Now, I’m by no means an expert here and those with a far greater grip of Financial Fair Play regulations in the Premier League and EFL divisions could quite possibly pull me up on some of my beliefs or my assumptions.
I’m happy if they wish to as there is one absolute fact on FFP – there’s so much nonsense doing the rounds from fans of all clubs on social media that short of being a forensic accountant it’s very much like listening to Boris repeatedly claim the NHS will get £350million from Brexit even when it’s been disproved or listening to a single thing the Orange Wotsit from America babbles when he remembers how to speak and stops contradicting himself within the space of four words.
I’ll stick to facts the best I can as I don’t want to muddy the waters further and I’m no forensic accountant, bog standard accountant or lawyer.
I don’t need to explain the background, every fan knows it.
Suffice to say the arbitration panel back in October 2017 dismissed our claim that the 2012 regulations were unfair under competition law and that the levied fine of £41.965million was not disproportionate.
We lodged our appeal but following discussions between all parties we withdrew our appeal and settled on the following terms:
Fine – £17million
QPR pay EFL’s Costs – £3million
Transfer Embargo for next January
Club’s shareholders to capitalise outstanding loans worth £21.965million.
A pay schedule was also agreed with some in the media suggesting the financial portion could be spread over the next decade and QPR were quick to point out that financial hit will not feature in future Profitability and Sustainability tests – ie we won’t take a double punishment by breaching FFP once and paying the fine and the fine itself leading to a second breach of FFP.
Speaking to the Official Site to explain our change of position, Chief Executive Lee Hoos explained.
“Whilst QPR felt it had a very strong case on appeal, we felt it was best to put this matter behind us to enable all parties to have certainty and allow us to continue focusing on running the Club in a sustainable manner going forward. We feel this is in the best interests of football as a whole.”
Those are the facts and as one actor in a film once claimed – they are indisputable.
So with the facts out of the way, I can give my unqualified thoughts.
In my own humble, the writing was always on the wall for us.
Financial Fair Play across Europe is led by the home associations and member clubs had the final vote. Had they voted against the proposals – as some clubs did, but not enough – they wouldn’t have been enacted. So whilst there may have been a competition aspect in law, it always felt like a shot in the dark. This wasn’t imposed by the authorities arbitrarily – member clubs helped shape it to varying degrees and unfortunately, more clubs saw the sense in it than didn’t. My own personal opinion is whilst protecting the future of clubs is 100% right, this current framework is absolute nonsense.
The writing was further on the wall as successive clubs – from memory Hull City, Leicester City etc – who had FFP issues of their own, all settled quickly following the initial arbitration panel decision against us.
We kept arguing with the appeal as in many ways we’d already backed ourselves into a corner – nobody else saw the appeal of appealing so gained the best settlement they could get for them.
Even from a moral perspective, clubs closing their complaints counted against us and strengthened the EFL’s position – and finally, sensibly, we took this out of the law and did the deal with some benefits to ourselves for doing that – instead of simply losing again.
The EFL have said all the right words in response to us effectively folding and that’s represented in the punishment.
“The outcome vindicates the approach of the EFL Board in defending the challenge to our Rules. In agreeing to the settlement above, the Board was conscious that the financial burden placed on the Club had to be manageable, so as not to put its future in doubt when considering that after this season the Club will no longer benefit from the promotion that was the catalyst for the dispute in the first place. QPR remain a valued member of the EFL and a great community asset. We look forward to continuing our productive working relationship with them for many seasons to come and are delighted to bring this long-running dispute to a conclusion.”
Our ill-judged appeal is a massive win for the EFL now. This is the precedent on anything that may follow. And we have to remember these were under the 2012 regulations, not the regulations that have now come into force which can also inflict points deductions on sides for breaches and even the denial of promotion. Our challenge has led the EFL to strike a deal with the Premier League whereby they will enforce and back up decisions made – there is no escape to the top-flight anymore Scot Free as the phrase goes.
It could be said QPR’s decision to challenge in the manner we did has actually given FFP a life and existence of its own that may now bite the very clubs who supported it…but that’s their problem.
With all that said, the reasons behind our challenging of the rules was correct I believe and we probably brought ourselves significant good faith with Ian Holloway taking care of finances whilst trying to keep us competitive prior to Steve McClaren’s appointment.
We just approached it wrong because if the aim was to ensure the safety of clubs from wayward owners who spent, left the club in a hole, and removed their funding – FFP, as it exists, may well temper such a situation, but it doesn’t entirely stop it.
What it categorically stops is an owner from investing in their own business and continuing to support those ambitions even if things go wrong.
Whatever beliefs of ‘buying the league’ may be for the individual fan, if an owner wants to fund that way why should they be stopped? If I open a chip shop tomorrow should a regulation tell me I can’t buy the best chip fryer on the market because last years profit wouldn’t pay for it?
Not a great analogy admittedly but the point is similar.
If FFP is to work it should challenge an ambitious owner to match their spending sum by placing a similar sum in an account the EFL control – if it goes wrong the club has all debts covered. The owner loses out, not the club, not the fans.
An owner not prepared to do that will temper what they say – an owner willing to do that will back it up.
Wouldn’t that protect clubs better?