it to pay. I cannot see the FL letting that happen maybe that's the reason for the delay in imposing the fine [Post edited 31 Jan 2018 16:41]
|
What makes up the club's income apart from ticket sales ? Presumably sales of stuff on matchdays, merchandising etc. Adverts around the ground....what's to stop AirAsia paying 40m for such advertising ( taking it to silly extremes). Didn't Man City do something similar to falsely enhance their revenues and avoid FFP ? | | | |
| FFP on 17:13 - Jan 31 with 4769 views | Brightonhoop |
| FFP on 17:03 - Jan 31 by colinallcars |
What makes up the club's income apart from ticket sales ? Presumably sales of stuff on matchdays, merchandising etc. Adverts around the ground....what's to stop AirAsia paying 40m for such advertising ( taking it to silly extremes). Didn't Man City do something similar to falsely enhance their revenues and avoid FFP ? |
Yes, but the Man City case is, I read recently, back under the microscope for that very reason, that it was allegedly payed in effect by a third party getting City off the hook and circumnavigating the rules. |  | | |
| FFP on 17:17 - Jan 31 with 4743 views | QPR_John |
| FFP on 17:03 - Jan 31 by colinallcars |
What makes up the club's income apart from ticket sales ? Presumably sales of stuff on matchdays, merchandising etc. Adverts around the ground....what's to stop AirAsia paying 40m for such advertising ( taking it to silly extremes). Didn't Man City do something similar to falsely enhance their revenues and avoid FFP ? |
The Premier League/FA/EUFA are scared of Manchester City that is the difference. As for us, and clubs like us, the FL would attach a market rate formula to any such income | | | |
| FFP on 17:22 - Jan 31 with 4725 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP on 08:39 - Jan 31 by CroydonCaptJack |
Except this will be the last time we get the parachute payment (I believe) so we will need to get it right. It is certainly a small window of opportunity at least. |
We get 1 more payment to cover next season. | | | |
| FFP on 17:25 - Jan 31 with 4716 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP on 16:37 - Jan 31 by QPR_John |
That's as I see it. Under FFP a £40M fine would if enforced kill the club as we simply would not have it to pay. I cannot see the FL letting that happen maybe that's the reason for the delay in imposing the fine [Post edited 31 Jan 2018 16:41]
|
The delay is because we are appealing and FL have already said they ' will work with our member club' over the fine - so no chance they will send us into admin by demanding the fine in one hit. | | | |
| FFP on 17:27 - Jan 31 with 4706 views | Northernr |
| FFP on 17:03 - Jan 31 by colinallcars |
What makes up the club's income apart from ticket sales ? Presumably sales of stuff on matchdays, merchandising etc. Adverts around the ground....what's to stop AirAsia paying 40m for such advertising ( taking it to silly extremes). Didn't Man City do something similar to falsely enhance their revenues and avoid FFP ? |
The rule explicitly forbids it - otherwise like you say Air Asia could just do a £200m shirt sponsorship deal with us every season. | | | |
| FFP on 17:31 - Jan 31 with 4690 views | MedwayR |
I don't think Man City got away with their 'sponsorship' bluff as they have already been fined £49m by UEFA a few years ago and had restrictions placed on their squad for UEFA competitions. Since then their revenue has grown and their transfer strategy seems to be more calculated to stay within FFP rules, I also think the UEFA FFP rules may have changed as they consider finances over a 3 year hence PSG signing Mbappe on loan with a permanent transfer this summer allowing PSG to spread their big spending of late over a longer period to avoid FFP sanctions.
I think to get away with the sponsorship bluff you'd have to demonstrate that it falls within a reasonable benchmark of other sponsorship deals, which Man City's probably does now as Man Utd, chelsea etc have such big sponsorship deals. I don't think we'd get away with that...we just have to accept that we need to live within our means and hope for the best, we have to aspire to follow in Burnley's footsteps. |  |
| |
| FFP on 18:33 - Jan 31 with 4612 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP on 17:27 - Jan 31 by Northernr |
The rule explicitly forbids it - otherwise like you say Air Asia could just do a £200m shirt sponsorship deal with us every season. |
It has to be a little bit subjective though?
I guess they have to estimate what a national airline might pay for the AirAsia level of sponsorship at QPR and allow them to put in that?
Not allowing ANY income from the AirAsia sponsorship would be grossly unfair surely? | | | |
| FFP on 18:35 - Jan 31 with 4611 views | Northernr |
| FFP on 18:33 - Jan 31 by PinnerPaul |
It has to be a little bit subjective though?
I guess they have to estimate what a national airline might pay for the AirAsia level of sponsorship at QPR and allow them to put in that?
Not allowing ANY income from the AirAsia sponsorship would be grossly unfair surely? |
Yeh exactly that. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
