FFP & QPR - MoS

[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 two are quite different. As I understand it the UEFA version was imposed. The FL version was agreed by all the member clubs.

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

aside from the point that this is completely seperate from the Football League's rule (agreed to by the clubs themselves), why do you assume the agents challenge would hold? they arent entitled to earnings from football clubs.

 

[BensGrandad]

The problem with this is that the law of the land allows for companies to submit their profit and loss accounts too late for clubs to lose points or be stopped gaining promotion. The only way around it would be for the FL to bring in a rule that says that their year ends on 1st June and all accounts must be submitted by 15th June giving clubs 14 days to submit them. Most clubs could have them prepared ready for finalising by then quite easily but I do not think the clubs would vote in favour of such a rule being introduced.

 

[Creaky]

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!

It's not realistic to impose the same financial rules on all the clubs - there are just too many differences between them.

For example BHAFC don't pay rent for use of the stadium, how can our P&L be compared equally with a club that has to pay a 7 figure sum for theirs - we have been lent millions by a generous benefactor at zero percent interest. Is it fair to compare our costs with a team that is paying a commercial rate of interest?

We are based in the comparitively affluent South East and attracting regular large crowds - is it fair to compare us with a club in the North East with small home crowds?

Of course there are all the arguments that say other clubs are either 'cheating' or have their own personal circumstances which benefit them financially.

FFP is going to put far more clubs under real financial pressure compared to the number that got into real financial difficulties under the previous so-called free-for -all.

The new financial rules are increasing the gap between the Premier League and the Championship, both in terms of the quality of player and more importantly the financial status of the clubs. The one much lauded aim of the FFP regulations was to reduce the amount being spent on player costs - well I see no sign of that nor encouragement from the fans for that aim to be achieved. Almost all fans I speak to, no matter which team they support, want their club to bring in better players to improve the team irrespective of the cost.

The regulations may have been voted in by the majority of League chairs, but does that mean that what was voted for and may well be beneficial for the titular head of each club, (often the major shareholder), is necessarily either what is best for the clubs or for football in general?

 

[KZNSeagull]

The two are quite different. As I understand it the UEFA version was imposed. The FL version was agreed by all the member clubs.

According to Wiki (please note!), the UEFA one was agreed as well, not imposed: UEFA General Secretary Gianni Infantino dismissed Dupont's claim, saying; "We are not worried about it. First, because we have the best lawyers working for us but also because FFP has been agreed by all of the clubs, associations and the European Commission. These haven't been imposed."

 

[KZNSeagull]

It's not realistic to impose the same financial rules on all the clubs - there are just too many differences between them.

For example BHAFC don't pay rent for use of the stadium, how can our P&L be compared equally with a club that has to pay a 7 figure sum for theirs - we have been lent millions by a generous benefactor at zero percent interest. Is it fair to compare our costs with a team that is paying a commercial rate of interest?

We are based in the comparitively affluent South East and attracting regular large crowds - is it fair to compare us with a club in the North East with small home crowds?

Of course there are all the arguments that say other clubs are either 'cheating' or have their own personal circumstances which benefit them financially.

FFP is going to put far more clubs under real financial pressure compared to the number that got into real financial difficulties under the previous so-called free-for -all.

The new financial rules are increasing the gap between the Premier League and the Championship, both in terms of the quality of player and more importantly the financial status of the clubs. The one much lauded aim of the FFP regulations was to reduce the amount being spent on player costs - well I see no sign of that nor encouragement from the fans for that aim to be achieved. Almost all fans I speak to, no matter which team they support, want their club to bring in better players to improve the team irrespective of the cost.

The regulations may have been voted in by the majority of League chairs, but does that mean that what was voted for and may well be beneficial for the titular head of each club, (often the major shareholder), is necessarily either what is best for the clubs or for football in general?

What FFP is trying to do is get most clubs to live within their means - 35+ administrations of English Football League Clubs suggests that they are not very good at doing that. Something has to change - what do you suggest?

 

[Creaky]

What FFP is trying to do is get most clubs to live within their means - 35+ administrations of English Football League Clubs suggests that they are not very good at doing that. Something has to change - what do you suggest?

Good question!

I think the first step is to impose greater regulatory oversight of club accounts. By that I mean insisting that clubs are totally transparent with their finances allowing League inspectors to have access to the books at any time. This would bring to light clubs that are getting into financial difficulties before it is too late - this would allow for sanctions by way of restrictions on taking assets out of a club without permission and ensuring that primary creditors such as HMRC are paid.

There is nothing wrong with benefactors wanting to plough as much as they like into a club - problems arise when they either don't comply with promises made or change their mind and try to get their money back - so prohibit loans to clubs - if individuals want to invest in a club then this has to be done by way of a rights issue approved by existing shareholders.

Of course it is highly unlikely that either of the above suggestions would ever be approved by the chairs of league clubs as they potentially penalise the individual owners rather than FFP which indirectly penalise the fans, either by reducing the quality of players in their teams and/or increasing the amount they have to spend in order to watch football.

I fail to see how imposing financial penalties on a club because it is in financial difficulties can do anything other than make things worse!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I foresee a legal challenge as a class action suit by all the clubs who have kept within the FFP guidelines but don't receive ALL of the the financial benefits when the fines are redistributed. When was the decision made that clubs who get promoted and massively overspent in doing so have the fine donated to charity ? Did the clubs vote this measure in or has the FL made a unilateral decision ?

 

[The Large One]

I wrote to Paul Barber about this...

Hi Paul

Sorry to disturb your Sunday - but have you seen this?

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport...05/QPR-face-record-fine-losing-80million.html

Can I draw your attention to the following paragraph -

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Football League plan to donate fines levied under their FFP rules to charity. It had previously been expected that fines paid by overspending clubs would be shared among clubs who stayed within the rules and did not lose huge amounts while trying to ‘buy’ success. But a senior FL source says giving the fines to charity is now the preferred option ‘for a number of political reasons’.

This is contrary to what David Burke said on the Albion Roar a few weeks ago. Surely this undermines the whole ethos behind FFP. It appears to have taken away one of the prime motivators to be financial responsible - not only punishing errant clubs, but rewarding well-run clubs.

Does this change the club's stance and attitude towards FFP? Can you comment upon this?

Cheers, Al

and got this back...

Hi Al

Yes, we have been aware of this point for a little while now. It's very frustrating but, in a nutshell, the Premier League did not agree with the idea of any fines for promoted clubs that break FFP rules being distributed amongst Championship clubs (the Premier League has a say as, at the point of promotion, the club becomes one of their members and ceases to be a Football League member club).

The likelihood, as the Mail's piece suggests, is that any fine that is imposed on promoted clubs will be distributed to charity (in some way shape or form) instead. As far as QPR are concerned, this story is slightly inaccurate anyway as relegated clubs have a one season exemption (and, yes, that's frustrating too as battling against clubs with parachute payments is hard enough without there being special exemptions too!).

Personally speaking, and as useful as the transfer embargo sanctions will be in supporting the FFP regulations, I would have much preferred the fine distribution process to all other Championship clubs to have been part of the FFP sanctions. I know Tony and our Board would have preferred this too. I totally agree with you that this way of punishing errant clubs would have given the FFP rules both teeth and incentive.

This particular way isn't to be but it doesn't change our attitude towards FFP. At its core, the FFP rules, while not perfect by any means, are a sensible step in the right direction for how football clubs should be run - i.e. don't spend more than you can afford and don't risk the future of your football club by sustaining huge losses year after year. Ours is the only industry where losses are expected and, worse, losses are expected to be sustained indefinitely! After all, it's easy to forget, someone has to fund those losses.

We have had to battle very hard this year to reduce our overall operational costs to sustain (and to slightly improve) the football budget. It will be even harder again next year as we must somehow find a further £2m to maintain our football budget again and also stay within the FFP rules which as you know tighten further over time.

Even with all the work we have done to reduce our costs and improve our revenues - in other words simply run our business better - we fully expect our losses to be at least the same as last year (and most likely higher) as we've obviously been through large scale re-structuring while also continuing to ramp up our football investment around people and key infrastructure such as our new training and academy facility which is so vital for our future.

But this is the challenge we face. It's very difficult. I know people are bored with me banging on about this stuff - and with the club constantly driving hard to increase and protect our revenues while also finding ways of reducing our costs and being more efficient - but, as I hope you can see, we really have no choice if we're to protect our investment in the football budget. It's an ongoing battle for us - and indeed for all clubs. It's particularly difficult when many clubs in our division are receiving parachute payments to supplement the usual income streams for a Championship club.

I hope this makes some sense on a Sunday afternoon! As ever, happy to explain further where I can at any time. See you soon.

Kind regards, Paul

 

[drew]

Good question!

I think the first step is to impose greater regulatory oversight of club accounts. By that I mean insisting that clubs are totally transparent with their finances allowing League inspectors to have access to the books at any time. This would bring to light clubs that are getting into financial difficulties before it is too late - this would allow for sanctions by way of restrictions on taking assets out of a club without permission and ensuring that primary creditors such as HMRC are paid.

There is nothing wrong with benefactors wanting to plough as much as they like into a club - problems arise when they either don't comply with promises made or change their mind and try to get their money back - so prohibit loans to clubs - if individuals want to invest in a club then this has to be done by way of a rights issue approved by existing shareholders.

Of course it is highly unlikely that either of the above suggestions would ever be approved by the chairs of league clubs as they potentially penalise the individual owners rather than FFP which indirectly penalise the fans, either by reducing the quality of players in their teams and/or increasing the amount they have to spend in order to watch football.

I fail to see how imposing financial penalties on a club because it is in financial difficulties can do anything other than make things worse!

I thought there was already provision within FL rules for the monitoring/inspection of accounts. However, I agree that there should be a rule change that allows creditors to be considered equally whereas the present situation demands football creditors have preference.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I wrote to Paul Barber about this...

Hi Paul

Sorry to disturb your Sunday - but have you seen this?

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport...05/QPR-face-record-fine-losing-80million.html

Can I draw your attention to the following paragraph -

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Football League plan to donate fines levied under their FFP rules to charity. It had previously been expected that fines paid by overspending clubs would be shared among clubs who stayed within the rules and did not lose huge amounts while trying to ‘buy’ success. But a senior FL source says giving the fines to charity is now the preferred option ‘for a number of political reasons’.

This is contrary to what David Burke said on the Albion Roar a few weeks ago. Surely this undermines the whole ethos behind FFP. It appears to have taken away one of the prime motivators to be financial responsible - not only punishing errant clubs, but rewarding well-run clubs.

Does this change the club's stance and attitude towards FFP? Can you comment upon this?

Cheers, Al

and got this back...

Hi Al

Yes, we have been aware of this point for a little while now. It's very frustrating but, in a nutshell, the Premier League did not agree with the idea of any fines for promoted clubs that break FFP rules being distributed amongst Championship clubs (the Premier League has a say as, at the point of promotion, the club becomes one of their members and ceases to be a Football League member club).

The likelihood, as the Mail's piece suggests, is that any fine that is imposed on promoted clubs will be distributed to charity (in some way shape or form) instead. As far as QPR are concerned, this story is slightly inaccurate anyway as relegated clubs have a one season exemption (and, yes, that's frustrating too as battling against clubs with parachute payments is hard enough without there being special exemptions too!).

Personally speaking, and as useful as the transfer embargo sanctions will be in supporting the FFP regulations, I would have much preferred the fine distribution process to all other Championship clubs to have been part of the FFP sanctions. I know Tony and our Board would have preferred this too. I totally agree with you that this way of punishing errant clubs would have given the FFP rules both teeth and incentive.

This particular way isn't to be but it doesn't change our attitude towards FFP. At its core, the FFP rules, while not perfect by any means, are a sensible step in the right direction for how football clubs should be run - i.e. don't spend more than you can afford and don't risk the future of your football club by sustaining huge losses year after year. Ours is the only industry where losses are expected and, worse, losses are expected to be sustained indefinitely! After all, it's easy to forget, someone has to fund those losses.

We have had to battle very hard this year to reduce our overall operational costs to sustain (and to slightly improve) the football budget. It will be even harder again next year as we must somehow find a further £2m to maintain our football budget again and also stay within the FFP rules which as you know tighten further over time.

Even with all the work we have done to reduce our costs and improve our revenues - in other words simply run our business better - we fully expect our losses to be at least the same as last year (and most likely higher) as we've obviously been through large scale re-structuring while also continuing to ramp up our football investment around people and key infrastructure such as our new training and academy facility which is so vital for our future.

But this is the challenge we face. It's very difficult. I know people are bored with me banging on about this stuff - and with the club constantly driving hard to increase and protect our revenues while also finding ways of reducing our costs and being more efficient - but, as I hope you can see, we really have no choice if we're to protect our investment in the football budget. It's an ongoing battle for us - and indeed for all clubs. It's particularly difficult when many clubs in our division are receiving parachute payments to supplement the usual income streams for a Championship club.

I hope this makes some sense on a Sunday afternoon! As ever, happy to explain further where I can at any time. See you soon.

Kind regards, Paul

Thanks for doing that and for posting his reply.

Any infringements under Football League rules should have sod all to do with the Premier League. So now they are protecting their members, even before they are members. Crazy.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Thanks for doing that and for posting his reply.

Any infringements under Football League rules should have sod all to do with the Premier League. So now they are protecting their members, even before they are members. Crazy.

The Premier League only cares about the money it can generate for the member clubs , they don't give a stuff about anyone else.

 

[Jim D]

I wrote to Paul Barber about this...

Hi Paul

Sorry to disturb your Sunday - but have you seen this?

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport...05/QPR-face-record-fine-losing-80million.html

Can I draw your attention to the following paragraph -

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that the Football League plan to donate fines levied under their FFP rules to charity. It had previously been expected that fines paid by overspending clubs would be shared among clubs who stayed within the rules and did not lose huge amounts while trying to ‘buy’ success. But a senior FL source says giving the fines to charity is now the preferred option ‘for a number of political reasons’.

This is contrary to what David Burke said on the Albion Roar a few weeks ago. Surely this undermines the whole ethos behind FFP. It appears to have taken away one of the prime motivators to be financial responsible - not only punishing errant clubs, but rewarding well-run clubs.

Does this change the club's stance and attitude towards FFP? Can you comment upon this?

Cheers, Al

and got this back...

Hi Al

Yes, we have been aware of this point for a little while now. It's very frustrating but, in a nutshell, the Premier League did not agree with the idea of any fines for promoted clubs that break FFP rules being distributed amongst Championship clubs (the Premier League has a say as, at the point of promotion, the club becomes one of their members and ceases to be a Football League member club).

The likelihood, as the Mail's piece suggests, is that any fine that is imposed on promoted clubs will be distributed to charity (in some way shape or form) instead. As far as QPR are concerned, this story is slightly inaccurate anyway as relegated clubs have a one season exemption (and, yes, that's frustrating too as battling against clubs with parachute payments is hard enough without there being special exemptions too!).

Personally speaking, and as useful as the transfer embargo sanctions will be in supporting the FFP regulations, I would have much preferred the fine distribution process to all other Championship clubs to have been part of the FFP sanctions. I know Tony and our Board would have preferred this too. I totally agree with you that this way of punishing errant clubs would have given the FFP rules both teeth and incentive.

This particular way isn't to be but it doesn't change our attitude towards FFP. At its core, the FFP rules, while not perfect by any means, are a sensible step in the right direction for how football clubs should be run - i.e. don't spend more than you can afford and don't risk the future of your football club by sustaining huge losses year after year. Ours is the only industry where losses are expected and, worse, losses are expected to be sustained indefinitely! After all, it's easy to forget, someone has to fund those losses.

We have had to battle very hard this year to reduce our overall operational costs to sustain (and to slightly improve) the football budget. It will be even harder again next year as we must somehow find a further £2m to maintain our football budget again and also stay within the FFP rules which as you know tighten further over time.

Even with all the work we have done to reduce our costs and improve our revenues - in other words simply run our business better - we fully expect our losses to be at least the same as last year (and most likely higher) as we've obviously been through large scale re-structuring while also continuing to ramp up our football investment around people and key infrastructure such as our new training and academy facility which is so vital for our future.

But this is the challenge we face. It's very difficult. I know people are bored with me banging on about this stuff - and with the club constantly driving hard to increase and protect our revenues while also finding ways of reducing our costs and being more efficient - but, as I hope you can see, we really have no choice if we're to protect our investment in the football budget. It's an ongoing battle for us - and indeed for all clubs. It's particularly difficult when many clubs in our division are receiving parachute payments to supplement the usual income streams for a Championship club.

I hope this makes some sense on a Sunday afternoon! As ever, happy to explain further where I can at any time. See you soon.

Kind regards, Paul

I would have hoped the FL would have said something like....'The PL can act as it likes and for the time these clubs are in the PL they can't be touched by the FL. But heaven help them if they ever get relegated!'

 

[Berty23]

People can say what yet want about Paul b but getting a prompt from him on a Sunday is pretty impressive.

 

[BensGrandad]

I remember when I was a baord member of Surrey County FA we received the annual accounts from all clubs and a certain club in Croydon sent in a return stating
Income NIL Expenditure NIL when questioned they said that all players were employed by Raymond Bloye (Chairman) as Publicity Representatives of Matthews Butchers and loaned to CPFC to play football etc as required. The accounts would be submitted as part of Matthew Butchers Accounts a required by law.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would have hoped the FL would have said something like....'The PL can act as it likes and for the time these clubs are in the PL they can't be touched by the FL. But heaven help them if they ever get relegated!'

Are they not legally still part of the FL until the start of the next season when they enter the Premier League, so how is it the Prems concern.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I remember when I was a baord member of Surrey County FA we received the annual accounts from all clubs and a certain club in Croydon sent in a return stating
Income NIL Expenditure NIL when questioned they said that all players were employed by Raymond Bloye (Chairman) as Publicity Representatives of Matthews Butchers and loaned to CPFC to play football etc as required. The accounts would be submitted as part of Matthew Butchers Accounts a required by law.

I guess that was one way of avoiding liquidation (there was no option of going into administration in those days)

 

[KZNSeagull]

I would have hoped the FL would have said something like....'The PL can act as it likes and for the time these clubs are in the PL they can't be touched by the FL. But heaven help them if they ever get relegated!'

Well, PB's reply says "likelihood", so not a certainty yet. Perhaps the FL and chairmen are trying to challenge it or come up with an alternative?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Fair play to PB for his speedy reply.

 

[sully]

Surely it is up to the FL what they do with the money raised in fines. It's quite extraordinary that the Premier League should have any say in what they can or can't do with it.