QPR FFP

[A Storm of Blades]

What a joke of a fine £42m is. How in the world do you justify fining them 1/3 of the amount they obtained by cheating in the first place?! First Bournemouth @£7m, and now this. Derby and Forest may as well have at it then. Whatever FFP is supposed to be about, it clearly isn't about financial fair play.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Apologies I've stuck this here, but I feel it is blades relevant with our Championship rivals spending unabated, and our sensible approach to sustainable transfer fees and wage structure being looked at is if we're some kind of weird outlier.

 

[robbiez666]

That's a lot of money though. If they were in the top flight it wouldn't be but to stump up that kind of money in the Championship is a huge amount.

It's difficult. You could fine them a lot more but then they'd appeal it and probably win.

It's a huge disincentive to Championship chairman. bare in mind all this includes the ludicrous wages they're also stuck with for failure. It makes the gamble a much bigger gamble. Sure, it worked for Leicester and Bournemouth but for the ones it didn't work for it could cause major issues.

£100 million fine would sure lead to bankruptcy etc.

 

[St Annington]

It's even worse - the fine is only £17M and they can pay it off over 10 years.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/44984660

 

[A Storm of Blades]

That's a lot of money though. If they were in the top flight it wouldn't be but to stump up that kind of money in the Championship is a huge amount.

It's difficult. You could fine them a lot more but then they'd appeal it and probably win.

It's a huge disincentive to Championship chairman. bare in mind all this includes the ludicrous wages they're also stuck with for failure. It makes the gamble a much bigger gamble. Sure, it worked for Leicester and Bournemouth but for the ones it didn't work for it could cause major issues.

£100 million fine would sure lead to bankruptcy etc.

I see what your saying but, working in a commercial world, those kind of considerations are very rarely made elsewhere. Look at the Google fine from the EU, the fine is astronomical and considered appropriate to the offense. The prospect of bottom line damage or even bankruptcy (however unlikely), while considered, doesn't take precedence over the reason for the penalty in the first place. Mitigating the risk of going out of business should be at the forefront of any sensibly run commercial venture.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

It's even worse - the fine is only £17M and they can pay it off over 10 years.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/44984660

I mean that is utter lunacy considering the near £150m they made. How can football as a whole continue to operate in this way?

 

[gavtheblade]

When things like this come to light,weve got to think ourselves fortunate.
Pigs soon surely.

 

[YES Blade]

Personally, I think FFP is a load of bollocks. If a rich owner wants to blow a load of money on players then why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

How can some clubs ever hope to compete at higher levels without money? Is it right to deny a club such as Bournemouth the opportunity to play in the Premier League because their rich owners isn’t allowed to invest in the team?

 

[Bladesman]

Apologies I've stuck this here, but I feel it is blades relevant with our Championship rivals spending unabated, and our sensible approach to sustainable transfer fees and wage structure being looked at is if we're some kind of weird outlier.

Excuse me Sir, you will have to come with me...



https://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/qpr-hit-hard.65141/

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Personally, I think FFP is a load of bollocks. If a rich owner wants to blow a load of money on players then why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

How can some clubs ever hope to compete at higher levels without money? Is it right to deny a club such as Bournemouth the opportunity to play in the Premier League because their rich owners isn’t allowed to invest in the team?

For the same reason there are monopoly rules in the commercial world. Otherwise every movie studio would be owned by Disney, every telecoms company by Comcast and every news channel by Murdoch. In fact, its probably worse in a sporting environment which is supposed to be at least in some way fair. My conspiracy theory is that FFP is actually about cementing the position of those already in power, as it makes it harder for an Everton to challenge even if they had £100ms to spend

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Excuse me Sir, you will have to come with me...

View attachment 42181

https://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/qpr-hit-hard.65141/

You'll never take me alive copper...

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

Should be points deduction, that would likely stop teams breeaking ffp rules.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Should be points deduction, that would likely stop teams breeaking ffp rules.

I'd go further and relegate.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

At least we’ve still got a team to support.

 

[BladeInIreland]

Should be points deduction, that would likely stop teams breeaking ffp rules.

This is the only way to properly punish rich teams. The fines mean nothing.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

This is the only way to properly punish rich teams. The fines mean nothing.

True. Not many billionaires interested in L1/2 I should imagine.

 

[Addison]

JTW embargo placed on them. There will be no better time than now to take Luke Freemen off their hands.

 

[tomtheblade]

Should be points deduction, that would likely stop teams breeaking ffp rules.

Agreed, or at least make the transfer embargo longer than a single mid-season window.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Agreed, or at least make the transfer embargo longer than a single mid-season window.

I personally don't think a transfer embargo is adequate punishment. A bit like imposing a gambling ban on a lottery winner

 

[tomtheblade]

I personally don't think a transfer embargo is adequate punishment. A bit like imposing a gambling ban on a lottery winner

Yeah agreed, I think it can be one component of a punishment, but overall the decision should be much harsher or you're just encouraging other clubs to gamble in the future.

 

[RMBlade]

I would deduct 5 points and an additional 5 points for every £10m over FFP limits they are. It would almost certainly void their chances of promotion for the next season and in some cases end up in relegation.

I am not sure how often FFP is reviewed (I believe every 3 years). I would review it every year over a 3 year period, break the rules again and you get deducted points the next season and so on.

Either implement FFP properly or just don't bother.

I would also remove parachute payments and spread the money between all championship, league one and league two clubs... run your club sensibly or get screwed.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

I would deduct 5 points and an additional 5 points for every £10m over FFP limits they are. It would almost certainly void their chances of promotion for the next season and in some cases end up in relegation.

I am not sure how often FFP is reviewed (I believe every 3 years). I would review it every year over a 3 year period, break the rules again and you get deducted points the next season and so on.

Either implement FFP properly or just don't bother.

I would also remove parachute payments and spread the money between all championship, league one and league two clubs... run your club sensibly or get screwed.

I agree with majority of that. Parachute payments and a weak FFP make a toxic double whammy. "Here's a £70m safety net, oh but don't worry about using it to fund players we'll beyond your means, if we bother fining you at all it'll be a pittance due after an eternity"

 

[Jonboy60]

Should be points deduction, that would likely stop teams breeaking ffp rules.

They’re saving that little gem, for if we ever fuck up.

 

[Gimli]

FFP doesn’t help anyone, just strengthens the position of those who already are the powerful clubs in the country, I understand what they are trying to do, getting teams not to spend beyond their means - but the limit is arbitrary because it is nothing to some, but more than others would ever be able to spend.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

FFP doesn’t help anyone, just strengthens the position of those who already are the powerful clubs in the country, I understand what they are trying to do, getting teams not to spend beyond their means - but the limit is arbitrary because it is nothing to some, but more than others would ever be able to spend.

And linking the limit to the relative earning potential of a club - financial strength that was acumulated before the rules were established - is absolutely unfair. It means all the champions leagues sides that garnered the biggest global platform before FFP now have the tallest ceiling to operate within after FFP.

Clubs should be capped based on an independent, holistic viewpoint across all countries and leagues. Of course, there will be tiers, and disparity between bigger and smaller clubs, but not the absolute chasm that exists now, and where 8 clubs in the world are collectively pace-setting the transfer inflation cluster-fuck that sees "£5 million" and "Martyn Waghorn" said together with a universally straight face.

 

[Gimli]

8 clubs in the world are collectively pace-setting the transfer inflation cluster-fuck that sees "£5 million" and "Martyn Waghorn" said together with a universally straight face.

A lot of time for this comment

 

[grafikhaus]

Should be points deduction, that would likely stop teams breaking ffp rules.

This is so obvious it's...obvious.

'How do I punish somebody who is mega-rich?' By taking away a tiny fraction of their money.

'And why are they spending all this money?' Purely to collect enough points to get in the PL and bingo!

'So if we remove this incentive to spend this money..?'

But as we've seen, teams like Leicester and Southampton bend the rules to breaking point and get away with it. Teams like Rotherham and Luton get slaughtered so the authorities can say they're 'addressing the problem.'

 

[A Storm of Blades]

This is so obvious it's...obvious.

'How do I punish somebody who is mega-rich?' By taking away a tiny fraction of their money.

'And why are they spending all this money?' Purely to collect enough points to get in the PL and bingo!

'So if we remove this incentive to spend this money..?'

But as we've seen, teams like Leicester and Southampton bend the rules to breaking point and get away with it. Teams like Rotherham and Luton get slaughtered so the authorities can say they're 'addressing the problem.'

The Bournemouth one is the most outrageous. They should be instantly deducted points, and lose any right to parachute payments I don't see how any honest assessment of what happened leads to a £7m fine when they banked £100m+ for breaking the rules.

 

[grafikhaus]

The Bournemouth one is the most outrageous. They should be instantly deducted points, and lose any right to parachute payments I don't see how any honest assessment of what happened leads to a £7m fine when they banked £100m+ for breaking the rules.

What football should have is a version of the 'Proceeds of Crime Act'. If a bloke nicked £10m from a bank and was caught and ordered to pay £1m back, it's hardly a disincentive to others, is it? Anybody in a club involved in this should be done under 'Joint Enterprise'.

But it'll never happen. The PL is similar to the EU. An empire has been built, it's all marvellous and any attempt to destabilise it is verboten. Plus there are fiefdoms to protect and palms to be greased.

 

[YES Blade]

The Bournemouth one is the most outrageous. They should be instantly deducted points, and lose any right to parachute payments I don't see how any honest assessment of what happened leads to a £7m fine when they banked £100m+ for breaking the rules.

Do you think Bournemouth would have made it to the Premier League without breaking FFP? I certainly don’t think they ever would!

How can that be fair? You might as well cherry pick the 20 so called biggest clubs and create a franchise system with no relegation.