Why Queens Park Rangers believe they will escape £30m costs â the biggest Financial Fair Play fine ever levied QPR hope more lenient rules about Championship overspending can help them avoid a possible £30m FFP fine HarrY Redknapp - Why Queens Park Rangers believe they will escape £30m costs â the biggest Financial Fair Play fine ever levied Worried: QPR and their manager Harry Redknapp are thought to have incurred losses of £50m-plus last season Photo: GETTY IMAGES By Ben Rumsby 8:32PM GMT 12 Nov 2014 Ask Queens Park Rangers fans if they have heard of lex mitior and most would be forgiven for wondering how much the club were signing him for. But although lex mitior is not the result of Harry Redknappâs âwheeling and dealingâ in the transfer market, it may nevertheless emerge as an unlikely saviour for QPR before the end of the season. Not in their battle against relegation from the Premier League, but in their fight to avoid paying the biggest Financial Fair Play fine ever levied. Being hit by such a fine is a fate which surely awaits them if they comply with the Football Leagueâs deadline of Dec 1 for submitting their accounts for last season, which are tipped to show losses in excess of £50 million. Under the existing rules, that would see them face being docked in the region of £30 million, even more than Manchester City are likely to end up paying for breaching Uefaâs FFP rules. QPRâs chairman, Tony Fernandes, made it clear when they were promoted that the club would mount a legal challenge to such a swingeing penalty - although it was hard to envisage how that could possibly succeed. That was until last week. By the narrowest of margins, last Thursday saw Championship clubs vote to scrap the FFP rules QPR are being judged under and introduce new, more lenient, regulations from the start of the 2016-17 season. Instead of being fined for losses in excess of £8 million during a given year, teams will be allowed to lose up to £39 million over three years. And any side promoted to the Premier League can add another £22 million to that figure for every season they spend outside the Championship. The Football League made it clear the changes would not apply retrospectively and therefore would not reduce any fine imposed on QPR. However, this is where lex mitior comes in. Literally meaning âmildest lawâ, the Latin legal expression describes the principle under which sanctions are applied when legislation is in the process of being altered. In essence, lex mitior gives a defendant the right to be judged under whichever of the existing or upcoming laws is the most lenient. This principle has already been applied in sport, one example being breaches of the World Anti-Doping Agency Code, where cases can be assessed under the 2015 version in certain circumstances. And Inside Sport has learnt that QPRâs legal team is ready to argue that they, too, should benefit from lex mitior because last weekâs changes to the Championshipâs rules were effectively an acknowledgment that the existing regulations are not fit for purpose. Whether that reflects the actual view of the majority of the teams who voted is another matter. For, it is only two-and-half years ago that the same division agreed to introduce the current rules by a margin of 21 to three. Soon after that came the shock 70 per cent increase in the Premier League television deal - which widened the financial gulf between the two divisions - as well as the introduction of very different FFP regulations in the top flight. The incompatibility of those with the Championshipâs rules made the harmonisation of the two systems inevitable and, as with most negotiations involving the Premier League and Football League, it was the latter which was forced to back down. Legal threats from the likes of QPR, as well as Leicester City, Bolton Wanderers and Blackburn Rovers - clubs who may also now seek to exploit lex mitior - cranked up the pressure. But it was the fear of losing Premier League solidarity payments which ultimately convinced enough Championship clubs to fall into line and unwittingly open the door for a Rangers reprieve.
A fair amount of guess work has gone into the article, but the overall argument seems pretty sound to a layman like me. lex mitior for President, I say!
Hmmm, in some ways this may be letting the football authorities off the hook. I'm still waiting for a club to mount a proper legal challenge about FFP on the grounds that outlawing individuals spending their own money on their business is a large dose of restrictive practice (regardless of what contracts may have been signed). It would never survive an outing in the European court just as transfer fees for out of contract players disappeared overnight after the Bosman ruling. Man City's outlandishly rich owners have delayed this by stumping up the UEFA fine rather than risking a minor embarrassment to their royal highnesses but anyone with a business head rather than a crown will tackle this in the courts. We all know that FFP is simply a scheme for the richest clubs to get even richer by removing the possibility of real competition. This is what Platini has been after for years in his attempts to stave off a breakaway European super league. Bring it on I say.
Does Lex Mitior apply with Common Law as in the UK or only in countries using Civil Law? Had a quick look and the cases referred to seem to be in Europe. Am probably wrong and no lawyer but our legal system can be very different from that of other European countries (Republic of Ireland excluded of course).
It's all about off shore accounting ennit..... EDIT: Sorry like 85% of my posts, not to be taken seriously!
