FFP & QPR - MoS

[BensGrandad]

That is ok if your chairman can afford to take the chance and is prepared to ignore the FFP that he and other chairmen previously agreed to for it to be passed as a rule.

 

[Acker79]

So a wealthy chairman/consortium could take a chance and go to £17m (£8m accepted + £9m excess) to gain £120m buy getting promoted and if they fail, go for it the next year but keeping within the budget as they would have the players they need and would only to need to add possibly 1 or 2 free signings.

If they spend that 9m excess, they will face punishments for not sticking to the 8m acceptable debt (possibly fines, but transfer embargos). If the team wasn't good enough in the first season, they aren't necessarily going to go up the second season - you won't be allowed to add to the squad (squad may be weakened by players sold or contracts expired), your opponents will be able to add to theirs to improve, plus teams going down/coming up may well be stronger than the teams they are replacing.

It's hard enough to predict how good your chances are of going up this season, when taking the a gamble on this season's plans. It would be nigh on suicidal to try to use next season as a fall back.

 

[Acker79]

Correct for this year - 100% over 18m. Next year 16m, 15m the following year and thereafter.

For an 80m loss this year, they would be fined +- 68.6m.

Why 68.6? If it is 100% of anything more than 10m excess, the excess of 80m is 72m (more than 10m, obviously) so surely that would make the fine 100% of 72m (which, again obviously, is 72m)?

 

[BensGrandad]

It would be denied but I believe that all our eggs were put into 1 basket for promotion last season and simlarly this season we are treading water to build for next season so I cannot see how it cannot be planned with promotion in mind. ie. this season sign a replacement for Upson due to his age, an attacking midfielder and full back from the prem and a support striker like Ross McCormack problem solved money spent this year so more players not needed next. The transfer embargo would be pointless as there would be a few free tranfers. out of cntract players available who wouldnt be transferrd just given a contract .

 

[drew]

It would be denied but I believe that all our eggs were put into 1 basket for promotion last season and simlarly this season we are treading water to build for next season so I cannot see how it cannot be planned with promotion in mind. ie. this season sign a replacement for Upson due to his age, an attacking midfielder and full back from the prem and a support striker like Ross McCormack problem solved money spent this year so more players not needed next. The transfer embargo would be pointless as there would be a few free tranfers. out of cntract players available who wouldnt be transferrd just given a contract .

I would imagine the transfer embargo applies whether a fee is involved or not!

 

[KZNSeagull]

Why 68.6? If it is 100% of anything more than 10m excess, the excess of 80m is 72m (more than 10m, obviously) so surely that would make the fine 100% of 72m (which, again obviously, is 72m)?

As per Manx above:

Allowable loss is 8m.
So they have overspent by 72m

1% of between 1 and 100,000 = 1000
20% between 100,000 and 500,000 (20% of 400,000) = 80,000
40% between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (40% of 500,000) = 200,000
60% between 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 (60% of 4m) = 2.4m
80% between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 = 80% of 5m) = 4m
100% 10m+ = 62m

Which equals 68,681,000

 

[Acker79]

As per Manx above:

Allowable loss is 8m.
So they have overspent by 72m

1% of between 1 and 100,000 = 1000
20% between 100,000 and 500,000 (20% of 400,000) = 80,000
40% between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (40% of 500,000) = 200,000
60% between 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 (60% of 4m) = 2.4m
80% between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 = 80% of 5m) = 4m
100% 10m+ = 62m

Which equals 68,681,000

Working through...

1% of between 1 and 100,000 = 1000 ... Leaving £71,900,000

then

20% between 100,000 and 500,000 (20% of 400,000) = 80,000 ... leaving £71,400,000

then

40% between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (40% of 500,000) = 200,000 ... leaving £70,400,00

then

60% between 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 (60% of 4m) = 2.4m ... leaving £65,400,000

then

80% between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 = 80% of 5m) = 4m ... leaving £55,400,000

100% 10m+ (which is £55.4m) = 1k + 80k + 200k + 2.4m + 4m = 62m?​

That seems unnecessarily complicated. Are you sure that's how they're working it out, or is that just how you've interpreted it?

 

[kevo]

Interesting that they are saying the revenue from fines will not go to other clubs but will go to charity for 'political' reasons. This move certainly removes some of the incentive for clubs to remain prudent - so what are the 'political' reasons?

Surely taking money from clubs that flout the rules and distributing it evenly among those that remain within them isn't that controversial? What is 'political' about it?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Working through...

1% of between 1 and 100,000 = 1000 ... Leaving £71,900,000

then

20% between 100,000 and 500,000 (20% of 400,000) = 80,000 ... leaving £71,400,000

then

40% between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (40% of 500,000) = 200,000 ... leaving £70,400,00

then

60% between 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 (60% of 4m) = 2.4m ... leaving £65,400,000

then

80% between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 = 80% of 5m) = 4m ... leaving £55,400,000

100% 10m+ (which is £55.4m) = 1k + 80k + 200k + 2.4m + 4m = 62m?​

That seems unnecessarily complicated. Are you sure that's how they're working it out, or is that just how you've interpreted it?

It is how I have interpreted it. It is a tax, so I assume it is calculated in the same way as Income tax - you pay the higher rate of tax on the excess over the threshold. This seems the only feasible way to me as otherwise they would be paying 100% on everything, whereas a club that "only" lost 5m in excess would pay less than that on the same 5m. If you see what I mean.

And you have taken too much off in the steps - you need to take the difference off instead of the highest figure. So it should be 71.9m, 71.5, 71, 67 and 62.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Interesting that they are saying the revenue from fines will not go to other clubs but will go to charity for 'political' reasons. This move certainly removes some of the incentive for clubs to remain prudent - so what are the 'political' reasons?

Surely taking money from clubs that flout the rules and distributing it evenly among those that remain within them isn't that controversial? What is 'political' about it?

I agree. The politics, i would imagine, is that one organisation is taking money from a club no longer in that organisation ie the FL taking money from a PL club. It should not be controversial at all, but I would imagine that the PL have kicked up a fuss about it. Tossers*. *if what I have just written is true!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I thought there was a legal challenge to FFP under way already?

I seem to remember something about agents challenging it in the European Courts as a restriction on earnings which should mean that it is ruled illegal and it will have to be scrapped if they are successful.

 

[kevo]

I agree. The politics, i would imagine, is that one organisation is taking money from a club no longer in that organisation ie the FL taking money from a PL club. It should not be controversial at all, but I would imagine that the PL have kicked up a fuss about it. Tossers.

Yes, that probably explains it. Was thinking what a godsend it could be to smaller clubs in the lower divisions to get a portion of that money.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Yes, that probably explains it. Was thinking what a godsend it could be to smaller clubs in the lower divisions to get a portion of that money.

Absolutely! That really would begin to level the playing field a bit. Imagine what Yeovil could do with a decent share of 68.6m quid! Or indeed us.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Anyone else think that there will be a second breakaway league forming to get around these rules if they are to be permanent... A Premier League 2 anyone?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I thought there was a legal challenge to FFP under way already?

I seem to remember something about agents challenging it in the European Courts as a restriction on earnings which should mean that it is ruled illegal and it will have to be scrapped if they are successful.

I have addressed and negated this point about 5 times in other threads. If you do a search you will find some discussion on this which relates to the UEFA FFP. We follow the FL version.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I have addressed and negated this point about 5 times in other threads. If you do a search you will find some discussion on this which relates to the UEFA FFP. We follow the FL version.

But if the UEFA one loses and has to be scrapped because of the legal challenge, then surely the FL version would be open to the same legal challenge and wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of remaining.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

20% to charity - 80% to clubs - simple as that.

Points deductions should have been included as punishments - regardless of league.

 

[KZNSeagull]

20% to charity - 80% to clubs - simple as that.

Points deductions should have been included as punishments - regardless of league.

Personally, I believe that they should stick to the rules that were agreed. If the PL are kicking up a fuss, the FL should challenge it. Whether they would win, though, is another matter.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But if the UEFA one loses and has to be scrapped because of the legal challenge, then surely the FL version would be open to the same legal challenge and wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of remaining.

The FL clubs have decided to reduce their loses. I would imagine most businesses make similar decisions each and every day. What law has been broken?

 

[B.W.]

The sanctions for FFP non-compliance are just not strong enough. If they were, clubs wouldn't be just ignoring FFP.
How about stick to the FFP rules, otherwise no promotion? The clubs would have to play ball then.

If the compliant clubs are not going to receive financial compensation via redistribution then, IMHO, the rewards for compliance are also too low.

What a shambles!