Report this comment
  • "
    J.C - Rishton wrote:
    jack01 wrote:
    These rules cannot and therefore will not be enforced in their current format.

    There seems to be a belief that Rovers/QPR are the only two offending clubs. Newsflash - half the clubs in the Championship are falling foul of the regulations. Forest, Bolton, Reading, Brighton, Bournemouth, Boro, Leeds and Birmingham have all lost in excess of £10 million in their most recent accounts. I'm sure there will be more too, especially if Fulham/Cardiff try to buy their way back up.

    For these rules to be enforced it would require the authorities to come along and put a minimum of 10-12 clubs in the Championship under a transfer embargo. All of a sudden what is arguably the most unpredictable and competitive second division in world football would be made into a laughing stock. That's before wealthy businessmen get their lawyers involved to take it on.

    The League knows what a **** up it has made with these nonsensical and arbitrary rules and knows that it will cause chaos with the league system. Hence their increasingly regular meetings to discuss 'alternatives' as the penny drops that these rules are unworkable.

    All the while relegated sides like Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham will be at an immediate advantage - rewarded for their failure to stay up - by being allowed to spend more than those already in the Championship.

    Why these self-important bigwigs can't just leave football alone I don't know. Things seemed to work reasonably well for the last 70 years so why they think they should now start telling clubs how to do their business is beyond me. Presumably trying to justify their salaries whilst absolving themselves of any blame in the event another Portsmouth occurs.
    Theres one flaw in your arguament and reasoning - "the league" as you put it IS the 20 member clubs and I can tell you for a fact that FOREST, BRIGHTON, BOURNEMOUTH and BIRMINGHAM all voted FOR the introduction of FFP - so that kinda kills your argument and reasoning.

    And as stated previously, this "legal chanllenge" is all in your head - read Venkys open letter today - there is no indication that they are contemplating doing anything other than now trying to complay with the FFP rules
    I'm not interested who voted the rules in. Forest, Brighton and Bournemouth are three of the clubs who have benefited the most from having wealthy backers behind them in recent years. Brighton have gone from a League One side with no stadium to back to back Championship play-off campaigns - and lost the thick end of £20million last year - all thanks to Tony Bloom's cash. Forest have spent a fortune under Al-Hasawi chasing the Premier League. Bournemouth have gone from League Two to the Championship on gates of 7,000 thanks to their Russian owner.

    As things stand all three of those clubs, like Rovers, will be put under an embargo (unless they manage to find a loophole). So the joke's on them if they voted to introduce the very rules which could hinder their promotion chances.

    The legal challenge isn't in my head. Its been well documented in numerous newspapers that more than one club is considering taking it to court in the event they are put under an embargo. That's the reason why the numpties at the Football League are now running around trying to find a compromise, because they know what trouble will come their way if they try to enforce the rules as they stand.

    Why should we be put at a disadvantage to Cardiff, Fulham and the like? I imagine that Rovers will argue that they are trying to get their finances in order and adjust to the Championship after a decade in the top flight (which they are doing). How can the League punish clubs for trying to adjust to a completely different financial structure in a short period of time? Its not our fault that we can't get rid of Campbell because nobody else wants him or Etuhu because he's permanently injured."
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.


  • Enter the above word in the box below

Blackburn Rovers wait on FFP rules after changes rejected

Blackburn Rovers wait on FFP rules after changes rejected

Shaun Harvey

Shaun Harvey

First published in Sport

FOUR proposed changes to Financial Fair Play regulations for Blackburn Rovers and their fellow Championship clubs have been rejected.

Several unnamed clubs have threatened legal action against the regulations, which could see Rovers hit with a transfer embargo in January, but efforts to agree changes have failed.

The legal threat and concern over the impact of the new £23million parachute payments for the three clubs relegated from the Premier League led Football League bosses to review the regulations.

But all four proposals – three of them related to boosting the level of losses and owner investment permitted – were defeated in a vote by the 24 Championship clubs.

The fourth proposal was for the rules to be imposed based on ‘real time’ financial figures instead of the existing retrospective system.

But it too failed to attract the necessary 75 per cent backing.

According to Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey, other alternatives would now be examined.

Harvey said: “While a majority of clubs did vote in favour of each of the four proposals, they did not achieve the 75 per cent support required.

”We will now continue the positive and collaborative dialogue we have had with Championship clubs on this issue to see if there is any appetite for alternative forms of change.”

Rovers will suffer a transfer embargo in January if they do meet the existing regulations.

Existing FFP regulations state that Championship clubs can make a maximum loss of £3m for the current 2013-14 campaign.

That figure rises to £8m if a club’s owner is willing to convert the additional £5m into shares in the club.

Anything above £3m or £8m will result in a transfer embargo which would come into force on January 1.

The existing regulations permit Championship clubs to lose £6m next season, 2014-15, but £3m of that must be covered by owner investment.

There were three proposals to increase that allowance to either £10m, £11.4m or £12.8m.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore has also expressed serious concerns about the existing system, which is based on just one year, while controls over the top-flight clubs take into account three years’ figures and allow more owner investment.

The first sanctions against Championship clubs will be announced in December based on accounts for the current 2013-14 season.

The existing FFP regulations were agreed in April 2012 by the overwhelming majority of Championship clubs. At that time Rovers were playing in the Premier League and therefore did not have a vote.

Local Businesses

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