|
Post by Roller on May 23, 2020 10:11:28 GMT
But hard to see how 2019/2020 FFP can be anything other than suspended. Actually I think it is relatively straight forward. For an established Championship club like ours, our permissible losses over a three-year rolling period are £39 million. This is calculated from an allowance of £13 million per season. For this season, that permissible loss needs to be adjusted to reflect lost income. A formula based on the number of missed or behind closed doors home matches multiplied by the average home match revenue (ticket sales, sponsorship, food and drink sales etc) would be the starting point. Clubs could then appeal to have any other provable lost revenue included. This way, clubs that have budgeted properly to be FFP compliant still would be, those who have overspent would still fail. I'm sure a similar adjustment will be needed for next season as well.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 13, 2020 19:50:27 GMT
EFL: Championship clubs aim for 25 May training date after conference meetingwww.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52651502Championship clubs hope to gain government clearance for a 25 May return to regular training, as part of plans to resume the 2019-20 season. It is understood a target restart of 6 June has been discussed but clubs still anticipate a more likely 13 June date, in line with the Premier League. All 24 clubs held a conference call on Wednesday, after an EFL board meeting. League One and Two clubs will speak on Friday, when the prospect of ending the season seems certain to move closer. The plan for the Championship is still to complete the season, thereby avoiding avoid a potential legal minefield around promotion and relegation if the campaign ends early but the Premier League plays to a conclusion. An EFL statement, released following Wednesday's board meeting, pointed to a need to acknowledge the financial shortfall that would accompany the game restarting behind closed doors. While the resumption of competition would satisfy commitments to broadcasters, the costs related to meeting hygiene and testing protocols, as well as a lack of regular matchday income, have to be taken into account. "The EFL will continue to undertake consultation with our members before the next steps are determined," the statement read. "Current attention is clearly on the immediate next steps, but the long-term impact on the league and its clubs remains as stark as previously outlined, and solutions are still required to fill the financial hole left by the crisis. The consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic will not be rectified simply by a return to play behind closed doors. "In addition, the EFL is mindful of the pressing need for clarity in a number of areas, including the practicalities and timeframes of clubs being able to facilitate a return to training. To address this, clubs have today been issued with the latest draft of the EFL's 'Return to Training Protocols', so that they can prepare appropriately. "However, until all outstanding matters are concluded, including finalising a comprehensive testing programme on matchdays and non-matchdays, the EFL board has informed its clubs that a return to training should not take place until 25 May at the earliest."
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 12, 2020 20:30:55 GMT
A couple of Premier League clubs there which is good - they will be the only ones with any money to spend
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 12, 2020 20:29:21 GMT
If you've got a couple of hours to spare ………
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 3, 2020 9:56:13 GMT
Fifa vice-president considers European season based around the calendar year Victor Montagliani said the move would fit in with the 2022 World Cup being played in Qatar www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/05/02/fifa-vice-president-considers-european-season-based-around-calendar/ Fifa vice-president Victor Montagliani has said that moving the European football season to the calendar year is a "possibility to be discussed" in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic which has brought football to a standstill around the world. In an interview with Italy's Radio Sportiva, Montagliani, who is seen as a close ally of Fifa president Gianni Infantino, said the move would fit in with the 2022 World Cup being played in Qatar in November and December. The head of world football's governing body himself has said that football will be totally different when it restarts and that the current stoppage could be a good chance to overhaul the overloaded calendar which is due to run until 2024. "We have the opportunity because the World Cup in Qatar in 2022 will be played in November/December and that could be the idea," said Montagliani, who is president of the CONCACAF confederation. "Here in the Americas, the season is already played according to the calendar year, perhaps it is a solution that could also be used in Europe and Africa, it is a possibility to be discussed at national and continental level," he said. "It is not an idea to be discarded, it can be a solution in view of the next two years and this winter World Cup". A number of European leagues, including Italy, Germany and England, still hope to finish their seasons but doing so could force the start of the 2020-21 campaign to be pushed back. Uefa also wants to finish the Champions League and Europa League. "We had already started thinking about how to set a new calendar from 2024, now with this crisis we need immediate answers," added Montagliani. The idea of a calendar-year season has been put forward before including by Karl-Heinz Rummenigge when he was chairman of the European Club Association (ECA). "Everywhere, be it Germany, France or England, summer is the best period of the year. And that is the season we don't play," he told France Football magazine in a 2013 interview. "In deepest winter, when it is very cold and snowing, we play nearly all the time in conditions that are disagreeable for both players and spectators. It is not logical." ------------------------- Both Terry and I have floated this as a possibility, I'm pleased to see that they are going to consider it as an option.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 3, 2020 8:58:50 GMT
I'm still looking for more details Terry. Nothing I've seen goes into that level of detail.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 3, 2020 8:54:33 GMT
No, still nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 2, 2020 15:57:58 GMT
I'm not sure I'm familiar with that match. Was it eventful?
|
|
|
Post by Roller on May 2, 2020 15:56:25 GMT
Hard to really think about at the moment, but the FA have announced their criteria for signing overseas players once we have finally Brexited. Premier League set for points-based work permits post-Brexitwww.ckom.com/2020/04/28/english-premier-league-set-for-post-brexit-transfer-criteria/All players from overseas seeking to join Premier League clubs are set to be subject to points-based criteria for work permits after Britain's departure from the European Union is complete. Currently, only players from outside of the European single market have to meet certain soccer-specific immigration requirements. But new regulations are required because clubs will no longer have the unrestricted ability to sign players from the continent after the transition period for Britain's divorce from the EU. The English Football Association disclosed in its annual financial report on Tuesday plans for a points-based system for the Premier League, which had wanted a way of maintaining the status quo. The FA and Premier League are yet to come to an agreement on the specifics of the number of homegrown players in the 25-man squads, with eight currently required. The new points system will expand the current assessment for work permits for non-European players, so taking into consideration the number of international appearances by players, the FIFA ranking of their country, the transfer fee, and salary to establish the need of the club to sign them. The FA said it was “proactively trying to mitigate and leverage” the “risks and opportunities” presented by Brexit. “This has a potential negative impact on the number of European players entering the English game, which could result in a devaluation of the domestic rights of English competitions but could be an opportunity for the English players in the Premier League but also other leagues from the EFL to the Women’s Super League," the FA said in its strategic report. Given its role in overseeing the national teams, the FA also wanted to maximize the opportunities for English talent to play in the Premier League. The FA said it was working with other soccer bodies to gain approval from the Home Office to update the Governing Body Endorsement requirements that are already applied to players from outside of the European Union or European Economic Area. Premier League clubs, like European counterparts, are currently allowed to transfer 16- and 17-year-old players between countries in the region under an exemption from FIFA regulations. But after Brexit, British clubs will only be allowed to sign foreign players over the age of 18. Britain officially left the 27-nation bloc on Jan. 31, but remains within the EU’s economic and regulatory orbit until the end of the year. ----------------------------- Like everything else, it is a flawed system and weighted towards the big boys. 1) International appearances. It would be easier for an average player to rack up a load of international caps for San Marino than a more talented player could for France, but this is at least countered by 2) the FIFA ranking of their country. 3) The transfer fee - The greater the fee, the more likely the deal is to be accepted! - favours the big clubs 4) The player's salary compared to the average in their division - also favours the big clubs. That all said, if it means that other teams have to concentrate on home grown players I'm in favour of it and, if we can continue to develop players, should help us get better transfer fees in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Apr 25, 2020 6:09:39 GMT
I would be surprised if we get a finish where all 9 games get played, and this takes about 4-5 weeks duration for the games to get played. We seem to be 2 weeks behind Spain and Italy and they are still having around 400 deaths a day. That takes us until Mid May to be where they are. How many more weeks to get from 400 deaths a day to something like 50 or 100 where they might even consider it, surely that’s another month. If they finish it, it will be behind closed doors in June and if that doesn’t happen it may get cancelled. If they start in June it won’t finish until July so the next season gets affected. Only Germany might finish there Leagues due to how well they controlled the virus. Italy Spain and France are all in our boat. Lives saved are the most important thing. I would rather it gets played but must not in any way influence more lives being lost or a second wave coming it’s not worth the risk It’s good to see a few posts on here, stay safe everyone..... The schedules are going to get ripped apart to accommodate the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, so why not start now? Delay next season so that this one can be finished. It will require flexibility from all the parties involved and for Gordon Taylor and the PFA to actually see what is going on in the world, but it can be done. Once the Qatar World Cup is over the season can start to be re-aligned. The players' contracts would be the main stumbling block, but should be more easy to solve than the inevitable lawsuits that would follow not completing the season from teams that either were relegated or not promoted.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Apr 24, 2020 18:50:04 GMT
Just to initially pick up on a couple of your points Ricky • Player wage caps per division • Overhaul the FFP guidelines providing greater clarity with pre-agreed penalties and appeal procedures. League 1 and 2 do have a wage cap of sorts. The way that FFP works at their level is that they are only allowed to spend up to a percentage of their revenue on wages. In League 1 it is 60%, in League 2 it is either 55% or 50%. It was 55%, I think I recall it being reduced to 50%. This is, of course, subject to a myriad provisos, clauses and general dicking around. There are pre-agreed penalties with FFP, they just aren't very well publicised. Rather than write this from scratch I'll paste in a few paragraphs from my column in AKUTRs on Birmingham's punishment from last season. For some time, it has been common knowledge that the Football League were in favour of using a points deduction as their preferred punishment, but the application of this has remained unclear. In the weeks and month leading up to the decision, all the talk had been of a 12-point penalty, so when the tribunal saw fit to only deduct 9 points from Birmingham there was a more than a muttering of consternation. However, the reasoning behind this was all explained in the disciplinary commission report.
The 12-point deduction, which we all heard so much about, is the EFL’s default position. However, this only applies for breaches over £15 million. For breaches under this amount, this notional figure is reduced according to a sliding scale. As an example, if a club is only up to £2 million over their FFP limit, the 12-point deduction is reduced by 9 points. Birmingham, who fell into the £8 million to £10 million bracket qualified for a reduction of 5 points and so their sanction was 7 points.
This points deduction is then subject to be increased depending on “aggravating factors”. On the face of it, Birmingham signing Kristian Pedersen last summer while under a transfer embargo would appear to fall into this category, but this was not regarded as such by the tribunal. Transfer embargo is a very misleading term, registration embargo is far more accurate. Clubs are entitled to sign whichever players they like, but their ruling authority, in this case the EFL, can refuse to register them. Back in 2015, Barcelona signed Arda Turan and Aleix Vidal while under a transfer embargo, neither player was registered until the following January. As the EFL did eventually ratify Pedersen’s registration before the season started, it didn’t qualify as an aggravating factor.
That is not to say that there weren’t any aggravating factors. Birmingham’s own forecast in June 2017 predicted that while they would just manage to satisfy the FFP requirements in the 2017/18 season, they would fail to do so for the following two seasons. Their response to this was to allow Harry Redknapp to sign 9 new permanent players and another 5 on loan at a cost of £23.75 million, nearly doubling the cost of the players’ wages in the process. The tribunal regarded this as an intentional breach of the rules and, as such, warranted the deduction of a further 3 points increasing Birmingham’s sanction to 10 points.
However, as Birmingham admitted that they’d breeched FFP, at a point at which they could hardly deny it, was rewarded with a further point being deducted from their sanction, reducing it to a final total of 9 points. I’ve not seen this mentioned elsewhere, but Birmingham were also required to pay the costs of the tribunal and the legal cost of the EFL.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Apr 24, 2020 17:10:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 20, 2020 20:24:47 GMT
For anyone self-isolating or "working from home", this is an excellent website to get lost in. It has quizzes for every topic under the sun. It will help keep you sane. www.sporcle.com/search/quizzes/?p=1&s=qpr
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 1, 2020 9:08:20 GMT
I recently discovered that depreciation of fixed assets is outside of the scope of FFP, which makes sense if you think about it. Lee Hoos has spoken about exploring the option of a bond issue on more than one occasion, then again he talks about the club being self-sufficient and that is surely a pipe dream. Thanks for clarifying that - certainly news to me and logically makes FFP even more of a mystery. In theory then the owners could put up 100 million, build a super low maintenance stadium and hopefully increase the size of our crowds. The decreased cost of maintenance and match day stewarding would benefit the P&L financially and for FFP, the increased gate money would benefit the P&L financially and for FFP giving us more to spend on players/salaries but the depreciation cost of the stadium would only offset those benefits financially but not count towards FFP. If that is the case it is total nonsense imo and in many ways I could argue that it weakens the EFL's case against the sale and lease back transactions that some clubs have done. I disagree. FFP is supposedly about improving the financial health of football clubs. Surely having the stadium you describe would do that? The EFL do not have a case against the sale and lease back transactions per se - it is allowed in the regulations. Their case with Derby is over their inflated valuation of the ground, their case against Sheffield Wednesday is to do with when the date they claim the transaction took place and possibly also the payment schedule for the sale.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 1, 2020 9:01:10 GMT
Thanks Roller On the FFP fine/costs, what happened in 2017/18 was that the full expense was recognised in the P&L, discounted because we are paying it over 10 years. So the £20M fine was recognised as a net discounted expense of about £15M in 2017/18 then as we pay the fine each year, we will get an expense each year until we reach £20M (i.e - the difference between £20M and £15M spread over the 10 years). In note 8 to the 2018/19 accounts within finance costs there is £977K in relation to the fine. This is the discounting factor charge for the year so can also be ignored from the above loss of £10,387K. £977K does seem high for 1 year of interest charge but I'm sure QPR Finance know what they are doing! Thanks Hitman. I had a mate, who happens to work for our auditors, try to explain this to me after the match yesterday and while I think I understood what he said, I'm still proving to be quite resistant to the details. I had assumed that the £977k was the figure to be excluded, but still can't see how the discounting factor charges are going to add up to the £20m. Perhaps after another 8 years it will become apparent!
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 29, 2020 9:49:30 GMT
For those who can't find their way to LFW, this is the table from my article. Hopefully it is self explanatory. Season (all figures in £1000’s) | 2014/15 | 2015/16 | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | Season’s Financial Loss | -45,675 | -10,964 | -6,443 | -22,535 | -10,387 | Estimated Disallowable Costs | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | Rolling 3-Year Loss for FFP | | | -51,082 | -27,942 | -27,365 | Season’s Permissible Loss for FFP | -35,000 | -13,000 | -13,000 | -13,000 | -13,000 | Rolling 3-Year Permissible Loss | | | -61,000 | -39,000 | -39,000 | Headroom Beneath FFP Limit | | | 9,918 | 11,058 | 11,635 |
I’ve adopted the £4 million per season disallowable costs estimated by the excellent Swiss Ramble. Secondly, the 2017/18 loss has been adjusted to remove the cost of the FFP fine levied against the club and the payment of the initial instalment of it along with the payment of the EFL’s costs. I’ve not adjusted the 2018/19 figure to remove the latest instalment of the fine as I think there has been some wizardry in the accounts and need to understand that before doing so. There is a difference between cash flow and profit and loss; just because £1.7 million went out the door, it doesn’t mean that is how it will show in the accounts. The loss for 2018/19 will be less than shown.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 29, 2020 9:28:35 GMT
The training ground cost is an interesting point. Firstly the cash has too come from somewhere - a bond issue is one option, cash from the owners is another, set up a separate company to for the owners to fund and own it - all unclear at the moment. However the cashflow is completely different to the P&L impact. If the club owns the ground it will be a fixed asset and it's cost will taken into the P&L in the form of annual depreciation over a long period - probably 20 years or more. If it is owned by a separate company we would be expected to pay rent ( as we do now) to be able to use the ground. If it is funded through a bond issue we would be expected to pay interest on the bonds and eventually to repay the bonds completely. If we take a bank loan and mortgage teh ground we will have to pay interest and capital repayments. So there will always be a long term P&L cost to the club. Therefore regarding FFP I think the cost will be included but in small annual amounts over a long period of time. There are other options but whatever option is taken we will always have an annual expense for the ground and I believe this is included FFP calculations. The good news though is that we already pay rent for our current training ground so the aim of the finance guys must be to keep the annual cost of the new ground to about the same level as we pay now in rent. I recently discovered that depreciation of fixed assets is outside of the scope of FFP, which makes sense if you think about it. Lee Hoos has spoken about exploring the option of a bond issue on more than one occasion, then again he talks about the club being self-sufficient and that is surely a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 27, 2020 19:41:29 GMT
Warren Farm is mentioned in the latest set of accounts.
"With regard to the Training Ground at Warren Farm, the Club is currently working towards discharging all the pre-commencement conditions as set out under the planning permission granted by Ealing Council. The intention is to then commence site clearance work and construction of the new training ground for the first team and academy. The facility will also include community facilities and a comprehensive community sport programme, which will significantly improve the local residents’ access to sport."
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 27, 2020 19:37:17 GMT
I think that is a very encouraging set of accounts. Using an estimate of £4 million disallowable costs, I calculate that we are £11 million under our FFP ceiling. While that sounds like a lot, it isn't. This season we drop £12 million worth of broadcasting rights revenue which is the difference between our last parachute payment and the solidarity payment which will replace it. If you notionally knock those two off against each other as they pretty much cancel each other out, you then have to look at the loss which is rolling out of our FFP reporting period this season. It is the lowest loss we've had in recent years, "just" £6.5 million. We therefore need to reduce out loss down to that figure. The profit from the sales of Freeman, Furlong, Smith and Luongo should make that possible.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 15, 2020 8:12:56 GMT
Hope they take enough points off them so they get relegated ! If is UEFA who have found them guilty of breaking their FFP regulations, hence the ban from European tournaments. The Premier League have a different set of FFP regulations that are less exacting; their investigation is still ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 28, 2019 7:18:22 GMT
QPR 3 - 2 Brentford
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 28, 2019 7:17:46 GMT
Over the last few years Brentford have played wide using the full width of the pitch in attack so I wouldn't expect us to play 3 at the back.
4-2-3-1
Kelly
Rangel - Leistner - Barbet - Manning
Cameron - Scowan
BOS - Eze - Chair
Wells
I would expect Hall to make the bench just in case Warburton does need to change to 3 at the back during the match.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 22, 2019 13:40:13 GMT
QPR 3 - 0 Reading
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 15, 2019 6:18:10 GMT
Hull 0 - 2 QPR
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 15, 2019 6:17:42 GMT
Absolutely disgusting behaviour in Bulgaria and yet another sickening example of racist chanting from Eastern Europe. This needs to be dealt with swiftly and firmly but I have no expectation that it will. A couple of years ago FIFA fined the Russian Football Union a paltry £22,000 for racist chants by their fans in a friendly against France, this was eclipsed by UEFA fining Besiktas £30,000 when a cat stole onto the pitch during a Champions League match against Bayern Munich a few months later. That speaks volumes for the football authorities priorities.
Gareth Southgate and his England team took the right action and will hopefully have forced UEFA to finally face up to the problem and hit the offenders with realistic, appropriate and effective sanctions. England acted within UEFA’s three-step protocol, UEFA and FIFA now have to stop launching endless campaigns to eliminate racism, discrimination and intolerance from football and actually get serious about backing them up.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Oct 2, 2019 6:09:17 GMT
Cardiff 1 - 2 QPR QPR 3 - 1 Blackburn
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Sept 28, 2019 19:49:37 GMT
There really isn't much to add to Ricky's and Bow's comments as they succinctly describe how I saw the match too.
West Brom had clearly done their homework and successfully nullified our more potent threats. Before the match, Terry suggested that Furlong and Manning may cancel each other out and that it would affect us more than them, and that was pretty much what happened. Eze and Chair were well chaperoned, but were still offered our best chance of creating anything so I was very surprised when Eze was substituted. Wells had had a poor match, I'd have taken him off first.
It is important to put this into perspective. From what I've seen this was the first time our scratch team has been outplayed. They've only had a few months and 9 competitive matches together. We will only get better as the season goes on, the team get more familiar with each other and they are better drilled in Warburton's systems.
After the final whistle, it was great to see Darnell and, after the post match Sky interviews, Charlie follow our players around acknowledging our supporters. They received the applause their impact at QPR deserved.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Sept 28, 2019 8:39:46 GMT
QPR youngster Ody Alfa has joined National League South side Billericay Town on loan until November 2nd.
The move presents the 20-year-old – who can play up front or out wide – with the opportunity to gain some experience of men’s football. Alfa was named on the bench by Mark Warburton for Saturday’s win at Millwall.
Billericay are managed by former Tottenham Hotspur midfielder Jamie O’Hara and they host Dorking Wanderers on Saturday. Billericay are seventh in the National League South.
On the bench one week, off to the National League South the next. Hopefully the loan spell goes well for him.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Sept 28, 2019 8:35:58 GMT
QPR 2 - 1 WBA
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Sept 21, 2019 11:09:15 GMT
This season was always going to be the toughest for us financially.
Firstly, it is our first without a parachute payment meaning that our income has dropped by around £12 million (£16.6 million parachute payment replaced by a £4.5 million solidarity payment).
Secondly, it will be the hardest to adhere to FFP. To keep it simple and to exclude undisclosed costs and allowances from the argument, lets assume that our disallowable costs are the same each season and that we always brush up against our rolling 3-year £39 million limit. That means that the loss we can make in any season is equivalent to the one made three seasons ago. The loss made in 2016/17 (£6.5 million) is the smallest that QPR has made since the inception of FFP. So not only have to reduce our loss, we have less income to do it with.
Lee Hoos, Les Ferdinand, Chris Ramsey, Gary Penrice and Mark Warburton have done a incredible job getting the squad we have together under these circumstances
Next season we enter the calmer waters of having adjusted to living without parachute payments and have a much larger loss (£22.5 million) rolling out of our FFP equation. While we will still be a selling club, we will be doing so from a much stronger position. Hoos may choose to start to streamline our losses to remove the peaks and troughs, but it will all become irrelevant as we are winning the Championship this season.
|
|