| Bournemouth FFP on 11:36 - Jul 5 with 6392 views | colinallcars |
I wonder what the “huge losses” were in comparison to ours. |  | |  |
| Bournemouth FFP on 11:42 - Jul 5 with 6354 views | Ashdown_Ranger |
| Bournemouth FFP on 11:36 - Jul 5 by colinallcars |
I wonder what the “huge losses” were in comparison to ours. |
I think it was in the region of £38m loss and the initial fine around £10m, which looks to have been about halved. |  | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 14:10 - Jul 5 with 6060 views | derbyhoop |
It seems to set a precedent. However, unlike Bournemouth, we didn't stay up, so got doubly punished. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 14:52 - Jul 5 with 5990 views | switchingcode |
That’ll teach em and sends a tough message to any championship side who says bollox to FFP.Bournmouth must have pocketed a few hundred mill by getting promoted they must be gutted by this fine.FFP is now a joke and makes me wonder why my club takes it So seriously. |  | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:01 - Jul 5 with 5969 views | Juzzie |
"plucky Bournemouth" my arse. They cheated their way to promotion in the same way we and others are being accused of.
Media and public will still fawn all over them though. |  | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:40 - Jul 5 with 5886 views | kingo |
We fell foul of the 2012 rules which were subsequently changed in November 2014, I believe, to a more lenient and sensible set of rules. But Bournemouth were promoted in 2015 so they breached the more lenient rules that were introduced.
I believe our case is based on a principle of Law called Lex Mitor, which basically says that if a law changes then you will be subject to the newer law and not the older law that was obviously found to be wrong and that is why it was changed. |  |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:44 - Jul 5 with 5876 views | Juzzie |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:40 - Jul 5 by kingo |
We fell foul of the 2012 rules which were subsequently changed in November 2014, I believe, to a more lenient and sensible set of rules. But Bournemouth were promoted in 2015 so they breached the more lenient rules that were introduced.
I believe our case is based on a principle of Law called Lex Mitor, which basically says that if a law changes then you will be subject to the newer law and not the older law that was obviously found to be wrong and that is why it was changed. |
So if in the year 2000 killing someone is deemed not to be a crime and I bludgeon my neighbour to death 'cos they played their music too loud keeping me and my kids awake then in 2003 they decide that killing someone actually is a crime, I'd then be tried for doing something that wasn't deemed illegal at the time of the so-called offence?
Seems a bit wrong to me tbh. | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:49 - Jul 5 with 5860 views | kingo |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:44 - Jul 5 by Juzzie |
So if in the year 2000 killing someone is deemed not to be a crime and I bludgeon my neighbour to death 'cos they played their music too loud keeping me and my kids awake then in 2003 they decide that killing someone actually is a crime, I'd then be tried for doing something that wasn't deemed illegal at the time of the so-called offence?
Seems a bit wrong to me tbh. |
No the opposite round really. If you murdered your neighbour in 2000 and there was a death penalty but you didn't get caught till 2003 and it had been abolished, then you wouldn't be executed but merely put away.
So we are saying that the law in 2012 was clearly wrong so you can't fine us with that ruling but the 2014 one where it was more lenient. [Post edited 5 Jul 2018 15:50]
| |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bournemouth FFP on 16:41 - Jul 5 with 5761 views | Juzzie |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:49 - Jul 5 by kingo |
No the opposite round really. If you murdered your neighbour in 2000 and there was a death penalty but you didn't get caught till 2003 and it had been abolished, then you wouldn't be executed but merely put away.
So we are saying that the law in 2012 was clearly wrong so you can't fine us with that ruling but the 2014 one where it was more lenient. [Post edited 5 Jul 2018 15:50]
|
ah, gotcha! Thanks. | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 17:11 - Jul 5 with 5678 views | enfieldargh |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:44 - Jul 5 by Juzzie |
So if in the year 2000 killing someone is deemed not to be a crime and I bludgeon my neighbour to death 'cos they played their music too loud keeping me and my kids awake then in 2003 they decide that killing someone actually is a crime, I'd then be tried for doing something that wasn't deemed illegal at the time of the so-called offence?
Seems a bit wrong to me tbh. |
Could you please come round my gaff, I cant stand her next door |  |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 22:40 - Jul 5 with 5395 views | bosh67 |
I am not sure how Bouremouth get away with under £5m FFP fine even though they stayed up having lost £38m in the year they went up, We get a £60m fine for getting relegated which must mean that our loss was the national debt of Cuba?
can someone explain why a Prem team gets a £4.75m fine and we get £60+m. Surely our legal team must react? |  |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 00:29 - Jul 6 with 5302 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Bournemouth FFP on 22:40 - Jul 5 by bosh67 |
I am not sure how Bouremouth get away with under £5m FFP fine even though they stayed up having lost £38m in the year they went up, We get a £60m fine for getting relegated which must mean that our loss was the national debt of Cuba?
can someone explain why a Prem team gets a £4.75m fine and we get £60+m. Surely our legal team must react? |
Where are you getting the £60m figure from? I seem to remember £40m at most being reported.
It beggars belief either way. I'd have thought somewhere in the region of £10m would satisfy everyone concerned. QPR or non QPR. FL or non FL. No one loses face. Maybe i'm being naive. |  |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 06:35 - Jul 6 with 5222 views | distortR |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:01 - Jul 5 by Juzzie |
"plucky Bournemouth" my arse. They cheated their way to promotion in the same way we and others are being accused of.
Media and public will still fawn all over them though. |
Their owner invested money and is reaping the rewards, the rules a bollox. As long as the owner doesn't lump the debt he/she created onto the club, what's the problem? level playing field my arse.
Although, without FFP, christ knows what our squad would look like now, but I bet it would be much older, much better paid and much more complacent | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:02 - Jul 6 with 5024 views | Juzzie |
| Bournemouth FFP on 06:35 - Jul 6 by distortR |
Their owner invested money and is reaping the rewards, the rules a bollox. As long as the owner doesn't lump the debt he/she created onto the club, what's the problem? level playing field my arse.
Although, without FFP, christ knows what our squad would look like now, but I bet it would be much older, much better paid and much more complacent |
"As long as the owner doesn't lump the debt he/she created onto the club, what's the problem?" - I think one of the requirements of FFP is that a club has to operate within its own income and outgoings, they can't relay on someone pumping money in even if they'll take the debt and not lump it onto the club. I think we 'lost' because trying to convert the debts into something else didn't wash with the authorities.
This is why FFP buggers up clubs like us because we could never be able to do a Wimbledon because we just can't generate the income, particularly ticket sales, that the big boys can.
Clubs like Man City and PSG have gotten away with it because it's done by sponsoring the men's toilet for £100m. We should do this too..... the Air Asia Ellerslie Road Catering Kiosk anyone? | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 17:19 - Jul 6 with 4936 views | terryb |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:02 - Jul 6 by Juzzie |
"As long as the owner doesn't lump the debt he/she created onto the club, what's the problem?" - I think one of the requirements of FFP is that a club has to operate within its own income and outgoings, they can't relay on someone pumping money in even if they'll take the debt and not lump it onto the club. I think we 'lost' because trying to convert the debts into something else didn't wash with the authorities.
This is why FFP buggers up clubs like us because we could never be able to do a Wimbledon because we just can't generate the income, particularly ticket sales, that the big boys can.
Clubs like Man City and PSG have gotten away with it because it's done by sponsoring the men's toilet for £100m. We should do this too..... the Air Asia Ellerslie Road Catering Kiosk anyone? |
I'm fairly sure that we didn't try to convert the debts during that financial year.
That happened in 2016 I think, after we had been relegated & knew we had failed FFP. | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 20:49 - Jul 6 with 4816 views | QPR_John |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:02 - Jul 6 by Juzzie |
"As long as the owner doesn't lump the debt he/she created onto the club, what's the problem?" - I think one of the requirements of FFP is that a club has to operate within its own income and outgoings, they can't relay on someone pumping money in even if they'll take the debt and not lump it onto the club. I think we 'lost' because trying to convert the debts into something else didn't wash with the authorities.
This is why FFP buggers up clubs like us because we could never be able to do a Wimbledon because we just can't generate the income, particularly ticket sales, that the big boys can.
Clubs like Man City and PSG have gotten away with it because it's done by sponsoring the men's toilet for £100m. We should do this too..... the Air Asia Ellerslie Road Catering Kiosk anyone? |
" I think one of the requirements of FFP is that a club has to operate within its own income and outgoings, they can't relay on someone pumping money in even if they'll take the debt and not lump it onto the club"
Surely that cannot be the case. FFP was introduced to protect clubs from going into debt. if not debt then what is FFP doing. You might as well decide the league tables on a clubs income. | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 21:06 - Jul 6 with 4800 views | johncharles |
Come on, FFP is bollox. They are there to keep the rich clubs rich and the poor clubs down.
It’s big business v grass roots football. Smaller clubs will never get the decision. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 09:35 - Jul 7 with 4624 views | GroveR |
| Bournemouth FFP on 15:40 - Jul 5 by kingo |
We fell foul of the 2012 rules which were subsequently changed in November 2014, I believe, to a more lenient and sensible set of rules. But Bournemouth were promoted in 2015 so they breached the more lenient rules that were introduced.
I believe our case is based on a principle of Law called Lex Mitor, which basically says that if a law changes then you will be subject to the newer law and not the older law that was obviously found to be wrong and that is why it was changed. |
"I believe our case is based on a principle of Law called Lex Mitor"
If our case is based on a principle of law my confidence levels are around where they were whenever I saw Zesh Rehman warming up. |  | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:18 - Jul 7 with 4588 views | kingo |
| Bournemouth FFP on 09:35 - Jul 7 by GroveR |
"I believe our case is based on a principle of Law called Lex Mitor"
If our case is based on a principle of law my confidence levels are around where they were whenever I saw Zesh Rehman warming up. |
Well let’s put it this way. If a legal case is not based on a principle of law then it would be more like Ned Zelic. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:34 - Jul 7 with 4563 views | GroveR |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:18 - Jul 7 by kingo |
Well let’s put it this way. If a legal case is not based on a principle of law then it would be more like Ned Zelic. |
Are we saying "we're bang to rights here" and mitigating the fine or trying to get the entire thing dismissed? | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:51 - Jul 7 with 4545 views | kingo |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:34 - Jul 7 by GroveR |
Are we saying "we're bang to rights here" and mitigating the fine or trying to get the entire thing dismissed? |
We are contesting the amount of the fine. The 2012 FFP was then superseded in 2014 to a much more lenient criteria. So we are saying that they can’t use the 2012 criteria as they themselves recognised it was wrong. This is the principle of law known as Lex Mitor. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 14:42 - Jul 8 with 4377 views | GroveR |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:51 - Jul 7 by kingo |
We are contesting the amount of the fine. The 2012 FFP was then superseded in 2014 to a much more lenient criteria. So we are saying that they can’t use the 2012 criteria as they themselves recognised it was wrong. This is the principle of law known as Lex Mitor. |
Cheers. Weren't the rules revised again in 2016? | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 16:15 - Jul 8 with 4312 views | distortR |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:51 - Jul 7 by kingo |
We are contesting the amount of the fine. The 2012 FFP was then superseded in 2014 to a much more lenient criteria. So we are saying that they can’t use the 2012 criteria as they themselves recognised it was wrong. This is the principle of law known as Lex Mitor. |
'if there's a big fine, in your neighbourhood
Who ya gonna call?
Lex Mitor!
If it's really unfair, and it don't look good
Who ya gonna call?
Lex Mitor' | | | |
| Bournemouth FFP on 16:44 - Jul 8 with 4272 views | Dorse |
Our biggest problem seems to hinge around us not being 'plucky' enough. Grubby faces and a chorus or two of My Old Man's A Dustman and we might not be in this state. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Bournemouth FFP on 10:15 - Jul 9 with 4132 views | Juzzie |
| Bournemouth FFP on 20:49 - Jul 6 by QPR_John |
" I think one of the requirements of FFP is that a club has to operate within its own income and outgoings, they can't relay on someone pumping money in even if they'll take the debt and not lump it onto the club"
Surely that cannot be the case. FFP was introduced to protect clubs from going into debt. if not debt then what is FFP doing. You might as well decide the league tables on a clubs income. |
It feels to me that is the case. By forcing clubs to operate within their means (and no outside contributions) and not spend more than what comes in, they then won't go in to debt. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
