QPR could face fine of up to £47m if they get promoted (FFP)

[Hillian1]

I thought teams relegated from the premier league were exempt for their first season in the championship?

Parachute payments AND an exemption?

The game is truly broken if that's the case.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Money is all Redknapp knows or cares about. Everywhere he's gone there's been allegations of dubious money transactions and massive overspending. This is the man that jumped between Portsmouth to Southampton and back again not giving a shite about club rivalries and leaving both when either the money ran out or relegation loomed, but had the audacity to return to Pompey to collect the freedom if the city bestowed on him.
When Q.P.R's usefulness runs out he'll spit them out and be off again. And if Fernandez is silly enough to keep throwing money at him, they deserve everything they get

It is clear from Tony Fernandes comments that he and the board would have spent a SHEDLOAD of money regardless of whoever was manager.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Wouldn't that open them up to legal action from every other club?

The other clubs? No.

The FL? Yes, I think it would. AND, one would think that those clubs that might sue the FL are quite likely to be those that have shouted longest and hardest about the importance of FFP, take every opportunity to state how how hard they are trying to comply, have publicly said on several occasions how much they hope the FL do clamp down on FFP transgressors and have previously shown that they take honouring contracts very seriosuly (say, by dismissing an ex-manager by way of gross misconduct, rather than by just doing a quiet side deal).

I would fully anticipate that in the event that the FL don't enforce the FFP sanctions, BHA and TB will take some form of action.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I thought teams relegated from the premier league were exempt for their first season in the championship?

I was under that impression too but cannot find any reference to it now , unless it is buried somewhere in the small print after they altered how any fines would be distributed because the Premier League doesn't like it.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I was under that impression too but cannot find any reference to it now , unless it is buried somewhere in the small print after they altered how any fines would be distributed because the Premier League doesn't like it.

I read that too, but maybe it was just a myth posted previously on NSC.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Incredible factoid courtesy of Raphael Honigstein: QPR spend more on player wages than Borussia Dortmund

English football really is ****ed up isnt it? How on earth has the game got to the state where a 2nd tier club pays more than a team which got to the CL final? And where finishing 16th in the top flight is preferable to winning a knock-out trophy?

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

Probably applies to Prem clubs coming down, but not if they have gone up since FFL came into force, eg QPR if they go up this year but when they come down they are liable.
Only guessing though

 

[Acker79]

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/...r-play-rules-introduced-into-the-championship

Any club relegated from the Premier League will be exempt from the rules for one year - it will then have to comply fully or face a transfer embargo. It is probably this rule that will worry Premier League clubs the most as it makes it more risky for a club to spend heavily in an attempt to 'bounce-back' immediately. There are a number of exclusions in the new rules, but Premier League clubs will have noticed that the cost of servicing existing debt is not amongst them. Some clubs, such as Aston Villa and Bolton, routinely pay around £5m a season to pay interest on their debt; the new rules will make life in the Championship particularly uncomfortable if the can't escape in the first year after relegation.​

Though that was from 2012.

And as late as last november, when it was known the fines were likely to go to charity, Paul Barber was under the impression QPR were exempt:

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

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I read that too, but maybe it was just a myth posted previously on NSC.

One of the annoying things about the internet is that you can never find something you read online about six months ago unless you're prepared to spend a couple of hours searching for it again

And then [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] finds it in 5 minutes flat

 

[Jim D]

Out of interest who will benefit from the fines imposed ?

I think it's all going the ex-managers benevolent fund.

 

[father_and_son]

The article says they will get the £47m fine if they DO get promoted.

That is contrary to what I understood for FFP where if you gamble and 'win' you escape FFP penalties. It's hard to see how the Football League could impose a penalty upon a club it no longer has any control over (i.e. one that has moved from Football League -> Premier League).

I don't believe this is the case (the club signed up to the T&Cs while in the FL, so will have continuing legally enforceable obligations even after promotion), but the FL should retain the right to refuse entry to any club who doesn't immediately settle their fine. Should any club owing fines to the FL be relegated from the PL, they would be excluded entry to ANY FL controlled division and have to apply to play in a lower division - then, assuming they won that league in the next season, they would still be refused entry to the FL and so be unable to progress upwards. The ban should remain in force for one full season after the debt is cleared, so they cannot just pay at the last minute when they know they are relegated, but have to plan ahead!

 

[Luke93]

'Arry the crook.

 

[Driver8]

'Arry the crook.

I thought Rosie was the crook?

 

[Luke93]

I thought Rosie was the crook?

You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased)]

It is clear from Tony Fernandes comments that he and the board would have spent a SHEDLOAD of money regardless of whoever was manager.

I know you're right, but I can't help imagine Redknapp rubbing his hands together like Fagin

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

English football really is ****ed up isnt it? How on earth has the game got to the state where a 2nd tier club pays more than a team which got to the CL final? And where finishing 16th in the top flight is preferable to winning a knock-out trophy?

They have the 9th highest wage bill in the UK, that's what happens if you don't have anyone keeping Redknapp in line.

Levy did a fine job.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I know you're right, but I can't help imagine Redknapp rubbing his hands together like Fagin

Its a dream come true for him, A clueless chairman who happens to be very very rich.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Harry allowed to work his magic again!

The Loftus Road side's overall debt increased to £177.1m, up from £91.4m in the 2012 accounts.

I know its the chairman that gives the go ahead but if that debt is passed onto the club! I'm amazed Harry doesn't show more duty of care when it comes to the books.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26468560

 

[del strangefish]

Money well spent.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I thought teams relegated from the premier league were exempt for their first season in the championship?

You are right but only if they are not promoted straight back up.

My understanding is that if QPR are promoted this season with those losses, they will receive a fine. If they stay down, they will not be subjected to a transfer embargo next season. But they will the following season if they are still down with those losses, or indeed not been relegated to League 1.