FFP

[WeAreQPR12]

So we can spend 20million on a new training ground and 2million on a new pitch at LR yet we can't buy any new players. Makes no sense to me, we could have all those lovely facilities and yet end up in the conference, playing Woking and with no income to withstand the upkeep. FFP needs to move out of the stone age!

[Kingaustin]

I don’t know the full ins and outs about ffp but stand to be corrected.
my understanding is the pitch and training ground and stadium refurbishments even a new stadium won’t count against ffp
only payers wages and transfer fees count basically the running of the business we can’t spend more than we have coming in over a rolling 3 year period which is 33million (again stand to be corrected)

[Kingaustin]

You are correct . Ffp needs a major overhaul

[SheepRanger]

Infrastructure and academy costs exempt from FFP calc.

Spunking £70k a week on Barton's wages and £55k pw on SWP is within the calculations!!!

Any costs, quite rightly, that benefits the paying customers seating experience, or brings young players through, are exempt.

Tis investment and foundations....which barton and sweepie were not!

[Undecided]

My understanding of the basics of the FFP fundamentals is that:

if you have something of lasting value after spending the money then it doesn't count for FFP. e.g. if you buy a plot of land for a training ground, then after spending the money you have a plot of land that has value. Paying for improvements for it will also leave you with something of lasting value.

if, however there is no lasting value after spending the money, it does count for FFP. So, if you pay wages, after you've paid them the money is gone, and there is nothing left of lasting value, so it counts for FFP.

To count for FFP, the "thing" of lasting value has to be tangible e.g. land and buildings, not just a pipe dream e.g. "we might get promotion and hit the jackpot"

Somethings, however, have value that lasts for a short time after you've spent the money. so, buying a player has "value" over the length of the contract, and so a chunk of what you've spent is taken to FFP each year over the length of the contact.

Simples. What is there to not understand?

[ConorQPR2000]

infrastructure doesnt count towards our FFP calculations.

[SheepRanger]

Neither does academy player costs

[QPROslo]

You are correct . Ffp needs a major overhaul

I think the vast majority of EFL clubs wants FFP just as it is. This includes QPR.

I find it logic to be honest. It is effectively all about putting a cap on total player salaries and transfer spending (as this is the largest cost component) relative to income to ensure short sighted decisions do not put clubs existence at risk. It makes sense to me that investments (the associated depreciation) in long term infrastructure and academy is encouraged and is therefore exempt from the FFP calculations.

There is another model I like, and that is owners being forced to put aside funding for all liabilities connected to new player signing (maybe above a certain threshold), to be used for salaries during the entire length of the players contract periods. This is another way to safeguard clubs from crazy spending by investors that gamble with the clubs future.

Another change I would like to see is that sale of stadiums and similar assets would not count as income for FFP purposes.

[Sleeping Giants]

So we can spend 20million on a new training ground and 2million on a new pitch at LR yet we can't buy any new players. Makes no sense to me, we could have all those lovely facilities and yet end up in the conference, playing Woking and with no income to withstand the upkeep. FFP needs to move out of the stone age!

But at least we can bring through new talent for the big clubs to steal from us, we are the charity that keeps on giving

[Springboks2002]

FFP is a complete sham

if the club has the owners that wish to spend the money to try and compete they should be able too

Lets face it Luton in the top flight isnt going to be pretty so they should if they had the money be able to be allowed to spend to compete

look at the powerhouse that is now Man City had they not been allowed to spend before FFP they would possibly still be a yo yo club between premier league and championship

why were thay allowed to spend like our enemies in West London who back in the day were a club as small as us

FFP needs to be binned if the clubs are to be equal

[QPRFCJIM]

I think the theory behind ffp is sound; it's to protect clubs from going bust and disappearing which obviously no-one wants. It's to facilitate sound business practices. Training grounds etc are investments in the club - they can be considered assets. Overspending on players etc is effectively gambling with a club's existence and therefore not worth it.

Personally I believe we won't move forward properly until we build a new ground. I wish we could do it at Loftus Rd but apparently that's impossible. Pains me to say it but Brighton and Brentford are the blueprints.

[SheepRanger]

I think the theory behind ffp is sound; it's to protect clubs from going bust and disappearing which obviously no-one wants. It's to facilitate sound business practices. Training grounds etc are investments in the club - they can be considered assets. Overspending on players etc is effectively gambling with a club's existence and therefore not worth it.

Personally I believe we won't move forward properly until we build a new ground. I wish we could do it at Loftus Rd but apparently that's impossible. Pains me to say it but Brighton and Brentford are the blueprints.

I'd like to think that when we do move away from HQ it will be something bigger than Brentford's ground.

I think the owners will eventually sell 50% of the club to an American consortium who will fund a 35k stadium. We'll need that to grow the club and accommodate bigger ttaveling support. If we cant do that we may as well stay at HQ.

The time will come when a certain club will want to sell Stamford Bridge!!!!

[Abseits]

I see Wigan are completely unravelling financially at the moment. I suppose many folks will shrug their shoulders and think no surprise really, they're a piddly little club
However, our average attendance is about 2500 higher than theirs so it's not as though our financials are going to be massively better than theirs is it? If we have another pisspoor season and make a few duff signings, we may be following Latics down the same slippery slope in 12 months.