"

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."