The clubs accounts run to 31st May so the latest ones will cover the period from roughly 3 weeks after we were relegated to the week after the Play Off Final. During that period a large number of highly paid players were farmed out on loan or transferred, although other presumably high earners came in on loan, BAE, Doyle, whilst others came in permenantly on presumably more reasonable wages, Dunne, Simpson, Austin, Phillips.... From reading various pieces we could expect the TV money to be halved from the amount received in the Prem, whilst gate receipts would be lower due to reduced ticket prices and lower attendances, think we averaged 16-17k compared to just under 18k when in Prem. The accounts to May 13 showed wages running at approx 110% of income which is unsustainable, I would not be surprised to still see wages running at 80 - 90% of income which is still rediculous. Overall although the losses should be lower than the £65m in 2013 the acounts will still not make very pretty reading and I would guess that the cumulative loss will be in excess of £200m in the May 14 accounts. No company can trade their way out of the situation so the Owners will have to look at either writing the losses off just as Abramavich did with Chelsea..... Re FFP I would expect that there are several legal firms rubbing their hands in glee thinking about the fees they will earn from various Court challenges......
I'm sure our losses will be less than anticipated. What happened to the huge amounts of money QPR will earn from TV rights after acheiving promotion to the Premier League? "....they can now start planning for a return to the top flight, with the club set to benefit by £80m according to one estimate from Sport Business Group Deloitte." http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27516368
Also Samba was sold for £12m in July 2013 so our net transfer spend will be balanced out for the year in the championship by that sale alone
Man ****ty have done us no favours by using their unlimited wealth to just pay their fine rather than bothering to challenge it in the courts which sets a precedent of sorts. Nonetheless, the whole notion of FFP is clearly a case of restricted business practice and should unravel as soon as it reaches the legal system proper (just as restrictions on out of contract players did). The fly in the ointment is probably the agreement that the club signed up to with the Football League. The argument there will presumably be that the impact of this on relegated clubs was not properly considered.
Plenty of new grounds. How many have you been to? 1 Halifax 2 Barnet YES 3 Woking 4 Gateshead 5 Torquay 6 Kidderminster 7 Eastleigh 8 Macclesfield 9 Lincoln City 10 Wrexham 11 Grimsby YES 12 Braintree 13 Forest Green 14 Aldershot YES 15 Bristol Rovers 16 Southport 17 Altrincham 18 Dover Athletic 19 Chester 20 Nuneaton 21 Dartford 22 Welling 23 Telford 24 Alfreton
I bet every team we play from now on their fans will be chanting "It's blue, it's square, your going down there" Oh well, sod them, it's only banter..
lets say a team wins the quadruple three times on the trot, banks a shedload of money, but keep their team fairly stable, only adding a few players here and there. Then their run comes to an end with their now ageing squad and they win nothing finish midtable. They then use a fraction of their previous profits to strengthen their team, letting a few of their squad leave for free. They would then be in breach of FFP, despite staying in the black and using only revenue from football, because their accounts of one year. Another club wins nothing, then every year spends slightly more than they make, but still within FFP's allowable losses, so that, within a few years they have accrued so much debt they are put into administration. It's absolutely ludicrous. I'm not even going to go into the following years accounts with the fine deducted.
Perhaps this has already been answered & I have missed it, but would any fine be levied against the accounts for the year that it referred to (as a post year end adjustment) or for the year when it was issued? Very good scenario Miggins & not as far fetched as some would believe. If United were to miss out on the top four for another couple of years they might be close to your example.
Redknapp questions FFP rules 12 September 2014 QPR boss Harry Redknapp has questioned the club's heavy fine for falling foul of the Football League's Financial Fair Play rules. The Loftus Road outfit – now in the Premier League – will be slapped with a fine that could go up to £50million for breaching financial regulations. QPR owner Tony Fernandes has promised to "fight" any fine from the Football League despite the club racking up huge losses of over £65m during the 2012-13 season. Last season's figures are yet to be released but given the club played in the Championship, they are not expected to be kind on QPR. Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey warned this week that QPR could be thrown out of professional football if they are ever relegated and refuse to pay the fine. The Football League run the Championship, League One and League Two, in addition to the League Cup. There has also been the suggestion that QPR could be booted from the League Cup as early as next season if they do not comply with the sanction but Harvey stressed that he hoped the issue could be resolved long before then. Redknapp showed his faith in QPR's owners at a news conference on Friday, though, and said the current rules made life difficult for sides relegated into the Championship. "I'm sure the owners know what they are doing," Redknapp said. "If a team invests and gets relegated then what do you do? "You can't just offload all of your players, it is very difficult to do that when they are on Premier League wages and are in the Championship. "It's a chicken and egg situation. Do you just come up and not spend and go down again, or do you spend a bit of money try to stay up and then be in trouble for Financial Fair Play?" Redknapp's men face Manchester United on Sunday, a team who have spent more than £150million in the recently completed transfer window. The likes of Angel di Maria, Ander Herrera and Radamel Falcao have all joined United and Redknapp feels the fact United can spend so much and not fall foul of Financial Fair Play rules, due to their revenue streams, is unfair on clubs like QPR. And he thinks capped spending in the transfer market would ensure a close-to-level playing field. "To make it fair, we should be able to spend as much as Manchester United," he added. "What is fair play? One team can spend £200m, another team can spend £8m? "Fair play would be everyone having the maximum of £30m to spend on their team and then have to bring in some players from the youth team. "Seven teams are on another planet to the rest. You don't have to be a genius to pick the top seven teams - it will be almost certainly be the same seven as last year." Redknapp added that he expects to sign a contract extension at QPR in the coming days. UNQUOTE No doubt, Harry's rehearsing QPR's opening submission when we sue the Football League. What he says make a lot of sense to me. Unjust rules
Have a look at Chelseas example and see if you can start to understand: “After racking up losses totalling more than £630 million in the previous eight seasons, Chelsea FC Plc recorded a modest profit of £1.4 million for the year to June 2012, the club announced on Friday. The figure is a significant improvement on the £67.7 million loss recorded in the 2010-11 season” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ionaire-owner-Roman-Abramovich-took-over.html If you start up a new business or pick up a low achieving business- you invest heavily and do not expect to turn a profit or break even for a number of years. These rules exist so that a club like QPR couldn’t replicate Chelsea’s sudden advancement or a club like Newcastle couldn’t get a rich owner in and suddenly do a Man City. This therefore protects the big 4/5 clubs from having to compete with any ‘new entrants’ who can nick their champions league place and then effect –the revenues that spin off this like selling hundreds of thousands of shirts in the Far East. So what we’re are left with is anti-competitve rules- Personally I’m proud that a little club like QPR can ruffle the feathers of the big clubs- We’ll take it to court win and open up the propect of the cartel at the top of the premiership being disrupted (not necessarily by us).
TF knew full well what the implications of not complying with FFP would be, after all the club had signed up to the regime and so the spending he sanctioned can only have been done with the intended consequence of bringing the matter to a head and fighting it in the courts. What I would be concerned about would be that the club that he bought does not carry the can for his actions if he loses or if he decides to walk away at some future point leaving a financial mess behind. Hopefully my fears are groundless.
Tend to agree with this, though it could be argued that, as we weren't in the Football League at the time these rules were signed off (April 2012) we may have a case in challenging them. Redknapp's comments about a spending cap make sense superficially, but the rules would have to apply all over the world and even if they were, players would still go to the clubs whose turnover/revenue meant they could pay best.
Well Redknapp isn’t the most articulate of blokes but I think it goes without saying that as well as spending on transfer fees being consistent across all clubs in the league the same would go for wages- So he picked a number out of the air at £30m you can then go and pick another figure out the air for wages- say £50m- maybe £60m for those in Europe because of the increased amount of games Otherwise it isn’t fair play- it might as well be ‘entrenched hierarchy play’ Of course you cant do this so you don’t enact these rules – you realise it’s a capitalist country and let the market naturally run its course. Same as you shouldn’t put in this stupid rules 'fair play' rules that will eventually set the leagues in stone. With the only alteration coming between the top 5 the 5th -9th- 10-15th and 16th-20th. Forever and ever I don’t say this often but Redknapp is spot on.
I'm not quite sure that we would have a case to challenge Stan. After all, these rules were in place when we accepted membership of The Football League in summer 2013. We could have refused entry & applied to the Conference if we didn't accept to obey the constitution, but The Conference is even harder on insolvency. Hereford & Salisbury were kicked out of that league this summer because of financial reasons! I still don't see that we will have any problems as we would pay any fine that after appeals was deemed to be appropriate.
Shaun Harvey is corrupt himself and shouldn't be in that job. http://www.change.org/p/the-footbal...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition
