How can there be no money to spend when we have sold Remy and Mutch?

[dsqpr]

Realised we're in financial ruin and if we go down, that money will go towards paying a huge fine. It's that simple.

Not going to happen. We will challenge the fine in court and it will be overturned because it is totally illegal. That will be the one bright spot for me if we get relegated. I am absolutely dying for somebody to challenge this anti-competitive bullsh!t in court and have it sh@t on from a great height by a judge.

[Mattyqpr]

Not going to happen. We will challenge the fine in court and it will be overturned because it is totally illegal. That will be the one bright spot for me if we get relegated. I am absolutely dying for somebody to challenge this anti-competitive bullsh!t in court and have it sh@t on from a great height by a judge.

Fight the fine but won't be able to fight a transfer embargo and possible points deduction. Look at the history of the football league, they enjoy punishment and a court won't overrule them. It's their competition and rules. The only reason we can fight the fine is due to lex mitior.

[dsqpr]

Fight the fine but won't be able to fight a transfer embargo and possible points deduction. Look at the history of the football league, they enjoy punishment and a court won't overrule them. It's their competition and rules. The only reason we can fight the fine is due to lex mitior.

I disagree Matty. Any sanction based on an illegal rule (such as not being allowed to invest in your business) will be overturned by the court.

The Bosman ruling is a good example. It may be the Football League's competition and rules, but the court ordered them to allow players out of contract to move to another club without a fee.

[Mattyqpr]

I disagree Matty. Any sanction based on an illegal rule (such as not being allowed to invest in your business) will be overturned by the court.

The Bosman ruling is a good example. It may be the Football League's competition and rules, but the court ordered them to allow players out of contract to move to another club without a fee.

The problem is, the rule is already in action in football and teams have accepted punishment. The rules are voted for by the club's.

[dsqpr]

The problem is, the rule is already in action in football and teams have accepted punishment. The rules are voted for by the club's.

The requirement of a fee to transfer the registration of a player out of contract had been in effect for many a long year before the court overturned it. The fact that many transfer fees had already been paid was neither here nor there. Any illegal rule will be overturned by the court if somebody contests it.

[Brightsparx]

Wasn't we looking to take Defoe or borini in final hours as well of August window? That would of been over 5m that didn't get splashed as well

[Mattyqpr]

The requirement of a fee to transfer the registration of a player out of contract had been in effect for many a long year before the court overturned it. The fact that many transfer fees had already been paid was neither here nor there. Any illegal rule will be overturned by the court if somebody contests it.

You're missing the point. Clubs voted in favour of FFP, it wasn't a compulsory rule. If members vote then you've got no chance of overturning it. Effectively the clubs made this rule, not authority. Our only hope is lex mitior.

Regarding the fine, the rules are now changed from the original to an updated, which is due to come in from 16/17. The rule we're being charged with breaking is the current rule in place but soon to be outlawed.

Lex mitior gives a defendant the right to be judged under whichever of the existing or upcoming laws is the most lenient.

The new rules allow us to lose £39 million over 3 years and any side promoted to the Premier League can add another £22 million to that figure for every season they spend outside the Championship.

This will drag on for potentially a long time, in that case the football league will place limitations on us like UEFA have done with Champions League clubs.

It would be a lot easier to stay up and fight it that's for sure. I actually agree with you in that we'll win the battle but it's the limitations they'll place on us in the meantime.

[jmelanie]

You're missing the point. Clubs voted in favour of FFP, it wasn't a compulsory rule. If members vote then you've got no chance of overturning it. Effectively the clubs made this rule, not authority. Our only hope is lex mitior.

Regarding the fine, the rules are now changed from the original to an updated, which is due to come in from 16/17. The rule we're being charged with breaking is the current rule in place but soon to be outlawed.

Lex mitior gives a defendant the right to be judged under whichever of the existing or upcoming laws is the most lenient.

The new rules allow us to lose £39 million over 3 years and any side promoted to the Premier League can add another £22 million to that figure for every season they spend outside the Championship.

This will drag on for potentially a long time, in that case the football league will place limitations on us like UEFA have done with Champions League clubs.

It would be a lot easier to stay up and fight it that's for sure. I actually agree with you in that we'll win the battle but it's the limitations they'll place on us in the meantime.

The other point is we didn't vote on the rule because we weren't in the Championship at the time. Not sure what a transfer embargo actually means, does it mean we can't buy any players or does it mean we can only buy players if we sell other players? Also does it include loans?

[Mattyqpr]

The other point is we didn't vote on the rule because we weren't in the Championship at the time. Not sure what a transfer embargo actually means, does it mean we can't buy any players or does it mean we can only buy players if we sell other players? Also does it include loans?

We were in the championship, we rejected the rule but it was a 21 to 3 majority.

Embargo places limits on transfers. For example, Forest, Leeds and Blackburn can only make loan signings. We're more likely to have a limited squad in terms of numbers.

[jmelanie]

We were in the championship, we rejected the rule but it was a 21 to 3 majority.

Embargo places limits on transfers. For example, Forest, Leeds and Blackburn can only make loan signings. We're more likely to have a limited squad in terms of numbers.

Can you give the source of this. Everything I read indicated that the vote took place the last time we were in the Premiership.

Also I read an article a couple of months ago saying Tony was thinking of buying a team in North America (I think it might have been Tampa). I can't find the article because I didn't think it was important. However the purpose of this could be for the club in the US to purchase players and loan them back to QPR (as happened with Lampard).

[Mattyqpr]

Can you give the source of this. Everything I read indicated that the vote took place the last time we were in the Premiership.

Also I read an article a couple of months ago saying Tony was thinking of buying a team in North America (I think it might have been Tampa). I can't find the article because I didn't think it was important. However the purpose of this could be for the club in the US to purchase players and loan them back to QPR (as happened with Lampard).

Sorry, you're correct. The rules we're agreed the season following our first promotion. It's reported the three clubs that rejected the move were Reading, Leicester and Southampton.

[dsqpr]

You're missing the point. Clubs voted in favour of FFP, it wasn't a compulsory rule. If members vote then you've got no chance of overturning it. Effectively the clubs made this rule, not authority. Our only hope is lex mitior.

Regarding the fine, the rules are now changed from the original to an updated, which is due to come in from 16/17. The rule we're being charged with breaking is the current rule in place but soon to be outlawed.

Lex mitior gives a defendant the right to be judged under whichever of the existing or upcoming laws is the most lenient.

The new rules allow us to lose £39 million over 3 years and any side promoted to the Premier League can add another £22 million to that figure for every season they spend outside the Championship.

This will drag on for potentially a long time, in that case the football league will place limitations on us like UEFA have done with Champions League clubs.

It would be a lot easier to stay up and fight it that's for sure. I actually agree with you in that we'll win the battle but it's the limitations they'll place on us in the meantime.

No, I understand your point Matty, I just don't agree with you. I don't think it matters whether there was a vote, or how the rule came into being. I guess it would make a difference if it was unanimously agreed because then nobody would challenge it. But if ONE club challenges an illegal rule, I'm positive it will be overturned by the court. Just as Jean Marc Bosman, one player, overturned a rule that had been in place for as long as I can remember and everybody seemed to be in agreement that this rule was good for football; and I would expect that rule was also put into place by a vote, quite possibly unanimous, since that is how all organizations with members enact their rules.

Anyway, you and I can debate this until the cows come home but it will not affect what happens next season. Let's hope our form picks up enough for it to not be put to the test.

[Garyd73]

18,000 every 2 weeks that can't support the current wage bill, that's why we are skint.

[Mattyqpr]

No, I understand your point Matty, I just don't agree with you. I don't think it matters whether there was a vote, or how the rule came into being. I guess it would make a difference if it was unanimously agreed because then nobody would challenge it. But if ONE club challenges an illegal rule, I'm positive it will be overturned by the court. Just as Jean Marc Bosman, one player, overturned a rule that had been in place for as long as I can remember and everybody seemed to be in agreement that this rule was good for football; and I would expect that rule was also put into place by a vote, quite possibly unanimous, since that is how all organizations with members enact their rules.

Anyway, you and I can debate this until the cows come home but it will not affect what happens next season. Let's hope our form picks up enough for it to not be put to the test.

Definitely

[Mattyqpr]

18,000 every 2 weeks that can't support the current wage bill, that's why we are skint.

TV revenue alone will cover the wages.