|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on May 15, 2015 21:17:44 GMT 1
The FFP thing will like water find it's own level, in my opinion. Clubs get new owners with more money than sense, or commitment to the cause, and when it all goes tits up, they lose interest, and funding ceases, as they then see it is not commercially viable any longer. Sooner or later, most of them will end up in the FL graveyard, rotting like broken vessels. We might be taking the sensible approach, a bit frustrating at times granted, but one day whether it is sooner or later, I firmly believe our approach will pay off. Unlikely, there will always be someone willing to throw a load of brass at it which will always put them in front of us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 21:25:39 GMT 1
But there will always be clubs doing things sensibly and beating the odds Arty. There has to be some degree of hope for normal clubs...
We just need a stroke of luck with some signings (i.e. another JR). Bought whilst we're in the Championship means we would probably have more chance of hanging on to them if they were part of a promotion winning side. That said, your scenario rings true when clubs are able to sway the heads of these young blokes with lucrative contracts...
|
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on May 15, 2015 21:34:13 GMT 1
No. Thats wrong. In your example, if Dean had written off the loan we WOULDNT have been in breach. The simple fact is that writing off the loan means its no longer accounted as a *loss*...and FFP is policed against allowable *loss* limits. You might not agree with it, but that's been enshrined in law since before football was invented. What youre saying, like others, is, you dont believe QPR should be allowed to do what theyve done...ie, youre saying the FFP rules are 'not right'. Dean chose to invest the amount he put in as a directors loan, he COULD have put in a further £20m effectively as an unconditional gift to the club if he so wanted, that would also be allowed under FFP regulations. Whether you think that SHOULD be allowed should be considered seperately from QPRs specific situation. Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual 'donating' whatever amount they want to a football club. If I was a billionaire, why shouldnt I be allowed to give away £100m to Hudds Town to do with as they please, as long as I dont do that in the form of a loan, loading the club with debt, then whats the problem, other than causing fans of other clubs to grow green eyes?? If what you're saying is correct then why are League and QPR in dispute? If they haven't broken any FFP rules then this would be a none story and they wouldn't need to mount a legal challenge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 21:59:58 GMT 1
I admire the way town conducts itself financially. I hope we continue on this path, I don't live beyond my means and I fully respect Deans approach.
Clubs like QPR are a stain on English football. It's embarrassing how it's almost become normal in today's game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 22:22:11 GMT 1
I admire the way town conducts itself financially. I hope we continue on this path, I don't live beyond my means and I fully respect Deans approach. Clubs like QPR are a stain on English football. It's embarrassing how it's almost become normal in today's game. I agree with your principal, but if they have owners prepared to pump £60m in, and prepared to legally seperate themselves from any right to a return on that money, how would QPR be described as 'living beyond their means'? Its been written off in their accounts, its no longer a loan or an investment, its a cash asset. If I gave you £35k tomorrow, unconditionally, what would you do? Personally I'd hope that you'd blow it on frivolous extravagances that would normally be outside your everyday reach. Or maybe you'd pay off a lump of mortgage...or put it towards some deserving cause . Its up to you really. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 22:50:31 GMT 1
I admire the way town conducts itself financially. I hope we continue on this path, I don't live beyond my means and I fully respect Deans approach. Clubs like QPR are a stain on English football. It's embarrassing how it's almost become normal in today's game. I agree with your principal, but if they have owners prepared to pump £60m in, and prepared to legally seperate themselves from any right to a return on that money, how would QPR be described as 'living beyond their means'? Its been written off in their accounts, its no longer a loan or an investment, its a cash asset. If I gave you £35k tomorrow, unconditionally, what would you do? Personally I'd hope that you'd blow it on frivolous extravagances that would normally be outside your everyday reach. Or maybe you'd pay off a lump of mortgage...or put it towards some deserving cause . Its up to you really. The problem with it is the imbalance it's creating in English football by clubs like QPR who think this is the way to do it. Paying bang average players stupid wages who don't care about the club. Their wage bill in the last 3 years is astonishing, absolutely astonishing. They've made it to the prem, and that's great. But at what cost? All the money they've pumped into the club has got them in the prem and straight back down from it. It's not sustaining them, it's making them even more badly run. Have they got a soul? I wouldn't say they have. They've got bad press for the way in which they've treated FFP. They don't need to pump so much money into paying players such mad wages. Your analogy is a good one, if you'd have given me £35k of course I'd accept it. The differance is I wouldn't buy a house and car that I couldn't afford to keep once that £35k runs out and then knock at your door hoping for a bit more to fund my lavish lifestyle. Look at the German model. Wage bills that are sustainable. Average attendances of over 50k in the top division. Sensible ticket prices. Academy's being of upmost importance to the German national and domestic game. Bayern may dominate the German league, but German football (as much as it pains me to say it) are light years ahead of us and they have principles that are alien to us. They see full houses as essential, fans being the focal point to football and sensible management of their national game. Control on ownership, finance and club structures. If the QPR model becomes acceptable in our game, we are fucked for life. Enough is enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Breitside on May 15, 2015 23:14:28 GMT 1
No. Thats wrong. In your example, if Dean had written off the loan we WOULDNT have been in breach. The simple fact is that writing off the loan means its no longer accounted as a *loss*...and FFP is policed against allowable *loss* limits. You might not agree with it, but that's been enshrined in law since before football was invented. What youre saying, like others, is, you dont believe QPR should be allowed to do what theyve done...ie, youre saying the FFP rules are 'not right'. Dean chose to invest the amount he put in as a directors loan, he COULD have put in a further £20m effectively as an unconditional gift to the club if he so wanted, that would also be allowed under FFP regulations. Whether you think that SHOULD be allowed should be considered seperately from QPRs specific situation. Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual 'donating' whatever amount they want to a football club. If I was a billionaire, why shouldnt I be allowed to give away £100m to Hudds Town to do with as they please, as long as I dont do that in the form of a loan, loading the club with debt, then whats the problem, other than causing fans of other clubs to grow green eyes?? If what you're saying is correct then why are League and QPR in dispute? If they haven't broken any FFP rules then this would be a none story and they wouldn't need to mount a legal challenge. NT.... I think you have got it wrong. One of the biggest issues with FFP is that clubs can only spend so much against their income. That then stops owners even gifting money, hence why some clubs have been pulled up for false income.. Eg. PSG for Sponsorship deals that were for outrageous amounts, owners buying season tickets for ridiculous sums. Fernandez tried to claim the £60m write off was income... Clearly it wasn't. Therefore they are in breach as they have massively over spent against their real income. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 23:50:29 GMT 1
Please lets not continue to hold up German football as some great panacea that we should be modelling the English game on.
Its a model that just about supports half the number of professional football teams, in a country that approaches double the population of England.
Drop down the system to cover the amount of teams comparable to the Premier League and Football League system, and look at the sheer number of clubs that have dropped by the wayside in recent years (not seen data for last two years, but previous 4 are at the end of this post), and what you find is that the model being established in German football is a model that in real measurable terms has resulted in the most UNSUSTAINABLE league system in the entirety of Europe.
"who the hell are Tennis Borussia Berlin and why do we care if they drop out, they're a nobody team" you might suggest. But it works EXACTLY the same in reverse, how many Germans have heard of Wimbledon or Portsmouth, or indeed Blackpool, do you think??
Although, maybe the approach is right, plenty seem to think it is, and maybe English football SHOULD be the Premier League and a competitive Championship, and then just ignore what happens below that, cut them adrift, let those not able to show financial prudence disappear, and probably expand the regional league system to something that exists replacing the current L1, L2 and National Conference. I know that THAT is actually a model for football that I like, and I think it might reinvigorate the game at that level where the players should really be earning a regular salary, not the salary of minor executive employees of multinational multi billion dollar companies.
It might upset the supporters of Yeovil, Northampton and Gillingham though. Theyd disappear. I dont think thats what we want, in England we want football clubs to exist at the core of society, irrespective of if their models would stand up and demonstrate sound business practice.
Go ahead, count them...4 seasons, 30+ German clubs, many of whom nave graced the Bundesliga, have effectively died. Is that what you want?? Because I'm afraid if you remove the barriers of entry, lower the cost, reduce the exclusivity and make the top level of football more accessible, all good and sound principles, you end up ripping the beating grassroots heart out of the game. If you can watch Man Utd once every 6 weeks for a tenner, then Hudds Town ceases to exist, its as simple as that.
Let people spend/gift what they have, don't load debt onto football clubs in the form of directors loans, and things would tick along just fine...some clubs would have more money to spend than others, but so what?? Football isnt a franchise system, its independant businesses.
2008: SV Darmstadt 98 (former Bundesliga, now Liga 3, insolvency); 1FC Gladbeck (former second division, now regional league, no licence); SpVgg Erkenschwick (former Bundesliga, now regional league, insolvency); Yesilyurt Berlin (Oberliga, insolvent, folded); FSV Bayreuth (regional league, insolvency).
2009: Sachsen Leipzig (former East German champions, then regional league, insolvency); Altona 93 (Regionalliga Nord, no licence); Kickers Emden (then Liga 3, now regional league, no licence); FSV Oggersheim (Regionalliga West, no licence); Viktoria Aschaffenburg (regional league, no licence); TSV Grossbardorf (Regionalliga Sud, no licence).
2010: Tennis Borussia Berlin (former Bundesliga, now regional league, insolvency); Hansa Rostock II (Oberliga, voluntarily relegated); Rot-Weiss Essen (former Bundesliga, former champions, European Cup competitors, now Regionalliga West, no licence); Bonner SC (regional league, insolvency); SV Waldhof Mannheim (former Bundesliga, Regionalliga West, no licence); SSV Reutlingen 05 (former Bundesliga, then Oberliga, insolvency); TSV Eintracht Bamberg (Regionalliga Sud, insolvency, folded); VfLGermania Leer (regional league, insolvency); Viktoria Aschaffenburg (insolvency); Preussen Hameln (regional league, no licence, club later folded).
2011: TuS Koblenz (former Bundesliga, then Liga 3, no licence); Sachsen Leipzig (insolvency, folded); RW Ahlen (former Bundesliga, then Liga 3, insolvency); SSV Ulm 1846 (former Bundesliga, now regional league, insolvency); SpVgg Weiden (Regionalliga Sud, insolvency); SpVgg Erkenschwick (no license); 1FC Kleve (Regionalliga West, insolvency).
2012: Turkiyemspor Berlin (Oberliga, insolvency); SC Borea Dresden (Oberliga, voluntarily relegated mid-season for financial reasons); VfL Kirchheim (Oberliga, voluntarily relegated midseason for financial reasons); Eintracht Nordhorn (regional league, insolvency; Kickers Emden (insolvency
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on May 16, 2015 0:08:20 GMT 1
If what you're saying is correct then why are League and QPR in dispute? If they haven't broken any FFP rules then this would be a none story and they wouldn't need to mount a legal challenge. NT.... I think you have got it wrong. One of the biggest issues with FFP is that clubs can only spend so much against their income. That then stops owners even gifting money, hence why some clubs have been pulled up for false income.. Eg. PSG for Sponsorship deals that were for outrageous amounts, owners buying season tickets for ridiculous sums. Fernandez tried to claim the £60m write off was income... Clearly it wasn't. Therefore they are in breach as they have massively over spent against their real income. I thought that too. It's generally as clear as mud but I can't imagine any club being affected by FFP if their owners can just write off the losses as gifts to the club. Surely Forest and Rovers owners would do this maybe not L666s. www.financialfairplay.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Breitside on May 16, 2015 7:54:50 GMT 1
NT.... I think you have got it wrong. One of the biggest issues with FFP is that clubs can only spend so much against their income. That then stops owners even gifting money, hence why some clubs have been pulled up for false income.. Eg. PSG for Sponsorship deals that were for outrageous amounts, owners buying season tickets for ridiculous sums. Fernandez tried to claim the £60m write off was income... Clearly it wasn't. Therefore they are in breach as they have massively over spent against their real income. I thought that too. It's generally as clear as mud but I can't imagine any club being affected by FFP if their owners can just write off the losses as gifts to the club. Surely Forest and Rovers owners would do this maybe not L666s. www.financialfairplay.co.uk/The big argument against FFP is that it protects the biggest clubs as they have the biggest income (sponsorship and merchandising) and it stops billionaire owners coming in spending money, even in the form of gifts. We will not see another Man city whilst FFP is in place. Newcastle, Everton and villa have missed the boat.. Any dream of a billionaire coming in now spending 200m is simply not possible as their income isn't big enough as the amount of losses they can make are limited. Gift or no gift. FFP is good in the sense that it stops owners racking up ridiculous debts but it is wrong in preventing rich owners gifting the clubs money. They should however introduce a rule into FFP that stops owners signing the club into lots of massive contracts and a huge salary bill without committing finances to honour them, otherwise an owner could gift 100m one year but then walk away leaving the club with an unsustainable salary bill for the next few years. |
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on May 16, 2015 8:19:58 GMT 1
Let's just say a team, any team, coming down from the Prem was refused admittance to the FL - for any reason. Do you think that there would be any teams coming down at the end of the next season.
I don't think the vote would be close.
|
|
|
|
Post by yoy on May 16, 2015 8:49:21 GMT 1
No. Thats wrong. In your example, if Dean had written off the loan we WOULDNT have been in breach. The simple fact is that writing off the loan means its no longer accounted as a *loss*...and FFP is policed against allowable *loss* limits. You might not agree with it, but that's been enshrined in law since before football was invented. What youre saying, like others, is, you dont believe QPR should be allowed to do what theyve done...ie, youre saying the FFP rules are 'not right'. Dean chose to invest the amount he put in as a directors loan, he COULD have put in a further £20m effectively as an unconditional gift to the club if he so wanted, that would also be allowed under FFP regulations. Whether you think that SHOULD be allowed should be considered seperately from QPRs specific situation. Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual 'donating' whatever amount they want to a football club. If I was a billionaire, why shouldnt I be allowed to give away £100m to Hudds Town to do with as they please, as long as I dont do that in the form of a loan, loading the club with debt, then whats the problem, other than causing fans of other clubs to grow green eyes?? I'm pretty sure that the maximum allowed equity injection under FFP is £5m. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on May 16, 2015 8:53:19 GMT 1
I thought that too. It's generally as clear as mud but I can't imagine any club being affected by FFP if their owners can just write off the losses as gifts to the club. Surely Forest and Rovers owners would do this maybe not L666s. www.financialfairplay.co.uk/The big argument against FFP is that it protects the biggest clubs as they have the biggest income (sponsorship and merchandising) and it stops billionaire owners coming in spending money, even in the form of gifts. We will not see another Man city whilst FFP is in place. Newcastle, Everton and villa have missed the boat.. Any dream of a billionaire coming in now spending 200m is simply not possible as their income isn't big enough as the amount of losses they can make are limited. Gift or no gift. FFP is good in the sense that it stops owners racking up ridiculous debts but it is wrong in preventing rich owners gifting the clubs money. They should however introduce a rule into FFP that stops owners signing the club into lots of massive contracts and a huge salary bill without committing finances to honour them, otherwise an owner could gift 100m one year but then walk away leaving the club with an unsustainable salary bill for the next few years. I agree, I said a few years ago whilst Notts County were hiring Sven and Sol, that these wealthy owners who were clearly spending beyond their means should provide and ringfence all monies due under the contract at the start of it and then the club would be protected should that owner or benefactor choose to leave the club before the end of some of these contracts. I think this would weed out the 'fly by night' owners that put club's futures at risk. It might also help to start to bring players salaries back in line with reality if the owner has to pony up the full amount at the start of each contract. Just looking at the Us, L666s and Bradford. The main problem with our various admin days were the contracts the club took on in the good times that they were then burdened with, when the times weren't so good but if these contract monies were already put in place and ringfenced I don't think any of us would have eventually ended up in admin. Every club in the land would have to cut its cloth accordingly, there would be no gambling as every penny for players wages would be there in full. It might be difficult initially for clubs but surely that could only be a good thing as it may help reduce players' salaries back to a less obscene level. |
|
|
|
Post by yoy on May 16, 2015 8:55:23 GMT 1
No. Thats wrong. In your example, if Dean had written off the loan we WOULDNT have been in breach. The simple fact is that writing off the loan means its no longer accounted as a *loss*...and FFP is policed against allowable *loss* limits. You might not agree with it, but that's been enshrined in law since before football was invented. What youre saying, like others, is, you dont believe QPR should be allowed to do what theyve done...ie, youre saying the FFP rules are 'not right'. Dean chose to invest the amount he put in as a directors loan, he COULD have put in a further £20m effectively as an unconditional gift to the club if he so wanted, that would also be allowed under FFP regulations. Whether you think that SHOULD be allowed should be considered seperately from QPRs specific situation. Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual 'donating' whatever amount they want to a football club. If I was a billionaire, why shouldnt I be allowed to give away £100m to Hudds Town to do with as they please, as long as I dont do that in the form of a loan, loading the club with debt, then whats the problem, other than causing fans of other clubs to grow green eyes?? And to answer your last point, I think there are very strong reasons why you shouldn't be able to throw £100m at it. The club is part of the community which is something hugely more important than your play thing. Not only would you leave the community with a legacy that it just cannot afford, you'd also have created huge amounts of wage inflation for players that the clubs around you cannot afford. Financial Fair Play isn't about saving clubs like Portsmouth in isolation. It's about the fact that pretty much all of the 92 clubs in the Pl and fl lose significant sums of money every single year! |
|
|
|
Post by yoy on May 16, 2015 8:58:33 GMT 1
I thought that too. It's generally as clear as mud but I can't imagine any club being affected by FFP if their owners can just write off the losses as gifts to the club. Surely Forest and Rovers owners would do this maybe not L666s. www.financialfairplay.co.uk/The big argument against FFP is that it protects the biggest clubs as they have the biggest income (sponsorship and merchandising) and it stops billionaire owners coming in spending money, even in the form of gifts. We will not see another Man city whilst FFP is in place. Newcastle, Everton and villa have missed the boat.. Any dream of a billionaire coming in now spending 200m is simply not possible as their income isn't big enough as the amount of losses they can make are limited. Gift or no gift. FFP is good in the sense that it stops owners racking up ridiculous debts but it is wrong in preventing rich owners gifting the clubs money. They should however introduce a rule into FFP that stops owners signing the club into lots of massive contracts and a huge salary bill without committing finances to honour them, otherwise an owner could gift 100m one year but then walk away leaving the club with an unsustainable salary bill for the next few years. An owner in the championship can insert £5m of equity per annum. They cannot gift £100m. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 12:27:57 GMT 1
The big argument against FFP is that it protects the biggest clubs as they have the biggest income (sponsorship and merchandising) and it stops billionaire owners coming in spending money, even in the form of gifts. We will not see another Man city whilst FFP is in place. Newcastle, Everton and villa have missed the boat.. Any dream of a billionaire coming in now spending 200m is simply not possible as their income isn't big enough as the amount of losses they can make are limited. Gift or no gift. FFP is good in the sense that it stops owners racking up ridiculous debts but it is wrong in preventing rich owners gifting the clubs money. They should however introduce a rule into FFP that stops owners signing the club into lots of massive contracts and a huge salary bill without committing finances to honour them, otherwise an owner could gift 100m one year but then walk away leaving the club with an unsustainable salary bill for the next few years. An owner in the championship can insert £5m of equity per annum. They cannot gift £100m.
They can insert £5m of equity correct, but they can GIFT whatever they want.
The allowable owners equity investment is just that...money put in where there is an anticipation of getting something back. In legal terms, when you LOAN some money, as Dean effectively does, to help Hudds Town cover its losses, you anticipate getting it back (and potentially with a bit more on top), even if in reality he has no intention of EVER getting anything back (although he likely will get *something* back, debt loading seems to be the mechanism by which owners increase what they get when they sell football clubs). Think back to Ken Davy, I believe only relatively recently has his charge over Hudds Town been cleared...the LOANs he made have been cleared, at a cost in this instance. Had Davy written off his loans, the debt burden would have been removed from the club, he would have no anticipation of ever getting his equity back, and his cash would be an asset of the club, not a burden.
What you're suggesting is that Dean Hoyle can't put £100m into Keep It Up if he was able and wanted to do so, either with his name on it or as an anonymous donation? OF COURSE HE COULD.
(yes, I know this isnt a clean example as obviously capital spent on youth development is excluded from FFP declarations anyway...but the point remains)
|
|
|
|
Post by Frankiesleftpeg on May 16, 2015 14:20:53 GMT 1
Going back to the QPR point. Could it be that Fernandes decided to write off the £60 million loan when he realized that he/QPR may be liable to pay a another £58 million in fines on top? I don't recall him saying anything about writing it off this time last season when then thing first reared its head.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozterrier on May 16, 2015 17:55:57 GMT 1
Tin pot organisation (the FL that is). They would have known right from the start they wouldn't/couldn't see it through so why bother saying it? It makes a mockery of their own rules.
The football league are a joke. In fact, I come up blank when I try to think of even just one footballing governing body that isn't a joke. From FIFA, to the confederations right down to the national associations these pricks in their suits do an absolute injustice to the beautiful game and their fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on May 16, 2015 19:04:47 GMT 1
Financial Fair play not worth the paper it's written on! Seems like only us, Rotherham, Ipswich and Derby have stuck to the rules
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 19:17:49 GMT 1
I read somewhere earlier that QPR could have 100 million debt next season. Time for points deductions to come into play. I would dock on a scale basis. QPR for example have a massive fine hanging over their heads. For each million I would deduct 1 point over 3 seasons. 33 points lost a season for 3 seasons would fuck em up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 23:05:47 GMT 1
Weird how much the players and fans celebrated their goals today to say they've just been relegated.
Will be interesting to see which of their players hang around for Championship football
|
|
|
|
Post by yoy on May 17, 2015 10:50:47 GMT 1
An owner in the championship can insert £5m of equity per annum. They cannot gift £100m.
They can insert £5m of equity correct, but they can GIFT whatever they want.
The allowable owners equity investment is just that...money put in where there is an anticipation of getting something back. In legal terms, when you LOAN some money, as Dean effectively does, to help Hudds Town cover its losses, you anticipate getting it back (and potentially with a bit more on top), even if in reality he has no intention of EVER getting anything back (although he likely will get *something* back, debt loading seems to be the mechanism by which owners increase what they get when they sell football clubs). Think back to Ken Davy, I believe only relatively recently has his charge over Hudds Town been cleared...the LOANs he made have been cleared, at a cost in this instance. Had Davy written off his loans, the debt burden would have been removed from the club, he would have no anticipation of ever getting his equity back, and his cash would be an asset of the club, not a burden.
What you're suggesting is that Dean Hoyle can't put £100m into Keep It Up if he was able and wanted to do so, either with his name on it or as an anonymous donation? OF COURSE HE COULD.
(yes, I know this isnt a clean example as obviously capital spent on youth development is excluded from FFP declarations anyway...but the point remains)
Given that in the majority of cases the lender will be the same as the equity investor, this is an equity injection in all but name. I'm amazed that you are right but you are.... This goes against the intention of FFP in every sense. |
|
|
|
Post by terriersyndrome on May 17, 2015 11:39:21 GMT 1
A 10 point deduction next season would sound fair to me!  |
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on May 17, 2015 11:42:26 GMT 1
QPR need to sort their shit out, they are an embarrassment!
|
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on May 17, 2015 11:45:47 GMT 1
Joey Barton makes me laugh, goes on about bad eggs, the tosser is rumoured to be on 80/90 grand a week, he's the biggest mercenary at the club, no idea how they survive paying average players astronomical wages!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 18:42:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Olliewise on May 19, 2015 11:10:30 GMT 1
I've just read that QPR are battling a potential 'Financial Fair Play' fine from the Football League of up to £58m. I'm not getting my hopes up as it probably isn't true, but you never know!
|
|
|
|
Post by thehitcher on May 27, 2015 22:41:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by de1terrier on May 28, 2015 12:00:44 GMT 1
Because the football league are spineless dogs sitting under the Premier league clubs table begging for scraps, clubs who flout their rules prosper and clubs who follow the rules get shit on from a great height, they are a disgrace and are completely incompetent.
|
|
