Many of you won't know this but before I joined Charlton Life I started a blog. I've never used CL for hits on the blog as I'm not really that sort of person, and to be honest over the last year (since my wife told me she wanted a divorce) I've lost interest in it and not really bothered.
However, I read an other blog on FFP this afternoon (which I linked to) and did some reading. I found the rules around FFP and the sanctions quite interesting and I'd be interested in other's views. I must warn you I do tend to waffle a bit but their is something new as you get towards the bottom of the post.
http://kingshilladdick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/financial-fair-play.html 
Comments
Probably haven't put this in the correct thread but oh well. Now, I'm nowhere near as informed or educated on the matter as some on here, but this line confused me
"The club say £60m of shareholder loans have been written off"
So, does this mean clubs can just write off loans to make sure they fall, or at least in QPR's case, get closer to the allowed losses?
It may have already been explained elsewhere, but to me this just looks on the face of it, that clubs are once again just finding ways round FFP.
might as well pack up & go home. not a level playing field.
It might be the case that they cannot lend the money to the club (which most do) and thereby (in theory at least) have the right to have it paid back - and if you secure the loan against club property, they would have it paid back before most other creditors. This is what most club owners actually do.
If the owner is prepared to write-off the loan, then that would mean that he does not have any right to have it paid back, so he has given the money to the club and that would be revenue like any other kind of revenue.
Only a guess without properly looking into it!
Makes sense if you compare it to buying a house. If you take out a mortgage to buy a house you might lose your asset, the house, if you don't keep up payments, so you are exposed financially. But if you have a fairy godmother who gives you £300k to buy a house and perhaps promise to pay a share of the profits if it's sold, you are not in danger of losing your asset. Spending your own money is not expenditure to be measured against income, spending someone else's money you have to repay, is expenditure to be measured against income.
The question with QPR is probably did they manage to get the loans written off within the accounting period. If not, the money spent was not the club's money and is expenditure against income..
That's my take, but I may be wrong?
Although I guess loans can be written off if the creditor is prepared to do so - in this case, no doubt, it was Fernandez. Plus ca change and all that.
It's never going to happen.
Not sure if you can complain too much about the timing of a sugar daddy putting up his own money and allowing events determine whether it should be equity or a loan if it is above board, transparent and within normal accounting rules. A loan would normally be preferable to shareholders, it has greater security with a priority over repaying equity.
What is absolutely wrong is if shareholders go for a loan as a preferred form of financing to give them greater personal protection should the club not get promoted and goes pop, and then tries to wriggle out by using sharp accounting practices to turn it into equity which has soared in value. They get double bubble equity because it zooms in value plus get to keep all the TV money. It is the other clubs in the Championship who are being screwed.
In a different context Man City and PSG both had commercial deals investigated which were found not to be of a commercial nature. Sanctions were applied.
I cannot see why QPR will be treated any differently - the owner is writing off the loans to avoid paying £30m of penalties after he (and Leicester) effectively bought two of the three promotion places by overspending. It all depends upon how the authorities have written the rules.
Clearly waiving loans, and/or interest reduces the costs so it does help, but as we saw from Man City you are not allowed to 'put more money in', even if you claim it's to buy services etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32138946
Say farewell to any chance of meaningful diversity in the Champions League. I imagine Man City and PSG will be asking for their fines to be returned if this goes through.
Looks like UEFA have realised they will probably make more money by allowing a cabal of super-rich clubs dominate Europe than trying to enforce even the faintest of level playing fields.