The ArgusAlbion chief wants Financial Fair Play penalties to be honoured (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Albion chief wants Financial Fair Play penalties to be honoured

The Argus: Paul Barber Paul Barber

Albion chief executive Paul Barber has warned the club will not tolerate any backtracking on Financial Fair Play punishments for those breaking the rules.

Several unidentified clubs, believed to include current Championship leaders Leicester, QPR and Blackburn Rovers, are reportedly threatening a legal challenge to the FFP regulations, which are designed to ensure they do not live beyond their means.

Albion are firmly committed to the rules and Barber has overseen a cost-cutting exercise at the Amex to keep them within the boundaries.

There has already been one shift of the goalposts. The proceeds of potentially significant fines incurred by promoted clubs - equivalent to every pound they spend over their FFP result - will be distributed to charity rather than to those clubs abiding by the rules.

Clubs missing out on promotion and breaking the rules will be subject to a transfer embargo.

Barber told The Argus: "That means first of all they can't buy any new players, which is obviously a significant burden, and secondly it will prevent them from renewing the contracts of existing players where those contracts have come to an end.

"That could mean there are some very good players out there that could become available for free, so there will potentially be a benefit to those clubs that have complied with the regulations and a signifcant disadvantage to those that haven't.

"We are hoping - and we are expecting - that the League will impose these sanctions. I for one, having worked very hard here with the Board, the chairman and team of executives we have to comply with the rules, will be furious if those sanctions are not imposed.

"I've got absolutely no reason to think they won't be and therefore it's important we continue to comply with the regulations, not just because they are there but because we genuinely believe it is the right way to run our football club for the future."

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:15pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Conelli98 says...

...fire away Vegas...;)
...fire away Vegas...;) Conelli98
  • Score: -3

8:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

farside says...

Almost guarantee that this initiative will collapse with the losers being those clubs who were naive enough to bwkieve in it, Albion among them.
Almost guarantee that this initiative will collapse with the losers being those clubs who were naive enough to bwkieve in it, Albion among them. farside
  • Score: 5

8:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Blue and White Gulls says...

Don't we all Paul.
Don't we all Paul. Blue and White Gulls
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

JeffLomer says...

Conelli98 wrote:
...fire away Vegas...;)
I can't wait to hear either mate, I put on Orlando thread about Vegas fair play jargon, 14 million in debt he says but never cobtributes to our great club,
[quote][p][bold]Conelli98[/bold] wrote: ...fire away Vegas...;)[/p][/quote]I can't wait to hear either mate, I put on Orlando thread about Vegas fair play jargon, 14 million in debt he says but never cobtributes to our great club, JeffLomer
  • Score: -10

9:16pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Conelli98 says...

Best way to deal with clubs flouting rules is points deduction whether promoted or not. More you flout the more points deducted and if you get relegated the season after going up then you waive your right to parachute payments and that then gets split between clubs.
Best way to deal with clubs flouting rules is points deduction whether promoted or not. More you flout the more points deducted and if you get relegated the season after going up then you waive your right to parachute payments and that then gets split between clubs. Conelli98
  • Score: 8

9:37pm Fri 28 Feb 14

wonkydog says...

I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!.
Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative.

It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models
I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!. Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative. It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models wonkydog
  • Score: -9

9:50pm Fri 28 Feb 14

New Jersey Seagull says...

Financial prudence and football have always been the most unlikely bedfellows and while Mr. Barber’s commitment to FFP is laudable, it is also naive. Clubs such as Leicester, Nottingham Forest and Queens Park Rangers have gone out of the way to flout the rules because it might be their last opportunity to do so. After this season, the combination of a significant increase in parachute payments and possible imposition of FFP will begin to make it even harder for clubs such as ours to compete with teams relegated from the premier league. If the proposed lawsuit challenging or more likely delaying the imposition of FFP is successful, I am certain Mr. Barber will complain bitterly about the injustice, but will he acknowledge his error.
Financial prudence and football have always been the most unlikely bedfellows and while Mr. Barber’s commitment to FFP is laudable, it is also naive. Clubs such as Leicester, Nottingham Forest and Queens Park Rangers have gone out of the way to flout the rules because it might be their last opportunity to do so. After this season, the combination of a significant increase in parachute payments and possible imposition of FFP will begin to make it even harder for clubs such as ours to compete with teams relegated from the premier league. If the proposed lawsuit challenging or more likely delaying the imposition of FFP is successful, I am certain Mr. Barber will complain bitterly about the injustice, but will he acknowledge his error. New Jersey Seagull
  • Score: 2

9:55pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Blue and White Gulls says...

There have been many things that the footballing authorities have failed to show their teeth, I fear that this episode may also end in tears, and if they dither then it won't mean diddly squat. I hope I'm wrong.
There have been many things that the footballing authorities have failed to show their teeth, I fear that this episode may also end in tears, and if they dither then it won't mean diddly squat. I hope I'm wrong. Blue and White Gulls
  • Score: 4

10:13pm Fri 28 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

Well you asked for it so here it is.

A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me.

The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side.

If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes.
Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.
Well you asked for it so here it is. A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me. The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side. If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes. Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 17

10:19pm Fri 28 Feb 14

taylord1977 says...

The fact that we frequently hear Mr Barber air his concerns over FFP being in-forced, makes me believe he currently believes those flouting the rules will go unpunished. At the end of the day, no one wants to go the way of Portsmouth. We have been down that route once and I rather play at the amex in championship football than be forced to sale the amex and play league 2 again.
The fact that we frequently hear Mr Barber air his concerns over FFP being in-forced, makes me believe he currently believes those flouting the rules will go unpunished. At the end of the day, no one wants to go the way of Portsmouth. We have been down that route once and I rather play at the amex in championship football than be forced to sale the amex and play league 2 again. taylord1977
  • Score: 7

10:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

albion64 says...

wonkydog wrote:
I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!.
Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative.

It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models
The new Transit is quite nice.
[quote][p][bold]wonkydog[/bold] wrote: I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!. Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative. It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models[/p][/quote]The new Transit is quite nice. albion64
  • Score: 2

10:33pm Fri 28 Feb 14

VegasSeagull says...

albion64 wrote:
wonkydog wrote:
I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!.
Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative.

It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models
The new Transit is quite nice.
you would be right only if Ford did not sign an agreement that said they wouldn't develop new models
[quote][p][bold]albion64[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wonkydog[/bold] wrote: I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!. Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative. It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models[/p][/quote]The new Transit is quite nice.[/p][/quote]you would be right only if Ford did not sign an agreement that said they wouldn't develop new models VegasSeagull
  • Score: 6

11:40pm Fri 28 Feb 14

OldGull says...

We are sticking to the rules
Therefor we are trying to live within our means.
End result, we may have to wait a while longer for prem football but
in 5 years or 10 years we will still be a thriving club.

It is just a matter of time before we see the next club in free fall
We are sticking to the rules Therefor we are trying to live within our means. End result, we may have to wait a while longer for prem football but in 5 years or 10 years we will still be a thriving club. It is just a matter of time before we see the next club in free fall OldGull
  • Score: 9

11:57pm Fri 28 Feb 14

captaincurses says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Well you asked for it so here it is.

A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me.

The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side.

If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes.
Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.
But in the case of QPR, they were a PL club when the football league voted for these rules. Given the sanctions are only embargos, there is little to stop the Leicester's and Forest's gambling that they can absorb the risk given the money at stake in the PL. Until the tv money comes down (highly unlikely with competition from bt) then FFP can never work effectively.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Well you asked for it so here it is. A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me. The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side. If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes. Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.[/p][/quote]But in the case of QPR, they were a PL club when the football league voted for these rules. Given the sanctions are only embargos, there is little to stop the Leicester's and Forest's gambling that they can absorb the risk given the money at stake in the PL. Until the tv money comes down (highly unlikely with competition from bt) then FFP can never work effectively. captaincurses
  • Score: 3

12:41am Sat 1 Mar 14

Baldseagull says...

No club is forced to play in the league, they can leave if they wish.
Fines going to charity this season is a better idea than going to clubs, there would be a temptation to aid QPR going up over say, Burnley.
No club is forced to play in the league, they can leave if they wish. Fines going to charity this season is a better idea than going to clubs, there would be a temptation to aid QPR going up over say, Burnley. Baldseagull
  • Score: 1

12:57am Sat 1 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

captaincurses wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Well you asked for it so here it is.

A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me.

The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side.

If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes.
Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.
But in the case of QPR, they were a PL club when the football league voted for these rules. Given the sanctions are only embargos, there is little to stop the Leicester's and Forest's gambling that they can absorb the risk given the money at stake in the PL. Until the tv money comes down (highly unlikely with competition from bt) then FFP can never work effectively.
yes I just used their name, the case I am making would apply to any of the suggested clubs looking to challenge the rules in court.
I am not aware of any prem clubs that declined to sign, if the agreement was agreed to, during the time that QPR were in the prem, if they agreed to the prem FFP rules they agreed in principle to the whole FFP packcage. The details of the FFP in terms of punishments and allowed losses might be different, but the goal is the same.
[quote][p][bold]captaincurses[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Well you asked for it so here it is. A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me. The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side. If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes. Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.[/p][/quote]But in the case of QPR, they were a PL club when the football league voted for these rules. Given the sanctions are only embargos, there is little to stop the Leicester's and Forest's gambling that they can absorb the risk given the money at stake in the PL. Until the tv money comes down (highly unlikely with competition from bt) then FFP can never work effectively.[/p][/quote]yes I just used their name, the case I am making would apply to any of the suggested clubs looking to challenge the rules in court. I am not aware of any prem clubs that declined to sign, if the agreement was agreed to, during the time that QPR were in the prem, if they agreed to the prem FFP rules they agreed in principle to the whole FFP packcage. The details of the FFP in terms of punishments and allowed losses might be different, but the goal is the same. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 1

12:59am Sat 1 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

captaincurses wrote:
VegasSeagull wrote:
Well you asked for it so here it is.

A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me.

The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side.

If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes.
Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.
But in the case of QPR, they were a PL club when the football league voted for these rules. Given the sanctions are only embargos, there is little to stop the Leicester's and Forest's gambling that they can absorb the risk given the money at stake in the PL. Until the tv money comes down (highly unlikely with competition from bt) then FFP can never work effectively.
Would Forest or Leicester survive year one in the prem if they could not bring in new players and or re-sign some existing?
[quote][p][bold]captaincurses[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Well you asked for it so here it is. A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me. The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side. If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes. Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.[/p][/quote]But in the case of QPR, they were a PL club when the football league voted for these rules. Given the sanctions are only embargos, there is little to stop the Leicester's and Forest's gambling that they can absorb the risk given the money at stake in the PL. Until the tv money comes down (highly unlikely with competition from bt) then FFP can never work effectively.[/p][/quote]Would Forest or Leicester survive year one in the prem if they could not bring in new players and or re-sign some existing? VegasSeagull
  • Score: 1

1:14am Sat 1 Mar 14

PressBoxTeaBoy says...

I say doc the FFP offending clubs points just like they do for going into administration, and at least that way the offenders like Leicester that should get promoted this season will start off in the Prem on -10 points, as well as having a significant fines equal to the size if the loss. Alternatively doc those points to prevent them being promoted.
Theres obviously not enough punishment coming at them to make clubs like QPR, and Leicester take note, so somethings got to change. Letting them get promoted by breaking the FFP rules will only fuel the fire for next seasons potential offenders, and those offenders potentially destroy honest clubs chances to compete. Personally I would go a step further and ensure you cant be promoted if you break the rules, Why have rules otherwise?
I say doc the FFP offending clubs points just like they do for going into administration, and at least that way the offenders like Leicester that should get promoted this season will start off in the Prem on -10 points, as well as having a significant fines equal to the size if the loss. Alternatively doc those points to prevent them being promoted. Theres obviously not enough punishment coming at them to make clubs like QPR, and Leicester take note, so somethings got to change. Letting them get promoted by breaking the FFP rules will only fuel the fire for next seasons potential offenders, and those offenders potentially destroy honest clubs chances to compete. Personally I would go a step further and ensure you cant be promoted if you break the rules, Why have rules otherwise? PressBoxTeaBoy
  • Score: 9

1:57am Sat 1 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

PressBoxTeaBoy wrote:
I say doc the FFP offending clubs points just like they do for going into administration, and at least that way the offenders like Leicester that should get promoted this season will start off in the Prem on -10 points, as well as having a significant fines equal to the size if the loss. Alternatively doc those points to prevent them being promoted.
Theres obviously not enough punishment coming at them to make clubs like QPR, and Leicester take note, so somethings got to change. Letting them get promoted by breaking the FFP rules will only fuel the fire for next seasons potential offenders, and those offenders potentially destroy honest clubs chances to compete. Personally I would go a step further and ensure you cant be promoted if you break the rules, Why have rules otherwise?
I largely agree with you but by the time this years figures are known, next year's season will be well under way. I made an error in my earlier comment when I asked, whether any promoted team could survive year one with a transfer embargo in place, they ould of course be free to sign players until their losses were announced so the rebuild would be complete.
This is where your odea, and others have suggested the same, a points deduction should be handed down. Get promoted, build your squad, later, your losses are made known, then you get points deduction half way thru that season. If the points are deducted on the scale of your over spend, relegation would probably be a given. 5 point deduction just for failing to comply added to half a point for every million over spend should get the job done.
[quote][p][bold]PressBoxTeaBoy[/bold] wrote: I say doc the FFP offending clubs points just like they do for going into administration, and at least that way the offenders like Leicester that should get promoted this season will start off in the Prem on -10 points, as well as having a significant fines equal to the size if the loss. Alternatively doc those points to prevent them being promoted. Theres obviously not enough punishment coming at them to make clubs like QPR, and Leicester take note, so somethings got to change. Letting them get promoted by breaking the FFP rules will only fuel the fire for next seasons potential offenders, and those offenders potentially destroy honest clubs chances to compete. Personally I would go a step further and ensure you cant be promoted if you break the rules, Why have rules otherwise?[/p][/quote]I largely agree with you but by the time this years figures are known, next year's season will be well under way. I made an error in my earlier comment when I asked, whether any promoted team could survive year one with a transfer embargo in place, they ould of course be free to sign players until their losses were announced so the rebuild would be complete. This is where your odea, and others have suggested the same, a points deduction should be handed down. Get promoted, build your squad, later, your losses are made known, then you get points deduction half way thru that season. If the points are deducted on the scale of your over spend, relegation would probably be a given. 5 point deduction just for failing to comply added to half a point for every million over spend should get the job done. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 4

5:12am Sat 1 Mar 14

Jonathan Mouette says...

The Football League cannot back down nor can they afford to lose a court battle. Total anarchy would / will follow with clubs flouting every rule those idiots in charge try to impose.
The Football League cannot back down nor can they afford to lose a court battle. Total anarchy would / will follow with clubs flouting every rule those idiots in charge try to impose. Jonathan Mouette
  • Score: 1

7:23am Sat 1 Mar 14

Albion In Staffs says...

taylord1977 wrote:
The fact that we frequently hear Mr Barber air his concerns over FFP being in-forced, makes me believe he currently believes those flouting the rules will go unpunished. At the end of the day, no one wants to go the way of Portsmouth. We have been down that route once and I rather play at the amex in championship football than be forced to sale the amex and play league 2 again.
Not sure your criticism of PB in this case is entirely fair. This story uses direct quotes from the webchat he did last week, so he hasn't spoken about it again. In the web chat, he was responding to a question from a fan and the only reason The Argus have turned them into a 'new' story is because The Guardian did a story this week (Wednesday?) about the legal challenge.
So in fairness to PB, this doesn't reflect a man who keeps going on about it.
[quote][p][bold]taylord1977[/bold] wrote: The fact that we frequently hear Mr Barber air his concerns over FFP being in-forced, makes me believe he currently believes those flouting the rules will go unpunished. At the end of the day, no one wants to go the way of Portsmouth. We have been down that route once and I rather play at the amex in championship football than be forced to sale the amex and play league 2 again.[/p][/quote]Not sure your criticism of PB in this case is entirely fair. This story uses direct quotes from the webchat he did last week, so he hasn't spoken about it again. In the web chat, he was responding to a question from a fan and the only reason The Argus have turned them into a 'new' story is because The Guardian did a story this week (Wednesday?) about the legal challenge. So in fairness to PB, this doesn't reflect a man who keeps going on about it. Albion In Staffs
  • Score: 4

7:29am Sat 1 Mar 14

Albion In Staffs says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Well you asked for it so here it is.

A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me.

The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side.

If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes.
Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.
Thanks Vegas, but at that price, I think I'll get the garden done by someone else...
This could, of course, be nothing more than a delaying tactic from the clubs to ensure any punishment meted out is suspended pending legal challenge. That way, the impact of the rules is dissipated and, as the new season won't be delayed, they all march on ..
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: Well you asked for it so here it is. A group of clubs plan to fight the FFP rules int he courts, well those that signed up for these rules will have zero chance of winning in the courts, even if it could be thought of as restrictive practice by some. If I design your landscaping at a cost of 20K and deliver exactly what I was contracted to do, you can't then claim that the deal was wrong, you knew the details when you signed up. If a club fights that didn't sign up, that would be different, or if the details changed significantly then all could fight, but changing where the fines go isn't enough. A court should find that the clubs entered into the agreement with their eyes wide open, just as a client would with me. The flip side to what these few clubs might try in the courts is that the other clubs, those not fighting against the FFP, could go to court to force the rules to be applied as this agreement has already made them curtail business that they might have wished to do, an agreement works both ways. I think what I am calling an, 'agreement,' would be seen as a contract and as such, it is very hard to fight against what you once agreed to do, by either side. If QPR tried t fight this on what grounds would they claim that they are being hard done by. A judge would ask QPR, 'did you sign up, if the answer is, 'yes,' they have an uphill climb from then on. Did QPR know what the rules meant, if the bulk of other clubs did why didn't they. Did QPR know that fines would be imposed, did they know that a transfer embargo could occur, if they signed up how could they not know. Did QPR know that the rules and punishments could be changed, that would depend on whether or not the governing body had it written in, that could be their best hope. Could QPR claim that the rules have been changed because the fines no longer go to complying clubs, no because the issue is the fine QPR would get and not where the money goes. Check out any agreements you guys have signed up for, in most cases the provider reserves the right to change or alter the agreement once due notice has been given, I doubt the FFP rules were drawn up any differently. An agreement is an agreement, a contract is a contract and trying to fight either once you have signed up in skating on very thin ice. QPR knew the rules, that's why Arry was told that he couldn't sign Wayne Bridge until he sold off some players, Bridge went to Reading and Arry started selling, let them argue that one in court.[/p][/quote]Thanks Vegas, but at that price, I think I'll get the garden done by someone else... This could, of course, be nothing more than a delaying tactic from the clubs to ensure any punishment meted out is suspended pending legal challenge. That way, the impact of the rules is dissipated and, as the new season won't be delayed, they all march on .. Albion In Staffs
  • Score: 2

8:18am Sat 1 Mar 14

tug509 says...

Unfortunately ,this could have ,and indeed was predicted to suffer problems from the beginning , once Forest ,QPR and Leicester started buying up every half decent player available ,it was only ever looking likely to get the foremans salute !. UTA
Unfortunately ,this could have ,and indeed was predicted to suffer problems from the beginning , once Forest ,QPR and Leicester started buying up every half decent player available ,it was only ever looking likely to get the foremans salute !. UTA tug509
  • Score: 2

10:45am Sat 1 Mar 14

Captain Haddock says...

wonkydog wrote:
I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!. Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative. It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models
Not really though, as our "research and development", youth and training investment, as a football club is permitted (not included in FFP restrictions).
[quote][p][bold]wonkydog[/bold] wrote: I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!. Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative. It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models[/p][/quote]Not really though, as our "research and development", youth and training investment, as a football club is permitted (not included in FFP restrictions). Captain Haddock
  • Score: 4

10:48am Sat 1 Mar 14

Captain Haddock says...

wonkydog wrote:
I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!. Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative. It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models
Not really though as our research and development (investment in youth and training ground) is NOT subject to FFP restrictions i.e is an allowable loss.
[quote][p][bold]wonkydog[/bold] wrote: I am afraid Mr Barbe;r you and the club are going to end sadly disappointed.!!. Under EU competition laws FFP is a clear restraint of trade, which no other type of company would be subject to. The big clubs will band together and the courts will back them, UEFA and FIFA will both be forced to back down and drop the initiative. It is the equivalent of the EU telling Ford or General motors they can't spend money on the research and development of new models[/p][/quote]Not really though as our research and development (investment in youth and training ground) is NOT subject to FFP restrictions i.e is an allowable loss. Captain Haddock
  • Score: 2

11:46am Sat 1 Mar 14

Major Bloodboil says...

An interesting point is that the FFP rules have already been in operation in Europe and about 25 clubs have been penalised in one way or another with another 73 being investigated. A legal challenge has already been made but the thought is that the rules will be held to legally apply as they were implemented by the agreement of the majority of the clubs concerned and not imposed by UEFA. In any event it is considered that it will take some 5 years before the matter is finally resolved in the courts and presumably the penalties will apply immediately a club is found to be in breach of the rules and will only be recoverable if and when there is a court ruling overturning the penalties. It looks like the lawyers are set to make a lot of money out of the exercise and frankly I would rather be in BHA's position than clubs like QPR, Leicester and Blackburn.
An interesting point is that the FFP rules have already been in operation in Europe and about 25 clubs have been penalised in one way or another with another 73 being investigated. A legal challenge has already been made but the thought is that the rules will be held to legally apply as they were implemented by the agreement of the majority of the clubs concerned and not imposed by UEFA. In any event it is considered that it will take some 5 years before the matter is finally resolved in the courts and presumably the penalties will apply immediately a club is found to be in breach of the rules and will only be recoverable if and when there is a court ruling overturning the penalties. It looks like the lawyers are set to make a lot of money out of the exercise and frankly I would rather be in BHA's position than clubs like QPR, Leicester and Blackburn. Major Bloodboil
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree