£30m this year but we have still got to get rid of players, the 3 I mentioned is another £17m so that comes in under the figure meaning no fine. I could only see us being in trouble when the parachutes run out and even then the fine wouldnt be over £10m. What is going to be interesting if is a Pompey style owner bets everything on going up and fails, gets a huge fine and then walks away leaving the club to be wound up, I bet things would change then.
they always put up shock stories, if it came from the F.T then take notice, (by the way that's the financial times not fulham traveller lol)
In the event that we do get promoted.......... I hope we don't have Faurlingate part two with half the league and The Sun screaming for a points deduction. The old ticker couldn't take that again.
Ironically that was the original plan. They probably realised they were going to be left for the first few years with no bugger to give the money to. You'd end up with bloody Millwall or someone being the only club and receiving £100M quid in fines collected off the promoted sides or something. If they don't get promoted they don't get a fine, they get other punishments. The fines are a punishment for denying other teams the promotion and PL income.
That makes sense so its a bit of a shock to me, I could see the FA putting the boot in to a club already in trouble.
Could QPR face record fine? . Share/Save Submitted by WG on Sun, 17/11/2013 - 08:55 It is being claimed that QPR could face a record fine under financial fair play regulations. Given their inflated wage blll, they could announce losses of £80m next spring for 2012-13. This would lead to a fine of £62m which would wipe out their additional Premier League income if they were promoted. Even if the losses were £60m, they could be fined £40m. A note of caution is necessary, however. Both internationally and domestically, the financial fair play regulations are buiilt on uncertain legal foundations. They are open to a legal challenge and it would certainly be worth QPR mounting such a challenge if a fine of this size was imposed. only winners could be the lawyers
Exactly right. This was discussed on "Morning Supplement" yesterday and it was suggested that there will be High Court hearings about that very issue.
It would be too simple to dismiss it just because of the source of the article, however we need to look into what the actual facts of the matter are, and what the consequences (if any) to QPR might be. For this season, we are permitted a maximum loss of £8 million. There's no restrictions on wages, and the fine is for clubs who "overspend" to get into the premier league - something that has such a loose interpretation. Who is to say that spending fifty million quid is 'overspending', because you could argue that this is what it takes to get promoted these days. All Tony and Amit need to do in order to make sure we don't breach the rules is to make up any shortfall in the books (permitted under the ffp regulations) so that the accounts show less than £8 million loss. The reason the Fail have picked this up is because the only three teams mentioned on http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php are us, Wigan and Reading - and they had to pick on someone. The simple explanation is that IF, when we file our 2013-14 accounts in December 2014, they show a loss of more than £8 million (after all permissible exceptions have been taken into account) we may be subject to a transfer ban, and a possible fine should we achieve our aim of promotion this season. The fine would be proportionate to the size of the overspend, once the proper definition of that has been haggled for a good few months by the lawyers.
Which is a load of bollox. FFP has only come about to entrench the hierarchy of football as it is now. By this same logic, Man City and Chelsea should have paid the likes of Everton in previous years a fine because they have denied them getting into the Champions League. With numbers picked for simple purpose of an example only, if these so called fair play rules say Arsenal you can spend £100 million because you’ve got a massive stadium and you’re in the in the Champions League and Crystal Palace you can only spend £20 million because you only have the sky money and a much smaller stadium then that is actually completely unfair. Every year for ever and ever Palace would finish lower than Arsenal. But if Bill Gates bought Palace and says sod it this is a capitalist country I wont to spend **** loads of money and make Palace a regular champions league club then they should be able to. Its what City and Chelsea did. The you would have a situation that Arsenal might finish 5th and not 4th and not qualify for Champions League. Extreme example I know but nonetheless it is to prevent this situation ever occurring that the FFP rules have been brought in. If it fails so what. Club’s always return and remerge on some scale. Look at Leeds, Pompey and even Wimbeldon. Provided the owner of a club meets the ownership tests he should be able to do whatever the **** he wants. Pure competition, produces a better league. Restricting it kills it off and makes it dull and predictable. Personally I think it’s ****ing brilliant that QPR can go and sign Remy and Cesar. I dont mean for me as aQPR fan but for the PL itself. If we had a half decent manager in place we should have been positioning ourselves now for European competiton. But it is the fact we did put ourselves in the position to do this that so worried the football authorities and one day potentially putting the likes of Arsenal In genuine doubt about qualifying for the Champions League. It is for this reason (and actions of City and Chelsea before us) that the fair play rules have been brought in. Arsenal took on massive debt to build a fancy stadium, spent millions over the years on Francis Jeffers and Jose Antonio Reyes. This along with the infrastructure at the training complex and youth set up means that with the big tv money and a regular champions league place they have a bigger budget than almost anyone else and a head start under the new rules. FFP will mean that the owners of Arsenal and united can sit back and draw a profit year after year with a restricted threat to their place in the champions league. Under the new rules the same goes for Swansea, Newcastle West Brom and Norwich etc. Their place in Prem becomes increasingly safe and they dont have to spend extra to secure it, or worry about another QPR esq start up spending/punching above their waeight to challenge them. Theser are the worst sort of owners for me. Summed up by Dave Whelans seemingly moral stance last year when he was perfectly happy with where they got to. Just about surviving and having run out of anymore money to keep ploughing into the club. All these owners are terrified of what TF and Co along with Bhatia/Mittals tried to do last year. Whelan hated it because investment (if not spent by that **** Hughes) would make it more difficult for them to survive and once relegated they would find it hard to return. He didn’t want the prospect of what QPR did being repeated as that club would over take them thus making there relegation more likely. In any case they have got relegated and I hope he stands by his moral stance and lets them dwindle away rather than once again running the club at a bigger loss to get them back up the league. If the league wants fair play then there should be a budget that applies to all clubs in the Premiership, then a budget for all clubs in the Championship. Therefore Arsenal shouldn’t spend any more money than Crystal Palace this season on wages or players otherwise it isn’t fair play!! Any discrepancies in spending is unfair. TF and Co’s approach is actually more fair as it narrows the gap. FFP only serves to entrench the league into the position it is already in.
Good post PD.....because FFP is so woolly worded there is bound to be a challenge to it, after all who has the final say on what is "overspending".....the owners of clubs could tie the Football League in knots for years over this. The idea of every club having the same budget would be good for the game because it would bring to an end the cosy cartel that exists within the top 6 and would bring about genuine competition.......unfortunately those that run the PL do not want this, they like the current situation because heaven forbid that a small infashionable club like Palace, Cardiff, Hull enjoyed success and meant that Arsenal or Chelsea missed out on their perceived right to a Champions League place.......
That's a post and a half Peter. It's what I have felt about FFP too, but couldn't say it as well as you just did there.
Top rant! In the NHL, there's a salary cap as well as revenue sharing so the top four clubs would end up giving the bottom six clubs money. Ironic for a country that's rabid against communism. Clubs should be allowed to spend as long as the money is being put in and not loaned or added as debt.
