| Brentfart splashing the cash 20:31 - May 28 with 8742 views | NoDiddley |
Just signed Danish midfielder for £2.8million
We've bid £1.99 for Rab McSkinny from non league Vermin United
How things have changed  |  | | |  |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 19:51 - May 31 with 1084 views | terryb |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 17:13 - May 31 by QPR_John |
So originally we were going to be fined half our losses whereas Leicester were fined one seventh of their losses and Bournemouth one fifth. Strange sliding scale would you not agree.
We are supposed to accept that FFP was introduced to stop clubs going into debt. You just wonder whoever came up with the idea also decided that the bigger the debt the bigger the fine. [Post edited 31 May 2019 17:21]
|
Percentages didn't come into it.
If my memory is correct, the penalty laid down for losing over £8 million in a season was x amount upto a loss of £x million & then £i million for every million lost above that figure.
I have £10 million in mind for upto £18 million loss, but those may be incorrect. Someone on this board will remember the correct figures. Based on this we would have been fined £62 million for a loss of £70 million, which i think is close to the original FL judgement.
Of course Leicester & Bournemouth would have been due higher fines, but the FL couldn't implement this due to those clubs not being members of their league.
IF we hadn't f****d up our promotions & remained a Premier club, our owners would have been able to negoiate a settlement close to these two clubs.
Also, if we hadn't deliberately spent over £70 (or was it £60?) million on wages in one season as a Championship club, our owners wouldn't have faced this fine!
Paying the fine has nothing to do with the club not *investing in the transfer market though. That is due to the owners having decided they didn't want to lose multi millions per year on Queens Park Rangers any longer!
*These past investments having cost the owners hundreds of million £ |  | | |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 22:45 - May 31 with 987 views | QPR_John |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 19:51 - May 31 by terryb |
Percentages didn't come into it.
If my memory is correct, the penalty laid down for losing over £8 million in a season was x amount upto a loss of £x million & then £i million for every million lost above that figure.
I have £10 million in mind for upto £18 million loss, but those may be incorrect. Someone on this board will remember the correct figures. Based on this we would have been fined £62 million for a loss of £70 million, which i think is close to the original FL judgement.
Of course Leicester & Bournemouth would have been due higher fines, but the FL couldn't implement this due to those clubs not being members of their league.
IF we hadn't f****d up our promotions & remained a Premier club, our owners would have been able to negoiate a settlement close to these two clubs.
Also, if we hadn't deliberately spent over £70 (or was it £60?) million on wages in one season as a Championship club, our owners wouldn't have faced this fine!
Paying the fine has nothing to do with the club not *investing in the transfer market though. That is due to the owners having decided they didn't want to lose multi millions per year on Queens Park Rangers any longer!
*These past investments having cost the owners hundreds of million £ |
Still does not explain the point in my second paragraph | | | |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 07:11 - Jun 1 with 898 views | terryb |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 22:45 - May 31 by QPR_John |
Still does not explain the point in my second paragraph |
Blackburn & Forest fans wouldn't agree that Rangers were treated worse than their clubs.
A transfer embargo on the club for a minimum of three seasons that resulted in relegation (Blackburn) or fining the owners of the club? I know which I think is the worst scenario! | | | |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 07:36 - Jun 1 with 884 views | Roller |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 22:45 - May 31 by QPR_John |
Still does not explain the point in my second paragraph |
This one?
"We are supposed to accept that FFP was introduced to stop clubs going into debt. You just wonder whoever came up with the idea also decided that the bigger the debt the bigger the fine. "
EUFA came up with the idea to stop clubs overspending, the Football League came up with a proposal that the clubs (including QPR) voted to accept. As Lee Hoos put it on the podcast, it introduced a salary cap by stealth.
When the Football League sat down to devise these rules, they couldn’t possibly have imagined that they would have been treated with such flagrant disdain as QPR showed to them. The top end of their punishment scale would have been designed purely as a deterrent, I doubt that ever expected to have to act upon them. Regardless of how unjust, unworkable and unfair any of us believe these rules to be, they were there all along in black and white; there is no getting away from the fact that we only have ourselves to blame.
We lost £69.7 million in a season when we were allowed to lose £8 million - no one else has come close to breaching the rules as dramatically as we have. Birmingham lost £48,787 over 3 seasons when they were allowed to lose £39 million.
I agree with Terry, their supporters have more right to be upset as their punishment was more severe as it directly affected the football club, not "just" the owners. |  | | |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 10:09 - Jun 1 with 827 views | ozexile |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 07:36 - Jun 1 by Roller |
This one?
"We are supposed to accept that FFP was introduced to stop clubs going into debt. You just wonder whoever came up with the idea also decided that the bigger the debt the bigger the fine. "
EUFA came up with the idea to stop clubs overspending, the Football League came up with a proposal that the clubs (including QPR) voted to accept. As Lee Hoos put it on the podcast, it introduced a salary cap by stealth.
When the Football League sat down to devise these rules, they couldn’t possibly have imagined that they would have been treated with such flagrant disdain as QPR showed to them. The top end of their punishment scale would have been designed purely as a deterrent, I doubt that ever expected to have to act upon them. Regardless of how unjust, unworkable and unfair any of us believe these rules to be, they were there all along in black and white; there is no getting away from the fact that we only have ourselves to blame.
We lost £69.7 million in a season when we were allowed to lose £8 million - no one else has come close to breaching the rules as dramatically as we have. Birmingham lost £48,787 over 3 seasons when they were allowed to lose £39 million.
I agree with Terry, their supporters have more right to be upset as their punishment was more severe as it directly affected the football club, not "just" the owners. |
Except the stealth salary cap never materialised hence the overspending. | | | |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 16:27 - Jun 1 with 743 views | QPR_John |
| Brentfart splashing the cash on 07:36 - Jun 1 by Roller |
This one?
"We are supposed to accept that FFP was introduced to stop clubs going into debt. You just wonder whoever came up with the idea also decided that the bigger the debt the bigger the fine. "
EUFA came up with the idea to stop clubs overspending, the Football League came up with a proposal that the clubs (including QPR) voted to accept. As Lee Hoos put it on the podcast, it introduced a salary cap by stealth.
When the Football League sat down to devise these rules, they couldn’t possibly have imagined that they would have been treated with such flagrant disdain as QPR showed to them. The top end of their punishment scale would have been designed purely as a deterrent, I doubt that ever expected to have to act upon them. Regardless of how unjust, unworkable and unfair any of us believe these rules to be, they were there all along in black and white; there is no getting away from the fact that we only have ourselves to blame.
We lost £69.7 million in a season when we were allowed to lose £8 million - no one else has come close to breaching the rules as dramatically as we have. Birmingham lost £48,787 over 3 seasons when they were allowed to lose £39 million.
I agree with Terry, their supporters have more right to be upset as their punishment was more severe as it directly affected the football club, not "just" the owners. |
" The top end of their punishment scale would have been designed purely as a deterrent, I doubt that ever expected to have to act upon them. "
Come on you cannot introduce a penalty without planning the effect of inplementing it. If that is the case the FL are more stupid then I give them credit for. Remember after fining us initially £40M they quickly changed the rules to reduce the financial penalties. If that was not the FL admitting the original implementations of FFP was badly thought out I don't know what is. Surely it does not matter what club and/or supporters were treated more badly than others FFP is inherently unfair. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
