Forum | transfer embargos... by Phildo

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

transfer embargos... 10:30 - Apr 6 with 7403 views

10 clubs in the championship embargoed due to filing accounts late. For some of these it will be administrative as the government allowed late filing but EFL rules did not but for others it means trouble ahead. The fact the EFL imposed this in a pandemic suggests they mean business:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9438517/Championship-facing-f

transfer embargos... on 13:13 - Apr 7 with 1113 views

PinnerPaul

transfer embargos... on 11:30 - Apr 7 by daveB
FFP rules were different for UEFA hence the Man City fine

and that recent loss is a one off to do with timing of transfer income.

transfer embargos... on 13:57 - Apr 7 with 1016 views

TGRRRSSS

Most owners of Champ clubs couldn't manage the fine we got I don't think.

Stoke's can though.

transfer embargos... on 14:08 - Apr 7 with 986 views

CliveWilsonSaid

transfer embargos... on 11:21 - Apr 7 by stowmarketrange
According to that report we had £180m written off by the owners after our premier league disasters.What did we have to show for that money?

Well nothing but we did have 3 seasons trying to establish ourselves in the Premier League (unsuccessfully) and one season trying to get back into it (partially successfully). That would explain the high figure. It was a bad idea and it all went wrong as we know.

Poll:

Expectations for this season?

transfer embargos... on 16:25 - Apr 7 with 897 views

QPR_John

transfer embargos... on 11:50 - Apr 7 by daveB
The plan was to stop another Man City happening which worked but for the EFL it was also to try and stop clubs spending themselves out of business and become more sustainable. For all the gripes about how we were dealt with after a decade of spend spend spend these rules have at least forced us down a different route which should mean QPR have a better chance of surviving long term

The truth is your first sentence should have ended after "happening".

transfer embargos... on 21:15 - Apr 7 with 775 views

davman

transfer embargos... on 21:19 - Apr 6 by daveB

The last 4 years have nothing to do with any punishment from the EFL, that has been us trying to cut the losses and trying to run a stable club

The fine was £17million not 41 million and the repayments every year we are told is by the owners meaning the club are not handicapped every season

I think our losses for that season were something like £190 million so original rules were a £1million fine for every £10million lost hence the original fine being so big at around 80 million which was reduced in the end

This report sums it up well

https://www.westlondonsport.com/qpr/football-qpr-ffp-questions-answered

[Post edited 6 Apr 2021 21:21]

Yep, that article does sum it up.

"There will also be a capitalisation of almost £22m of directors’ loans by the club’s owners, namely co-chairmen Ruben Gnanalingam, who is now majority shareholder and for some time has had a hands-on role in the running of the club, and Tony Fernandes".

"And a £17m fine, plus £3m costs and a £22m capitalisation, puts the total figure at £42m"

The £22m mentioned in here formed part of the fine. The EFL actually acted in our favour by telling the owners that they could not continue with the £22m as club debt and made them put that cash back into the club. So, £42m.

As I said, the fine was in line with the rules we signed up to, but are not and have never ever been proportionate to the size of the club.

Bottom line is that, if football wants to sort this sort of mess out, they must reduce the gap between the finances between the top leagues in this country. Not gonna happen.

	Can we go out yet?
Poll:	What would you take for Willock if a bid comes this month?

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread