QPR - now relegated, will they have to pay their FFP fine?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,701
The Fatherland
Different owners/realised how hard it is to stay inside the rules and stay competitive/fans annoyed at higher costs?

I know it's only one club, but Crawley blamed the FFP (among other things) as the reason they where in trouble.

I'm not sure what majority is for a FL members vote, but it's safe to assume at least 50% would now need to change their minds. I'm struggling to see how this will happen.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,701
The Fatherland
If they where 100 percent workable, why did they league change them after 1 season?

And that backs up my point in saying about chairman changing views on it.

They were tweaked to align with an increase in parachute payments.... I think. It was just a tweak though, and Barber did explain why the tweak was made
 


Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,792
hassocks
They were tweaked to align with an increase in parachute payments.... I think. It was just a tweak though, and Barber did explain why the tweak was made

That's fair enough, I don't tend to read the press releases from him.

I hope they get absolutely hammered, but I just can't see it, there will be a loop hole.

There really does need to be one administrator for all 4 leagues.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,186
Gloucester
I think you're guessing (as am I) and I don't think you're right. The legal process means nothing until it's finished. If QPR are kicked out, then presumably the place is given to someone else, and that other team needs to be told.

The rules are the rules, and while QPR can challenge them, the League has to get on with things in the meantime.
Not sure about that - I don't think acting while a matter is under legal consideration is an option. For example, we had to go through loads of legal stuff to get the Amex - there was no way we could have just started building it whilst the enquiries were still going on. What if the league throws them out, and then the decision is made by whatever judicial process that it was wrong to do so, and they must be allowed back in? That would be a right laugh if that happened in mid-October ..........

Anyway, injunctions can fly around all over the place at any time, can't they?
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
40,008
Pattknull med Haksprut
That's my point as to why the FL will do something.... At the time they got banned from signing players they could still have made the play offs, they wouldn't have. But there is no way the FL could prove they wouldn't have

Agreed.

The key wording (gets out nerd book) from FFP is as follows

*clears throat*

"A permanent waiver of related party debt.....must be treated as capital"

So the rule is very clear, and designed to prevent exactly what QPR have done. Otherwise any club owner could lend a club £100 million, and then write it off, immediately reducing their losses by £100m, and allowing the club to spend a fortune on players wages and transfer fees.
 




Elvis

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2010
1,413
Viva Las Hove
Different owners/realised how hard it is to stay inside the rules and stay competitive/fans annoyed at higher costs?

I know it's only one club, but Crawley blamed the FFP (among other things) as the reason they where in trouble.

Crawley problem is their lack of fan base. Unfortuately for them most of the town support London clubs. They just don't have the numbers, this season the vast majority of Lg2 clubs had bigger gates than Crawley. The owners may have blamed FFP but the reality is the support just isn't there even though the Towns population is greater than a few prem towns.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,153
Goldstone
If they where 100 percent workable, why did they league change them after 1 season?
They can continually make changes as they see fit, that doesn't mean it was unworkable. It's very simple, QPR broke the rules by over-spending to buy promotion, not because it wasn't possible to stay within the rules.

Not sure about that - I don't think acting while a matter is under legal consideration is an option.
They have no choice to act. If QPR do not comply with the rules, then the rules are that they should be kicked out of the league, and so I assume the rules are to give the place to another team. To not give that place to another team would be failing to act.
 


Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,862
Hookwood - Nr Horley
Agreed.

The key wording (gets out nerd book) from FFP is as follows

*clears throat*

"A permanent waiver of related party debt.....must be treated as capital"

So the rule is very clear, and designed to prevent exactly what QPR have done. Otherwise any club owner could lend a club £100 million, and then write it off, immediately reducing their losses by £100m, and allowing the club to spend a fortune on players wages and transfer fees.

Owners who have loaned clubs large amounts of money should in my opinion be encouraged to write off that debt - but that's another argument.

One point that seems to have been ignored in this discussion is the legal agreement between the Premier League and the Championship - in simple terms that The Football League will accept into the Championship teams relegated from the PL and the PL will accept an equal number of teams 'promoted' from the Championship.

In terms of any potential legal action over the QPR debt the Football League is between a rock and a hard place - I would suggest that the FL would have a better chance fighting individual clubs than the PL, both in financial terms and potential 'retaliation'/'compensation' should they lose any legal action.
 




Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,792
hassocks
Owners who have loaned clubs large amounts of money should in my opinion be encouraged to write off that debt - but that's another argument.

One point that seems to have been ignored in this discussion is the legal agreement between the Premier League and the Championship - in simple terms that The Football League will accept into the Championship teams relegated from the PL and the PL will accept an equal number of teams 'promoted' from the Championship.

In terms of any potential legal action over the QPR debt the Football League is between a rock and a hard place - I would suggest that the FL would have a better chance fighting individual clubs than the PL, both in financial terms and potential 'retaliation'/'compensation' should they lose any legal action.

I don't understand why the FL and PL don't have an agreement in place as both have some sort of FFP in place
 


GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,186
Gloucester
They have no choice to act. If QPR do not comply with the rules, then the rules are that they should be kicked out of the league, and so I assume the rules are to give the place to another team. To not give that place to another team would be failing to act.
....and then when QPR come back with a ruling from the House of Lords or Strasbourg or whatever in their favour, and the season's already started. What then?
 


Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
The penalty should always have been a heavy points deduction, carried out the following season, or upon a promoted club coming back into the league.
 




seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,944
Crap Town
Agreed.

The key wording (gets out nerd book) from FFP is as follows

*clears throat*

"A permanent waiver of related party debt.....must be treated as capital"

So the rule is very clear, and designed to prevent exactly what QPR have done. Otherwise any club owner could lend a club £100 million, and then write it off, immediately reducing their losses by £100m, and allowing the club to spend a fortune on players wages and transfer fees.

QPR tried to exploit the wrong loophole , if they had done what Fulham did by amortising players transfer fees in one hit instead of over the course of the contracts this is allowable under FFP rules to reduce losses.
 


PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
19,597
Hurst Green
Agreed.

The key wording (gets out nerd book) from FFP is as follows

*clears throat*

"A permanent waiver of related party debt.....must be treated as capital"

So the rule is very clear, and designed to prevent exactly what QPR have done. Otherwise any club owner could lend a club £100 million, and then write it off, immediately reducing their losses by £100m, and allowing the club to spend a fortune on players wages and transfer fees.

Have you been on yet? Any news
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,773
Fiveways
Agreed.

The key wording (gets out nerd book) from FFP is as follows

*clears throat*

"A permanent waiver of related party debt.....must be treated as capital"

So the rule is very clear, and designed to prevent exactly what QPR have done. Otherwise any club owner could lend a club £100 million, and then write it off, immediately reducing their losses by £100m, and allowing the club to spend a fortune on players wages and transfer fees.

I've recently heard you utter these words on Radio 5. You have come of age. You remain The King on all matters FFP El(vis) Pres(ley).
 






El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
40,008
Pattknull med Haksprut
QPR tried to exploit the wrong loophole , if they had done what Fulham did by amortising players transfer fees in one hit instead of over the course of the contracts this is allowable under FFP rules to reduce losses.

I think you're a bit muddled there.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,153
Goldstone
....and then when QPR come back with a ruling from the House of Lords or Strasbourg or whatever in their favour, and the season's already started. What then?
Then it's too late for QPR. Obviously that's not ideal, but the league has to do something, and whatever happens, it will be too late for one club (or 3). The only question then is which ruling to start with, and surely the natural ruling to start with is the ruling of the governing body. A team has broken the rules, they knew a long time ago that they broke them, they knew what would happen and they haven't yet taken the matter to court.

What would have happened if Rotherham had got relegated and challenged the decision? I assume they'd have been relegated while it went to the courts. This isn't new territory, teams have had points deductions etc before that have effected the league they've entered, and if they could have been in a higher division just by taking it to court, I'm sure they would have.
 


PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
19,597
Hurst Green






Bevendean Hillbilly

New member
Sep 4, 2006
12,805
Nestling in green nowhere
If QPR have money coming out of their ears (or seem to be), apart from a huge fine, surely a points deduction would be more appropriate - 10/15 points or whatever at the start of the season. That would then show that the FL mean business and multi-million pound owners would not be able to bail out their club with a fat cheque.

Look forward to the decision with interest.

Or, alternatively, that they were unable to be able promoted for two or three seasons whatever league position they attain. Just see if the money men are happy to wait three years for ROI. Chairmen like Bloom have sunk huge personal fortunes into their clubs and are clearly prepared to see it out but, I'll bet, that QPRs backers are quite so patient or altruistic.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top