QPR REDUCE LOSSES

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
A stereotypical looney lefty. I am no lefty Pete and mime are just words and an opinion
I don't consider clever accounting to be something that is clever it's hiding or avoiding the truth of the matter with smoke and mirrors
Still it has made our fans feel good and generally that was a strand of the PR. We can all rest easy. I don't agree its good business
My viewpoint comes from personal experience when I had plenty … it took a lifestyle shift to show me real value
The true economy of most European countries as we all know is a farce … I believe it's not sustainable and am outraged that my football club is currently mixed up with what looks like poor business people.

I also think the story released is designed to be negative about our club
I think the impact it has damages the brand of QPR .. something there you cannot put a price on if you are looking forward to growing any business

Because Directors and Shareholders send out a positive spin I don't think we should all buy it

We are heading towards our mid point position?

Where are we?

In the right league for sure but with nothing but promises

Its simple... it's bad and it's not good enough
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorwayRanger and Uber_Hoop
Even though'clever accounting' is something that happens every day in every organisation, let's be honest and say that this isn't it.

We would have had a liability - not directly related to a specific year, but a liability nevertheless - of £60m in the form of the loan. The creditor for that loan has written it off, so that we no longer have that liability. It makes no difference whether it's Tony Fernandes and Lakshmi Mittal with £60m, or me buying you a pint and then saying I don't want you to buy me one back.

If there's any 'clever accounting' going on, it's with TF and LM in their personal finances, nothing to do with the club. I have no idea whether this is beneficial to Tony. It may be that he's done this to a) avoid the £55 million fine for FFP, and b) reduce his personal tax liability by £5 million - therefore making it a neutral transaction to him, with the Football League unable to impose the big fine and the tax man a little worse off because his taxable income is reduced from what it otherwise would have been.

Either way, the club is better off, and has done nothing wrong - either legally or morally.
 
To be fair to the owners they have, since Tony took over stated the club is essentially debt free, as it is they as owners who are prepared to take the losses in order for the club to move forward and eventually become self sufficient.

Today they've just proved that statement to be fact and hopefully prove to some of the fans who have been doubting them, that they have thus far always been true to their word.

In terms of whether or not we can get away with what we've done today is another matter. Legally we have done what is perfectly allowed under normal tax laws, but football and the FA's laws are different. FFP was brought in to stop owners of the likes that Leeds and Portsmouth had, buying on the clubs assets, borrowing money to buy players on the clubs assets and then buggering off when it all goes wrong.

But did the FA write in to the rules that the club can't write off their debts in the way we have, then we are buggered. Or did they not cover that base? It would seem the club seem to think this is the case otherwise why try it, but I'm sure if the FA have overlooked our circumstances then I'm sure they're crumbling and looking for a way to screw us that will hold up in a court of arbitration if we contest any FA sanctions, as we would have to to avoid any draconian sanctions the FA tried to pass off on us.

I think the FA will try to get us to accept the charge as it would stand today with the updated FFP, and I think we'd be wise to accept that. But then the clock is ticking, as the FA would then close that loop hole and our debts will start ticking up again to the next fine and will continue till we move.

So the debate over the TAX implications is mute as that isn't the issue here, it's what will the FA accept as reasonable under their own and the court of law.
 
The more one thinks about the way this has been presented via the club smacks of a damage limitation exercise because I'm sure that once Fleet Street's finest Finacial Minds get hold of the accounts they will have a field day. A positive spin up front by the club as they know they have a couple of days grace before Companies House has the accounts scanned....
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb_73
TheLoneRanger said:
To be fair to the owners they have, since Tony took over stated the club is essentially debt free, as it is they as owners who are prepared to take the losses in order for the club to move forward and eventually become self sufficient.

Today they've just proved that statement to be fact and hopefully prove to some of the fans who have been doubting them, that they have thus far always been true to their word.

In terms of whether or not we can get away with what we've done today is another matter. Legally we have done what is perfectly allowed under normal tax laws, but football and the FA's laws are different. FFP was brought in to stop owners of the likes that Leeds and Portsmouth had, buying on the clubs assets, borrowing money to buy players on the clubs assets and then buggering off when it all goes wrong.

But did the FA write in to the rules that the club can't write off their debts in the way we have, then we are buggered. Or did they not cover that base? It would seem the club seem to think this is the case otherwise why try it, but I'm sure if the FA have overlooked our circumstances then I'm sure they're crumbling and looking for a way to screw us that will hold up in a court of arbitration if we contest any FA sanctions, as we would have to to avoid any draconian sanctions the FA tried to pass off on us.

I think the FA will try to get us to accept the charge as it would stand today with the updated FFP, and I think we'd be wise to accept that. But then the clock is ticking, as the FA would then close that loop hole and our debts will start ticking up again to the next fine and will continue till we move.

So the debate over the TAX implications is mute as that isn't the issue here, it's what will the FA accept as reasonable under their own and the court of law.
Click to expand...
The FA has nothing to do with FFP, it's the Football League. Though I'm not saying it's not true I would be really grateful if you could show where the owners have stated that the club would be debt free (an insane way to run any business, especially with interest rates the way they are now). I remember Tony (I think) being quoted as saying writing off some of the loans would be something the owners would have to consider, at some fans meeting last season.

Totally agree that it would be wise to bite the bullet and pay any fine if it's down to a less eye watering figure.
 
sb_73 said:
The FA has nothing to do with FFP, it's the Football League. Though I'm not saying it's not true I would be really grateful if you could show where the owners have stated that the club would be debt free (an insane way to run any business, especially with interest rates the way they are now). I remember Tony (I think) being quoted as saying writing off some of the loans would be something the owners would have to consider, at some fans meeting last season.

Totally agree that it would be wise to bite the bullet and pay any fine if it's down to a less eye watering figure.
Click to expand...

That is a god send. I still think the FA have it in for us over Faulingate and how silly they looked out of all that. The old boy types have long memories and don't like to made to look stupid.
 
Now that the owners only owe themselves they can sell off the land and go home happy having recovered their losses.......

......only joking!!
 
Tramore Ranger said:
That's how it should be shown Stan but at the moment it's all speculation on our part.....the only thing that points to this is the claim to have reduced costs by £22m but as we were starting from a base of around £140m (?) in the 2013 accounts (wages alone were £110m from memory) there is no way that the trading loss alone would be the £9.8m reported given reduced income.......there has to be the Exceptional Item.
Click to expand...
Well The Times agrees with your interpretation Tramore, that the £60m has been included in the P&L line as exceptional income. They also say that the FL is not happy about such a transparent trick. Also means that we were still operating massively in the red for the 2013-14 season. I suppose that may improve this season with increased TV income and better cost control, but obviously we are still in deep financial ****.

Also, anybody under the impression that Fernandes et al have done this out of the goodness of their hearts would do well to remember that they have written off money that they had already lost with no hope of getting back (unless you think our squad contains a £60m player) gambling that this will reduce their exposure to a massive FFP fine. It's business.

In my ignorance I do not understand how this can be included in the P&L rather than just be taken off the overall debt line. Can they do both? I need to get myself an accountant.......and tutor him in the ways of righteousness.
 
Quality Passing Rules said:
That is a god send. I still think the FA have it in for us over Faulingate and how silly they looked out of all that. The old boy types have long memories and don't like to made to look stupid.
Click to expand...
As we were in the Championship then, wasn't Faurlingate also the FL?
 
Quality Passing Rules said:
I thought it was the FA. That's why we had to put up with Pallios pontificating on something he knew nothing about. I may be wrong but in the 4 year plan documenary I'm sure it was a meeting at Wembely. The FL don't meet there but the FA do.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. I tend to blot out the details, just remembering the promotion party.
 
Bush Rhino said:
Trouble is DT is right this time.

This has pictures and everything so it must be right:
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/qpr-figures-not-all-they-seem

Seriously though, it does look as if Tony is being shady again, my thought is how long will it be if we dodge the big FFP fine before loans start disappearing out of the club?

Sorry for the gloom
Click to expand...
  • Nice, if depressing, find Rhino. I think many of us jumped the gun on the Offish statement, myself included.The last paragraph of the article is very appropriate:

"Ultimately, you have to wonder about the wisdom of the club’s approach. For all the owner’s openness on social media, many fans will have been misled by the club announcement and surely deserve to be treated better"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tramore Ranger
Some incredible comments and conclusions on here... It strikes me there are some key points:
  • The club was always going to have a difficult financial transition having been relegated from the Premier League - not helped by the (then) FFP rules which have now been amended
  • The owners/shareholders have generously written off £60M which puts the Club in a better position
  • Costs are coming down - indicating lessons learnt.
Happy with audited accounts - nothing shady here.

Thanks to the Board - now let's win a few games in style :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quality Passing Rules
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back