QPR & FFP

**Lord Snooty** · (This post was last modified: 07-10-2014, 19:15 by Lord Snooty.)

Just had that on the bus home now, theo. Young lasses effing and jeffing like nobody's business. It's embarrassing.

Two of them in the next seat last week were discussing their STDs. I mean, come on. There's a time and a place.

I don't think we were the problem here anyway. Well I hope not. Have you ever visited the Wendies match threads? Blush

Amelia Chaffinch · 07-10-2014, 19:43

We're not really the offenders apart from the occasional use of F & C words. Apparently we have a low rating from Google because of adult content. The owners want the focus to be on sport.

**Lord Snooty** · 07-10-2014, 20:01

Adult and liable to cause offence? Sounds like Oz. - Dennis, Auf Wiedersehen Pet, series 1.

theo_luddite · 07-10-2014, 20:17

Haven't the owners ever been to a football game? Or rugby? Or any industrial plant in Sheffield? They need to get out of their mothers lofts a bit more. Who are they trying to attract (advertising wise because reading between the lines that is what your getting at here Ams)? Kids TV programmes or stuff that adults do (while fully clothed, for the most part). I can't do a Google search these days without adverts for the stuff I was looking for being peppered all over the page of the next 10 websites I visit.

Yeh one or two of the Wendies posts and piccy's are occasionally a bit near the knuckle but wouldn't most of 'em surely behave a bit better if asked nicely and were treated like adults rather than everyone now being under the threat of the naughty step? The ability to vent a little after a pie'n'peas poor display by your team is surely part of the idea of these forums? Have to question if we picked the right forum to jump over to now?

WakeyTerrier · 30-10-2014, 20:13

Quick update on FFP, click the link and see what should happen.....but probably won't

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/lates...er-embargo-

theo_luddite · 09-11-2014, 17:05

As the clubs have now voted to move the goalposts to somewhere on the other side of the planet, it's made Town and other clubs like Reading who tried to stick to it look stupid. Like I said, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Mitzi · 10-11-2014, 16:15

(09-11-2014, 17:05)theo_luddite Wrote: As the clubs have now voted to move the goalposts to somewhere on the other side of the planet, it's made Town and other clubs like Reading who tried to stick to it look stupid. Like I said, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

I missed this; what's happened?

theo_luddite · 10-11-2014, 17:02

All the talk about the FL meeting last week was about the proposed use of synthetic 3G pitches in League 1 & 2, this FFP vote was completely glossed over by just about everyone and I only picked up on it courtesy of the FL Paper yesterday.

To quote young Mr. Dunlavy (more or less) in his regular column, "those Championship clubs daft enough to stick to the Financial Fair Play rules .... were tricked by false promises"
"Having initially agreed to a maximum loss of £3m-£8m per season from 2013-14, a meeting of the 24 Championship clubs at Derby County this week saw a major rewrite.
Now clubs will be permitted to an 'aggregate' of £39m over 3 seasons (or £13m a season) from 2016-17."

....

"Since FFP was announced in 2012, clubs like Brighton and Huddersfield have broken their backs to comply, cutting costs and shipping out players to the considerable detriment of performances on the pitch. Once title contenders,, the Seagulls sold top players and brought through kids, setting themselves back a couple of years in the knowledge that they'd be set fair in the long term. Now they are being told it was all for nothing. That the teams who've soared past them on the back of big losses won't be reined in after all. Like those F1 teams who went to the wall, they've been well and truly shafted."
"The only solace is that the existing rules will remain in place for the next 12 months, meaning the Seagulls won't join the eight or so clubs likely to face an embargo in the summer."

On the back page Mr. Dunlavey further reports ....
"Championship clubs were forced to change FFP rules after the Premier League threatened to cut funding"
The ultimatum - described as a "gun to the head" by one club official- was delivered in a series of phone calls to chairmen and chief executives who eventually voted 18-6 in favour of scrapping existing regulation."

..... (next passage more or less repeats the above).

"Officially, the reasoning was that clubs without parachute payments couldn't compete without external investment.

Sides relegated from the top flight currently pocket hand-outs of £60m over four years. Existing Championship clubs only receive £2.3m per season in the form of a 'solidarity payment' from the Premier League, creating a funding shortfall of more than £50m.

However, the Premier League also feared that the existing FFP regulation would prompt current top-flight sides to curtail spending, damaging the prestige of its competition.

Officials from 17 clubs arrived at Wednesday's meeting at Pride Park on Thursday determined to vote the new regulations through. The majority were former Premier League clubs carrying heavy debts or sides like Nottingham Forest and Bournemouth whose spending is bankrolled by a wealthy owner and are currently unable to comply with FFP. Others such as Sheffield Wednesday, were seeking new buyers who feared that potential investors would be discouraged by restrictions on spending.

A further six sides - Huddersfield, Ipswich, Charlton, Blackpool, Derby and Rotherham - arrived set on blocking the changes. With a 75% majority required, that left Brighton with the deciding vote. Having cut costs to meet FFP and initially advocated the £5m budget cap, Brighton CEO Paul Barber "reluctantly agreed" to the changes at the 11th hour, ensuring the vote carried."

""We believe that, in the longer term, a system that is consistent between the Premier League and the Football League is a good thing." said Barber.
However according to one highly-placed club official, the 'greater good' was little more than a threat from the Premier League."

I said Reading in my earlier post, it should have said Brighton.

Mitzi · 10-11-2014, 19:05

Thanks, theo. Yes, I'd heard about the synthetic pitches vote but not a dicky bird about the FFP one. The Premier League is just totally screwing up football in this country, isn't it? And Brighton had better not whinge about it, having voted for it!

theo_luddite · 10-11-2014, 20:42

(10-11-2014, 19:05)Mitzi Wrote: Thanks, theo. Yes, I'd heard about the synthetic pitches vote but not a dicky bird about the FFP one. The Premier League is just totally screwing up football in this country, isn't it? And Brighton had better not whinge about it, having voted for it!

More on the Football League website Mitzi