| FFP - why only us? 08:14 - May 6 with 8993 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 08:20 - May 6 with 4943 views | loftboy |
It was different rules when we broke them. |  |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:25 - May 6 with 4909 views | Northolt_Rs |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:20 - May 6 by loftboy |
It was different rules when we broke them. |
But surely we should be able to go back and ask for some leniency given how everybody else is now very obviously taking the piss out of FFP. If crippling our club was supposed to be a deterrent to others it clearly hasn’t worked..... If it wasn’t done as a deterrent what does the EFL get out of ruining one of their member clubs? It can’t possibly be fair that we get smashed and then the rules change and everybody else gets off Scot free.... Can it?
Why isn’t the club making a noise about the fact this is obviously hugely unfair to only one club in the whole football league? [Post edited 6 May 2019 8:26]
| |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:33 - May 6 with 4852 views | Roller |
The historic breach is not the reason that we are living under tight budgets now, that is to ensure we stay within the current rules. Our fine is excluded from our on-going FFP assessments and is not affecting our current budgets.
Our lawyers did a fantastic job getting our fine down to £17 million with £3 million costs. People tend to forget by how much we broke the rules. Birmingham exceeded their allowed £39 million by less than £10 million, we exceeded our (this is from memory) allowed £8 million by over £50 million. |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:34 - May 6 with 4851 views | londonscottish |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:25 - May 6 by Northolt_Rs |
But surely we should be able to go back and ask for some leniency given how everybody else is now very obviously taking the piss out of FFP. If crippling our club was supposed to be a deterrent to others it clearly hasn’t worked..... If it wasn’t done as a deterrent what does the EFL get out of ruining one of their member clubs? It can’t possibly be fair that we get smashed and then the rules change and everybody else gets off Scot free.... Can it?
Why isn’t the club making a noise about the fact this is obviously hugely unfair to only one club in the whole football league? [Post edited 6 May 2019 8:26]
|
That was QPR's defence; that the rules were clearly so punitive that the league massively changed them for the following season.
But then the league decided to make an example of Rangers and went ahead using the old rules...... |  |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:35 - May 6 with 4844 views | stevec |
Perhaps we should ask precisely where this £42m has gone or going.
£21m of that is OUR money and if it is going to charity then we should know how much to each and to whom.
Perfectly happy giving to charity when it’s my choice where it goes, but it’s not acceptable to take money I want QPR to receive .
When we find out to whom our money is going it gives us the right to know whether we wish to contribute to that charity going forward.
I think the club have a right to get this information as the fine should be transparent. |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:46 - May 6 with 4799 views | Maggsinho |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:35 - May 6 by stevec |
Perhaps we should ask precisely where this £42m has gone or going.
£21m of that is OUR money and if it is going to charity then we should know how much to each and to whom.
Perfectly happy giving to charity when it’s my choice where it goes, but it’s not acceptable to take money I want QPR to receive .
When we find out to whom our money is going it gives us the right to know whether we wish to contribute to that charity going forward.
I think the club have a right to get this information as the fine should be transparent. |
It went to Grenfell at QPR’s request I believe. [Post edited 6 May 2019 8:47]
|  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:15 - May 6 with 4675 views | stevec |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:46 - May 6 by Maggsinho |
It went to Grenfell at QPR’s request I believe. [Post edited 6 May 2019 8:47]
|
Ah wasn’t aware of that. If that’s the case then fair enough.
Did the club state it was specifically the FFP fine? | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:24 - May 6 with 4630 views | kingo |
The EFL or Shaun Harvey went after us for having the audacity of proving that he was wrong. We could have won the case in the courts, there is a legal principle called Lex Mitor which states you can not be punished with a ‘harsh’ law if that law has since been made less harsh. The EFL basically said if you decide to take it to court and prove us wrong we simply won’t give you any fixtures, in any division. We could have won the case but realistically wouldn’t have had a club. |  |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP - why only us? on 09:44 - May 6 with 4540 views | Roller |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:35 - May 6 by stevec |
Perhaps we should ask precisely where this £42m has gone or going.
£21m of that is OUR money and if it is going to charity then we should know how much to each and to whom.
Perfectly happy giving to charity when it’s my choice where it goes, but it’s not acceptable to take money I want QPR to receive .
When we find out to whom our money is going it gives us the right to know whether we wish to contribute to that charity going forward.
I think the club have a right to get this information as the fine should be transparent. |
There is no £42 million. Our fine was £17 million, there were £3 million costs and £22 million of debt converted into equity. That is why it was such a good deal. It let the EFL claim they had upheld the £42 million they were after but the club could claim it was only £17 million. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:21 - May 6 with 4421 views | bosh67 |
Without the 9 point deduction Birmingham would have reached the lofty heights of 14th. They must be gutted. The other posters are right, Birmingham broke different rules and it was up to the powers that be to meat out the punishment. We actually have very good lawyers. We weren't whiter than white. We didn't just bend the rules we stamped all over them and posted naked pictures of them all over the internet. Without our legal team we probably would have got the full fine and possible suffered a similar fate at the time to Luton. They crashed out of this league 12 years ago so it's taken over a decade and near extinction for them to recover. We're still in this league, just. Quite a lot of that is down to our legal team. |  |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:22 - May 6 with 4419 views | daveB |
The club did make a noise about and did all they can but we broke the rules and were punished for it. No point us crying about it now |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:23 - May 6 with 4412 views | terryb |
Try telling Blackburn fans that we're the only club to have suffered!
A transfer embargo that lasted for about three years & resulted in being relegated to league one. Is that not a worse punishment than we received?
This is the punishment that we would have received if Bobby Zamora had not scored that goal. Personally, I'm happier with Tune Group having to fund a self inflicted fine than face an embargo for that time.
I also don't understand that nine poinbts is meaningless. It hasn't resulted in Birmingham being relegated, BUT it may have ended any chances that they had of being in the play offs this season. How do you think we would cope with a nine point deduction? A lot on this board would complain that it would relegate us!
Of course, the timing of the deduction wasn't good & must be improved on. Ideally, any point deduction should be from the start of the season & I would agree that if Brum had to suffer this next season rather than when they were almost clear of relegation it would have been a bigger deterrent.
As to what has happened to Derby. We will find out when this seasons accounts are considered. The same with Villa, Wednesday, Leeds etc. If the sale of their ground is accepted as being within FFP regulations then the door will be opened for many a creative accountancy manoeuvre. At present, we don't know if it has been accepted. |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:31 - May 6 with 4379 views | DejR_vu |
| FFP - why only us? on 08:20 - May 6 by loftboy |
It was different rules when we broke them. |
The individual rules were different but the overarching framework under which the punishments have been handed down is the same, with the same objectives. The foundation of Common Law are the doctrines of equitableness. One club receives a monumental fine and another a punishment that moves them from 14th to 17th. How can that be considered equitable? Is that not contrary to the principle of law?
At the time that the club was contesting the rules, it believed the authorities to believe that the old rules were flawed and would be amended. However, the significant development since, IMO, has been the punishment served on another member club having been proven irrelevant. Birmingham’s and QPR’s punishments are simply not comparable. One imposes a monumental financial punishment that will remain on the club's balance sheet for a decade, the other has no financial or practical implications whatsoever.
It is possible, of course, that, ultimately, it actually suited the club to accept the fine. The process was played out over two or three years. The ruling effectively capped the future funding liability at £13m per annum, when everyone can see that to get promoted again, significantly more than that would likely be needed. So by accepting the judgement it can legitimately claim that, having fallen foul of FFP once, in order to comply moving forward it can’t spend any more money even though the owners would like to. Perhaps, it got to the point where, having spent £500m or so, the owners didn’t want to keep pouring money in? Not unreasonable, if true; the way they spent the money is a different discussion altogether. | |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:37 - May 6 with 4355 views | DejR_vu |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:23 - May 6 by terryb |
Try telling Blackburn fans that we're the only club to have suffered!
A transfer embargo that lasted for about three years & resulted in being relegated to league one. Is that not a worse punishment than we received?
This is the punishment that we would have received if Bobby Zamora had not scored that goal. Personally, I'm happier with Tune Group having to fund a self inflicted fine than face an embargo for that time.
I also don't understand that nine poinbts is meaningless. It hasn't resulted in Birmingham being relegated, BUT it may have ended any chances that they had of being in the play offs this season. How do you think we would cope with a nine point deduction? A lot on this board would complain that it would relegate us!
Of course, the timing of the deduction wasn't good & must be improved on. Ideally, any point deduction should be from the start of the season & I would agree that if Brum had to suffer this next season rather than when they were almost clear of relegation it would have been a bigger deterrent.
As to what has happened to Derby. We will find out when this seasons accounts are considered. The same with Villa, Wednesday, Leeds etc. If the sale of their ground is accepted as being within FFP regulations then the door will be opened for many a creative accountancy manoeuvre. At present, we don't know if it has been accepted. |
I believe that any club that can prove tangible loss i.e. financial loss or relegation resulting in financial loss/barrier to promotion to the Premier League, could point to Birmingham as grounds for redress. [Post edited 6 May 2019 10:40]
| |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:22 - May 6 with 4203 views | PunteR |
| FFP - why only us? on 10:31 - May 6 by DejR_vu |
The individual rules were different but the overarching framework under which the punishments have been handed down is the same, with the same objectives. The foundation of Common Law are the doctrines of equitableness. One club receives a monumental fine and another a punishment that moves them from 14th to 17th. How can that be considered equitable? Is that not contrary to the principle of law?
At the time that the club was contesting the rules, it believed the authorities to believe that the old rules were flawed and would be amended. However, the significant development since, IMO, has been the punishment served on another member club having been proven irrelevant. Birmingham’s and QPR’s punishments are simply not comparable. One imposes a monumental financial punishment that will remain on the club's balance sheet for a decade, the other has no financial or practical implications whatsoever.
It is possible, of course, that, ultimately, it actually suited the club to accept the fine. The process was played out over two or three years. The ruling effectively capped the future funding liability at £13m per annum, when everyone can see that to get promoted again, significantly more than that would likely be needed. So by accepting the judgement it can legitimately claim that, having fallen foul of FFP once, in order to comply moving forward it can’t spend any more money even though the owners would like to. Perhaps, it got to the point where, having spent £500m or so, the owners didn’t want to keep pouring money in? Not unreasonable, if true; the way they spent the money is a different discussion altogether. |
I think there's something in that in your last paragraph. I've said it before on here that it suits the owners now to not spend (who can blame them?). We've still got some of the richest owners in the whole of the football league don't forget. My gut feeling , if i can use a construction industry term, is we're on a go slow. Basically pulling in the reins until future plans are signed off.
Maybe new training ground and stadium has been holding things up? or maybe they are waiting for how the FFP pans out with other clubs, Derby etc ?
Or maybe they believe our youth development and scouts are going to miraculously conjure up a top championship side with the waifs and strays the football world leaves behind?
Whatever it is i cant see these owners wanting to run a L1 club so they need to get their arses into gear because we are slowly slipping down to there and as its proven time and time again our owners are not that football savvy. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:30 - May 6 with 4162 views | RANGERS4EVER |
At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that....
The EFL and Shaun Harvey are absolute f*cking morons |  |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:38 - May 6 with 4143 views | PunteR |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:30 - May 6 by RANGERS4EVER |
At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that....
The EFL and Shaun Harvey are absolute f*cking morons |
Agree | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:54 - May 6 with 4096 views | ozexile |
I think if Villa and Leeds don't go up there'll be a push for premier league 2 and leave the efl up the creek without a paddle. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:54 - May 6 with 4096 views | Ned_Kennedys |
I thought the EFL had already agreed that Derby's 'sell our ground to our owner' move was an acceptable way to meet FFP requirements and the matter was finished? |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 13:29 - May 6 with 3951 views | Northolt_Rs |
| FFP - why only us? on 11:54 - May 6 by Ned_Kennedys |
I thought the EFL had already agreed that Derby's 'sell our ground to our owner' move was an acceptable way to meet FFP requirements and the matter was finished? |
But how can that possibly be acceptable? It’s clearly taking the piss out of FFP. | |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 13:32 - May 6 with 3943 views | Northolt_Rs |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:24 - May 6 by kingo |
The EFL or Shaun Harvey went after us for having the audacity of proving that he was wrong. We could have won the case in the courts, there is a legal principle called Lex Mitor which states you can not be punished with a ‘harsh’ law if that law has since been made less harsh. The EFL basically said if you decide to take it to court and prove us wrong we simply won’t give you any fixtures, in any division. We could have won the case but realistically wouldn’t have had a club. |
I would rather we had taken the EFL to court. It just doesn’t seem at all fair to me to be so heavily punished when others are getting away with taking the piss out of FFP. Should be the same rules for all of us. | |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 15:37 - May 6 with 3737 views | QPR_John |
| FFP - why only us? on 09:24 - May 6 by kingo |
The EFL or Shaun Harvey went after us for having the audacity of proving that he was wrong. We could have won the case in the courts, there is a legal principle called Lex Mitor which states you can not be punished with a ‘harsh’ law if that law has since been made less harsh. The EFL basically said if you decide to take it to court and prove us wrong we simply won’t give you any fixtures, in any division. We could have won the case but realistically wouldn’t have had a club. |
There is no way the EFL could have threatened us to stop us going to court. They would have been in all sorts of trouble. | | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 15:53 - May 6 with 3719 views | jonno |
| FFP - why only us? on 13:29 - May 6 by Northolt_Rs |
But how can that possibly be acceptable? It’s clearly taking the piss out of FFP. |
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. |  | | |
| FFP - why only us? on 15:58 - May 6 with 3707 views | kingo |
| FFP - why only us? on 15:37 - May 6 by QPR_John |
There is no way the EFL could have threatened us to stop us going to court. They would have been in all sorts of trouble. |
It was in all the press. We were being told we would playing non league. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| FFP - why only us? on 16:05 - May 6 with 3681 views | Ned_Kennedys |
| 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. |
Exactly: Derby have set a precedent that other clubs will surely follow. The EFL are truly winkpuffins of the highest order. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
