Financial Fair Play Explained | Page 6 | Vital Football

Financial Fair Play Explained

Should our new owners just pay the fine for FFP and get on with it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 55.6%

  • No

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • Total voters
    36
Simon Jordan just said something interesting on Talksport.

I didn't really understand it as it was all about balance sheets etc... but he said if we sold Jack, because he's an academy graduate it pretty much wipe out our fair play issues in one foul swoop... not only meaning we are at break even, but could then also start spending big again.

He should know what he's talking about given he used to run a football club.
 
I would be absolutely amazed if these two new fellas haven't already got a plan on how best to deal with this not so fair play bollox.
 
Maybe that is the plan. Sell Jack and let his academy graduate status work it's voodoo magic, and then dip into their own pockets.

The Henry appointment would then make a bit more sense if he had a few quid to spend.
 
Can we pay off the deadwood under ffp? How does that one work? Can we offload Richard's and McCormack ?
 
QPR have reached a settlement with the EFL, finally. It's an interesting one.

Originally the EFL were looking for a £42m fine (fully justified by the then rules). The headline figure is still £42m, which is now agreed.

However, the fine component has now been reduced to £20m (£17m + £3m interest). The remaining £22m "fine" has come from the shareholders converting loans to them to equity in the club, in effect just writing off debts.

As I understand it, the £20m fine (which is a loss to the club) won't be counted in current FFP calculations i.e. the slate is wiped clean.

All in all, QPR have got off lightly. In fact, the £22m notionally going into the club leaves the club balance sheet about £2m better off.

Does this affect us? On the surface no. The rules are now different. But as regards fines it could be seen as indicated that fines resulting from owners putting finance into the club to cover debt can be covered by the owners putting more finance into the club. It's the non-fine possibilities we have to worry about.
 
I heard today that Man City sold their image rights to another company that the owners own?

Brings them in 28 million per season.

I think they sold the naming rights to the ground for 30-40 million per season too, again just sloshing money around companies.

Only a few clubs ( inc us ) seem to worry about it?

I’m not saying it isn’t important but I guess these other clubs find a way to blag the system?

I’m not clever enough to understand it - if you are rich enough and have enough contacts then I would assume options open up to help you not break the FFP law.
 
It matters not what happened yesterday, this mess is Lerners mess, Tony X threw everything at a one season fix and failed.

Right now "Recon or Egyptian Pyramid Building Company Park" sounds good if it gets us out of the shit.
 
Last edited:
Obviously the FFP situation has been overshadowed slightly by the Grealish stuff.

But the question remains: do we have a substantial hole to fill by March? And if so, how are we signing two goalkeepers (albeit one on loan), the lad from Hibs, been heavily linked with Joe Bryan and now have no need to seel Jack Grealish?

Is the FFP hole nowhere near as large as mooted? Are we just hanging on to Jack until January, where someone may pay over the odds as clubs do in the January window?

I'm genuinely wondering what the situation is now. A couple of weeks ago we were under a 'soft' transfer embargo, now we're signing players like it's going out of fashion and no longer need to flog the crown jewels. Doesn't make much sense to me.
 
JuanPabloAngel said:
Obviously the FFP situation has been overshadowed slightly by the Grealish stuff.

But the question remains: do we have a substantial hole to fill by March? And if so, how are we signing two goalkeepers (albeit one on loan), the lad from Hibs, been heavily linked with Joe Bryan and now have no need to seel Jack Grealish?

Is the FFP hole nowhere near as large as mooted? Are we just hanging on to Jack until January, where someone may pay over the odds as clubs do in the January window?

I'm genuinely wondering what the situation is now. A couple of weeks ago we were under a 'soft' transfer embargo, now we're signing players like it's going out of fashion and no longer need to flog the crown jewels. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Click to expand...

I am hearing the new owners have just decided to pay the.............................................
 
Obviously things were not as bad as the "experts" lead us to believe, it just proves that only the people running the club know the situation .
Anything else is speculation, none of us know the fact and figures . I stopped bothering when the new guys took over, they are minted and will just pay the f....
 
Think we are going to see a slight bending of the rules, I believe its the case that new owners must show they are attempting to get to the required position but are allowed a certain leeway,not got the legal jargon sorted but basically,they are hoping for a slap on the wrist and a fine rather than a heavier punishment,assuming as folk say the figures were correct in the first place. As things stand we have not spent much if reported figures are correct goalkeeper 1 mill McGinn 2.75 mill + 2 loans so far, and we have until March to meet ffp .
 
These people don't get where they are by being tied down by red tape their accountants usually know every loop hole going and if not they will know someone who does ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.