If FFP is soon resolved

[klonk]

I agree that nothing is put aside in the accounts on the face of it. However there may be good reason for that. You start putting provisions in accounts and you effectively show your hand to the other side.
This doesn't mean the board have not earmarked an amount notionally or perhaps called it something else.

hmmm... under ias37, i'd say that the only reason not to provide in the accounts is uncertainty over the actual amount. but that's only my view.

the board may have earmarked an amount, but, according to the books, we don't have enough cash or near cash assets in the books to pay the cost immediately, so the board would need to finance the payment somehow - player sales, a loan or (most likely) further financing from shareholders.

[CroydonCaptainJack]

hmmm... under ias37, i'd say that the only reason not to provide in the accounts is uncertainty over the actual amount. but that's only my view.

the board may have earmarked an amount, but, according to the books, we don't have enough cash or near cash assets in the books to pay the cost immediately, so the board would need to finance the payment somehow - player sales, a loan or (most likely) further financing from shareholders.

Well the amount is uncertain isn't it? Commercially you wouldn't want to provide either let's be honest.

[acricketer]

We are behaving as if FFP has been resolved for the past 18 months.

[Hubble]

Odd that this was so widely reported, yet still hasn't happened. Surely it must be imminent? No idea if the figures quoted by the Beeb are accurate or not:

"Queens Park Rangers' three-year battle with the English Football League over their Financial Fair Play sanction is due to be resolved next month [this was from 17th May this year].

An arbitration panel will determine if the EFL were within their rights to lodge a heavy fine against the London club for exceeding spending limits.

The EFL have never said what fine they planned to impose after QPR's promotion to the Premier League in 2014.

However, it was anticipated at the time it could be as much as £58m.

QPR were limited to making losses of £8m for the season in question. Their actual loss was £9.8m, but owner Tony Fernandes and other shareholders also wrote off £60m in loans as an "exceptional item"."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39950114

[amusant]

Wonder how much money we've already spent with the country's top lawyers on this one.......

[Shepherds Mush]

I agree that nothing is put aside in the accounts on the face of it. However there may be good reason for that. You start putting provisions in accounts and you effectively show your hand to the other side.
This doesn't mean the board have not earmarked an amount notionally or perhaps called it something else.

I would imagine that they cannot recognise a liability in the accounts because they can't reliably estimate any fine.....or, more to the point, if there actually will be one

[Tim]

Think this is trying to be buried by both parties, as pointed out at the time, FFP goes against European laws and whilst I'm sure a lot of the loop holes have now had agreements and legislation put in place, this wasn't the case at the time. Small fine and slap on the wrist maybe?

[Shepherds Mush]

Think this is trying to be buried by both parties

I think you are bang on the money with that.

[dave58]

Even a few million fine will hurt us we don't have the money we did, if we even had it then you can see by our bargain basement shopping that we now have a lock on the purse strings

[jmelanie]

Even a few million fine will hurt us we don't have the money we did, if we even had it then you can see by our bargain basement shopping that we now have a lock on the purse strings

I think the bargain basement is to show FFP we don't have the money.