QPR and the financial madness in the PL

[Hansern]

Queens Park Rangers finances in the Premier League 2012-13: Total turnover (income): £61m. Total wages £78m. Total loss £65m

QPR spend more on wages than Borussia Dortmund. Its insane and surley only a matter of time before clubs just goes under crippled with debt.

 

[Spaghetti Legs]

QPR was like a mad money trolley dash for players and agents.

 

[hamstrung_pigeon]

They are not alone. Blackburn isn't mentioned in the report below, but they reported a loss of £36.5m in Nov 2013 I think.

----

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/05/wage-bills-leicester-city-nottingham-forest-losses

Wage bills result in big losses at Leicester City and Nottingham Forest
- Both Championship clubs opposed to financial fair play
- Wages cost more than turnover of heavily subsidised clubs

David Conn
The Guardian, Wednesday 5 March 2014 15.42 GMT

Leicester City and Nottingham Forest, two of the clubs understood to be opposed to the Football League's financial fair play rules in the Championship, have reported heavy losses for the 2012-13 financial year.

Leicester, owned by the King Power duty free company of Thailand and current leaders of the Championship, made a loss of ￡34m, according to their accounts just published, which follows ￡30m in 2011-12.

Forest, owned by the Kuwaiti brothers Fawaz and Omar Al-Hasawi following the death of the previous owner, Nigel Doughty, in 2012, made a loss of ￡17m in 2012-13.

Both clubs, which spent more on wages than their entire turnover, are heavily subsidised by their owners in the push to win promotion to the Premier League. Leicester's owners converted almost ￡120m of loans into equity in November. Doughty's estate converted ￡65m of their loans into equity in 2012, and the Al-Hasawis have loaned ￡35m, partly to pay off a remaining ￡20m owed to Doughty's estate.

Leicester are understood to have been one of the clubs instructing the solicitors Brabners to ask for substantial changes to be made to the FFP rules backed by a threat of legal action. The rules were approved by an overwhelming majority of Championship clubs in 2012, and limit losses in the current year to ￡8m.

Clubs losing more than ￡8m in 2013-14 face a transfer embargo, enforceable from January 2015, or if they have won promotion to the Premier League at the end of this season, a fine proportionate to the amount they lost.

On the pitch, Forest remain in the Championship play-off places in fifth, despite successive losses.

Jim Price, the Forest manager Billy Davies' relative and agent, and a suspended solicitor following the closure of his firm in Scotland, has been working at Forest and last year criticised FFP, claiming it is "illegal and unworkable".

The league's chief-executive, Shaun Harvey, has pledged that the FFP rules will be "vigorously defended".

 

[Mors]

Clubs losing more than ￡8m in 2013-14 face a transfer embargo, enforceable from January 2015, or if they have won promotion to the Premier League at the end of this season, a fine proportionate to the amount they lost..

How is that going to work?! So say QPR get promoted this season on the back of a 50mill loss, then the league fines them 50mill?! Surely that can't be legal.
Sounds like football version of punishing someone for maxing out their credit cards, by giving them another credit card that is maxed out?

 

[HC]

Yup its retarded & will never stick.

It's bizarre that fifa,uefa & FA all seem to be Massively OTT with punishments or massively below par with them. There's seldom a case where you feel the FA got the punishment correct.

 

[Mersey86]

How is that going to work?! So say QPR get promoted this season on the back of a 50mill loss, then the league fines them 50mill?! Surely that can't be legal.
Sounds like football version of punishing someone for maxing out their credit cards, by giving them another credit card that is maxed out?

It says the fine would be proportionate to the amount they lost, not equal. And maybe they maxed out their credit cards, but they reached the higher rewards of the premier league over other teams by flouting the rules. I would suggest a heavy points penalty - enough to ensure they go straight back down.

 

[StevieM]

It says the fine would be proportionate to the amount they lost, not equal. And maybe they maxed out their credit cards, but they reached the higher rewards of the premier league over other teams by flouting the rules. I would suggest a heavy points penalty - enough to ensure they go straight back down.

But the championship couldn't impose penalty points on the premiership because they're two different entities.

Also - what would the point be. Surely a points penalty in this current season - similar to the one you'd get for going in to administration would be relevant - after all, the only reason they're not in administration is because the owners are subsidising the spend.

 

[Mersey86]

Points penalty the current season would be great - but I assumed they wouldn't have the financial numbers until the following year, by which time the cheats have prospered, and, as you suggest, escaped.

 

[peekay]

 

[hamstrung_pigeon]

About the different leagues - one option might be to credit it as a delayed penalty - i.e. the next time the said team falls back down into the Championship, they have to pay up the fine or their licence to participate in the league is withheld. Effectively, I guess this means they forfeit their parachute payment from the Premier League.

Not sure of how the legal side of things work, but I think it's not undoable.