Overspend if only 6 points penalty?

[Stanfan]

Seems to me a lot of clubs will be tempted. Worth it for a top striker!

[Sleeping Giants]

I think I'd have taken a 6 point penalty over the circa £40 Million (including costs) that we got hit with.

[3London]

I think I'd have taken a 6 point penalty over the circa £40 Million (including costs) that we got hit with.

Exactly! it would be interesting to know if we have had the biggest fine - reading and wigan keep being hit with points - reading got another 2 yesterday - points over fines or fines over points?

[LoftusRoadLad]

No... run by the rules is better then a points chop. Do not want to be like Reading.

[SheepRanger]

I think I'd have taken a 6 point penalty over the circa £40 Million (including costs) that we got hit with.

It was a £17m fine and the rest was to wipe director debt off the books and convert into shares. This conversion has happened many times since then.

But £17m is a still a record and probably reflects how we got one over the FA in the Faurlin hearing. They got their pound of flesh one way or another.

I wouldn't want us to be in breach as second timers.

[Sleeping Giants]

It was a £17m fine and the rest was to wipe director debt off the books and convert into shares. This conversion has happened many times since then.

But £17m is a still a record and probably reflects how we got one over the FA in the Faurlin hearing. They got their pound of flesh one way or another.

I wouldn't want us to be in breach as second timers.

Yes I used the word "costs" loosely but the whole issue of the FFP fine and associated costs/debts of whatever type ended up costing us around £42 Million as I recall. Only £3 Million was costs as such, around £22 Million was the ruling that ordered the shareholders to wipe off outstanding debt. All in all, we were hit with £42 Million, one way or another unless I'm mistaken. I'd still rather have a 6 point deduction.

[SheepRanger]

Yes I used the word "costs" loosely but the whole issue of the FFP fine and associated costs/debts of whatever type ended up costing us around £42 Million as I recall. Only £3 Million was costs as such, around £22 Million was the ruling that ordered the shareholders to wipe off outstanding debt. All in all, we were hit with £42 Million, one way or another unless I'm mistaken. I'd still rather have a 6 point deduction.

Even though we've stayed within FFP the accumative effect of going for the maximum debt allowed had surely resulted in the owners converting circa £200m of loan debts into shares since they've owned us.

Personally, I like us to stay wihin FFP as that still allows the owners to lose about £1m a month. But it's their money if they want to gamble......

[Sleeping Giants]

Even though we've stayed within FFP the accumative effect of going for the maximum debt allowed had surely resulted in the owners converting circa £200m of loan debts into shares since they've owned us.

Personally, I like us to stay wihin FFP as that still allows the owners to lose about £1m a month. But it's their money if they want to gamble......

Agreed, we should stay within FFP, I was just saying that if we'd taken a 6 point deduction rather than a fine, we may have been better off. I can't recall our points situation at the time though, whether a deduction would have meant relegation?

[SheepRanger]

Agreed, we should stay within FFP, I was just saying that if we'd taken a 6 point deduction rather than a fine, we may have been better off. I can't recall our points situation at the time though, whether a deduction would have meant relegation?

Sorry....I thought you meant doing it again rather than the historical.

Just checked and the fine was announced in July 2018 and in thr 18/19 season we were in the championship and finished 19th on 51pts. Rotherham got relegated in 22nd on 40pts. We would have stayed up even with a 6pts deduction.

[Sleeping Giants]

Sorry....I thought you meant doing it again rather than the historical.

Just checked and the fine was announced in July 2018 and in thr 18/19 season we were in the championship and finished 19th on 51pts. Rotherham got relegated in 22nd on 40pts. We would have stayed up even with a 6pts deduction.

Thanks for checking, so yes a 6 point deduction would have been hugely preferable to a fine that we are still paying off 6 years later.

[Abseits]

Each case is different. We overspent, got promoted and then earned £100million plus in Prem money. We made an actual measurable financial gain - a monetary fine seems very appropriate.

I believe plenty of other teams got promoted by overspending, Leicester and Bournemouth spring to mind. However, they managed to stay up and quietly paid their fines of a few £million and barely anyone noticed. My recollection is their fines were comparable to ours in proportional terms. Their overspends were several £mil whilst ours was a ridiculous £70mil wasn't it? Ultimately if we weren't an effing shambles and avoided coming straight back down we'd have happily paid the fine and continued on our merry way.

So, EFL has been consistent in applying fines to teams that overspend and get promoted to Prem. My view is it would be a fairer/better punishment to block the promotion. Or let them go up but fine them £100m (or whatever the Prem prize money is).

[Sleeping Giants]

Each case is different. We overspent, got promoted and then earned £100million plus in Prem money. We made an actual measurable financial gain - a monetary fine seems very appropriate.

I believe plenty of other teams got promoted by overspending, Leicester and Bournemouth spring to mind. However, they managed to stay up and quietly paid their fines of a few £million and barely anyone noticed. My recollection is their fines were comparable to ours in proportional terms. Their overspends were several £mil whilst ours was a ridiculous £70mil wasn't it? Ultimately if we weren't an effing shambles and avoided coming straight back down we'd have happily paid the fine and continued on our merry way.

So, EFL has been consistent in applying fines to teams that overspend and get promoted to Prem. My view is it would be a fairer/better punishment to block the promotion. Or let them go up but fine them £100m (or whatever the Prem prize money is).

Sensible stuff, our overspend was massive and the fine was x amount per million pounds overspend so pretty fair I suppose.

[Stanfan]

I just think 6 points is not a deterrent if the FA really want FFP. I’ve always suspected we have a clause in our fine if we ever do it again. Not saying we’ll do it but others might and create chaos

[QPROslo]

Yes I used the word "costs" loosely but the whole issue of the FFP fine and associated costs/debts of whatever type ended up costing us around £42 Million as I recall. Only £3 Million was costs as such, around £22 Million was the ruling that ordered the shareholders to wipe off outstanding debt. All in all, we were hit with £42 Million, one way or another unless I'm mistaken. I'd still rather have a 6 point deduction.

No, the fine was not £42m. It is repeated over and over again in the press, but repeating a lie again and again does not make it a truth.

Nominally, the fine was £20m, which was split in two: Firstly, £3m that was the legal costs of FA that we had to cover within one month, on top of our own legal costs. Secondly, a penalty of £17m, that we could spread interest free across ten instalments over ten years (£1.7m a year). When QPR booked the commitment in its balance sheet , it took into account the benefit of spreading the fine over ten year without interest, and got to net costs of around £15m, when the discounting factor was taken into account (the nominal amount of £20m minus the advantage of not paying interest over ten years). This was the real net value of the fine at the time.

On top of this, the OWNERS were forced to convert £22m of loans into equity. Said in another way: QPR had debt of £22m to the owners that the owners had to write off. That was technically a saving of QPR of £22m.

Hence, QPR was not hurt at all by the fine. My take is that we were treated exceptionally softly.

The owners keep writing out checks to QPR several times a year. This keep adding to the debt of the club. However, one time a year, the owners convert all or part of this into equity. Seen from the clubs point it view, this is debt that gets written off once a year. The fact that FA forced the owners to write off £22m was utter nonsense, as the owners would have done it anyhow.

Lets not think of the fine for the FFP breach of ours as a meaningful penalty. It wasn't even a slap on the wrist. It has not hindered QPR, and it has not made the financial situation any more difficult for the club, and it has not made it more difficult to comply with the FFP threshold, as EFL decided that the fine was exempt from FFP calculations.

Those that have paid the fine and been punished are the owners. But for Ruben, Mittal & co this fine is peanuts. They have spent almost £400m on QPR, and around £15m on top does not make much of a difference.

[Sleeping Giants]

No, the fine was not £42m. It is repeated over and over again in the press, but repeating a lie again and again does not make it a truth.

I didn't say that the fine alone was £42 Million. I am very aware that it was £17 Million fine, £3 Million costs and £22 Million share write off. I used the word "costs" loosely/incorrectly in my original post and I thought I'd clarified in a later post but my point was that points deduction MAY have been less damaging. However I am also aware that the fine was proportionate to our overspend so any equivalent points deduction may have been more than 6 points. I'm regretting mentioning it now to be honest. I do get your point about the fine (plus "costs") not affecting us as a club though as the owners took the hit and the FFP calculation is the main limitation in play so, despite misquoting me, you've cemented in my mind that a points deduction would not have been favourable.