Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Great spot [MENTION=249]edna krabappel[/MENTION]
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] QPR Ruling
- Thread starter Nixonator
- Start date
Rowdey
Well-known member
So, about those "one or two players", Harry
[tweet]923499932513964032[/tweet]
[tweet]923500261758382081[/tweet]
[tweet]923500521721393152[/tweet]
Quality digging there..!
I like this bit at the end:
"I don't know what the solution would be. I don't know how it all works out and what the guidelines to fair play are. That's up to people who run the football club. Managers have very little say in transfer dealings and transfers these days.
"QPR is a great club with great support. I'm sure this will drag on and I don't know the jurisdiction of it all. I don't know how it happened and how it was allowed to happen"
So he just doesn't know ANYTHING, but it's really unfair..
Wednesday are struggling to comply now, being in the third year of the rolling cycle, after two huge spending years. Hence they couldn't go bananas on spending again this summer just gone. Got that off of owlstalk.
Postman Pat
Well-known member
This is a great article on the QPR situation:
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/46804/coming-home-to-roost-–-column
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/46804/coming-home-to-roost-–-column
Quality digging there..!
I like this bit at the end:
"I don't know what the solution would be. I don't know how it all works out and what the guidelines to fair play are. That's up to people who run the football club. Managers have very little say in transfer dealings and transfers these days.
"QPR is a great club with great support. I'm sure this will drag on and I don't know the jurisdiction of it all. I don't know how it happened and how it was allowed to happen"
So he just doesn't know ANYTHING, but it's really unfair..
I forget, is it Rosie the dog with the chequebook or Mrs. Redknapp? I think from memory that Mrs. R was on texting detail.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,830
Really good! Thanks PP
Wow. He's a walking farce.
Maybe Wolves haven't been spending so much in recent years, so they're able to give it a go this time, whereas you'd expect Derby et al to be cutting back, as they appear to have been going for it for years.
"But that season Harry Redknapp gave first team appearances to 39 players. He presided over a squad with a wage bill of £77.3m for the season, the highest amount ever paid by a second tier club in the history of football in this country"
"Obviously £58m is an unworkable and disproportionate fine" - no it isn't!
"While it would make sense to apply the new rules retrospectively" - no it wouldn't. How can that possibly make sense?
" Simply put, you cannot legally impose fines on a business that threaten the existence of the business itself." - what bullshit.
"A fine of £58m for a business of QPR’s current turnover, the club will argue, is disproportionate" The fine was made when they were earning PL TB money, plus the parachute payments. The only reason it now seems disproportionate is because they didn't ****ing pay it!
Is this shit written by a QPR fan? Oh, yes it is
I think you're right.
Derby, like Wednesday, have been on a huge wages/fees spending spree for several seasons. Their Ex PL players would be on wages at a multiple of those we were paying in 2016/17 and we probably made an unprecedented loss. Derby are still at, with new recruits such as Huddlestone on big money.
Whereas Wolves only really got going this summer. They're unrecognisable from the first eleven we outclassed at Molyneux last Easter.
What you seem to be saying is that after a few years of FFP legislation, some sides are in danger of paying the price of their on-going gamble. Those whose gamble failed are now having to take drastic action to avoid being fined - with this impacting on their ability to compete.
We really could see a shift in the group of teams pushing for promotion couldn't we. Is this where those teams coming down will benefit from the impact of (even bigger) parachute payments as established Championship "big clubs" are being forced to cut back?
That’s why it was so important to go up last year.
crookie
Well-known member
Not quite, they did spend £7m last summer on Ivan Cavaleiro and £13m in January on Helder Costa, but yes, only really gone for it in the last 15 months with the new owners, so have this and next season to have a go before they have to reign back.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
That is a great article, very well-explained and no real fan bias there, other than love for his club.
There is no easy way out of this, the fine is ridiculously large, I can only assume because the FL never thought they would have to impose it, that the threat itself was sufficient. Fines are much lower now, and a fine of 8-9m would probably have been paid. There's no way QPR can pay £58m without ceasing to be a viable football team - and as the point of FFP is to stop teams going bust, pushing them that way through a fine for failing FFP is punitive and self-defeating in the extreme. the FL doesn't want to back down, but I bet there is a lot of hand-wringing about why they ever decided it was a good idea to levy that size of fine.
crookie
Well-known member
I imagine they never thought of a scenario where a club was stupid enough to have a wage bill of double their turnover !!
"Obviously £58m is an unworkable and disproportionate fine" - no it isn't!
"While it would make sense to apply the new rules retrospectively" - no it wouldn't. How can that possibly make sense?
" Simply put, you cannot legally impose fines on a business that threaten the existence of the business itself." - what bullshit.
"A fine of £58m for a business of QPR’s current turnover, the club will argue, is disproportionate" The fine was made when they were earning PL TB money, plus the parachute payments. The only reason it now seems disproportionate is because they didn't ****ing pay it!
Is this shit written by a QPR fan? Oh, yes it is
Quite. I thought it was a whiny, self-pitying article, completely missing the point, as Trig, says that they had the PL money and didn't spend it on the fine. He also moans about the cost of lawyers, completely ignoring the fact that it's been QPR who have dragged this out for two years (and are still dragging it out, notching up more legal fees).
And then there's this: "So, is it to protect the clubs from themselves? Stopping some rich idiot coming in, splashing cash on players, failing, leaving the club to collapse into administration? Officially, yes. The Football League are jolly pleased that a spate of clubs collapsing into administration, of which Harvey was CEO at two, has abated and point to that as success. But how is fining a member club that’s actually got its house in order and started to behave properly £40m+ safeguarding its future?"
This is spectacularly missing the point. It may not safeguard QPR's future but the fine does serve as an example to other clubs. If the FL relented and let them off most of it, not only would the clubs who have been fined have a case for legal action, but we'd be back at square one with companies mounting up debts and going into admin again - QPR serves as a warning to other clubs.
Personally, I think they should pay a smaller fine but also be fined one league position for the size of the fine. So, if the eventual fine was £50m, they'd drop 50 league places next season. So, if they finished 19th in the division, they'd drop to the National Premier. That way QPR wouldn't go out of business but would serve a condign punishment. It won't happen though.
I agree with you up until there. They knew the rules, and decided they were wealthy enough to ignore them. The fine should be over £50m. Although I do think you make a good point, that if a fine would push them into administration, maybe a couple of relegations could be offered as an alternative.
Nonsense, it's completely biased.
The fine matches the overspend. Normal clubs don't throw money around like that.
Then how were they able to justify a £70m loss in their bid for promotion? That's £70m on top of the parachute payments they were receiving.
To not impose the fine would encourage other teams to break the rules, so it would lead to more teams going bust.
Remember the fine is supposed to be paid by clubs that are promoted - that's clubs that receive the huge PL windfall, so it's affordable.
Still, if it would really put them into admin, then stick them in the forth division with a transfer embargo instead. Cheats.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
A compromise of relegation to the national league and a fine of 10m would suffice. They seem to punish smaller teams this way
Sorry missed the thread!
The Doomsday scenario posted by QPR fans is a smokescreen. QPR's owners are worth an estimated £16 billion between them, so paying a £50m+ fine is easily affordable to them, as was paying the high level of wages during 2013/14. The club claimed that FFP rules were illegal, which is an irrelevance, as they were the internal rules of a member's club, the Football League, and QPR applied to be a member of that club when they were relegated from the Premier League, fully knowing the rules.
During 2016/17 the QPR board wrote off loans of £180.7 million, so the fine is still small beer compared to that.
The comment from the QPR board shows the arrogance of the super rich. They take the view that normal rules don't apply to them, and that they can use legal vultures to bully others into submission. Fair play to the Football League for standing up to this treatment and not caving in.
The three years it has taken does show the folly of such rules though, as it has taken three years to reach a judgement, and if QPR were still in the Premier League the fine would probably be unenforceable until the club was relegated. This is because the PL and FL are separate bodies.
Between 2011 and 2016 QPR have made a total loss of £234 million, before taking into account the £60m unusual accounting practice in 2013/14 where directors wrote off £60m of loans and claimed it as a negative expense in the accounts to comply with FFP.
