Championship clubs rack up £1bn debt prompting financial fair play rules

[KZNSeagull]

National media have calculated that if Queens Park Rangers win their Play-Off Final match against Derby County but subsequently repeat their eye-watering 2012-13 losses of £65 million, then they would face a fine of £48 million. Any such fines would ultimately be shared out amongst those clubs that have adhered to the FFP rules

Plucked that from one of the links above. I thought it had been decided that the fines were NOT going to be distributed to other clubs after all

Yes, I read that too. I understand it is wrong, but the football league page I linked too above still has it being distributed amongst the clubs, but that page has not been updated for ages. So I assume it is now going to charity.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

...Re the relegated clubs, I thought they were excused in the first year unless they got promoted? That is what is says here (http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html) unless this is out of date:

Clubs relegated from the Premier League will not be subject to sanctions in their first season in the Championship as long as they have met their financial obligations under Premier League regulations. They would, however, be subject to the potential of a Fair Play Tax if they achieved promotion in their first season in the Championship whilst not complying with the FFP regulations.

This is what is being misunderstood.

It means that clubs coming down to the championship will not be assessed on their previous year's spending ( in the Premier League ).

They are still assessed and penalised in their second season after relegation with regard to their spending in the first season after relegation.


To be clear, say Palace for example, spend 500 million next year in the Premier League and are relegated. They are not then penalised in their first year in the Championship because of their spend the year before ( in the premier league ). However, their spending in the first season back could be subject to penalties when it is assessed in year 2.

 

[KZNSeagull]

This is what is being misunderstood.

It means that clubs coming down to the championship will not be assessed on their previous year's spending ( in the Premier League ).

They are still assessed and penalised in their second season after relegation with regard to their spending in the first season after relegation.


To be clear, say Palace for example, spend 500 million next year in the Premier League and are relegated. They are not then penalised in their first year in the Championship because of their spend the year before ( in the premier league ). However, their spending in the first season back could be subject to penalties when it is assessed in year 2.

Right, ok. That is the first time I have seen that clause interpreted that way. Interesting. Thanks

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Right, ok. That is the first time I have seen that clause interpreted that way. Interesting. Thanks

Reading , Wigan and QPR will have their accounts for the 2013/2014 season revealed in December and could suffer the consequences in January. However the Football League might come up with a compromise after the 4 proposals for change were rejected by the clubs the other day.

 

[Billy in Bristol]

Would it not be a helluva lot easier to have a salary cap?

1 point deductions for every x amount over the salary cap?

Easy to enforce, as thanks to everybody voting UKIP, we'll be out of Europe next week, or at least just before all the Scottish clubs are?

Professional Rugby (both codes) seem to have worked it out, of course the rich clubs want to spend more...

I live in hope...as these FFP plans are just plain confusing, and yes Parachute Payments will be an issue but this is NSC not Harvard Business School, I don't have answers for every/any thing.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Reading , Wigan and QPR will have their accounts for the 2013/2014 season revealed in December and could suffer the consequences in January. However the Football League might come up with a compromise after the 4 proposals for change were rejected by the clubs the other day.

Why do they need to compromise though? The proposals were to increase the allowable loss limits. If FFP is watertight (big if!) then a legal challenge may be useful in order to confirm that.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Why do they need to compromise though? The proposals were to increase the allowable loss limits. If FFP is watertight (big if!) then a legal challenge may be useful in order to confirm that.

If Derby win tomorrow somebody will definitely be screaming for a lawyer

 

[Pavilionaire]

With Kuz, Orlandi and Upson all gone, i'd imagine that's one hell of a dent into that wage bill.

With the FFP 2014/15 permitted loss going down from £8million to £6 million I'd say we've made our £2million saving right there.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

With the FFP 2014/15 permitted loss going down from £8million to £6 million I'd say we've made our £2million saving right there.

Add in Hoskins and it sounds about right to me.

 

[andy1980]

The first challenge to the UEFA FFP failed the other day, so maybe FFP is stronger than some people think. Maybe the Championship one is aswell. I hope so for our sake as we really do seem to want this.

 

[dougdeep]

Well done The Guardian. Couldn't imagine that quality of journalism anywhere else.