So these fines go to the clubs in European competition but qprs fine (if made to pay - which they obviously should) would go to charity, not clubs in the competition.
Disgrace.
I suppose the difference is that for the likes of Manure, £200k makes little difference. If Charlton got £2million or something like that redistributed from QPR, it would be more significant. £200k for some of the minnows of the Europa League, if that's what they will get, will be useful to them, but they're no threat to the Manures or Citeh.
Yeah I get that but still think it's not on, it's just the principle
Absolutely, or more to the point, the "flexible" principles of modern football.
Nothing will happen to QPR or anyone else. Nothing remotely meaningful anyway.
I think you're being too pessimistic. I've no doubt that the Football League will be determined to sanction Clubs that don't comply. Moreover, they'll have the upper hand because they can simply refuse to register new players for those Clubs with a transfer embargo.
It may have seemed that it would be difficult to force promoted Clubs to pay fines, but QPR's case is interesting in this respect because what the football league is saying is that they can simply refuse entry back into the league for Clubs who refuse to abide by the rules. That's a hell of a threat and will certainly make Leicester think very hard.
The debate, no doubt, will be over whether a Club has actually breached and I wouldn't be surprised if the league shows some flexibility here, but where it's clear cut there will be no way out. If Leicester have breached, as @seriously_red and I suspect, then they'll pay the fine. QPR's case is a little different, as I suggested above, and I'd expect them to agree an out of court settlement well below the theoretical fine due.
I'm still hoping that a small number of Clubs will be subject to a transfer embargo in the January window. It's worth remembering that earlier this year a number of proposals were put forward to modify the rules, but these did not get the 75% support required. At least seven Clubs held the line, including us no doubt, and we can expect these same Clubs to be equally uncompromising when it comes to enforcement.
Footballing authorities don't have a great track record in having a pair of bollocks when confronted by money people accompanied by lawyers threatening law suits. I live in hope but I'm not expecting anything much.
Footballing authorities don't have a great track record in having a pair of bollocks when confronted by money people accompanied by lawyers threatening law suits. I live in hope but I'm not expecting anything much.
I agree that the FA copped out of doing anything about Tevez all those years back and didn't even suspend him while they prevarication and delayed the hearings.
But after that Sheffield Utd sued West Ham and won.
With Championship FFP many clubs are losing between £6-10m just to have a crack at promotion and they have agreed rules. Brighton have sold good players... Ipswich and Boro were perhaps borderline and have clearly not strengthened much over the summer. Forest have strengthened and they strike me as similar to Leicester,I.e., break the limits, get promoted and pay a fine. But the majority of clubs will be under the limits and will welcome them getting lower...21 clubs can spend £2m less each and that is £42m less being squeezed by agents and second tier players. Kermorgant securing a pay rise by going to Bournemouth didn't just happen! A club with 10,000 crowds out bid us for his services. Now Bournemouth may squeeze through FFP depending upon the precise timing of the player sales from Southampton to Liverpool where they receive a 25% sell on. My point is that less and less clubs will be able to or want to pay inflated wages to 30 something players...and I believe that most clubs want this even if they might not agree on precise limits or final sanctions. I'm not jealous or envious of Premier league tv money but I do wish for a level playing field for well run clubs like us, Watford etc. Clubs who have cut their cloth. Protests from the likes of QPR will hopefully galvanise authorities rather than frighten them? Perhaps Greg Dyke might even see this as a better path to follow to grab some headlines and move away from that nonsense earlier this year?
Nothing will happen to QPR or anyone else. Nothing remotely meaningful anyway.
. Given that the shadow minister of sport represents a constituency just a few miles from the Valley one can see how an alignment of parties interested in sustainable football might gather some momentum.
And the Minister for Sport is my MP ( along with a few other poster's on here).
The Maidstone Massive may yet be pulled into action.
Perhaps he should change his name to Harry Inthered-Knapp ....
I find it rather perplexing that the punishment for making a gargantuan loss is to be inflicted with further gigantic expense. If it pushes the subject club into bankruptcy, who gets to explain to the creditors that sorry, the funds rightfully theirs were diverted to charity ??
Football's Rules and Regs should be tough but fair. Punishment as revenge makes little sense in a sporting context - punishment as deterrent must be founded on just principles and realistic sanctions.
Perhaps he should change his name to Harry Inthered-Knapp ....
I find it rather perplexing that the punishment for making a gargantuan loss is to be inflicted with further gigantic expense. If it pushes the subject club into bankruptcy, who gets to explain to the creditors that sorry, the funds rightfully theirs were diverted to charity ??
Football's Rules and Regs should be tough but fair. Punishment as revenge makes little sense in a sporting context - punishment as deterrent must be founded on just principles and realistic sanctions.
I think the idea is they're able to make such massive losses because a financial backer is covering their losses, which is against the FFP.
Basically, if they've managed to find money to sign up too many good players on huge wages, they can pay up a fine in order to bring some balance.
It's different for clubs who are in genuine financial difficulties because at the end of the day you do have to have money in the bank in order to buy players and pay wages. Look what happened at Notts County when they thought they had been taken over by a billionaire - once people realised they weren't getting paid, they left.
The FA rules don't seem to have been drafted very cleverly which means that the Prem sides affected will go to court and get them (in so far as they affect the monied clubs) changed while the rest of us will be busting a gut to comply on yet another un-level playing field.
The FA rules don't seem to have been drafted very cleverly which means that the Prem sides affected will go to court and get them (in so far as they affect the monied clubs) changed while the rest of us will be busting a gut to comply on yet another un-level playing field.
I think we will find out in the next few months just how well the rules have been written. Perhaps there are loopholes but these can be closed as rogue clubs seek to test and exploit them. Way before the QPR situation is resolved we have the December filing deadline and perhaps 1-4 clubs might be excluded from the January window?
Anyone know what happened with this. relegation looks a real possibility so can the football league really refuse them entry
I think you will find that the people that loaned QPR about £60m, have written the loans off. How this works with the league I don't know, but as I have said before, the league leaders are not strong enough to do anything much, just a small fine or points deducted, in my opinion, which will mean nothing to the rich clubs
Anyone know what happened with this. relegation looks a real possibility so can the football league really refuse them entry
I think you will find that the people that loaned QPR about £60m, have written the loans off. How this works with the league I don't know, but as I have said before, the league leaders are not strong enough to do anything much, just a small fine or points deducted, in my opinion, which will mean nothing to the rich clubs
Based on the initial comments it should not matter if the debt is now written off.
The fact is they failed FFP but got promoted so they could not do anything, if they get relegated the football league can then charge them for failing FFP
I don't understand the article. Perhaps someone could explain how writing off £60mn in loans has any effect whatsoever on the profit & loss? Surely that's just reducing the liabilities on the balance sheet?
Didn't the Spanish government buy a plot of land from Real Madrid at a highly inflated price?
...and then allowed them to rent it back if I remember but then again didn't the UK government hand over the keys to the Olympic Stadium at a peppercorn rent?
I don't understand the article. Perhaps someone could explain how writing off £60mn in loans has any effect whatsoever on the profit & loss? Surely that's just reducing the liabilities on the balance sheet?
In the world of accountancy it's called double entry book-keeping for a reason. So one side of the entry is to reduce liabilities on the balance sheet (the debit) and the other side is to increase profit in the P&L account (the credit). Quite simply, if you suddenly don't have to pay one of your booked liabilities, then the release of that liability will go straight to the P&L account.
Blackburn and Forest have had a transfer embargo applied last January which has clearly hampered their ability to keep in touch with the top eight. Similarly, Brighton sold players in January 2014 in order to comply and this must have weakened their challenge. Derby were beaten by a QPR team in the play-offs that was clearly funded with enormous losses. The league are "negotiating" a solution with QPR but I fail to see how they can give an inch without facing a major challenge from the clubs above as well as completely undermining the competition. This is just a gift from the owner and should be treated as such, I.e. taken out of the FFP calculation.
I don't understand the article. Perhaps someone could explain how writing off £60mn in loans has any effect whatsoever on the profit & loss? Surely that's just reducing the liabilities on the balance sheet?
QPR had a liability on their balance sheet which now they don't have to pay. So they take the liability of their balance sheet and it is in effect a profit.
A simple example would be you owe someone £20 , they let you off so you have made a profit of £20.
I thought the whole point of FFP was that it did not treat debt and equity differently. Such obvious 'Financial Engineering' is surely carved out of FFP.
Somehow they have found 60 mill to pay off most of the money owed ?????
no, the 60m hasn't been paid.
the lenders of the money were in a good mood that day and told them not to worry about it.
The lenders who wrote off the debt being the shareholders: Fernandez and cronies 66% shareholders, Mittal (steel) family 33%. I don't know how much each was owed by QPR.
Presumably, as and when QPR is established in the PL, the plan is that they'll draw all or most of the money they've written off back out of the club. In the meantime, they hope the FL will buckle and let them get off without a huge fine. The model can then be repeated as and when necessary.
Incidentally, if it comes down to when exactly the debt was written off, QPR's accounting year ends 31 May, while they won the play-offs final on 24 May. I'm not an accountant, but does that mean they could have written off the debt legitimately during that 7 day period?
I don't understand the article. Perhaps someone could explain how writing off £60mn in loans has any effect whatsoever on the profit & loss? Surely that's just reducing the liabilities on the balance sheet?
QPR had a liability on their balance sheet which now they don't have to pay. So they take the liability of their balance sheet and it is in effect a profit.
A simple example would be you owe someone £20 , they let you off so you have made a profit of £20.
That sounds ridiculous to me! How can it be turned into a profit?!
I don't understand the article. Perhaps someone could explain how writing off £60mn in loans has any effect whatsoever on the profit & loss? Surely that's just reducing the liabilities on the balance sheet?
QPR had a liability on their balance sheet which now they don't have to pay. So they take the liability of their balance sheet and it is in effect a profit.
A simple example would be you owe someone £20 , they let you off so you have made a profit of £20.
That sounds ridiculous to me! How can it be turned into a profit?!
Well, if you compiled accounts from day to day, you are now £20 better off in terms of your net worth than you were yesterday. For your net worth, it makes no difference whether it's a gift of £20 someone gave you or a debt they wrote off. You were worth £x yesterday, you are now worth £x+20. In your accounts for the day, you have made a £20 profit.
Comments
It may have seemed that it would be difficult to force promoted Clubs to pay fines, but QPR's case is interesting in this respect because what the football league is saying is that they can simply refuse entry back into the league for Clubs who refuse to abide by the rules. That's a hell of a threat and will certainly make Leicester think very hard.
The debate, no doubt, will be over whether a Club has actually breached and I wouldn't be surprised if the league shows some flexibility here, but where it's clear cut there will be no way out. If Leicester have breached, as @seriously_red and I suspect, then they'll pay the fine. QPR's case is a little different, as I suggested above, and I'd expect them to agree an out of court settlement well below the theoretical fine due.
I'm still hoping that a small number of Clubs will be subject to a transfer embargo in the January window. It's worth remembering that earlier this year a number of proposals were put forward to modify the rules, but these did not get the 75% support required. At least seven Clubs held the line, including us no doubt, and we can expect these same Clubs to be equally uncompromising when it comes to enforcement.
But after that Sheffield Utd sued West Ham and won.
With Championship FFP many clubs are losing between £6-10m just to have a crack at promotion and they have agreed rules. Brighton have sold good players... Ipswich and Boro were perhaps borderline and have clearly not strengthened much over the summer. Forest have strengthened and they strike me as similar to Leicester,I.e., break the limits, get promoted and pay a fine. But the majority of clubs will be under the limits and will welcome them getting lower...21 clubs can spend £2m less each and that is £42m less being squeezed by agents and second tier players.
Kermorgant securing a pay rise by going to Bournemouth didn't just happen! A club with 10,000 crowds out bid us for his services. Now Bournemouth may squeeze through FFP depending upon the precise timing of the player sales from Southampton to Liverpool where they receive a 25% sell on. My point is that less and less clubs will be able to or want to pay inflated wages to 30 something players...and I believe that most clubs want this even if they might not agree on precise limits or final sanctions.
I'm not jealous or envious of Premier league tv money but I do wish for a level playing field for well run clubs like us, Watford etc. Clubs who have cut their cloth.
Protests from the likes of QPR will hopefully galvanise authorities rather than frighten them? Perhaps Greg Dyke might even see this as a better path to follow to grab some headlines and move away from that nonsense earlier this year?
The Maidstone Massive may yet be pulled into action.
Perhaps he should change his name to Harry Inthered-Knapp ....
I find it rather perplexing that the punishment for making a gargantuan loss is to be inflicted with further gigantic expense. If it pushes the subject club into bankruptcy, who gets to explain to the creditors that sorry, the funds rightfully theirs were diverted to charity ??
Football's Rules and Regs should be tough but fair. Punishment as revenge makes little sense in a sporting context - punishment as deterrent must be founded on just principles and realistic sanctions.
Basically, if they've managed to find money to sign up too many good players on huge wages, they can pay up a fine in order to bring some balance.
It's different for clubs who are in genuine financial difficulties because at the end of the day you do have to have money in the bank in order to buy players and pay wages. Look what happened at Notts County when they thought they had been taken over by a billionaire - once people realised they weren't getting paid, they left.
relegation looks a real possibility so can the football league really refuse them entry
The fact is they failed FFP but got promoted so they could not do anything, if they get relegated the football league can then charge them for failing FFP
I despair.
the lenders of the money were in a good mood that day and told them not to worry about it.
Similarly, Brighton sold players in January 2014 in order to comply and this must have weakened their challenge.
Derby were beaten by a QPR team in the play-offs that was clearly funded with enormous losses.
The league are "negotiating" a solution with QPR but I fail to see how they can give an inch without facing a major challenge from the clubs above as well as completely undermining the competition.
This is just a gift from the owner and should be treated as such, I.e. taken out of the FFP calculation.
A simple example would be you owe someone £20 , they let you off so you have made a profit of £20.
Presumably, as and when QPR is established in the PL, the plan is that they'll draw all or most of the money they've written off back out of the club. In the meantime, they hope the FL will buckle and let them get off without a huge fine. The model can then be repeated as and when necessary.
Incidentally, if it comes down to when exactly the debt was written off, QPR's accounting year ends 31 May, while they won the play-offs final on 24 May. I'm not an accountant, but does that mean they could have written off the debt legitimately during that 7 day period?