|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 3, 2015 8:18:23 GMT
A statement from the Football League released on Monday afternoon read: "The Football League notes the statement made earlier today by Queens Park Rangers regarding its annual accounts for the year ending May 31, 2014. "The club has previously filed accounts with the Football League in accordance with the requirements of the League's FFP rules. "The treatment of certain items in those accounts, and how the League's FFP rules should be applied to them, remains a matter of ongoing discussion between QPR and the Football League. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further at this time." www.espnfc.com/queens-park-rangers/story/2326276/qpr-report-a-loss-of-98-million-pounds-despite-cutting-expenditure-by-22-million-pounds
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 3, 2015 8:24:37 GMT
@ruislipr they'll pay something, but mammoth fine would surprise me& certainly stuff about relegation to Conference is far fetched at the mo
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 3, 2015 9:15:11 GMT
"..The Telegraph can disclose that, by writing off the loans, the owners were able to significantly reduce the annual loss figure" Telegraph/Jeremy Wilsom QPR will continue to cut back on player costs 'for future years' After club announce dramatic reduction in annual losses they reveal it has been mainly driven by lower player costs QPR will continue to cut back on player costs 'for future years' On the up: QPR have announced a dramatic reduction in annual losses which is down to a reduction in player costs Photo: GETTY IMAGES Jeremy Wilson By Jeremy Wilson 8:06AM GMT 03 Mar 2015 Talks between Queens Park Rangers and the Football League are focused on whether Financial Fair Play rules can allow the club’s owners to contribute to a dramatic reduction in annual losses by writing off loans. QPR yesterday declared losses of just £9.8 million for the accounting year 2013-14, an extraordinary drop of some £55.6 million from the £65.4 million loss in their relegation season in the Premier League. However, it was also revealed that QPR’s main shareholders had “reiterated their long-term support for the club by strengthening the club's balance sheet by writing off £60 million of shareholder loans”. The Telegraph can disclose that, by writing off the loans, the owners were able to significantly reduce the annual loss figure. QPR’s statement yesterday provided limited detail on how they had managed to reduce their losses but did say that spending had been cut by £22 million. They said that this had been “mainly driven by lower player costs and this trend will continue in future years as the club will continue to bring losses down”. Related Articles However, given that the accounting year in question related to being in the Championship rather than the Premier League, the expectation would also be of a reduced turnover. The club, then, must have found some other means to reduce their losses and it is understood that it was also achieved by the intervention of major shareholders. The gesture certainly underlines the long-term commitment of chairman Tony Fernandes, Kamarudin Meranun, Ruben Gnanalingam and the Mittal family but whether it is acceptable to reduce losses in this way under the Football League’s FFP rules is more questionable. The 2013-14 loss figure of £9.8 million is actually only £1.8 million above the permitted 2013-14 FFP threshold for Championship clubs. Such a relatively small loss, if accepted by the Football League, would suggest a fine in the region of £1.2 million. According to the Football League’s FFP rules, any loss above the permitted £8 million for 2013-14 would incur a maximum fine of £6.68 million on the first £10 million that would be applied on a sliding scale. Arriving at an agreed profit or loss figure will be further complicated, however, by how league rules allow clubs to write off spending on youth development or infrastructure projects. QPR, then, may yet argue that no fine should apply at all. They will also be conscious that new FFP rules will come into force in the Football League from 2016-17 that would have allowed much larger losses. The extent to which the shareholders have helped minimise losses should become clearer when the full accounts are published in the coming days. QPR stressed yesterday that the club was “on track with its mid-term and long-term business plans”. The Football League confirmed that they had already received QPR’s accounts. “The treatment of certain items in those accounts, and how the League's FFP rules should be applied to them, remains a matter of ongoing discussion between QPR and The Football League,” said a spokesman. www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/queens-park-rangers/11446163/QPR-will-continue-to-cut-back-on-player-costs-for-future-years.html
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Mar 3, 2015 10:56:47 GMT
They used to talk about lies, damn lies and statistics. In QPR's instance its lies, damn lies and football accounting!
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Mar 3, 2015 12:35:17 GMT
How can the football league punish us for having to pay the wages of players we acquired while in the prem, surly they should only look at fee's and wages of players we acquired while in the championship and seperate the wages of players like barton and the rest who the club can not get rid of due to contracts.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Mar 3, 2015 13:59:25 GMT
How can the football league punish us for having to pay the wages of players we acquired while in the prem, surly they should only look at fee's and wages of players we acquired while in the championship and seperate the wages of players like barton and the rest who the club can not get rid of due to contracts. Because the FL will state that the FFP rules were announced with enough time for clubs to cut their cloth accordingly and that the rules and timescale for their application was ratified by the member clubs.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Mar 3, 2015 14:14:12 GMT
As a generalism - I believe the majority of fans think there is too much money in football.
So the FL have introduced rules to combat this. On this basis, surely the principle is unquestionable and only the application of the rules can be open to criticism from fans?
I do not think the FL are as stupid as they are being portrayed. The FL have lawyers just like the clubs do and while there will be some pain in the short term as court cases challenge the validity of the rules in the long term there is only one way this is going to go. The rules (or an adjusted version) will be applied rigorously. At least the early court cases will allow the FL to adjust the rules and eradicate loopholes.
I do not think it is possible for a fan to believe there is too much money in football but also condone their own club avoiding punishment by using accountancy practices that interpret the rules in a different way than they were intended.
The bigger fight is to get the rules applied to the Premiership. They'll never agree and even if they did it will only be a matter of time before a section of clubs try to break away from the Premiership and start a new league. Greed of this depth is why the Premiership was created in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Mar 3, 2015 17:55:38 GMT
The accounts have been audited. Therefore they must comply with company & accounting laws.
The Football League may find it difficult to disregard those laws if they wish to dispute our "true" figures. Unless, of course, the auditors have attached notes of qualification with the accounts.
The law of the land always takes preference over rules of companies or associations. Therefore, if we went to court it would be up to the FL to prove financial malpractice.
I do agree with blatant that the priniple of FFP is sound, but it would be easy to argue that they were not admissable as they have had a major overhaul after just one year.
The chances that the FL would be allowed to implement the punishments that were in place for last season would appear to be remote.
I am sure that in practice we have made substantial losses, but it is what appears on paper that counts!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 3, 2015 18:43:27 GMT
I guess not clear to me is did we "Lose" just under 70 Million pounds - but 60 million of that was "forgiven'?assumed by Owners. Or did we lose just under 10 million and the 60 million forgiven was from the previous 180 Million?
And when the accounts are released, I guess we'll know
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Mar 3, 2015 19:41:46 GMT
How can the football league punish us for having to pay the wages of players we acquired while in the prem, surly they should only look at fee's and wages of players we acquired while in the championship and seperate the wages of players like barton and the rest who the club can not get rid of due to contracts. Because the FL will state that the FFP rules were announced with enough time for clubs to cut their cloth accordingly and that the rules and timescale for their application was ratified by the member clubs. Then clubs being relegated from any league should have a two to three year protection to enable them to cut their cloth accordingly, three or two years for the average contract length and average wages from the league they were relegated from.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 3, 2015 19:50:32 GMT
My understanding, such that it is, of FFP is that if a club was over the allowable debt the owners had the choice of injecting equity to cover the shortfall or paying the fine. Haven't ours just chosen the inject equity, maybe already with the agreement of the powers that be?
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Mar 3, 2015 21:43:30 GMT
Putting money into a company does not break the law so I do not see it as a question of the laws of the land.
But in order to take part in the football league you have to abide by the rules of that competition and that now includes FFP.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 3, 2015 22:19:49 GMT
I'm obviously interested in our possible FFP punishment and glad that owners are backing the club, etc, etc.
But I'm also just interested in how we're being run. And it seems to me that if this is all correct, club spending exceeded club income last year by 70 million pounds. The only reason the loss is 10 million pounds is because owners put in 60 million pound to cover/assume most of the losses. That's an expenditure over income of almost 6 million pounds pounds a month
|
|
|
Post by harr on Mar 3, 2015 22:47:23 GMT
I'm obviously interested in our possible FFP punishment and glad that owners are backing the club, etc, etc. But I'm also just interested in how we're being run. And it seems to me that if this is all correct, club spending exceeded club income last year by 70 million pounds. The only reason the loss is 10 million pounds is because owners put in 60 million pound to cover/assume most of the losses. That's an expenditure over income of almost 6 million pounds pounds a month That's probably Shaun and Adels Salary
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Mar 3, 2015 23:48:31 GMT
Given what happened to Leicester who knows what will happen on Fair Play. The more important thing is, as Mac has pointed out, is what our true loss was and what its likely to be going forward.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 4, 2015 2:34:37 GMT
Interesting discussion. I must say I laughed when it was suggested that the £60 million write-off may not be quite all it seems. Surely not? At QPR, the club members of the present regime characterised as debt free?
I'd like to take another look at that article. And what the verdict is on the accounts, as this thread seems unsure whether we're £178 million in debt still or not. I thought that figure related to the two 'Hughes' seasons, while the present accounts must relate to the Championship season. Did we really lose a further £69 million in the lower tier last season? Or is overall debt down to £118 million?
At Chelsea and City it was said losses had been written off. And then it was said they had, in fact, been converted to equity. I assume the owners would want the same price from a buyer for the equity that they wanted for the shares, and if the buyer paid up, and dumped the cost of the deal onto the Club, as they do, it would make no long term difference. Fayed said he wrote off £200 million, but he said they'd be competing with Man Utd and Real Madrid and play in a state of the art stadium, so I'm interesting to see their accounts. As no-one at Fulham could make sense of his, judging by the detailed discussions supporters had in at least one forum, I won't be too surprised if the situation is less than transparent.
The reason this stuff is interesting is because it exposes the gulf between what they say and what is going on.
Signing hungry young players is a case in point. Really? And does that mean 'Champions League' quality hungry young players, reflecting Bhatia's claim, players with the 'world class talent' Fernandes talked about?
Presumably not. But has Fernandes abandoned all that big talk merely because HE has finally been forced to swallow £60 million of the losses he was, in any case, responsible for himself?
Why? Why was it all right to squander over £100 million of the CLUB'S money on rubbish, but when the regime claims to be losing £60 million itself, that's a DIFFERENT matter.
Suddenly, we're going to rely on kids. How do they know we can? If they couldn't find quality players spending £200 million on players in two seasons, why do they think they can find young players who will meet a given standard?
Surely that's why so many Clubs can't get it right. They decide in advance how much they need to spend, without knowing how effective the 'talent' they buy will be? Or they decide a particular solution is the right one, without the experience, know-how or talent to judge.
Do we rely mostly on the manager? The coaching? Bargain buys. Home grown?
Why create these false futures, where the unpredictability of the game is set aside, and neat little scenarios where the outcome is CLEAR in advance when, at QPR, we're never clear about things years after they've happened, and all the facts that will ever be known are known.
Why not just find out? Leave aside how 'hungry' the young players will be. Our nice tidy little jigsaws are always knocked flying by the reality of the first tough season we face, and the problem we've never resolved.
What does a long bad losing run tell us about the Club? We have so many of them, and still we seem none the wiser.
Win, win, win is the easy way. Except that virtually nobody knows how to do it.
It seems that every year we have a different mantra. Wright was going to sell us big in the City (to generate revenue, I assume). Briatore the boutique and the Champions League, Bhatia the same, Fernandes the big ground and big spending.
But none of it was based on a knowledge of the game, or an ability to put that knowledge into practice in a way that would be acceptable to ANYBODY.
Have they mastered the game now, in a few weeks? Are they telling us that they intend to do so? Is it something that any number of people can do, or are they specially gifted?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 4, 2015 8:13:59 GMT
Ingham...Some good points.
Re the "Going to have home growns & lower league signings" talk - That's what I was thinking too. Trying to make a virtue out of a necessity - and then to spin it as look what we're doing. That's something we'll be able to judge for ourselves if it happens.
If we truly were losing 6 million pounds a month, and it's "only" owners coughing up 60 million pounds to put into the club: Yes that shows great commitment by the club owners. But it surely shows , our probably of how we're run, still have a way to go.
And If I'm totally confusing things about how things were, sure would like to be corrected
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Mar 4, 2015 9:58:26 GMT
Don't think TF and the board have ever suggested that they're 'especially gifted' when it comes to running a football club.
They took big gambles on cr*p advice from (formerly) respected 'football people', who took TF for a ride.
True to their word (and something many here doubted/ridiculed), the board/shareholders collectively stump up £60m of their own money, and people still deride them.
Good grief.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 4, 2015 10:16:43 GMT
What you characterize as "deriding..."
At the end of their third year of running this club...Expenditure exceeded income by almost 70 million pounds....
YES. The Owners "Swallowed" 60 million pounds of this loss - and we'll see how that impacts on our FFP issues.
But in terms of running the club: Not too impressive this loss...
Now if every year till the end of time, owners swallows a massive loss so QPR Fan can enjoy being in the Prem, great. But if this commitment is only contingent on owners getting OLD Oak and if don't leave...
Or if after year, losses are put on the club accounts...
I WOULD be impressed if the Club owners swallowed the almost 200 million pounds of debt/ cleared the books and then said Lessons learned...and ran the club well
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Mar 4, 2015 11:30:21 GMT
Don't think TF and the board have ever suggested that they're 'especially gifted' when it comes to running a football club. They took big gambles on cr*p advice from (formerly) respected 'football people', who took TF for a ride. True to their word (and something many here doubted/ridiculed), the board/shareholders collectively stump up £60m of their own money, and people still deride them. Good grief. I think this sounds more derisory to TF and the board than most criticism I've read - you're saying that they aren't particularly gifted at running a football club and that they are naive enough to be repeatedly taken for a ride in an industry they have chosen to significantly invest in. Most top flight football clubs have boards and owners who invest with money accrued outside of football - running a football club isn't their background. All those people have to deal with 'football people' - managers, agents and so on. Most seem to manage that alright (in a selfish way I mean, it's mostly awful for football 'in general') and those who can't handle it, delegate it - something we've only just begun to do with Sir Les and we've been crying out for a DoF or equivalent higher ranking football brain between the board and the manager for absolutely years. So for most of that time they didn't appropriately delegate and they took "big gambles". I don't see how that's a positive. Personally, I think not knowing exactly what they're doing is a totally fine excuse in terms of TF and co as people - as in, them meaning well, them being seemingly being nice people, their desire to keep the promises they have made. But I don't see any of those things as being reasons for unswerving faith in terms of financial management of a football club, outside of them sticking to their guns in terms of taking fiscal responsibility for the losses they make. I'd rather have a nice, well-meaning chairperson and board room than a distant, austere one (I mean naively, I'd like football ownership at the top level to be more than the domain of millionaires) but if having a firm hand on the tiller will trump personality traits for me any day. Expecting shareholders to write off debts and keep piling money into a project they don't see a decent return on is contrary to the very reason most shareholders invest in absolutely anything. Personally, I think they had an ethical obligation to write off the debt in QPR's case and they're are worthy of praise for sticking to their word on that. But being a bit cynical and/or concerned about significantly high debt levels and the way the club is ran financially is, to my mind, not being derisory. If it's being "doubtful" then I'd say that's not the most illogical thing to be when you consider the last couple of decades worth of evidence in football in terms of how investors in football clubs have treated them when things go sour and, closer to home, our own club's history of crass financial mismanagement and periods in administration.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Mar 4, 2015 11:45:08 GMT
As a generalism - I believe the majority of fans think there is too much money in football. So the FL have introduced rules to combat this. On this basis, surely the principle is unquestionable and only the application of the rules can be open to criticism from fans? I do not think the FL are as stupid as they are being portrayed. The FL have lawyers just like the clubs do and while there will be some pain in the short term as court cases challenge the validity of the rules in the long term there is only one way this is going to go. The rules (or an adjusted version) will be applied rigorously. At least the early court cases will allow the FL to adjust the rules and eradicate loopholes. I do not think it is possible for a fan to believe there is too much money in football but also condone their own club avoiding punishment by using accountancy practices that interpret the rules in a different way than they were intended.The bigger fight is to get the rules applied to the Premiership. They'll never agree and even if they did it will only be a matter of time before a section of clubs try to break away from the Premiership and start a new league. Greed of this depth is why the Premiership was created in the first place. I also think this absolutely nails it.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Mar 4, 2015 14:46:44 GMT
As a generalism - I believe the majority of fans think there is too much money in football. So the FL have introduced rules to combat this. On this basis, surely the principle is unquestionable and only the application of the rules can be open to criticism from fans? I do not think the FL are as stupid as they are being portrayed. The FL have lawyers just like the clubs do and while there will be some pain in the short term as court cases challenge the validity of the rules in the long term there is only one way this is going to go. The rules (or an adjusted version) will be applied rigorously. At least the early court cases will allow the FL to adjust the rules and eradicate loopholes. I do not think it is possible for a fan to believe there is too much money in football but also condone their own club avoiding punishment by using accountancy practices that interpret the rules in a different way than they were intended.The bigger fight is to get the rules applied to the Premiership. They'll never agree and even if they did it will only be a matter of time before a section of clubs try to break away from the Premiership and start a new league. Greed of this depth is why the Premiership was created in the first place. I also think this absolutely nails it. Applies to most of the big clubs who have most supporters across the world who would almost to a man say there is too much money in football. I agree they are all hypocrites but that's the way of the world I'm afraid!
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Mar 4, 2015 17:33:50 GMT
I think this sounds more derisory to TF and the board than most criticism I've read - you're saying that they aren't particularly gifted at running a football club and that they are naive enough to be repeatedly taken for a ride in an industry they have chosen to significantly invest in. I'm not criticising TF and the board or deriding them for having made mistakes. People do. I think it's simply a matter of fact that they weren't gifted at running a football club - and why should they be, it's out of their sphere of experience? Maybe they were naive in allowing themselves to be shafted - I think they've said as much too. But they paid supposedly top people to advise them and signed supposedly top players to come and play for us. What more could they do? It's hardly their fault the likes of the parasitic scumbag Bosingwa couldn't give a flying f**k. Football owners in the past were often supporters or local businessmen with a personal interest in the area. Today club ownership a rich man's toy. We've had the spoilt brat Flav chuck out his toys, now TF s looking after the club. To use a 'Toy Story' analogy, it's a bit like moving from nasty Sid to Andy's house. We don't have a choice in who owns the club, so it's nice (for a change) to be able to be generally supportive of the owners, in the knowledge (or hope) that they'll continue to do the 'right thing'. They're making good plans for the future and they're paying for their past mistakes. Not sure there's much more that can be asked of them.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 4, 2015 19:00:54 GMT
I still don't understand if the £60 million was used to cover the overspending rather than the existing debt, why not throw £2 million more in the pot to keep it under the FFP limit? At that point there isn't a huge difference. Either way, as far as criticizing the owner and how he ran the club, clearly it was wrong. The question is does he do the right things now, it looks to be heading that way. A director of football was badly needed, giving managers the keys was not the answer, as most of them always want to spend more money. That is why Pulis was outed at Palace and why owners will cut off spending in transfer windows trying to drive a manager out. One thing is for certain, the summer window will tell the truth. If this team is still chasing big money players, than nothing was learned. If it takes a different, more affordable approach, then it will at least show me that Tony isn't just talking. A lot of big money contracts come off in the summer, so it will give the club a great chance to try to run within it's means.
|
|
Dufster
Neil Warnock
I say!
Posts: 548
|
Post by Dufster on Mar 4, 2015 23:51:50 GMT
"If its too good to be true....it generally is"
They had to write off £60 million in order to:
1. Avoid FFP penalty 2. Prevent more financial incompetence making them look like even bigger eejits!
Had they not done this our debt would now be in excess of £200+ million....how anyone in their right mind can want to defend that sort of performance from a Chairman and Board is beyond me.
Sadly we have no where else to go...Oh except down to the Championship of course!
|
|
Dufster
Neil Warnock
I say!
Posts: 548
|
Post by Dufster on Mar 5, 2015 0:28:51 GMT
Lets have some real news not good news shall we and sorry to spoil anyone's day dreaming but here is some context around our Clubs financial health!
This detail is based on 2013 Financials so I guess we need to add £9.8 Million to our number, I also believe United have just announced that they have reduced their debt by £90 Million. (without writing anything off!)
Top 4 debt carrying clubs in the Football League
1st Chelsea with £958 Million - Turnover was £290 Million! Gate Capacity - 41,616: Debt per seat £23,019 2nd Man Utd with £295 Million - Turnover was £363 Million! Gate Capacity 75, 388: Debt per seat £3,913 3rd QPR with £177 Million - Turnover was £61 Million! Gate Capacity 18,069: Debt per seat £9,795 4th Bolton Wanderers £163 Million - Turnover was £35 million! Gate capacity 28,723: Debt per seat £5,674
Some more context:
Half of the Premiership clubs turn a profit....West Brom who have been up and down a few times like us carry practically zero debt....we on the other hand carry more debt than Man City and Liverpool combined.
Some more context:
There are only 4 teams in the Championship with a smaller gate capacity than us - Rotherham, Bournemouth, Blackpool and Brentford and 10 of the current clubs in the Championship have a gate capacity in excess of 30K+ (Leeds 40K+)
So there is little room for financial recovery if we are relegated.
I'm a glass half full sort of chap, and want nothing but success for Chris Ramsey, the team, Club and my beloved fellow Hoops supporters....
But the facts don't lie,
"you cant polish a turd"!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 5, 2015 8:34:12 GMT
I have only a sketchy knowledge of the FFP rules - and obviously QPR's owners and Accountants know far more re it. But I thought the entire idea of FFP was to prevent overspending by clubs and forbid owners from just putting in money.
And just letting any club overspend - Remembering we already had the (theoretical) advantage over other Championship clubs with the "Parachute" money we got.
So basically our expenditure was 70 million pounds more than our income...which club owners lent...And then Owners "just" put in 60 million (forgiving that amount of losses) - which I would have thought would have been contrary..to FFP.
(I also thought it was considered ok for owners other firms to help sponsors - so say AIR Asia could pay QPR a vast amount to be on shirt sponsors, but that doesnt seem to be happening)
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 5, 2015 8:39:00 GMT
There's obviously a slew of online information. No idea which is the best. (Probably from authorities themselves) Anyway from a site "Financial Fair Play" Explained www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.phpFootball League FFP www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2014/20141106-championship-financial-fair-play-rules-rg-2066799.aspxd: Thu 06 Nov 2014 Author: The Football League image: www.football-league.co.uk/cms_images/common/fl-logo-8x6549-1727040_478x359.jpgThe Football League The Football League Image by: File At an EGM at Derby County, Championship clubs have agreed a new set of ‘Profitability and Sustainability’ Regulations that will bring the division’s approach to Financial Fair Play into line with that used by the Premier League. From the beginning of the 2016/17 season, Championship clubs will have their financial performance continuously monitored over a three season timeframe and will be permitted to lose up to £15m during that period without having to be prescriptive over how that loss will be funded. In addition, they will be permitted to lose more than £15m, but not more than an aggregate of £39m (compared to an equivalent figure of £105m in the Premier League) but will be subject to additional regulation when doing so. This will include providing evidence of Secure Owner Funding and Future Financial Information for the two seasons ahead. A club that moves between the Premier League and Championship will be assessed in accordance with the average allowance that is permitted in the relevant division (for example, a club that had played two seasons in the Championship and one in the Premier League would have a maximum permitted loss of £61m - consisting of one season at £35m and two at £13m). Clubs also agreed transitional arrangements for the period leading up the introduction of the new regulations in 2016. These can be summarised as follows: The existing Championship FFP framework will remain in place for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons. Any sanctions for accounts relating to the 2013/14 season will continue to take effect as intended (and in accordance with the amounts specified at the time). The maximum deviation under the regulations will remain at £6m for 2014/15 and will increase to £13m in 2015/16, in line with the maximum loss (£39m over 3 seasons) permitted under the new rules. Following the Championship’s decision, The Board of The Football League has been given a mandate by its clubs to complete a new financial solidarity arrangement with the Premier League in accordance with that currently under discussion between the two leagues. Read more at www.football-league.co.uk/news/article/2014/20141106-championship-financial-fair-play-rules-rg-2066799.aspx#f847WYbJ4MZB30Ly.99
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 5, 2015 14:05:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 10, 2015 21:46:46 GMT
Maybe I'm "mislooking" but I don't see the accounts having been filed yet.
|
|