| Gambling with FFP — Column on 20:05 - Feb 19 with 3545 views | derbyhoop |
Excellent explanation. The common factor in both the Birmingham and QPR cases, albeit aided by owners encouraging/turning a blind eye to the irresponsible spending, was Saggy Chops Redknapp. despite virtually bankrupting at least 3 v#clubs, Portsmouth being the other, he still gets lauded as a great football manager and walks away scott free. Or even gets (another) payoff. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
|  |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 20:46 - Feb 19 with 3429 views | colinallcars |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 20:05 - Feb 19 by derbyhoop |
Excellent explanation. The common factor in both the Birmingham and QPR cases, albeit aided by owners encouraging/turning a blind eye to the irresponsible spending, was Saggy Chops Redknapp. despite virtually bankrupting at least 3 v#clubs, Portsmouth being the other, he still gets lauded as a great football manager and walks away scott free. Or even gets (another) payoff. |
I share your disapprobation in relation to Hughes and Redknapp but the owners are to blame for falling foul of the FFP rules. |  | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 07:34 - Feb 20 with 2849 views | DejR_vu |
Interesting viewpoint, but I can’t agree on the fairness, or otherwise, of the punishment meted out to us relative to Birmingham. Because it’s football and because it’s FFP there seems to be a view that it’s some sort of hocus pocus.
If you’re caught speeding and get fined £42,000 and banned for six months that’s utterly disproportionate. Reducing the fine down to £20,000 doesn’t make it fair, neither does the fact an elderly relative agrees to pay it for you in installments. And the fact you’ve chosen to use the bus for a while doesn’t make the ban fair, what if you wanted or needed to use the car?
If, a few years later, your neighbour gets caught speeding, and not only gets caught but whilst talking to the policeman at the side of the road jumps back in the car, drives off and does it again, only to be given 9 points on his licence which are then immediately wiped, therefore having absolutely no affect whatsoever, most people would consider that grossly unfair. Any explanation that the rules have changed doesn’t make it fair, the recognition that the ‘old’ rules were so grossly unfair that they needed to be changed compounds it.
FFP has nothing to do with looking after the welfare of clubs, it’s a draconian measure enforced on clubs by a governing body with a hidden agenda.
Our situation was absolutely farcical. The owners converted the overspend to equity so there was no negative impact on the club’s finances (which we’re told is what FFP is all about). We’re then fined £42m, £25m of which the authorities tell the owners to convert to equity. So, part of the solution is to implement the exact same thing that we were fined for in the first place, absolute genius. And, of course it affects the club financially. The £1.7m a year that the owners are paying as a fine is £1.7 that could be paid in to the club (if they wanted to, of course, but that’s a different discussion altogether) but, of course, that’s not allowed. Could. Not. Make. It. Up.
People trying to justify all this are thinking too much into it. [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 7:59]
|  |
| |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 08:47 - Feb 20 with 2741 views | Harbour |
Thanks good summation. The EFL really need to stop clubs selling their grounds in order to avoid FFP. How long before a Championship club goes bust or ends up losing their ground because of a unscrupulous owner.... | | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 08:52 - Feb 20 with 2733 views | Roller |
Your speeding analogy doesn't really work for me. It implies that there is only one level of speeding. I’d be surprised if you thought that someone caught doing 86mph on a motorway should get the same punishment as someone else doing 980mph. *
The debt to equity ploy the owners threw in was never going to work as it had no affect on the club's profit and loss.
* Figures done on the back of an envelope, may not be 100% accurate but pretty much illustrate the point. |  | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 09:01 - Feb 20 with 2705 views | DejR_vu |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 08:52 - Feb 20 by Roller |
Your speeding analogy doesn't really work for me. It implies that there is only one level of speeding. I’d be surprised if you thought that someone caught doing 86mph on a motorway should get the same punishment as someone else doing 980mph. *
The debt to equity ploy the owners threw in was never going to work as it had no affect on the club's profit and loss.
* Figures done on the back of an envelope, may not be 100% accurate but pretty much illustrate the point. |
No such thing as a perfect analogy I guess, otherwise it would be fact rather than an analogy. | |
| |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 09:44 - Feb 20 with 2649 views | CorbyQPR |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 07:34 - Feb 20 by DejR_vu |
Interesting viewpoint, but I can’t agree on the fairness, or otherwise, of the punishment meted out to us relative to Birmingham. Because it’s football and because it’s FFP there seems to be a view that it’s some sort of hocus pocus.
If you’re caught speeding and get fined £42,000 and banned for six months that’s utterly disproportionate. Reducing the fine down to £20,000 doesn’t make it fair, neither does the fact an elderly relative agrees to pay it for you in installments. And the fact you’ve chosen to use the bus for a while doesn’t make the ban fair, what if you wanted or needed to use the car?
If, a few years later, your neighbour gets caught speeding, and not only gets caught but whilst talking to the policeman at the side of the road jumps back in the car, drives off and does it again, only to be given 9 points on his licence which are then immediately wiped, therefore having absolutely no affect whatsoever, most people would consider that grossly unfair. Any explanation that the rules have changed doesn’t make it fair, the recognition that the ‘old’ rules were so grossly unfair that they needed to be changed compounds it.
FFP has nothing to do with looking after the welfare of clubs, it’s a draconian measure enforced on clubs by a governing body with a hidden agenda.
Our situation was absolutely farcical. The owners converted the overspend to equity so there was no negative impact on the club’s finances (which we’re told is what FFP is all about). We’re then fined £42m, £25m of which the authorities tell the owners to convert to equity. So, part of the solution is to implement the exact same thing that we were fined for in the first place, absolute genius. And, of course it affects the club financially. The £1.7m a year that the owners are paying as a fine is £1.7 that could be paid in to the club (if they wanted to, of course, but that’s a different discussion altogether) but, of course, that’s not allowed. Could. Not. Make. It. Up.
People trying to justify all this are thinking too much into it. [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 7:59]
|
I 100% agree with you. Applying a points deduction that has absolutely zero impact on a team & allows them to start the following season with a clean slate bears no comparison to applying a fine that will take a club years to pay off, impacting their ability to spend in the transfer market for that period &, more importantly, potentially putting capital investments in to things like training facilities in jeopardy.
Its completely dis-proportionate, I'm sure the others to come will be let off just a lightly. | | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:13 - Feb 20 with 2576 views | terryb |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 09:44 - Feb 20 by CorbyQPR |
I 100% agree with you. Applying a points deduction that has absolutely zero impact on a team & allows them to start the following season with a clean slate bears no comparison to applying a fine that will take a club years to pay off, impacting their ability to spend in the transfer market for that period &, more importantly, potentially putting capital investments in to things like training facilities in jeopardy.
Its completely dis-proportionate, I'm sure the others to come will be let off just a lightly. |
In essence, the club (Queens Park Rangers) have not been fined. It is the club owners that have been. And rightly so!
I think that the approx £2 million annual payment to the EFL is not made by the club, but directly from TF etc. although it may be that they have to refund the payment to the club.
IF our board/owners/shareholders wanted to "invest" this payment would have no effect in their ability to do so. We lose over £60 million in a season & you argue that a payment of £2 million a season impacts on our transfer activity/ capital investment. Nonsence!
I certainly agree that we are restricted, but that is due to the policy of deliberately keeping within the FFP guidelines rather than our past transgressions.
We would also have been relegated in two of the four completed seasons since our last year in the Premier with a nine point deduction, let alone the twelve we would have receivwed. [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 10:17]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:28 - Feb 20 with 2557 views | Toast_R |
Remember the days when following a football club was all ignorance and Saturday kick offs?
Simpler times. |  | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 12:36 - Feb 20 with 2345 views | QPR_John |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:13 - Feb 20 by terryb |
In essence, the club (Queens Park Rangers) have not been fined. It is the club owners that have been. And rightly so!
I think that the approx £2 million annual payment to the EFL is not made by the club, but directly from TF etc. although it may be that they have to refund the payment to the club.
IF our board/owners/shareholders wanted to "invest" this payment would have no effect in their ability to do so. We lose over £60 million in a season & you argue that a payment of £2 million a season impacts on our transfer activity/ capital investment. Nonsence!
I certainly agree that we are restricted, but that is due to the policy of deliberately keeping within the FFP guidelines rather than our past transgressions.
We would also have been relegated in two of the four completed seasons since our last year in the Premier with a nine point deduction, let alone the twelve we would have receivwed. [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 10:17]
|
You seem to miss the point about the penalty. It is not the fact that the 9 points had no effect on Birmingham but that it was known in all reality that said penalty would have no effect when it was imposed [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 12:54]
| | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 13:32 - Feb 20 with 2221 views | Mytch_QPR |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 12:36 - Feb 20 by QPR_John |
You seem to miss the point about the penalty. It is not the fact that the 9 points had no effect on Birmingham but that it was known in all reality that said penalty would have no effect when it was imposed [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 12:54]
|
Apparently Sheff Weds will learn their fate soon - what's the betting that this is left until the end of April and, again, it will have no real impact other than league position. |  |
| |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 14:48 - Feb 20 with 2099 views | francisbowles |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 12:36 - Feb 20 by QPR_John |
You seem to miss the point about the penalty. It is not the fact that the 9 points had no effect on Birmingham but that it was known in all reality that said penalty would have no effect when it was imposed [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 12:54]
|
It did put them below us in the league at that point and we weren't considered to be safe by many on here. In fact with four games left Birmingham were only six points clear of the drop zone.
So it wasn't certain that the deduction wouldn't affect them when it was imposed. | | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 15:34 - Feb 20 with 2038 views | QPR_John |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 14:48 - Feb 20 by francisbowles |
It did put them below us in the league at that point and we weren't considered to be safe by many on here. In fact with four games left Birmingham were only six points clear of the drop zone.
So it wasn't certain that the deduction wouldn't affect them when it was imposed. |
I did not say it was certain but I wonder what odds you'd get on Birmingham getting relegated after the penalty was imposed [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 15:40]
| | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 16:29 - Feb 20 with 1957 views | NewBee |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 12:36 - Feb 20 by QPR_John |
You seem to miss the point about the penalty. It is not the fact that the 9 points had no effect on Birmingham but that it was known in all reality that said penalty would have no effect when it was imposed [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 12:54]
|
You can't just look at the club in question and adjust the penalty to contrive a particular result.
There is a tarriff, which determines what level of offence carries what penalty, And as Simon Dorset's article explains nicely, the EFL seems to have applied it correctly to Brum, leaving a 9 point deduction.
Had Brum been near the top, 9 points could have cost them promotion. Had they been nearer the bottom, it could have seen them relegated. Of course as a "middling" club, it did neither.
But were the EFL to look to that and impose eg an extra deduction outside the tarriff, solely in order to "punish" them further, then Brum could have sued the ass off them for arbitrarily disregarding their own processes.
And much as I dislike that club (I really do), they'd have had every right to do so. | | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 16:39 - Feb 20 with 1941 views | NewBee |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 20:05 - Feb 19 by derbyhoop |
Excellent explanation. The common factor in both the Birmingham and QPR cases, albeit aided by owners encouraging/turning a blind eye to the irresponsible spending, was Saggy Chops Redknapp. despite virtually bankrupting at least 3 v#clubs, Portsmouth being the other, he still gets lauded as a great football manager and walks away scott free. Or even gets (another) payoff. |
You are, of course, quite correct about Redknapp being a common factor in the (financial) demise of many clubs, incl QPR.
But as Brian Clough always used to say, no manager ever "signed" a player: it is always the owner's signature on the cheque.
So that when Redknapp finally had an owner who made sure not to let him anywhere near the club chequebook (Levy at Spurs), then he was forced to concentrate on coaching the players, rather than buying and selling them.
And when he did that, he demonstrated that he was a coach and man manager of the highest order, since he took Spurs to the next level, playing lovely football, while not having half as much to spend as the big clubs round him.
Moral of the story: If you're prepared to give your credit card and PIN number to a compulsive gambler, don't be surprised when (not if) he cleans you out completely, before sodding off to do it again on the next mug. | | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 17:01 - Feb 20 with 1912 views | terryb |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 12:36 - Feb 20 by QPR_John |
You seem to miss the point about the penalty. It is not the fact that the 9 points had no effect on Birmingham but that it was known in all reality that said penalty would have no effect when it was imposed [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 12:54]
|
I would agree that a points deduction would have more impact if applied at the start of a season.
However, that would have to be at the start of the next seasson as it would be impossible to apply by the August following the failure to comply. The accounts wouldn't have even been audited by that time. | | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 18:11 - Feb 20 with 1827 views | QPR_John |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 16:29 - Feb 20 by NewBee |
You can't just look at the club in question and adjust the penalty to contrive a particular result.
There is a tarriff, which determines what level of offence carries what penalty, And as Simon Dorset's article explains nicely, the EFL seems to have applied it correctly to Brum, leaving a 9 point deduction.
Had Brum been near the top, 9 points could have cost them promotion. Had they been nearer the bottom, it could have seen them relegated. Of course as a "middling" club, it did neither.
But were the EFL to look to that and impose eg an extra deduction outside the tarriff, solely in order to "punish" them further, then Brum could have sued the ass off them for arbitrarily disregarding their own processes.
And much as I dislike that club (I really do), they'd have had every right to do so. |
Last time. I am not suggesting more points should have been deducted. My point is that the penalty could have been imposed at any time. Of course it was not a guarantee it would be ineffective but the timing was interesting. [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 18:16]
| | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 08:58 - Feb 21 with 1309 views | daveB |
I do think a big flaw with FFP is when they make the punishments as clubs file accounts at different times.
A step forward would be for clubs to have to send accounts for previous season to the EFL by December 31st. Anyone found to have breached FFP could be charged by 31st January and case heard in Feb meaning punishments would be for that season rather than roll over. I think we dragged our case out for about 3 seasons but there should be something in place which stops you doing this. The current state of play with 3 clubs charged and all unlikely to be settled this seaso makes no sense |  | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:21 - Feb 21 with 1241 views | ozranger |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 08:58 - Feb 21 by daveB |
I do think a big flaw with FFP is when they make the punishments as clubs file accounts at different times.
A step forward would be for clubs to have to send accounts for previous season to the EFL by December 31st. Anyone found to have breached FFP could be charged by 31st January and case heard in Feb meaning punishments would be for that season rather than roll over. I think we dragged our case out for about 3 seasons but there should be something in place which stops you doing this. The current state of play with 3 clubs charged and all unlikely to be settled this seaso makes no sense |
I'm assuming you are talking about the three mentioned in the article. From what I've read elsewhere, Derby will have to fight as they have transgressed FFP, Birmingham made it through a tribunal or something similar in January but may still suffer a three point deduction and, apparently, all clubs want Wednesday to be taken down with some accounts suggesting up to 21 points!
I'd be really surprised if that is all as there must be many other clubs in the Championship that are also in trouble, or will be after the next set of accounts come out. However, fully agree that there should be some standardisation of when these are due in the EFL's office and the earlier the better.
Also, it appears of important note that if a penalty decision is made after March 31, then any points deduction is to be carried to the following season. That is a penalty that is calculated this season for a transgression that took place last season is carried out nest season. Makes sense. |  | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 13:29 - Feb 21 with 1085 views | enfieldargh |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:21 - Feb 21 by ozranger |
I'm assuming you are talking about the three mentioned in the article. From what I've read elsewhere, Derby will have to fight as they have transgressed FFP, Birmingham made it through a tribunal or something similar in January but may still suffer a three point deduction and, apparently, all clubs want Wednesday to be taken down with some accounts suggesting up to 21 points!
I'd be really surprised if that is all as there must be many other clubs in the Championship that are also in trouble, or will be after the next set of accounts come out. However, fully agree that there should be some standardisation of when these are due in the EFL's office and the earlier the better.
Also, it appears of important note that if a penalty decision is made after March 31, then any points deduction is to be carried to the following season. That is a penalty that is calculated this season for a transgression that took place last season is carried out nest season. Makes sense. |
and if they get promoted to the prem, no EFL jurisdiction there? |  |
| |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 09:58 - Feb 22 with 919 views | Roller |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 08:58 - Feb 21 by daveB |
I do think a big flaw with FFP is when they make the punishments as clubs file accounts at different times.
A step forward would be for clubs to have to send accounts for previous season to the EFL by December 31st. Anyone found to have breached FFP could be charged by 31st January and case heard in Feb meaning punishments would be for that season rather than roll over. I think we dragged our case out for about 3 seasons but there should be something in place which stops you doing this. The current state of play with 3 clubs charged and all unlikely to be settled this seaso makes no sense |
This wouldn't work.
Firstly company law allows businesses up to 9 months to file their accounts, so in QPR's case 31st December would be 3 months early. I can't the EFL winning that battle. Secondly the rolling 3 year period which clubs are monitored on includes a projection for the current season so submitting that information would be pretty meaningless before the January transfer window.
In 2017/18 Sheffield Wednesday moved their year end date back 2 months to 31st July (and still managed to file their accounts late). That must give the EFL a real headache unless they have come to some sort of arrangement with the club. | | | |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:09 - Feb 22 with 904 views | OldPedro |
Some interesting news on the financial situation at Preston
|  |
| Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man |
| |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 11:38 - Feb 22 with 808 views | DejR_vu |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:09 - Feb 22 by OldPedro |
Some interesting news on the financial situation at Preston
|
Some interesting figures on there. Says our average weekly wage was £14k, total wage bill £30m. | |
| |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 11:40 - Feb 22 with 806 views | davman |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 10:09 - Feb 22 by OldPedro |
Some interesting news on the financial situation at Preston
|
Yep, spotted that too. Everyone lauding Preston's approach, but this is a sign that if you do not get that conveyer belt of saleable assets going, FFP will get you to your natural position in the scheme of things.
Just in case you were wondering, that'll be high up League One for us...
One bad window with no saleable asset is all it will take.
FFP = the end of dreams. No way anyone can build a club out of nothing like Chelsea or City. The fact that they were allowed to and no-one else will be - how is that even fair?
Let any owner spend what the hell they want with the proviso that it is given to the club to spend and not "invested" as loans... |  |
| |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 20:23 - Feb 22 with 675 views | TGRRRSSS |
| Gambling with FFP — Column on 18:11 - Feb 20 by QPR_John |
Last time. I am not suggesting more points should have been deducted. My point is that the penalty could have been imposed at any time. Of course it was not a guarantee it would be ineffective but the timing was interesting. [Post edited 20 Feb 2020 18:16]
|
The timing was more than interesting, it was designed to look tough - because 9 points IS tough - but in the context of the time - neither going up nor down nor looking likely of either it looked was it was - a whitewash.
Also got Derby havent we, or are they ok for now?
Remind me how are they paying for Rooney??? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
