FFP sorted

[hal9thou]

If you're happy with this then it's like being satisfied they're going to chop your legs off rather than your head.Should have dragged the whole unconscionable premise of fining a business that has made a loss through the courts.This is what happens when you give ground to bullies.

It HAS been dragged through the courts in Europe (ECJ) and to date no one has ever succeeded in turning over a uefa FFP ruling, on which EFL regs are based. EU rulings would be cited as precedent on this matter which is why counsel presumably cautioned against a court based defence.

The rules were there, and we transgressed in a big way. It's irrelevant whether we agree or disagree with FFP principals. The regs were in place.

A robust legal challenge would imo require the co-operation of various sanctioned clubs to have any chance at all, but like I say no club in Europe (or here) has succeeded.

Regarding the opinion of other clubs on the outcome, I should imagine some are looking nervously over their shoulders right now....

[Jonny]

Looks like we'll adhere to the new rules of making no more than 39m losses in a 3 year period when the next set of accounts is published, but only just, given no parachute payments and Sterling money to help offset overall spending. Hoos in is his interview said we now have a clean slate.

If we are only going to scrape under the bar this 3 year period I can see a lot more austerity kicking in from 2019/20 when we really will feel the constraints of a small ground and only 7800 season ticket holders.

Acricketer, on the face of it yes, it seems that way.... But it doesn’t take into account the massive reduction in wages, and the fact we still generate circa 10m in TV money.... even in the championship. Both are not taken into consideration when projecting life after parachutes.

So, for clarify... Total income from 19/20 season is around 20m, with 10m in fixed running costs. Leaves 10m for wages. Currently we are on approx 18m wages for this season. And further cuts for next.... 11 players out of contract end of this season e.g. like Washington who is probably on 15-20k (750k-1m per year), who won’t be kept on, baring a season Miracle.

So likely starting 16m wages for season 19/20. Basic maths is we will post a 6m loss per season. Which is line with our current loss structure WITH parachute payments.

[acricketer]

Acricketer, on the face of it yes, it seems that way.... But it doesn’t take into account the massive reduction in wages, and the fact we still generate circa 10m in TV money.... even in the championship. Both are not taken into consideration when projecting life after parachutes.

So, for clarify... Total income from 19/20 season is around 20m, with 10m in fixed running costs. Leaves 10m for wages. Currently we are on approx 18m wages for this season. And further cuts for next.... 11 players out of contract end of this season e.g. like Washington who is probably on 15-20k (750k-1m per year), who won’t be kept on, baring a season Miracle.

So likely starting 16m wages for season 19/20. Basic maths is we will post a 6m loss per season. Which is line with our current loss structure WITH parachute payments.

That makes me feel a lot better!

[lymehoop]

do they take into account a clubs ability to pay the fine? Or are they quite happy to see a club go to the wall

[Undecided]

Apparently they all now have new badges


Our circumstances were taken into account, hence the debt/equity swap

[klonk]

do they take into account a clubs ability to pay the fine? Or are they quite happy to see a club go to the wall

i believe that this ('proportionality') was one of the club's legal arguments, which was apparently dismissed by the independent tribunal. clive on lfw seems to know something about this - his column is certainly worth reading, here's an extract:

"The club took extensive, and expensive, legal advice and took what it believed to be a strong case into a binding arbitration with a Disciplinary Commission (DC) early in 2017. When the decision came back, it had sided almost entirely with the Football League, choosing to protect its status as rulemaker for its own competition. In a judgement of almost 100 pages, QPR’s arguments were given barely a cursory mention over a couple of sheets. The DC did not consider the issue of proportionality at all. It also spoke about QPR ‘gambling on promotion’ in seasons when it was already in the Premier League, and accused it of not releasing certain players that it actually had released. The club showed it to two legal firms pitching for business on the appeal, and a further five just to canvass opinions – “the more I read this judgement, the less I understand how it’s been reached” was one comment that came back."

full thing: https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/footba...-better-column

[Blobbers]

It HAS been dragged through the courts in Europe (ECJ) and to date no one has ever succeeded in turning over a uefa FFP ruling, on which EFL regs are based. EU rulings would be cited as precedent on this matter which is why counsel presumably cautioned against a court based defence.

The rules were there, and we transgressed in a big way. It's irrelevant whether we agree or disagree with FFP principals. The regs were in place.

A robust legal challenge would imo require the co-operation of various sanctioned clubs to have any chance at all, but like I say no club in Europe (or here) has succeeded.

Regarding the opinion of other clubs on the outcome, I should imagine some are looking nervously over their shoulders right now....

It came before a local Brussels court by a player's agent - hardly a robust effort.UEFA claimed it won.If there was a concerted effort then a credible challenge would be mounted.Yes it would cost a fair bit,but if someone aggressive to represent you (ie. Mishcon) you'd win if you looked cross eyed at it.

[hal9thou]

It came before a local Brussels court by a player's agent - hardly a robust effort.UEFA claimed it won.If there was a concerted effort then a credible challenge would be mounted.Yes it would cost a fair bit,but if someone aggressive to represent you (ie. Mishcon) you'd win if you looked cross eyed at it.

There has been more than one case though.....

why do you think the club didn't pursue the matter through the courts?

There was nothing stopping them. If you are right, you're looking at another massively misjudged decision by QPR holdings.......

FWIW I'm convinced they must have received strong legal opinion against going down that route.

[Tarbie]

Redknapp was a success as he got us up, but at what cost...

No doubt Hughes played a huge part as well, but redknapps spending in the championship is the killer blow.

Was he a success?

Took us down after 6 months of telling us he wouldn't. Took us back up by the skin of his teeth, with the largest wage bill the Championship has ever seen. Then took us back down again, and left us with a squad full of overpaid w*nkers. Not my idea of success to be honest with you mate!

[Blobbers]

There has been more than one case though.....

why do you think the club didn't pursue the matter through the courts?

There was nothing stopping them. If you are right, you're looking at another massively misjudged decision by QPR holdings.......

FWIW I'm convinced they must have received strong legal opinion against going down that route.

I really don't know mate,lack of bottle or couldn't be arsed probably - let someone else pick up the mess when they sell the club.

[Bill]

Dont think its sorted by a long way,all actions have consequences only time will tell if its a good deal.Strikes
me the Efl struck a deal to save them from sending a club
down the toilet.and to appease the fans which is good but
I dont see other clubs getting hsmmerrd like us.

On the whole seemd good but i think there will be many lawyers rubbing their hands together at other clubs Ffp
misdemeanors.

Just hope same rules apply if some big clubs are found guilty

[hal9thou]

The other problem is that irrespective of FFP we're still running at a loss, and still have indebtedness.

There are two big ironies re FFP.

1) The surest way of alleviating debt is success on the park, ie via promotion. But the combination of sanctions and FFP regs mean that achieving this aim is extremely long odds against. FFP sanctions thus restrict the possibility of growth, and this wasn't in the remit.

2) FFP was designed to deter clubs from injudicious financial risk taking and the consequent threat of insolvency. But if the sanction is punitive, you end up risking insolvency anyway....

I think the EFL were very aware of this in reaching the settlement. Nevertheless FFP is basically a contradiction in terms. .

[QPRDave]

One keeper, One or two defenders and a striker needs to be got in this window as we cannot risk trying to get through this season with what we have.

Don't need a keeper imo 73. Not a great fan of Ingram so far, and Joanna may struggle or may not we won't know.
But get a decent defence in front of them and a team can get away with an ordinary keeper.

[QPRDave]

FFP is an unfair hurdle to smaller clubs

[acricketer]

FFP is an unfair hurdle to smaller clubs

It basically tells smaller clubs to stay in their box and forget the bigtime. It is a restriction on competition, frowned upon in wider business circles.