Leicester... FFP Resolution

Serious QPR topics only. Posted images may be deleted. Off-topic or thread hijacking posts will be moved/removed and posters disallowed access to this forum. NO TICKET RELATED POSTS. ALL TICKET RELATED POSTS WILL BE DELETED. NO EXCEPTIONS. Please put ticket related posts in the right place only.

Moderators: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6183
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR_John » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:37 pm

QPR_John wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:37 pm
White Duck wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:28 pm
Read the Leicester statement: they have reached a settlement with the EFL so an agreement has been reached between the parties. The amount they have paid is clearly lower than the original figure.
But was the amount of the original fine known, our fine has been advertised to the world and his wife
Last edited by QPR_John on Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
222gers
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by 222gers » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:19 pm

The Leicester situation seems all very hugger mugger - “no further statements will be made regarding this decision”. It would appear that the FL are prepared to adapt their position when it suits them whilst remaining stoney faced when it comes to QPR.

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9619
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:56 am

The rules at the time allowed for an £8M loss. For anything up to to £10M over and above that, the penalty was calculated on a sliding scale, up to a maximum of £6.7M. So if you lost £18M, the penalty would have been £6.7M.

Losses over £18M incurred a fine at 100%. Excluding the "extraordinary item" of £60M that we tried to slip through the accounts, our loss was £69.8M, which would have generated a fine of £58.5M. This figure wasn't randomly plucked out of the air by the tabloid press. It was calculable based on the rules and the accounts at the time.

Leicester lost £20.8M that season, so their original fine would have been £9.5M by my reckoning. £3.1M is an approximate reduction of around two-thirds. If they were reduce our original fine in the same proportions, we'd be looking at a hit of about £19.5M.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6183
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR_John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:24 am

UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:56 am
The rules at the time allowed for an £8M loss. For anything up to to £10M over and above that, the penalty was calculated on a sliding scale, up to a maximum of £6.7M. So if you lost £18M, the penalty would have been £6.7M.

Losses over £18M incurred a fine at 100%. Excluding the "extraordinary item" of £60M that we tried to slip through the accounts, our loss was £69.8M, which would have generated a fine of £58.5M. This figure wasn't randomly plucked out of the air by the tabloid press. It was calculable based on the rules and the accounts at the time.

Leicester lost £20.8M that season, so their original fine would have been £9.5M by my reckoning. £3.1M is an approximate reduction of around two-thirds. If they were reduce our original fine in the same proportions, we'd be looking at a hit of about £19.5M.
So are you saying the FL offered us the £19.5M and we turned it down or that the FL are treating us differently from Leicester

I still do not understand the £60M. If the owners were prepared to cover £60M of the debt and not put it on the club, something FFP was designed to protect clubs from by increasing the debt, why are some people not the least the FL so dismissive of it.

QPR1976
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:06 am

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR1976 » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:08 am

UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:56 am
The rules at the time allowed for an £8M loss. For anything up to to £10M over and above that, the penalty was calculated on a sliding scale, up to a maximum of £6.7M. So if you lost £18M, the penalty would have been £6.7M.

Losses over £18M incurred a fine at 100%. Excluding the "extraordinary item" of £60M that we tried to slip through the accounts, our loss was £69.8M, which would have generated a fine of £58.5M. This figure wasn't randomly plucked out of the air by the tabloid press. It was calculable based on the rules and the accounts at the time.

Leicester lost £20.8M that season, so their original fine would have been £9.5M by my reckoning. £3.1M is an approximate reduction of around two-thirds. If they were reduce our original fine in the same proportions, we'd be looking at a hit of about £19.5M.

Good knowledge - But Leicester & Our cases are different.
We are being fined for getting Relegated, (with players on Premier League Wages & Contracts) then getting Promoted again, straight away. (Had we not, we'd have had a Transfer Embargo, not a fine !)
Leicester are just being fined for overspending whilst getting Promoted. (They had been in the EFL for 10 years approx. prior to 2013/14 season) The same year we made it via the Playoffs.

So I'm not sure how the 2 infringements can be compared. Obviously both are based on both clubs being promoted but their overspend was down to 'buying promotion', where as ours was largely down to a huge wage bill from 2 seasons in the Prem, with a little on our spend to getting promoted again. (In fact, we made a profit on transfers that season with Austin, Phillips & Henry coming in at a cost of £9.5m and Samba, Mackie & Remy loan bringing in £16m ! Everyone else was a Free or Loan)

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9619
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:29 am

The two clubs were in the same division at the same time, operating under the same set of rules, so of course they can be compared. You can argue that there were mitigating factors in our case, and I'm sure we've done that through the appeals process, but ultimately it was a situation of our own making.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9619
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:39 am

QPR_John wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:24 am
UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:56 am
The rules at the time allowed for an £8M loss. For anything up to to £10M over and above that, the penalty was calculated on a sliding scale, up to a maximum of £6.7M. So if you lost £18M, the penalty would have been £6.7M.

Losses over £18M incurred a fine at 100%. Excluding the "extraordinary item" of £60M that we tried to slip through the accounts, our loss was £69.8M, which would have generated a fine of £58.5M. This figure wasn't randomly plucked out of the air by the tabloid press. It was calculable based on the rules and the accounts at the time.

Leicester lost £20.8M that season, so their original fine would have been £9.5M by my reckoning. £3.1M is an approximate reduction of around two-thirds. If they were reduce our original fine in the same proportions, we'd be looking at a hit of about £19.5M.
So are you saying the FL offered us the £19.5M and we turned it down or that the FL are treating us differently from Leicester

I still do not understand the £60M. If the owners were prepared to cover £60M of the debt and not put it on the club, something FFP was designed to protect clubs from by increasing the debt, why are some people not the least the FL so dismissive of it.
I said " if they were (to) reduce...", so clearly I'm not suggesting it was offered.

The rules only allowed for £5M to be converted into equity, and that £5M would have formed part of the £8M "allowable" loss.

We showed the £60M as an extraordinary item in an attempt to circumvent the rules and avoid a huge FFP fine. Leicester put the full amount through the P&L, but argued that they shouldn't have been deemed to have broken FFP rules. Even allowing for the near £50M difference in the overall losses between the two clubs, that's probably quite a key difference.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6183
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR_John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:00 pm

UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:39 am
QPR_John wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:24 am
UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:56 am
The rules at the time allowed for an £8M loss. For anything up to to £10M over and above that, the penalty was calculated on a sliding scale, up to a maximum of £6.7M. So if you lost £18M, the penalty would have been £6.7M.

Losses over £18M incurred a fine at 100%. Excluding the "extraordinary item" of £60M that we tried to slip through the accounts, our loss was £69.8M, which would have generated a fine of £58.5M. This figure wasn't randomly plucked out of the air by the tabloid press. It was calculable based on the rules and the accounts at the time.

Leicester lost £20.8M that season, so their original fine would have been £9.5M by my reckoning. £3.1M is an approximate reduction of around two-thirds. If they were reduce our original fine in the same proportions, we'd be looking at a hit of about £19.5M.
So are you saying the FL offered us the £19.5M and we turned it down or that the FL are treating us differently from Leicester

I still do not understand the £60M. If the owners were prepared to cover £60M of the debt and not put it on the club, something FFP was designed to protect clubs from by increasing the debt, why are some people not the least the FL so dismissive of it.
I said " if they were (to) reduce...", so clearly I'm not suggesting it was offered.

The rules only allowed for £5M to be converted into equity, and that £5M would have formed part of the £8M "allowable" loss.

We showed the £60M as an extraordinary item in an attempt to circumvent the rules and avoid a huge FFP fine. Leicester put the full amount through the P&L, but argued that they shouldn't have been deemed to have broken FFP rules. Even allowing for the near £50M difference in the overall losses between the two clubs, that's probably quite a key difference.
"The rules only allowed for £5M to be converted into equity, and that £5M would have formed part of the £8M "allowable" loss."

But that is a loss against the club. The rules only allowed owners to put a £5M debt on the club. Our owners "gave" £60M to the club in the sense that it did not count against any club debt. This is my point FFP, and lets be charitable here, was introduced to protect clubs from being put into debt by the owners. If the rules state that the owners cannot give the club money then it is clear that FFP is there only to keep the status quo.

QPR1976
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:06 am

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR1976 » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:21 pm

UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:29 am
The two clubs were in the same division at the same time, operating under the same set of rules, so of course they can be compared. You can argue that there were mitigating factors in our case, and I'm sure we've done that through the appeals process, but ultimately it was a situation of our own making.
Again, fair point. But I'm still confused.
I understood the only reason we got fined was because we got relegated 'back into' the EFL. If we'd have stayed up, we would not have been fined, not at least until we got relegated in the future (or if).
Leicester have not been relegated since this Promotion/Fine, albeit coming close the season before they won the Prem. So have they paid a fine on the basis that they might go down in the future ? As you only get fined, IF & WHEN you return to the EFL. If so, it's no wonder the EFL have come to a compromise....it's free money, that they are not yet due.
Sorry, if I've missed something obvious.

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6183
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR_John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:30 pm

QPR1976 wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:21 pm
UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:29 am
The two clubs were in the same division at the same time, operating under the same set of rules, so of course they can be compared. You can argue that there were mitigating factors in our case, and I'm sure we've done that through the appeals process, but ultimately it was a situation of our own making.
Again, fair point. But I'm still confused.
I understood the only reason we got fined was because we got relegated 'back into' the EFL. If we'd have stayed up, we would not have been fined, not at least until we got relegated in the future (or if).
Leicester have not been relegated since this Promotion/Fine, albeit coming close the season before they won the Prem. So have they paid a fine on the basis that they might go down in the future ? As you only get fined, IF & WHEN you return to the EFL. If so, it's no wonder the EFL have come to a compromise....it's free money, that they are not yet due.
Sorry, if I've missed something obvious.
You make a good point. FFP is basically flawed it was introduced clearly without a lot of thought the fact the FL quickly changed the rules confirms this

QPR1976
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:06 am

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR1976 » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:20 pm

[/quote] You make a good point. FFP is basically flawed it was introduced clearly without a lot of thought the fact the FL quickly changed the rules confirms this
[/quote]

They've changed the rules 2 or 3 times at least and will do again soon I'm sure.

I recall when it was voted in by the members of the EFL (we were in the Prem at the time, so didn't get to vote !) all fines were to be distributed between ALL other clubs in that division - No wonder it was voted in, most teams could see free money if others broke the rules.

Then they changed it to all going to charity, not split between teams - I'd love to see them publish figures on how much they have received in fines and how much has been paid to charities - I bet there a difference (for Admin.....!)

And I think they've changed the amount you can lose 2 or 3 times, from £5m, to £8.7m, to the current £40m (?) over 3 years.


Prem teams & Uefa allow teams to offset losses by receiving money for renaming stands and the like. Perhaps we should have tried that - the Tony Fernandes Ellerslie Stand anyone.....?

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9619
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:31 pm

QPR1976 wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:21 pm


Again, fair point. But I'm still confused.
I understood the only reason we got fined was because we got relegated 'back into' the EFL. If we'd have stayed up, we would not have been fined, not at least until we got relegated in the future (or if).
Leicester have not been relegated since this Promotion/Fine, albeit coming close the season before they won the Prem. So have they paid a fine on the basis that they might go down in the future ? As you only get fined, IF & WHEN you return to the EFL. If so, it's no wonder the EFL have come to a compromise....it's free money, that they are not yet due.
Sorry, if I've missed something obvious.
We would have been fined if we'd stayed up. Bournemouth were fined £7.6M for breaking the rules in their promotion season, and included it in their accounts for the following year. I agree that it's a moot point whether it would actually be enforceable or not as the two leagues have different governance, but from an accounting perspective, the prudent thing would be to record it as soon as you accept that you are liable for the fine. It's presumably a different story if you appeal.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

User avatar
222gers
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by 222gers » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:11 pm

QPR_John wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:30 pm
QPR1976 wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:21 pm
UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:29 am
The two clubs were in the same division at the same time, operating under the same set of rules, so of course they can be compared. You can argue that there were mitigating factors in our case, and I'm sure we've done that through the appeals process, but ultimately it was a situation of our own making.
Again, fair point. But I'm still confused.
I understood the only reason we got fined was because we got relegated 'back into' the EFL. If we'd have stayed up, we would not have been fined, not at least until we got relegated in the future (or if).
Leicester have not been relegated since this Promotion/Fine, albeit coming close the season before they won the Prem. So have they paid a fine on the basis that they might go down in the future ? As you only get fined, IF & WHEN you return to the EFL. If so, it's no wonder the EFL have come to a compromise....it's free money, that they are not yet due.
Sorry, if I've missed something obvious.
You make a good point. FFP is basically flawed it was introduced clearly without a lot of thought the fact the FL quickly changed the rules confirms this
Indeed. I believe it was William Makepeace Thackeray who said “legislate in haste, repent in leisure” He could have been thinking of the EFL although I doubt it !

Satch
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3450
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by Satch » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:54 pm

QPR1976 wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:08 am
UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:56 am
The rules at the time allowed for an £8M loss. For anything up to to £10M over and above that, the penalty was calculated on a sliding scale, up to a maximum of £6.7M. So if you lost £18M, the penalty would have been £6.7M.

Losses over £18M incurred a fine at 100%. Excluding the "extraordinary item" of £60M that we tried to slip through the accounts, our loss was £69.8M, which would have generated a fine of £58.5M. This figure wasn't randomly plucked out of the air by the tabloid press. It was calculable based on the rules and the accounts at the time.

Leicester lost £20.8M that season, so their original fine would have been £9.5M by my reckoning. £3.1M is an approximate reduction of around two-thirds. If they were reduce our original fine in the same proportions, we'd be looking at a hit of about £19.5M.

Good knowledge - But Leicester & Our cases are different.
We are being fined for getting Relegated, (with players on Premier League Wages & Contracts) then getting Promoted again, straight away. (Had we not, we'd have had a Transfer Embargo, not a fine !)
Leicester are just being fined for overspending whilst getting Promoted. (They had been in the EFL for 10 years approx. prior to 2013/14 season) The same year we made it via the Playoffs.

So I'm not sure how the 2 infringements can be compared. Obviously both are based on both clubs being promoted but their overspend was down to 'buying promotion', where as ours was largely down to a huge wage bill from 2 seasons in the Prem, with a little on our spend to getting promoted again. (In fact, we made a profit on transfers that season with Austin, Phillips & Henry coming in at a cost of £9.5m and Samba, Mackie & Remy loan bringing in £16m ! Everyone else was a Free or Loan)
We might have made a better case - had we made any effort to cut costs. Although we sold a couple of players, we had mostly the same squad, brought in some of the better championship players and a large number of high profile loans. We basically stuck two fingers up at the rules then tried to lazily circumvent them after the fact.

FFP is an utter nonsense but that didn't give us the right to disregard the rules.

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6183
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Leicester... FFP Resolution

Post by QPR_John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:28 pm

Satch wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:54 pm
QPR1976 wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:08 am
UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:56 am
The rules at the time allowed for an £8M loss. For anything up to to £10M over and above that, the penalty was calculated on a sliding scale, up to a maximum of £6.7M. So if you lost £18M, the penalty would have been £6.7M.

Losses over £18M incurred a fine at 100%. Excluding the "extraordinary item" of £60M that we tried to slip through the accounts, our loss was £69.8M, which would have generated a fine of £58.5M. This figure wasn't randomly plucked out of the air by the tabloid press. It was calculable based on the rules and the accounts at the time.

Leicester lost £20.8M that season, so their original fine would have been £9.5M by my reckoning. £3.1M is an approximate reduction of around two-thirds. If they were reduce our original fine in the same proportions, we'd be looking at a hit of about £19.5M.

Good knowledge - But Leicester & Our cases are different.
We are being fined for getting Relegated, (with players on Premier League Wages & Contracts) then getting Promoted again, straight away. (Had we not, we'd have had a Transfer Embargo, not a fine !)
Leicester are just being fined for overspending whilst getting Promoted. (They had been in the EFL for 10 years approx. prior to 2013/14 season) The same year we made it via the Playoffs.

So I'm not sure how the 2 infringements can be compared. Obviously both are based on both clubs being promoted but their overspend was down to 'buying promotion', where as ours was largely down to a huge wage bill from 2 seasons in the Prem, with a little on our spend to getting promoted again. (In fact, we made a profit on transfers that season with Austin, Phillips & Henry coming in at a cost of £9.5m and Samba, Mackie & Remy loan bringing in £16m ! Everyone else was a Free or Loan)
We might have made a better case - had we made any effort to cut costs. Although we sold a couple of players, we had mostly the same squad, brought in some of the better championship players and a large number of high profile loans. We basically stuck two fingers up at the rules then tried to lazily circumvent them after the fact.

FFP is an utter nonsense but that didn't give us the right to disregard the rules.
In what way did we try to lazily circumvent the rules

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests