| FFP decision in - not good 14:01 - Oct 24 with 53061 views | Northernr |
Arbitration found in favour of the league, basically protecting its role as a lawmaker that can set the rules for its competition as it sees fit. It leaves QPR liable to paying the fine in full, £40m-£60m
https://www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/qpr-financial-fair-play-dispute/
The club will be launching an appeal against this which will basically drag the whole thing on for another two years or so. They've a good chance in that, on the grounds of proptionality - you can fine HSBC £1.4bn but you can't fine the local Spar Shop the same amount for the same offence. Basically leaves the whole club, everybody that works there, the training ground development and us supporters in limbo for another two years. But yeh, at least Harry won us a promotion right?
Hopefully critics of Ferdinand, Hoos, Holloway, even Hasselbaink, and basically everybody that's been left to clear up the mess left by Hughes, Redknapp, Beard and most of all Fernandes previously now appreciate what a fcking tight spot they're all in.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |  |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:23 - Oct 25 with 3016 views | bosh67 |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:48 - Oct 25 by Northernr |
To be fair our lawyers, one of whom used to post on here and is about as good as it gets in sports law these days, have got us out of plenty of scrapes in the past, most notably the Faurlin debacle when we were also bang to rights. They've tied it up for two and a half years and will probably keep it going another two now. |
This. We have the same legal team that finally got us through the Faurlin saga. This is far from over and decided. Our lawyers are about as good as it gets. |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:50 - Oct 25 with 2959 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 21:14 - Oct 24 by BasingstokeR |
This bit is in the Telegraph story...
“It was unclear last night whether the club would have to record any fine in their latest annual accounts - putting them in danger of failing FFP again this season - or would be allowed to exclude it“
 |
Well that's nonsense as until we actually pay it, it doesn't have to go in P & L.
As we are appealing then clearly it won't be going in this year's accounts.
Even FL acknowledge we're not at the end game yet.
We could enter the fine as a liability now, I guess, but that would go on balance sheet, not P & L. |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:52 - Oct 25 with 2949 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 21:07 - Oct 24 by JamesB1979 |
I would like to think that some sensible conclusion can be reached. Surely most importantly we need to have our finances in line with the rules. Maybe agree that given our recent improved financials, an upfront fine of 10m plus 1 year transfer embargo and agree a set of financial targets to meet to get this sorted. I’m not sure I agre with the clubs stance of appealing and keeping things open. I think try to get some certainty and get a deal agreed. This has been hanging over us for a while now and we need to move on. |
As me and others have quoted FL have already said they will 'work with' us - so yes agree a 'deal' looks like the way forward. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:58 - Oct 25 with 2940 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 23:35 - Oct 24 by PunteR |
Yeh the fine should be to the owners not the club. |
The 'club' is a limited company, the limited means the owners personal liability is limited - like all other limited companies. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:11 - Oct 25 with 2918 views | QPR_John |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:52 - Oct 25 by PinnerPaul |
As me and others have quoted FL have already said they will 'work with' us - so yes agree a 'deal' looks like the way forward. |
How will the FL explain a deal. The tribunal has concluded we are guilty and that the way the fine is calculated is proportional. That is the point the fine is based on a fix calculation. I imagine the tribunal result re the fine is not what the FL wanted [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 18:12]
| | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:23 - Oct 25 with 2891 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 10:19 - Oct 25 by queensparker |
Very interesting and a nice listen at this point.
Hoos is a real bonus to this club. We need to keep him |
Agree - Lee Hoos very impressive - the questions less so IMHO. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:25 - Oct 25 with 2882 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:23 - Oct 25 by PinnerPaul |
Agree - Lee Hoos very impressive - the questions less so IMHO. |
What would you have asked? Very difficult when it quickly becomes apparent that the interviewee is just going to go "can't talk about that" to a lot of it. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:26 - Oct 25 with 2876 views | MedwayR |
If we go into administration do we only pay something like 1p in every £1 owed, so the fine could become £400-580k???
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:28 - Oct 25 with 2870 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 17:17 - Oct 25 by QPR_John |
Sorry to be lazy by not looking them up myself but I am sure somebody has these figures. What is our debt and have the FL ignored the debt to equity ( don't know if that is the correct wording) by the owners. [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 17:19]
|
Can partly answer - debt is a balance sheet item and doesn't affect P & L, on which FFP is based. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:31 - Oct 25 with 2863 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:11 - Oct 25 by QPR_John |
How will the FL explain a deal. The tribunal has concluded we are guilty and that the way the fine is calculated is proportional. That is the point the fine is based on a fix calculation. I imagine the tribunal result re the fine is not what the FL wanted [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 18:12]
|
As I said above John, easy to explain a deal - we could pay fine over a period of time, accept a transfer embargo in lieu of part or all of fine - there will be other ways I haven't thought of - obviously!
But as Hoos as said and FL have acknowledged - we're not at that point yet. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:37 - Oct 25 with 2848 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:25 - Oct 25 by Northernr |
What would you have asked? Very difficult when it quickly becomes apparent that the interviewee is just going to go "can't talk about that" to a lot of it. |
Not having a pop but asking doomsday questions, not really helpful I don't think.
The tongue in cheek, I hope it WAS tongue in cheek, about spending £100M was just silly, the raising of the fact we have sacked last two managers in Nov, so are we doing the same after Forest game (we have other games before that obviously) was equally unhelpful and my pet hate, so do over react to this one - people quoting 'balance sheet' when they mean P & L.
Good to hear him, but feel his calmness just highlights the absurdity of SOME fans' doomsday scenarios.
Sorry! | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:40 - Oct 25 with 2837 views | QPR_John |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:31 - Oct 25 by PinnerPaul |
As I said above John, easy to explain a deal - we could pay fine over a period of time, accept a transfer embargo in lieu of part or all of fine - there will be other ways I haven't thought of - obviously!
But as Hoos as said and FL have acknowledged - we're not at that point yet. |
I understand your point but a transfer embargo was not part of the punishment for a promoted club unlike clubs that remained in the Championship. The fine was clear every pound over £18M I believe, there was no confusion. If they change the punishment they change the rules and clubs that got a transfer embargo could easily question their punishment. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:44 - Oct 25 with 2830 views | Northernr |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:37 - Oct 25 by PinnerPaul |
Not having a pop but asking doomsday questions, not really helpful I don't think.
The tongue in cheek, I hope it WAS tongue in cheek, about spending £100M was just silly, the raising of the fact we have sacked last two managers in Nov, so are we doing the same after Forest game (we have other games before that obviously) was equally unhelpful and my pet hate, so do over react to this one - people quoting 'balance sheet' when they mean P & L.
Good to hear him, but feel his calmness just highlights the absurdity of SOME fans' doomsday scenarios.
Sorry! |
No I agree with a lot of that post mate, you're always very fair.
In David's defence, who asked both those questions, he'd asked for questions from twitter and those are the ones people wanted to ask, along with the usual "are we going to sign a striker/centre back in January" mindfck. I hold my hand up to the balance sheet/P and L thing, think that was me, but even the Telegraph has queried whether a fine would see us breach FFP in the future so it's a valid point to clear up for people not as business savvy.
I was genuinely asking what you'd ask, not being arsy about it, so no need to apologise. None of us were particularly happy with how it went TBH and we had a big discussion long into the night afterwards about whether we could have done it differently and if so how and if it was worth doing at all etc etc.
When people (not you) are giving it the 'celebrity fan wannabe' and 'club mouthpiece' and 'attention seeker' stuff I'd like them to see how much work and effort goes into stuff like that, I'd like to see them do better and certainly in my case how much we beat ourselves up over stuff that hasn't gone quite right afterwards. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:47 - Oct 25 with 2823 views | PinnerPaul |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:40 - Oct 25 by QPR_John |
I understand your point but a transfer embargo was not part of the punishment for a promoted club unlike clubs that remained in the Championship. The fine was clear every pound over £18M I believe, there was no confusion. If they change the punishment they change the rules and clubs that got a transfer embargo could easily question their punishment. |
Yes that's a fair point re the transfer embargo - you're probably correct - that particular horse trade would be difficult to get over the line.
As I said about 10 pages ago - that's only guesswork on my part!
What is fact - is that we are appealing, so a while to go before we get there yet.
If appeal results in verdict and fine being unaltered, I guess we'll go the high court option - again only supposition on my part. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 20:08 - Oct 25 with 2654 views | LunarJetman |
Any future plums who post that we need another striker/defender etc should be forced to have this paragraph tattooed on their forehead:
"Some of the same people, recently, are saying we need a goalscorer in January but they cost an awful lot of money. That is not the business plan.
“We are not going to spend a ton of dosh as we got in trouble before. We can't spend 10s of millions on a proven goalscorer but what we can do is develop or look at the bargains. I'm looking at the likes of Eze and Paul Ryan". |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 20:32 - Oct 25 with 2606 views | enfieldargh |
| FFP decision in - not good on 20:08 - Oct 25 by LunarJetman |
Any future plums who post that we need another striker/defender etc should be forced to have this paragraph tattooed on their forehead:
"Some of the same people, recently, are saying we need a goalscorer in January but they cost an awful lot of money. That is not the business plan.
“We are not going to spend a ton of dosh as we got in trouble before. We can't spend 10s of millions on a proven goalscorer but what we can do is develop or look at the bargains. I'm looking at the likes of Eze and Paul Ryan". |
Paul Ryan, not heard of him.
There are a couple of others who gave been banging them in for the u23s
Eze not sure he's an out and out goal scorer but a superb attacking prospect
As for ffp it's going to drag on and I reckon will end up a damp squib. Sand ostrich bury |  |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 21:07 - Oct 25 with 2550 views | BasingstokeR |
Does anyone have a link to show FFP fines levied are excluded from future FFP consideration, and if they are allowed to be paid by the owners in a similar way the owners tried to put money in and werent allowed to count that previously? |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 21:45 - Oct 25 with 2486 views | Brightonhoop |
| FFP decision in - not good on 13:52 - Oct 25 by TGRRRSSS |
Nico and Blackstone Chambers then??? |
Fair pplay to Nico, he done a job for us over Faulin. Maybe he'll do a number this time around? |  | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 21:59 - Oct 25 with 2460 views | Brightonhoop |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:47 - Oct 25 by PinnerPaul |
Yes that's a fair point re the transfer embargo - you're probably correct - that particular horse trade would be difficult to get over the line.
As I said about 10 pages ago - that's only guesswork on my part!
What is fact - is that we are appealing, so a while to go before we get there yet.
If appeal results in verdict and fine being unaltered, I guess we'll go the high court option - again only supposition on my part. |
I see your point, and Johns, but think that whilst the old rules hemm us in to a certain corner, the fact the FL changed the rules confirms they were disproportionate. Why else change them and apply old rules wihout rescinding old ones? Because they did not want to repay Blackburn. So, with our owners, the FL could potentially be on the back foot, because I think TF must be stewing, who wouldn't be, and may well see them in the High Court.
It would cost less to level their own rules and re-imburse Blackburn etc and apply current rules to our circumstance than see TF and Tune, maybe with Mittal lurking in the shadows, dragging the FL into the High Court. The biggest weakness in their case, imho, is that they changed the levels of punishments to less harsh, AND crucially extended them to over 3 seasons not one, as they have applied to us. It's grossly unjust and who knows what a High Court case may bring. Costly but the punishment couldn't be higher and that's the FL's fault. Stupid is what Stupid does.
Ultimately we need one Footballing Authority across the 4 professional Leagues in the UK not two. Sky as always remains the source of conflict.
I think the Club is in the stronger position, not least because the FL is so stupid in its own application.
Slightly more optomistic tonight. Likely back on the rocks tomorrow.
And then Wolves saturday.
Is it Friday yet? ffs what a long week lol | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 22:29 - Oct 25 with 2383 views | Lblock |
Probably already mentioned here but surely a Bournemouth type deal is needed here and kept under wraps?
If the English Foolish League wont play ball and are concerned about issues it may drag up with Blackburn, Florist, Lootown etc then how about a joint class action by all clubs?
There is legal grounds to move forward on such as a rule whereby if it changes in future then you can argue you were previously dealt with disproportionately plus a proper old school thing called equitable estoppel. That is to do with reliance on previous or future conditions and the economics of a situation.
Good old Bungle... great for a laugh wasn't he? |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 22:46 - Oct 25 with 2358 views | Brightonhoop |
| FFP decision in - not good on 22:29 - Oct 25 by Lblock |
Probably already mentioned here but surely a Bournemouth type deal is needed here and kept under wraps?
If the English Foolish League wont play ball and are concerned about issues it may drag up with Blackburn, Florist, Lootown etc then how about a joint class action by all clubs?
There is legal grounds to move forward on such as a rule whereby if it changes in future then you can argue you were previously dealt with disproportionately plus a proper old school thing called equitable estoppel. That is to do with reliance on previous or future conditions and the economics of a situation.
Good old Bungle... great for a laugh wasn't he? |
yeah but who wants to be in a class action with Luton? I guess we could ambush them at Kings Cross on the way to the High Court ''ello girls, remember us?' Tee Hee.
Bournemouth have sailed so its us and Blackburn who are broke.
I hope TF has some backers to torpedo the FL. The FL need to be torpedoed.
I would be so proud if my Club stuck it up 'em. [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 22:48]
| | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 22:50 - Oct 25 with 2351 views | philc |
| FFP decision in - not good on 21:07 - Oct 25 by BasingstokeR |
Does anyone have a link to show FFP fines levied are excluded from future FFP consideration, and if they are allowed to be paid by the owners in a similar way the owners tried to put money in and werent allowed to count that previously? |
I don't have a link but normally I'd expect something like this to be classed as an exceptional item which means it is deducted after the declared profit / loss. Exceptional is as it sounds i.e. not a normal business expense. | | | |
| FFP decision in - not good on 23:14 - Oct 25 with 2296 views | johncharles |
| FFP decision in - not good on 18:11 - Oct 25 by QPR_John |
How will the FL explain a deal. The tribunal has concluded we are guilty and that the way the fine is calculated is proportional. That is the point the fine is based on a fix calculation. I imagine the tribunal result re the fine is not what the FL wanted [Post edited 25 Oct 2017 18:12]
|
This is all nonsense. Just some private company picking and choosing an "independent" tribunal to rubber stamp it's own arbitrary decisions. Doesn't mean jack sh1t. The FL is way out of its depth.
Football governing bodies are rotten to the core. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| FFP decision in - not good on 23:52 - Oct 25 with 2250 views | Hitch |
If and when we pay the fine can Remy then play. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
