New Financial Regs

[silvercue]

Looking at the new regs they focus on player spending - like wages. They will favour the bigger clubs, but bring in some protection of the league's clubs as a whole.

I don't know every detail, though I have read about the high level proposal that has been (very narrowly) voted in.

However, I am very suprised that QPR appear to have voted for these regs (according to BBC). I would have thought we would be one of the winners of not introducing them. Obviously something I don't know influencing that, but suprised nonetheless.

[Buffalo]

Just goes to highlight the b0110cks reported by the press about QPR running the club irresponsibly. As you suggest, I can't see us voting for these rules if we would be in any danger of losing points for breaking them.

[qpr4life]

The new rules wont make any difference at all, its a start but its not going to make a difference for at least 8-10 years until all loop holes are closed.

Clubs will and still are finding ways around rules and regs.

Not only that but it still means teams can spend like 150 million a year on players LOL

[silvercue]

The new rules wont make any difference at all, its a start but its not going to make a difference for at least 8-10 years until all loop holes are closed.

Clubs will and still are finding ways around rules and regs.

Not only that but it still means teams can spend like 150 million a year on players LOL

It doesn't mean that - it means they can't lose more than 38m per year - that means transfer loses, salaries, manager and staff - anything in the red. Seeing as clubs are already losing more than that - it means changes.

Also - the loop holes are not so big. Man City (who voted against this) may have money from other companies influenced by their owners, but that is harder for most and soon they will ban sponsorship from companies owned or connected ditectly with club owners as a way to bypass this rule.

Ultimately, this will not take 10 years to have a big impact it will take 2-3 to start having an impact.

Bottom line is that althoug hit may protect clubs from going out of business, it will ultimately servce the bigger clubs.

[QPRDave]

Alot of the clubs that have voted for this i am surprised at....what are we missing here? On the flip side the clubs who voted against this are all on the outside well run and stable...
It is understood that Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.
So what do the wonderful Swansea have against fair play rules then?

[qpr4life]

It doesn't mean that - it means they can't lose more than 38m per year - that means transfer loses, salaries, manager and staff - anything in the red. Seeing as clubs are already losing more than that - it means changes.

Also - the loop holes are not so big. Man City (who voted against this) may have money from other companies influenced by their owners, but that is harder for most and soon they will ban sponsorship from companies owned or connected ditectly with club owners as a way to bypass this rule.

Ultimately, this will not take 10 years to have a big impact it will take 2-3 to start having an impact.

Bottom line is that althoug hit may protect clubs from going out of business, it will ultimately servce the bigger clubs.

Spoke to a chief exec at MK Dons last night, passing what I got told..

In a nutshell, its a start but wont make a huge difference

[QPRDave]

Just had a look on a Chelsea board to see what they made of this. This agreement/cap whatever it is according to a fella over there doesn't include matchday revenue, or commercial income. So i suppose you can get big sponsorship deals etc that won't come under these rules

[silvercue]

Alot of the clubs that have voted for this i am surprised at....what are we missing here? On the flip side the clubs who voted against this are all on the outside well run and stable...
It is understood that Fulham, West Bromwich Albion, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea City and Southampton all voted against. Chelsea, who had initially been viewed as opponents of financial fair play regulations, voted in favour.
So what do the wonderful Swansea have against fair play rules then?

Not sure about Swansea - really thought they would be in the yes camp, especially due to the fans influence in teh club. Chelsea (or Roman) aimed for them to not be back rolled by him over time anyway.

[silvercue]

Just had a look on a Chelsea board to see what they made of this. This agreement/cap whatever it is according to a fella over there doesn't include matchday revenue, or commercial income. So i suppose you can get big sponsorship deals etc that won't come under these rules

The loses includes everything though, so it makes that pretty much irrelevant other than it will help the big clubs.

This and Financial Fair Play - is all ultimately going to serve Man Utd & Arsenal here and Bacrelona, Madrid and Munich etc.

[QPRDave]

The loses includes everything though, so it makes that pretty much irrelevant other than it will help the big clubs.

This and Financial Fair Play - is all ultimately going to serve Man Utd & Arsenal here and Bacrelona, Madrid and Munich etc.

Does it definitely include everything? He seemed to think those 2 things don't come under this cap....he might not be right i realize that but would explain some votes.
If you're right and the big clubs just get even more dominant i wonder why we went with it and alot of other similar clubs

[silvercue]

Does it definitely include everything? He seemed to think those 2 things don't come under this cap....he might not be right i realize that but would explain some votes.
If you're right and the big clubs just get even more dominant i wonder why we went with it and alot of other similar clubs

The way I read it is that the salary restrictions can be overcome with increased money. In other words rich clubs can pay players more.

However, the overall point of the whole thing is that regardless of any revenue - no club can make a loss of more than 38m per year. The reason they are bringing these regs in is they don't want rich owners coming in and buying the league....

[MattyRangers]

The way I read it is that the salary restrictions can be overcome with increased money. In other words rich clubs can pay players more.

However, the overall point of the whole thing is that regardless of any revenue - no club can make a loss of more than 38m per year. The reason they are bringing these regs in is they don't want rich owners coming in and buying the league....

B0ll0x. How are we gunna win the league now?!

[silvercue]

B0ll0x. How are we gunna win the league now?!

Exactly my point!!!!! Level playing fields are totally unfair!!!

[QPRDave]

Thanks silver i tried listening to a bit on talk***** this afternoon and still was none the wiser, so QPR have voted for this to stop anyone else doing what we have done?

[brightonr]

Thanks silver i tried listening to a bit on talk***** this afternoon and still was none the wiser, so QPR have voted for this to stop anyone else doing what we have done?

So, s.p.o.r.t. is a swear word now, is it?