I'm guessing so QPR boss Harry Redknapp has hit out at the Financial Fair Play system. The west London club are expected to have made losses of around £60million last term and could face a £40milion fine for their failure to comply with the FFP. Chairman Tony Fernandes is expected to appeal the fines but Football League bosses have warned the R's that if they refuse to comply - and suffer relegation this season - they could risk being blocked from all competitions. And ahead of Sunday's clash with Manchester United, who have spent close to £150million this summer, Redknapp has vented his frustrations. He said: "Fair play would be everyone having £30million a year to spend. "To make it fair play we should be able to spend as much as Manchester United have spent before we play them on Sunday. That would be fair play, wouldn't it? "What is fair play because one club can spend £200million on a team and another might spend £8-10million on their team. That's not fair play really, is it?" QPR recorded losses of £65.4million during the 2012-13 season - when they were a Premier League club - and are expected to have lost a similar figure last term. Clubs in the Championship last season have until December 1 to submit their accounts for last season, with the Football League announcing any action a month later. Clubs who breach the rules - and have losses greater than £8m - and are still in the Football League will have a transfer embargo imposed at least for the January window. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/qpr-boss-harry-redknapp-slams-4208336#ixzz3D78dbZgn Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
You know, he's ****ing right. FFP supposedly is to make a level playing field, so slack chops really does have a really valid point here.
I completely disagree. Why should Man United only be able to spend as much as a **** tin pot team with 15, 000 fans? Man United generate 100's of millions a year, what would happen to that money. Fair play would be more like being able to spend a certain % of your revenue.
Oh I agree with that mate, but FFP falls flat on it's arse as the CL regulars of 10 years past are already so far ahead interms of revenue that effectively FFP only closes the door on gatecrashers to that party. In that sense, Harry's point is valid, whichever way you look at it, by sticking to FFP, we effectively had a European Super League, as no outside club is gonna break in, bar winning the Europa. Platini can suck me off like, the prick.
I agree you can only spend what you bring in and clubs like QPR spending obscene amounts when they dont have the revenue isnt fair and they should get stuck with sanctions. Ellis and the people at the top of our club are working hard to make our club sustainable but its not fair on us when clubs like QPR live far beyond their means
All the so called fair play rules does is make sure the elite clubs now can never be challenged in the future.
So cos Man U got lucky at the right time, and became the global monster they are, most other clubs have no chance. Harry's correct imo...
it stops other teams investing lots of their own money into the club to make them a force, eg man city and chelsea that now will not happen again because of ffp and im sure i seen something the otherday that ufea was letting man city off with sanctions so they can still play in the CL
They fined City £49 million and forced them to sell Negredo, they did always say the European ban would be for a second offence.
ludicrous really ffp! how can you have a level playing field when its lop side at the get go? Footy is ****ed im afraid 30 odd years of horrendous management.
Fair play was brought in to keep the clubs at the top where they are . Clubs even with a billionaire owner now have to find ways of getting that money into the club legally The problem is football is all about money and the big boys are protecting there own interests.
Maybe Arry should have been saying this when QPR were attempting to buy their way out of the relegation zone at all costs a couple of years ago. Would he have said the same stupid crap if he'd have saved them? Harry would also not be opening his dirty rotten rat infested mouth if he was manager of a club like United. He's a desperate, pathetic ****er. FFP was introduced to stop clubs spending outside of their means, which ultimately stops clubs going bankrupt/liquidating. Harry is a ****ing gobshite who manages a club exercising the worst financial behaviour in the entire football league.
Spot on! Although I'm sure we all agree that it isn't great or fair to watch Man Utd spend their way back to the top 4... It's even worse watching muckers like QPR and (dare I say it) Hull spending beyond their means. If it cements the status quo then at least that means we won't be getting leapfrogged by a bunch of dodgy ****ers. It's as much of an issue looking down as it is looking up and Harry's club are amongst the very very worst.
How are we spending beyond our means? £21 mil net spend is nothing in Premier League terms and our wage budget is fairly standard.
No, Harry isn't correct. He takes the short term view which has ruined British clubs before. Take clubs like Portsmouth, which spent the money of playboy foreign owners, who then sold a bit, who then sold a bit of a bit on to some other playboy. And then the bills had to be paid, and the whole damn silliness fell on it's backside. Today, we have one of Scotland's most famous clubs - Heart of Midlothian - having their entire future existence debated in the courts of Lithuania, ffs! To my mind, the best thing to happen to British football over the past ten years is called Ellis Short. Ellis is ambitious - no doubt about that - but he's re-introduced a thing that has been missing here for far too long. He's coupled ambition with brains. If we want to spend more, get out there Gary Hutchinson, get out there Margaret Byrne, and earn more. And that is the correct way to do it. Ellis is weaning us off the debt culture that relies on his personal fortune or loans from other companies in his empire, and teaching SAFC to stand on its own damn feet. Two years from now, Harry will still hold some credibility. But 25 years from now, Ellis Short is going to bury guys like that. Sunderland has a future. Whether QPR, Hull, Cardiff, Portsmouth or Hearts does is another matter.
Yeah fair enough it's not astronomical, but I suppose it depends how you take 'within your means'. It's much higher net spend than most comparable clubs. My thinking was that our crowds + commercial income are much bigger than yours, so where are you getting the money for 2.5x net spending? The 'dodgy' reference was exclusive to QPR.
He has a point. I believe that if you have £300mil to spend, then you can spend it, clubs will try to squeeze every penny out of you , but it's your choice to spend that much. If you want financial fair play then you need to Cap wages and cape signing fee's. It would then give a better representation of how much a player is worth.
