Educate me…

[Slimo17]

What has happened to our football club?
Why the lack of spend? Is it because our owners don’t want to put their hands in their pockets or are we actually restricted from doing any business?
We have just opened up a lovely new training facility which could be used as a USP for our team however all I keep reading is we have no money.
After Saturdays performance I am really worried we are in for another season of hell this time from the start. I pray and hope I’m wrong and will always remain optimistic that Ainsworth can pull something out the bag but judging by pre season it’s not looking great.

[supahupa10101]

Can someone please explain why we are struggling to spend because of FFP. Our wages are one of the lowest. We havent spent money for awhile. It seems like we can't even afford players on loan. How can a team be close to breaching FFP when we don't even spend money? Then we have teams who spend crazy without really selling players and it's not a problem

[djp]

It seems it is due to a significant overspend for the 2021/22 season and now we have to cut costs significantly this season, next season we will have alot more room for spending but that is pretty irrelevant as we will be playing in League One with the squad we have this season.

The thing I am most puzzled about is that we are still losing £2 million per month (allegedly), how is this even possible? Is Loftus Road that much an expense? If so perhaps we are better off just closing the ground down completely and playing our home game at the new training ground.

[Isleworth116]

Guessing mix of FFP calculations, complicated, and cash, trying to live within our means.

Paying off Stef and Niko big hit. Guessing close to £1m between them.

[djp]

Guessing mix of FFP calculations, complicated, and cash, trying to live within our means.

Paying off Stef and Niko big hit. Guessing close to £1m between them.

Paying off Stef is so shortsighted, we have one CM that is good enough as it stands, Field. And now Ainsworth is indicating all we can afford is a consistently injured Gape. So who decided it was a good financial decision to pay off Stef?

[QPROslo]

Can someone please explain why we are struggling to spend because of FFP. Our wages are one of the lowest. We havent spent money for awhile. It seems like we can't even afford players on loan. How can a team be close to breaching FFP when we don't even spend money? Then we have teams who spend crazy without really selling players and it's not a problem

In short, here is a summary:

1. A club can only lose maximum £39m in a running three years period for FFP purposes. Certain costs are exempt when calculating the FFP loss. That is academy football, women football, and any depreciation on stadium and training facilities

2. QPR lost ca £25m, in 2021/22, the first of the three seasons in the present three years period. That year our income was ca £22m and out costs ca £47m. Most of the costs were linked to salaries. Even though we did not pay a lot for our aquisitions, we had many costly players such as Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Wallace, Barbet etc, and we paid significant loan fees and agent fees. While the loss in the public accounts is known, outsiders do not know exactly which amount is exempt from FFP, other than depreciation, which can be read from the account. A fair estimate is £19-20m loss for FFP purposes, based on what we assume the academy and woman football cost.

3. Since we spent ca £19-20m out of £39m in year one of the present three years period, which is around 50%, we had to cut considerably in 2022/23 to avoid a drastic cut in this coming season. But we did not. Yes, we got rid of the some high earners in Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Barbet and Wallace, but we signed many new players, of which some were not cheap: Richards, Roberts, Balogun, Clarke-Salters, Paal, Laird, Iroegbunam, Lowe, Martin. We might have saved a few million, but I estimate our FFP loss was at best £15m. We do not know this amount - we can only assume it, looking at player salaries as listed on Transfer Markt and other sources, and making assumptions. Gate receipt and sponsorship are small in comparison to salaries and changes in the areas have limited effect on total losses. TV receipt can fluctuate a bit, but I do not think the differences between the two seasons were great and it was the same contractual period with the same basic payment from Sky.

4. Ahead of this season, we looked back on spending of upwards to £35m (FFP calculations) during the last two years, meaning there is only a tiny room for further losses if we shall stay inside the £39m threshold. If that is £4m, it means we have to close the gap compared to a estimated loss of £15m last year by cutting costs or sell players. If the figures are correct we need to improve by £11m. So far we have only sold for around £2.75m. We have got rid of 12 outfield players of which Dickie, Balogon, Laird, Iroegbunam, Amos, Johansen, Roberts, Lowe and Martin give us as significant saving, but possibly not enough. If we do not sell more players we are probably breaching FFP. There is still a chance to sell saleable players until end of August and during the January window.

5. However, right now, there is no room to sign new players before we cash in by selling Chair. I think sales of Willock and Field won't be enough to allow significant more spending. It is simply just what we need to comply with FFP.

6. To summarize the case: We have modest income (£22m in the last accounts) and even if we do not buy expensive players, the total salary for 100+ players and staff is a lot, and lead to losses. Because we were reckless with our spending in both 21/22, and 22/23, we are now in a desperate situation. This was clear as day light in February, when the 21/22 accounts were published. Nothing comes as a surprise this summer.

7. Terminating the contract of Johansen probably saves us £6-8k a week and was not a bad decision. It was the signing of Johansen that was a mistake - we could not afford him, simple as that.

8. The gambling in 21/22 was based on an expectation that we had saleable assets that would fill the gap. At that time the owners thought Willock, Chair, Dickie and Dieng were worth £30m+, and were easy to sell. Hence, it did not look like a big gamble at the time. Knowing what we know now, it was irresponsible. The most disappointing thing is that we did not start cost cutting last summer. To sell players we depend on interested club willing to buy them. As there were no interest in Willock, Chair & all last summer, we should not have gone on to sign Roberts, Richards, Balogun etc.

9. Behind all the problems is one simple thing: For clubs like QPR to flourish, we depend on an ability to develop and sell young talent. Over the last 8 years we have just had one successful sale (Eze). That is the core of our problem. If we had sold for £5m every year (with the same costs) the picture would look dramatically different. One way to put it is that the source of our problems isn't high level of costs relative to other clubs in the division. It is low income.

[supahupa10101]

In short, here is a summary:

1. A club can only lose maximum £39m in a running three years period for FFP purposes. Certain costs are exempt when calculating the FFP loss. That is academy football, women football, and any depreciation on stadium and training facilities

2. QPR lost ca £25m, in 2021/22, the first of the three seasons in the present three years period. That year our income was ca £22m and out costs ca £47m. Most of the costs were linked to salaries. Even though we did not pay a lot for our aquisitions, we had many costly players such as Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Wallace, Barbet etc, and we paid significant loan fees and agent fees. While the loss in the public accounts is known, outsiders do not know exactly which amount is exempt from FFP, other than depreciation, which can be read from the account. A fair estimate is £19-20m loss for FFP purposes, based on what we assume the academy and woman football cost.

3. Since we spent ca £19-20m out of £39m in year one of the present three years period, which is around 50%, we had to cut considerably in 2022/23 to avoid a drastic cut in this coming season. But we did not. Yes, we got rid of the some high earners in Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Barbet and Wallace, but we signed many new players, of which some were not cheap: Richards, Roberts, Balogun, Clarke-Salters, Paal, Laird, Iroegbunam, Lowe, Martin. We might have saved a few million, but I estimate our FFP loss was at best £15m. We do not know this amount - we can only assume it, looking at player salaries as listed on Transfer Markt and other sources, and making assumptions. Gate receipt and sponsorship are small in comparison to salaries and changes in the areas have limited effect on total losses. TV receipt can fluctuate a bit, but I do not think the differences between the two seasons were great and it was the same contractual period with the same basic payment from Sky.

4. Ahead of this season, we looked back on spending of upwards to £35m (FFP calculations) during the last two years, meaning there is only a tiny room for further losses if we shall stay inside the £39m threshold. If that is £4m, it means we have to close the gap compared to a estimated loss of £15m last year by cutting costs or sell players. If the figures are correct we need to improve by £11m. So far we have only sold for around £2.75m. We have got rid of 12 outfield players of which Dickie, Balogon, Laird, Iroegbunam, Amos, Johansen, Roberts, Lowe and Martin give us as significant saving, but possibly not enough. If we do not sell more players we are probably breaching FFP. There is still a chance to sell saleable players until end of August and during the January window.

5. However, right now, there is no room to sign new players before we cash in by selling Chair. I think sales of Willock and Field won't be enough to allow significant more spending. It is simply just what we need to comply with FFP.

6. To summarize the case: We have modest income (£22m in the last accounts) and even if we do not buy expensive players, the total salary for 100+ players and staff is a lot, and lead to losses. Because we were reckless with our spending in both 21/22, and 22/23, we are now in a desperate situation. This was clear as day light in February, when the 21/22 accounts were published. Nothing comes as a surprise this summer.

7. Terminating the contract of Johansen probably saves us £6-8k a week and was not a bad decision. It was the signing of Johansen that was a mistake - we could not afford him, simple as that.

8. The gambling in 21/22 was based on an expectation that we had saleable assets that would fill the gap. At that time the owners thought Willock, Chair, Dickie and Dieng were worth £30m+, and were easy to sell. Hence, it did not look like a big gamble at the time. Knowing what we know now, it was irresponsible. The most disappointing thing is that we did not start cost cutting last summer. To sell players we depend on interested club willing to buy them. As there were no interest in Willock, Chair & all last summer, we should not have gone on to sign Roberts, Richards, Balogun etc.

9. Behind all the problems is one simple thing: For clubs like QPR to flourish, we depend on an ability to develop and sell young talent. Over the last 8 years we have just had one successful sale (Eze). That is the core of our problem. If we had sold for £5m every year (with the same costs) the picture would look dramatically different. One way to put it is that the source of our problems isn't high level of costs relative to other clubs in the division. It is low income.

I really appreciate the time and effort you have put in to letting me know what is actually happening and explaining it in a way to understand. I appreciate the other comments on here too.
So generally it's been such a badly run club. For me the part that I am really P off about is the BS given regarding Les saying we will invest in our youth and go back to the days of buying from lower leagues and non league, then selling for a profit. I would love to go back to them days. That was always the QPR way. With GA this could be happening, but it will be too little, too late.

[Sleeping Giants]

I really appreciate the time and effort you have put in to letting me know what is actually happening and explaining it in a way to understand. I appreciate the other comments on here too.
So generally it's been such a badly run club. For me the part that I am really P off about is the BS given regarding Les saying we will invest in our youth and go back to the days of buying from lower leagues and non league, then selling for a profit. I would love to go back to them days. That was always the QPR way. With GA this could be happening, but it will be too little, too late.

I think the old buy low, sell high thing is lost on our lot, we had very saleable assets a year ago but a year later and they're next to worthless. I hate to see good players sold but when you realise that player sales keep us competitive you have to accept it.

[supahupa10101]

I think the old buy low, sell high thing is lost on our lot, we had very saleable assets a year ago but a year later and they're next to worthless. I hate to see good players sold but when you realise that player sales keep us competitive you have to accept it.

It might be the only way our club can survive the next few years but it's now too late. I think everyone has accepted that we will be bottom this season and it is justified to feel like that

[StortfordRanger]

In short, here is a summary:

1. A club can only lose maximum £39m in a running three years period for FFP purposes. Certain costs are exempt when calculating the FFP loss. That is academy football, women football, and any depreciation on stadium and training facilities

2. QPR lost ca £25m, in 2021/22, the first of the three seasons in the present three years period. That year our income was ca £22m and out costs ca £47m. Most of the costs were linked to salaries. Even though we did not pay a lot for our aquisitions, we had many costly players such as Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Wallace, Barbet etc, and we paid significant loan fees and agent fees. While the loss in the public accounts is known, outsiders do not know exactly which amount is exempt from FFP, other than depreciation, which can be read from the account. A fair estimate is £19-20m loss for FFP purposes, based on what we assume the academy and woman football cost.

3. Since we spent ca £19-20m out of £39m in year one of the present three years period, which is around 50%, we had to cut considerably in 2022/23 to avoid a drastic cut in this coming season. But we did not. Yes, we got rid of the some high earners in Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Barbet and Wallace, but we signed many new players, of which some were not cheap: Richards, Roberts, Balogun, Clarke-Salters, Paal, Laird, Iroegbunam, Lowe, Martin. We might have saved a few million, but I estimate our FFP loss was at best £15m. We do not know this amount - we can only assume it, looking at player salaries as listed on Transfer Markt and other sources, and making assumptions. Gate receipt and sponsorship are small in comparison to salaries and changes in the areas have limited effect on total losses. TV receipt can fluctuate a bit, but I do not think the differences between the two seasons were great and it was the same contractual period with the same basic payment from Sky.

4. Ahead of this season, we looked back on spending of upwards to £35m (FFP calculations) during the last two years, meaning there is only a tiny room for further losses if we shall stay inside the £39m threshold. If that is £4m, it means we have to close the gap compared to a estimated loss of £15m last year by cutting costs or sell players. If the figures are correct we need to improve by £11m. So far we have only sold for around £2.75m. We have got rid of 12 outfield players of which Dickie, Balogon, Laird, Iroegbunam, Amos, Johansen, Roberts, Lowe and Martin give us as significant saving, but possibly not enough. If we do not sell more players we are probably breaching FFP. There is still a chance to sell saleable players until end of August and during the January window.

5. However, right now, there is no room to sign new players before we cash in by selling Chair. I think sales of Willock and Field won't be enough to allow significant more spending. It is simply just what we need to comply with FFP.

6. To summarize the case: We have modest income (£22m in the last accounts) and even if we do not buy expensive players, the total salary for 100+ players and staff is a lot, and lead to losses. Because we were reckless with our spending in both 21/22, and 22/23, we are now in a desperate situation. This was clear as day light in February, when the 21/22 accounts were published. Nothing comes as a surprise this summer.

7. Terminating the contract of Johansen probably saves us £6-8k a week and was not a bad decision. It was the signing of Johansen that was a mistake - we could not afford him, simple as that.

8. The gambling in 21/22 was based on an expectation that we had saleable assets that would fill the gap. At that time the owners thought Willock, Chair, Dickie and Dieng were worth £30m+, and were easy to sell. Hence, it did not look like a big gamble at the time. Knowing what we know now, it was irresponsible. The most disappointing thing is that we did not start cost cutting last summer. To sell players we depend on interested club willing to buy them. As there were no interest in Willock, Chair & all last summer, we should not have gone on to sign Roberts, Richards, Balogun etc.

9. Behind all the problems is one simple thing: For clubs like QPR to flourish, we depend on an ability to develop and sell young talent. Over the last 8 years we have just had one successful sale (Eze). That is the core of our problem. If we had sold for £5m every year (with the same costs) the picture would look dramatically different. One way to put it is that the source of our problems isn't high level of costs relative to other clubs in the division. It is low income.

Excellent summary Oslo - thanks

[djp]

In short, here is a summary:

1. A club can only lose maximum £39m in a running three years period for FFP purposes. Certain costs are exempt when calculating the FFP loss. That is academy football, women football, and any depreciation on stadium and training facilities

2. QPR lost ca £25m, in 2021/22, the first of the three seasons in the present three years period. That year our income was ca £22m and out costs ca £47m. Most of the costs were linked to salaries. Even though we did not pay a lot for our aquisitions, we had many costly players such as Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Wallace, Barbet etc, and we paid significant loan fees and agent fees. While the loss in the public accounts is known, outsiders do not know exactly which amount is exempt from FFP, other than depreciation, which can be read from the account. A fair estimate is £19-20m loss for FFP purposes, based on what we assume the academy and woman football cost.

3. Since we spent ca £19-20m out of £39m in year one of the present three years period, which is around 50%, we had to cut considerably in 2022/23 to avoid a drastic cut in this coming season. But we did not. Yes, we got rid of the some high earners in Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Barbet and Wallace, but we signed many new players, of which some were not cheap: Richards, Roberts, Balogun, Clarke-Salters, Paal, Laird, Iroegbunam, Lowe, Martin. We might have saved a few million, but I estimate our FFP loss was at best £15m. We do not know this amount - we can only assume it, looking at player salaries as listed on Transfer Markt and other sources, and making assumptions. Gate receipt and sponsorship are small in comparison to salaries and changes in the areas have limited effect on total losses. TV receipt can fluctuate a bit, but I do not think the differences between the two seasons were great and it was the same contractual period with the same basic payment from Sky.

4. Ahead of this season, we looked back on spending of upwards to £35m (FFP calculations) during the last two years, meaning there is only a tiny room for further losses if we shall stay inside the £39m threshold. If that is £4m, it means we have to close the gap compared to a estimated loss of £15m last year by cutting costs or sell players. If the figures are correct we need to improve by £11m. So far we have only sold for around £2.75m. We have got rid of 12 outfield players of which Dickie, Balogon, Laird, Iroegbunam, Amos, Johansen, Roberts, Lowe and Martin give us as significant saving, but possibly not enough. If we do not sell more players we are probably breaching FFP. There is still a chance to sell saleable players until end of August and during the January window.

5. However, right now, there is no room to sign new players before we cash in by selling Chair. I think sales of Willock and Field won't be enough to allow significant more spending. It is simply just what we need to comply with FFP.

6. To summarize the case: We have modest income (£22m in the last accounts) and even if we do not buy expensive players, the total salary for 100+ players and staff is a lot, and lead to losses. Because we were reckless with our spending in both 21/22, and 22/23, we are now in a desperate situation. This was clear as day light in February, when the 21/22 accounts were published. Nothing comes as a surprise this summer.

7. Terminating the contract of Johansen probably saves us £6-8k a week and was not a bad decision. It was the signing of Johansen that was a mistake - we could not afford him, simple as that.

8. The gambling in 21/22 was based on an expectation that we had saleable assets that would fill the gap. At that time the owners thought Willock, Chair, Dickie and Dieng were worth £30m+, and were easy to sell. Hence, it did not look like a big gamble at the time. Knowing what we know now, it was irresponsible. The most disappointing thing is that we did not start cost cutting last summer. To sell players we depend on interested club willing to buy them. As there were no interest in Willock, Chair & all last summer, we should not have gone on to sign Roberts, Richards, Balogun etc.

9. Behind all the problems is one simple thing: For clubs like QPR to flourish, we depend on an ability to develop and sell young talent. Over the last 8 years we have just had one successful sale (Eze). That is the core of our problem. If we had sold for £5m every year (with the same costs) the picture would look dramatically different. One way to put it is that the source of our problems isn't high level of costs relative to other clubs in the division. It is low income.

This is a great summary Oslo and probably worth being a 'sticky' as people likely to keep asking the same question throughout the season.

I feel LF was manipulated by Beale to bring those players in you mention, that we simple couldn't afford and didn't really need either as they hardly played. And then Beale stabs him in the back by jumping ship. I was a critic of LF over the last year but I feel sorry for him really, he unfortunately wasn't really cut out for the role, he is a nice guy, I think you need to be ruthless as a DOF.

There is only one hope for us for the season and it isn't selling Chair, Willock or Field because every other team knows how screwed we are for ffp so we probably wouldn't get more than £5 million for the lot of them. The only hope is the sell on for Eze, if that doesn't happen in this transfer window then I think we must all accept 25 man squad where half are not even league 2 standard. And even then keeping it to a £4 million loss is near enough impossible, so we could possibly face a points deduction in League One and an embargo, that would be the real disaster. I think come January if we are rock bottom, then sell every single first team player for what we can get, then let us fans play for the team for the remainder of the season. Then we have a total reset in League One next season.

[SheepRanger]

In short, here is a summary:

1. A club can only lose maximum £39m in a running three years period for FFP purposes. Certain costs are exempt when calculating the FFP loss. That is academy football, women football, and any depreciation on stadium and training facilities

2. QPR lost ca £25m, in 2021/22, the first of the three seasons in the present three years period. That year our income was ca £22m and out costs ca £47m. Most of the costs were linked to salaries. Even though we did not pay a lot for our aquisitions, we had many costly players such as Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Wallace, Barbet etc, and we paid significant loan fees and agent fees. While the loss in the public accounts is known, outsiders do not know exactly which amount is exempt from FFP, other than depreciation, which can be read from the account. A fair estimate is £19-20m loss for FFP purposes, based on what we assume the academy and woman football cost.

3. Since we spent ca £19-20m out of £39m in year one of the present three years period, which is around 50%, we had to cut considerably in 2022/23 to avoid a drastic cut in this coming season. But we did not. Yes, we got rid of the some high earners in Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Barbet and Wallace, but we signed many new players, of which some were not cheap: Richards, Roberts, Balogun, Clarke-Salters, Paal, Laird, Iroegbunam, Lowe, Martin. We might have saved a few million, but I estimate our FFP loss was at best £15m. We do not know this amount - we can only assume it, looking at player salaries as listed on Transfer Markt and other sources, and making assumptions. Gate receipt and sponsorship are small in comparison to salaries and changes in the areas have limited effect on total losses. TV receipt can fluctuate a bit, but I do not think the differences between the two seasons were great and it was the same contractual period with the same basic payment from Sky.

4. Ahead of this season, we looked back on spending of upwards to £35m (FFP calculations) during the last two years, meaning there is only a tiny room for further losses if we shall stay inside the £39m threshold. If that is £4m, it means we have to close the gap compared to a estimated loss of £15m last year by cutting costs or sell players. If the figures are correct we need to improve by £11m. So far we have only sold for around £2.75m. We have got rid of 12 outfield players of which Dickie, Balogon, Laird, Iroegbunam, Amos, Johansen, Roberts, Lowe and Martin give us as significant saving, but possibly not enough. If we do not sell more players we are probably breaching FFP. There is still a chance to sell saleable players until end of August and during the January window.

5. However, right now, there is no room to sign new players before we cash in by selling Chair. I think sales of Willock and Field won't be enough to allow significant more spending. It is simply just what we need to comply with FFP.

6. To summarize the case: We have modest income (£22m in the last accounts) and even if we do not buy expensive players, the total salary for 100+ players and staff is a lot, and lead to losses. Because we were reckless with our spending in both 21/22, and 22/23, we are now in a desperate situation. This was clear as day light in February, when the 21/22 accounts were published. Nothing comes as a surprise this summer.

7. Terminating the contract of Johansen probably saves us £6-8k a week and was not a bad decision. It was the signing of Johansen that was a mistake - we could not afford him, simple as that.

8. The gambling in 21/22 was based on an expectation that we had saleable assets that would fill the gap. At that time the owners thought Willock, Chair, Dickie and Dieng were worth £30m+, and were easy to sell. Hence, it did not look like a big gamble at the time. Knowing what we know now, it was irresponsible. The most disappointing thing is that we did not start cost cutting last summer. To sell players we depend on interested club willing to buy them. As there were no interest in Willock, Chair & all last summer, we should not have gone on to sign Roberts, Richards, Balogun etc.

9. Behind all the problems is one simple thing: For clubs like QPR to flourish, we depend on an ability to develop and sell young talent. Over the last 8 years we have just had one successful sale (Eze). That is the core of our problem. If we had sold for £5m every year (with the same costs) the picture would look dramatically different. One way to put it is that the source of our problems isn't high level of costs relative to other clubs in the division. It is low income.

Thanks Oslo....great post as always.

My hope that the £4m loss this season to stay within FFP is too low. In 2021 attendances were still low due to COVID and although this would be reflected in the accounts I think these COVID losses would fall out of FFP. Also, we have just completed the build on a £20m training facility and infrastructure is also exempt from the FFP calculation, but would have included in the accounts.

If we're only allowed a £4m FFP loss I doubt we would have extended Dykes contract...which is now rumoured to be £18k a week. Also, Begovic wouldnt have been cheap even if funded in part by the sales of Dickie/Dieng . GA also stated very clearly that we would stay within FPP and would not be getting a points deduction, but I assume such a penalty this season would be on accounts 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23. A penalty next season would start from 2021/22 to this season.

I hope staying within FFP is not dependant on one of Chair, Willock or Field being sold. If it is then I doubt there'll be a bidding war for their services so fees will be quite low. Millwall made a £3m bid for Dykes last Jan, and if he has a decent first half if the season, I think he'll be off next Jan.

I hope your £4m assessment is wrong based on COVID losses and training ground costs....but I may be a little blind to the situation too. If we "have to" generate player sales of another £5m this season to stay within FFP then we are definately heading for L1.

[cross it Dave]

Thanks Oslo....great post as always.

My hope that the £4m loss this season to stay within FFP is too low. In 2021 attendances were still low due to COVID and although this would be reflected in the accounts I think these COVID losses would fall out of FFP. Also, we have just completed the build on a £20m training facility and infrastructure is also exempt from the FFP calculation, but would have included in the accounts.

If we're only allowed a £4m FFP loss I doubt we would have extended Dykes contract...which is now rumoured to be £18k a week. Also, Begovic wouldnt have been cheap even if funded in part by the sales of Dickie/Dieng . GA also stated very clearly that we would stay within FPP and would not be getting a points deduction, but I assume such a penalty this season would be on accounts 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23. A penalty next season would start from 2021/22 to this season.

I hope staying within FFP is not dependant on one of Chair, Willock or Field being sold. If it is then I doubt there'll be a bidding war for their services so fees will be quite low. Millwall made a £3m bid for Dykes last Jan, and if he has a decent first half if the season, I think he'll be off next Jan.

I hope your £4m assessment is wrong based on COVID losses and training ground costs....but I may be a little blind to the situation too. If we "have to" generate player sales of another £5m this season to stay within FFP then we are definately heading for L1.

I was wondering what happened with the Covid period, no fans in the ground etc.

[QPROslo]

Thanks Oslo....great post as always.

My hope that the £4m loss this season to stay within FFP is too low. In 2021 attendances were still low due to COVID and although this would be reflected in the accounts I think these COVID losses would fall out of FFP. Also, we have just completed the build on a £20m training facility and infrastructure is also exempt from the FFP calculation, but would have included in the accounts.

If we're only allowed a £4m FFP loss I doubt we would have extended Dykes contract...which is now rumoured to be £18k a week. Also, Begovic wouldnt have been cheap even if funded in part by the sales of Dickie/Dieng . GA also stated very clearly that we would stay within FPP and would not be getting a points deduction, but I assume such a penalty this season would be on accounts 2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23. A penalty next season would start from 2021/22 to this season.

I hope staying within FFP is not dependant on one of Chair, Willock or Field being sold. If it is then I doubt there'll be a bidding war for their services so fees will be quite low. Millwall made a £3m bid for Dykes last Jan, and if he has a decent first half if the season, I think he'll be off next Jan.

I hope your £4m assessment is wrong based on COVID losses and training ground costs....but I may be a little blind to the situation too. If we "have to" generate player sales of another £5m this season to stay within FFP then we are definately heading for L1.

Thanks a lot, Sheep, djp, Stortford and Supahupa. Much appreciated!

The attendance in 21/22 was 14.300 on average and in 22/23 it was 14.800, so not much of a difference. The attendance was next to nothing in 20/21 (covid), but that is out of the present three years period.

When it comes to the cost of the new training ground complex, this is taken over the balance sheet and not in the profit and loss accounts. Hence, the loss QPR has posted of ca £25m does not include the investment, other than the associated depreciation. But as depreciation is exempt, it has no influence on the FFP loss.

There are a few uncertain factors in the estimate of £4m and it could be more or less. Hopefully we have slightly more room of manouvering, but if it is £5m or £6m it is still bloody difficult.

I agree with the comment about Eze by djp and the difficult negotiation position we are in if/when selling Chair & co. But: If Eze is really unwilling to extend his contract (2 years remaining), and this is not just negotiation tactics at this point in time, it is highly likely that he will be sold in this or next transfer window. I cannot see Palace waiting until he has just one year left of his contract, when the transfer price will come with a significant discount. Sale of Eze can solve all our trouble. Knowing our luck with injuries, he will probably break his leg in the next friendly.

[Kingaustin]

It can only be because of FFP .
if the owners didn’t want to spend money then they wouldn’t of half funded the new training ground.
FFP I’m no expert on all I know is we can’t spend more than we have coming in and unfortunately we are a small club with a average attendance off 13k we have about 6k season holders paying average £600 season ticket that don’t cover players wages a year let alone new signings .

With out FFP . Our owners could say spend millions and millions we all would love that untill they got board and and we go bust as a club .

with a good manager and a half decent squad we can always have a go but the championship is too strong now with parachute money coming down . We will be a yo-yo club from league 1 to championship (bit like Barnsley/ Peterborough) that’s where we are heading