Why wum and then revel in it on your board that people aren't nice to you when you wum here like it's some sort of badge of honour?
You've got to give it to Dai; he is persistently consistent with his knowledge of our club. He obviously is very upset that he cannot further enhance his knowledge of everything QPR by venturing to LR again next year. OT Dai, but any concerns regarding your post cup final form and failure to push on up the table?
lets be fair, no one would like to be in the position your in from that snippet of an article. i hope the owners stick with the club as it would be pretty ruthless of them to get you into this situation and flee when it all goes sour. if i am 100% honest at the start of the season i was pretty anti QPR, now i wish you the best as i would hope 99% of fans would. tbh i was a bit green with envy at the start of the season as when you looked what was coming in you expected great things if it all came together.
It is said that if you want to make a small fortune in football (or farming I am told) it's best to start with a large one. Or perhaps be named Chris Samba
It says 'estimated' against every figure in the article. Speculation based on hearsay no doubt. Nevertheless I would imagine the real figures are quite scary.
QUEENS PARK RANGERS Accounts for the year to 31 May 2012 Ownership: 66% by Tune QPR, registered in Malaysia, owned by Tony Fernandes and partners Kamarudin Meranun and Ruben Gnanalingam. 33% by Sea Dream Ltd, family holding of Lakshmi Mittal Turnover: 17th in league, £64m (up from £16m in 2011) QPR's turnover is not broken down into TV and other activities. Wage bill: 12th, £58m (up from £30m in 2011) Wages as proportion of turnover: 91% Loss before tax: £23m (reduced from £25m loss in 2011) Net debt: £89m Interest payable: £0.038m Highest-paid director: Directors of the holding company were not paid State they're in: Surprisingly under the Air Malaysia entrepreneur Fernandes, they will be lucky to avoid a crash. Rather than banking the Premier League bonanza at a club with only an 18,000 capacity at Loftus Road, they supported Neil Warnock to sign 11 players, sacked him in January 2012 then backed Mark Hughes to sign Nedum Onuoha, Djibril Cissé and Bobby Zamora. With wages 91% of turnover, narrowly survived, then backed Hughes to sign 10 more players, before sacking him, and giving Harry Redknapp £20.5m to spend in January. For the owners, who have loaned in £92.5m and now borrowed £15m from Barclays, probable relegation will not be pretty. All details from the published annual reports at Companies House. Net debt is as stated in the accounts; debts minus cash held at the bank. The separate categories of turnover are rounded down or up, so added together do not always tally with the total turnover figure.
Nice segment there from The Guardian, it's amazing to see that amongst all the teams shown very few are not in debt. I agree that now we have dropped out of the PL adjustments must be made, this simply shows the unsustainability of it all. If anyone wants to read the full article and see what financial state certain clubs are in or would be in without sugar daddies or council built stadiums, here is the link. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
Norwich and Swansea stick out on this article. The lowest 2 wage bills, lowest wage to earnings ratios of 49% and 54%, and both the only two with zero net debt.
He Dai don't get too high and mighty Michu is on 200,000k a week....gonna be a revolt when the others find that out
Nice. Can't you arrange for Dai to have a training accident with the SAS in The Brecons?! Well done again, good post.
More bullshit journalism. Nobody is going to give out a full,list of earnings. This is designed to cause maximum unrest within the club (like there isn't enough already). Boring. Boring. Boring.
ask me in 3 games time and i'll tell you whether we're really that clever! The real scandal in that article is how terrible the glazers have been for man united. Any other club would have been destroyed by them.
Guys, guys, shhhtop! We've done this to death over the course of the season, everyone settles down and accepts reality and then someone posts another article, this time from the Sun of all places and people start freaking out again. But let's put this in to perspective. We have been losing money hand over fist since we were relegated back in '96. We barely avoided liquidation when Flav and Bernie walked in. Now we have Fernandes and Co. Part of that Co. happens to be one of the worlds richest men, his interest savings on his wealth would cover these figures alone. But all of our current and previous owners, who may know nothing about football, do however know a hell of a lot about running a business. At this level, with the figures involved, you don't buy a business without having looked very closely at the books and therefore knowing exactly what you are buying. Of course Fernandes wants us to be profitable, he did mention within two years, well I'd guess that 2 years is from the time we get promoted. I'm sure this has dented the overall plan somewhat, but the overall plan has always been about getting the new stadium off the ground. Without that we will lose money in every division, it is paramount to the club and owners becoming a success in the premiership. We know that the club are close to purchasing the land, the stadium is already designed and the training ground/Academy is already in full swing. Does this not show that the owners are here for the long haul? Does it not show you that the figures are all irrelevant? The whole reason for making the stadium a multi purpose entertainments centre is so that it doesn't matter whether the club is making the money, the stadium always will, which can be classed as a QPR asset so we will never fall foul of the financial fair play rules, and it wont matter what the wage bill is. Phil Beard made the o2 the Worlds number 1 entertainment venue, any guesses why we've brought him on board?? So please, stop worrying about the wages. Again we shall be getting rid of a lot of that over the summer, but while I'm sure TF wont be so naive in future, I'm also sure that we will still be buying new players this summer, even if we kept every single player that we currently have.
Just how thick are you? The situations at Portsmouth and QPR are entirely different. QPR have owners who have money and are willing to put it in to support the club. Portsmouth had owners who had very little money (if any) and were not prepared to support the club. The QPR owners are investing money into the club. The owners of Portsmouth assett stripped the club. QPR have very little debt outside of the boardroom. Portsmouth had run up debt everywhere, including large sums owed to the taxman. QPR only have a small ground and possible gate receipts are low compared to many other clubs. However, the club are going to build a new stadium. The R's will not get a stadium built for their use using masses of public money ... unlike certain clubs in other countries to the west. Several of the high "earners" will definitely be off the books come the beginning of next season. Some will stay with a reduction in salary (according to contract). We will have to wait and see how many of the others stay ... ie those on contacts without relegation wage drops. Since joing QPR "The Sun" have quoted Barton's weekly wage as being £48,000, £55,000, £60,000, £70,000 and now £72,000. The more things have gone wrong at the club the higher the wages quoted by the tabloids. Strange that. Things are certainly not good for the investors at the moment, but it is not in their interests for the club to go into administration. The club might be able to wipe off its debt by doing that, but as the main creditors are members the board (and not HMRC, Barclays, etc) there is no point in doing that as they would lose out almost as much as by continuing. So it would be better if you kept your counsel mate and not make comments about something that you obviously do not understand one little bit. It only goes to show what a lack of intelligence you actually have.
