Correct me if i'm wrong but.....

[qprjames]

surely this means if we go down we're gonna really struggle to come back up bearing in mind our limited income streams....

Remember we posted a loss of 25m last year.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7701878/Financial-fair-play-voted-in

[Kirill]

Of course we would struggle, but not as much as Villa would

[winalotto]

You have parachute payments to add to that for the first three years..

[qprjames]

You have parachute payments to add to that for the first three years..

This is true.

I still don't see what the issue is with clubs posting a loss if their shareholders are prepared to back them financially. Of course when they pull out it could be an issue but would of thought there are better ways around the situation.

This is only gonna reduce the chances of smaller clubs getting to play in the Premiership

[QPRDave]

To my untrained eye james this proposal/new rule is almost the men at the top putting small clubs in their place.To me it's saying Leeds utd for instance have more right to be in the prem than say QPR, because they're bigger, and so to me it's going to put off the Flavs,Ecclestones, Mittals, Fernandes' of this world bothering to try and catapault a small club into the top league and instead only the big boys will get a look in.
As i say i'm no expert and if someone can explain the advantages for a small club in these rules i'm happy to listen.
PS to me it takes away ambition, and if you ain't got ambition......well whats the point?

[Jeffro]

Doesnt affect in 1st year so just go straight back up and no worries. failing that stay in the premier league!!

[qprjames]

To my untrained eye james this proposal/new rule is almost the men at the top putting small clubs in their place.To me it's saying Leeds utd for instance have more right to be in the prem than say QPR, because they're bigger, and so to me it's going to put off the Flavs,Ecclestones, Mittals, Fernandes' of this world bothering to try and catapault a small club into the top league and instead only the big boys will get a look in.
As i say i'm no expert and if someone can explain the advantages for a small club in these rules i'm happy to listen.
PS to me it takes away ambition, and if you ain't got ambition......well whats the point?

I totally agree. Capping ambition. The 'big boys' prosper yet again

[QPRDave]

Yes Jeffro staying up is my preferred choice must admit, i suppose though that is the answer, go for it 1st year your down there, use your spending power over the others, even if you can just keep your prem players would help

[brightonr]

As I read it, the limits imposed are in relation to "equity investments". Not something that would be an issue, should kind, wealthy owners, wish to make further gifts to a club that "already has no debt".

And we don't need to worry about making a loss if we get "reasonable" sponsorship deals from the likes of Air Asia, Malasian Airlines or even Arcelor Mittal.

[Stanley]

All the more reason why they're planning to grow the club to make it financially sustainable through the increased revenue streams that a bigger stadium will bring, as well as developing a youth academy and bringing through more home-grown younger players etc etc.

[QPRDave]

As I read it, the limits imposed are in relation to "equity investments". Not something that would be an issue, should kind, wealthy owners, wish to make further gifts to a club that "already has no debt".

And we don't need to worry about making a loss if we get "reasonable" sponsorship deals from the likes of Air Asia, Malasian Airlines or even Arcelor Mittal.

Ah thanks brighton, i remember some hoo ha with man city not long ago where their stadium sponsor chucked millions in and remember people saying then it was to get around uefa fair play rules or something.

[Sprocket]

If a sugar daddy or daddies wantr to they can break the rules and incur a 15 million pound fine. Assuming they have enough sugar that won't really matter.

[qprjames]

As I read it, the limits imposed are in relation to "equity investments". Not something that would be an issue, should kind, wealthy owners, wish to make further gifts to a club that "already has no debt".

And we don't need to worry about making a loss if we get "reasonable" sponsorship deals from the likes of Air Asia, Malasian Airlines or even Arcelor Mittal.

Not sure if it is just owner loans or if it includes them simply 'giving' the club money. I can understand them curbing loans but the latter would be madness

[Bigears]

There are always around it, like it has been said before QPR will sign a sponsership deal of some kind say for the stadium for £10 million a year (Man City) then the lost is less.

You could also decide to create more shares which the owners buy (Equity investments) which pumps £15m into the club etc....

Simply if TF and Amit want to carry on making a loss and fund the club, they will find away.