| Losses Reduced on 09:29 - Mar 3 with 2970 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 09:21 - Mar 3 by QPR_John |
How can two leagues between which their is promotion and relegation have different rules over something as fundamental as to how the clubs are financed. |
Exactly.
This is why the three promoted teams from last year are all struggling. |  | |  |
| Losses Reduced on 09:38 - Mar 3 with 2924 views | Pommyhoop |
 |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 11:25 - Mar 3 with 2870 views | PinnerPaul |
| Losses Reduced on 18:18 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
QPR aside where has this sympathy for massively wealthy billionaires fvcking up the national game come from?
Yeah it's very convenient to be pleased with the prospect of the FFP spectre disappearing but these chaps arn't the victims or the saviours they are the cause.
They are no charitable eccentrics either. They are shrewd fiscally minded businessmen. |
They have been attracted by TV money, if we didn't pay for Live TV, Sky/BT and others business models don't work and you would be back to how the game was pre Sky - for better or worse |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:45 - Mar 3 with 2793 views | whittocksRs |
| Losses Reduced on 22:26 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
That's how I've read it. They've lost what we all expected them to lose - between 60 and 70m - last season but they're trying to get round it be running 60m of shareholder loans through the P and L account as a gift to try and scoot round it. |
It certainly seems that way. That said, the Football League will need to have some absolute demon lawyers if they're going to prove that what's happened. Fact is, if the money has been written off by the lenders - in this case the shareholders themselves - it's very hard to tell someone what to do with their money. The Football League isn't a regulator in the true sense, so applying a fine if they can't specifically prove creative accounting is going to be virtually impossible. Fernandes et al may have finally proven how they've become some of the richest people in the world. Remember TF is an accountant himself by trade. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:55 - Mar 3 with 2776 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 12:45 - Mar 3 by whittocksRs |
It certainly seems that way. That said, the Football League will need to have some absolute demon lawyers if they're going to prove that what's happened. Fact is, if the money has been written off by the lenders - in this case the shareholders themselves - it's very hard to tell someone what to do with their money. The Football League isn't a regulator in the true sense, so applying a fine if they can't specifically prove creative accounting is going to be virtually impossible. Fernandes et al may have finally proven how they've become some of the richest people in the world. Remember TF is an accountant himself by trade. |
Won't be difficult for the FL to prove if anything underhand has occurred. All clubs have to submit full accounts to the FL, whereby they are raked over by an external firm of auditors.
FFP rules have provisions for what is and is not included in their calculations | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:59 - Mar 3 with 2768 views | whittocksRs |
| Losses Reduced on 12:55 - Mar 3 by Jamie |
Won't be difficult for the FL to prove if anything underhand has occurred. All clubs have to submit full accounts to the FL, whereby they are raked over by an external firm of auditors.
FFP rules have provisions for what is and is not included in their calculations |
Have to disagree with you - I (ostensibly) work in financial / trade journalism and companies constantly avoiding fines, tax etc by moving money from here to there, writing this off and that down. You need to be able to pinpoint the offence and get the paper trail if you suspect wrongdoing. I would be suprised if the FL has the power to do that. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 13:36 - Mar 3 with 2711 views | EastR |
| Losses Reduced on 12:55 - Mar 3 by Jamie |
Won't be difficult for the FL to prove if anything underhand has occurred. All clubs have to submit full accounts to the FL, whereby they are raked over by an external firm of auditors.
FFP rules have provisions for what is and is not included in their calculations |
The FL can save themselves that trouble.
If anything underhand has occurred the Directors will find themselves subject to the law of the land,as legal their obligations are set out under Companies Act legislation.
As for auditors raking over them, well the accounts will have been signed by auditors who are (also) legally obliged to state that they are ‘legit’ (or if in their opinion) why they are not.
Everything about the treatment of the loans is speculative until the accounts are made publicly available, but for what it’s worth I reckon we will see an ‘Operating Loss’ (aka Trading loss) of £60-£70m and, with the adjustments for loans written off, a ‘Net Loss’ of the £9.8m
In other words, from the owners, a great (but expensive) piece of spin. [Post edited 3 Mar 2015 13:54]
| |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 13:45 - Mar 3 with 2690 views | pomanjou |
If loans are forgiven its exceptional. It used to be that exceptional items had to be seperately stated as such but they now have to be shown as part of that years trading and thus go thru the profit and loss. It should also form part of the notes to the accounts.
Seems perfectly ok to me. Any accountant care to comment? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Losses Reduced on 13:53 - Mar 3 with 2663 views | Saycey |
I'm not usually slow in criticising the board where I think fit. But like others I must admit to not having a scooby what is going on. My jumbled thoughts are as follows:
- Anything which reduces the overall debt liability to the club is good right? I've wanted to see some of the debt written off for ages
- Okay so they did it tactically to circumvent FFP. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I really don't know
- It is maybe the first true example of the Malaysian consortium "putting their hands in his pockets". That phrase until now has made me cringe as everything has been funded on debt. But now at least they have spent £60m. Haven't they?
- The way this was announced has intensified the speculation. Maybe with the complexity of the issue there was no easy way of avoiding this.
- I don't think it's the unmitigated triumph that some think it is... but then it's far from an unmitigated disaster either. Obviously the truth lies on the spectrum somewhere between. Don't ask me where though...
#Confused | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 13:54 - Mar 3 with 2657 views | baz_qpr |
Its not about meeting the Football league FFP its about the legal challenge. Club will argue that it would be impossible to meet championship rules upon relegation because of previous loss and contractual commitments, the club demonstrates large cuts in expenditure plus a write off of debt to show they are trying to comply with the spirit of the regulation and be in line with the current premier regs. FL wont have a leg to stand on as rules will be shown to be unfair, restraint of trade, protectionism |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:01 - Mar 3 with 2641 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 12:59 - Mar 3 by whittocksRs |
Have to disagree with you - I (ostensibly) work in financial / trade journalism and companies constantly avoiding fines, tax etc by moving money from here to there, writing this off and that down. You need to be able to pinpoint the offence and get the paper trail if you suspect wrongdoing. I would be suprised if the FL has the power to do that. |
It's going to be pretty easy to find the £60m on the P&L over the previous season, even for someone who has never seen a P&L before. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:03 - Mar 3 with 2634 views | EastR |
| Losses Reduced on 13:45 - Mar 3 by pomanjou |
If loans are forgiven its exceptional. It used to be that exceptional items had to be seperately stated as such but they now have to be shown as part of that years trading and thus go thru the profit and loss. It should also form part of the notes to the accounts.
Seems perfectly ok to me. Any accountant care to comment? |
they're not shown as part of the Operating (Trading) calculation.
Like tax and other adjustments they are shown after.
Hence, 'Operating Profit or Loss' and 'Net Profit or Loss' being very different things.
The club have used that distinction to tell the story they want to get out there i.e. a 'QPR in apparently good financial news' story. And who can blame them. | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 14:06 - Mar 3 with 2616 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 13:36 - Mar 3 by EastR |
The FL can save themselves that trouble.
If anything underhand has occurred the Directors will find themselves subject to the law of the land,as legal their obligations are set out under Companies Act legislation.
As for auditors raking over them, well the accounts will have been signed by auditors who are (also) legally obliged to state that they are ‘legit’ (or if in their opinion) why they are not.
Everything about the treatment of the loans is speculative until the accounts are made publicly available, but for what it’s worth I reckon we will see an ‘Operating Loss’ (aka Trading loss) of £60-£70m and, with the adjustments for loans written off, a ‘Net Loss’ of the £9.8m
In other words, from the owners, a great (but expensive) piece of spin. [Post edited 3 Mar 2015 13:54]
|
The clubs auditors and the FL auditors are working to different standards. The clubs auditors are working to ensure the accounts published at CH are above board and provide a proper overview of the company's financial picture.
The FL auditors are then dissecting the accounts on the basis of the provisions that FFP makes for certain forms of income & expenditure. [Post edited 3 Mar 2015 14:07]
| | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:07 - Mar 3 with 2613 views | PinnerPaul |
| Losses Reduced on 12:55 - Mar 3 by Jamie |
Won't be difficult for the FL to prove if anything underhand has occurred. All clubs have to submit full accounts to the FL, whereby they are raked over by an external firm of auditors.
FFP rules have provisions for what is and is not included in their calculations |
"underhand" won't be applicable as accounts are audited.
Whether the FL decide that Fair play "rules" have been broken is another point.
Audited accounts are and have been subject to laws - that's the easy part.
The FL fair play rules haven't been tested in court............yet. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:09 - Mar 3 with 2602 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 13:54 - Mar 3 by baz_qpr |
Its not about meeting the Football league FFP its about the legal challenge. Club will argue that it would be impossible to meet championship rules upon relegation because of previous loss and contractual commitments, the club demonstrates large cuts in expenditure plus a write off of debt to show they are trying to comply with the spirit of the regulation and be in line with the current premier regs. FL wont have a leg to stand on as rules will be shown to be unfair, restraint of trade, protectionism |
Don't think anyone genuinely believes this will go to court. It will be an absolute last resort on both sides.
The FL gave had these accounts for the best part of 2 months now so clearly there has been Abe likely will be more negotiating to be done. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:17 - Mar 3 with 2586 views | adhoc_qpr |
Surely the Football League can spin this as a win?
Previously reckless owners writing off debt to comply with their rules and contritely paying their small fine?
The fine money now goes to charity anyway doesn't it, so the League have no financial stake in this?
Even they acknowledge these initial rules we are being held too were too extreme after all... | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:18 - Mar 3 with 2583 views | EastR |
| Losses Reduced on 14:06 - Mar 3 by Jamie |
The clubs auditors and the FL auditors are working to different standards. The clubs auditors are working to ensure the accounts published at CH are above board and provide a proper overview of the company's financial picture.
The FL auditors are then dissecting the accounts on the basis of the provisions that FFP makes for certain forms of income & expenditure. [Post edited 3 Mar 2015 14:07]
|
They are working to the same accounting standards as set out by the FRC.
But yes, perhaps the FFP rules are different. | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 14:22 - Mar 3 with 2570 views | danehoop |
The FL wont want the fight because:
a. they stand a very good chance of losing
b. the legal costs for taking the case on will be high
c. the appeal process will be even more expensive
d. it would land a very strong probabilty of testing the legality of FFP in court, which opens up a much greater can of worms for the footballing authority.
If we are relegated (which is quite likely) the club have essentially created a situation where the FL have an opportunity to make clear show of punishing QPR. The level of punishment would be comensurate to the situation - but not punative. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 14:34 - Mar 3 with 2549 views | pomanjou |
| Losses Reduced on 14:03 - Mar 3 by EastR |
they're not shown as part of the Operating (Trading) calculation.
Like tax and other adjustments they are shown after.
Hence, 'Operating Profit or Loss' and 'Net Profit or Loss' being very different things.
The club have used that distinction to tell the story they want to get out there i.e. a 'QPR in apparently good financial news' story. And who can blame them. |
Tks. Should have said pre tax I guess. | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 14:51 - Mar 3 with 2517 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
We are all only here speculating about stuff none of us has a clue about because the club is opaque as fvck with stuff that really matters, ie our finances.
Any press release from HQ is either forced by circumstance filtered spin (the Harold departure for example) or propaganda on a scale New Labour would have been proud of (the stadium BS).
Anyway I bore myself and you probably so that's my final rant on the matter. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 15:11 - Mar 3 with 2484 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 14:22 - Mar 3 by danehoop |
The FL wont want the fight because:
a. they stand a very good chance of losing
b. the legal costs for taking the case on will be high
c. the appeal process will be even more expensive
d. it would land a very strong probabilty of testing the legality of FFP in court, which opens up a much greater can of worms for the footballing authority.
If we are relegated (which is quite likely) the club have essentially created a situation where the FL have an opportunity to make clear show of punishing QPR. The level of punishment would be comensurate to the situation - but not punative. |
Isn't the FL in an even bigger hole than us though?
If they capitulate and let us off then some other club could complain that they've lost out through complying with FFP whilst we didn't and sue the League. They've got to be seen to be trying to enforce the rules that the majority of clubs agreed to and abided by. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 16:18 - Mar 3 with 2396 views | robith |
| Losses Reduced on 14:09 - Mar 3 by Jamie |
Don't think anyone genuinely believes this will go to court. It will be an absolute last resort on both sides.
The FL gave had these accounts for the best part of 2 months now so clearly there has been Abe likely will be more negotiating to be done. |
The football league especially will be desperate for it not to go to court and risk the whole house of cards coming down |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 16:25 - Mar 3 with 2386 views | PinnerPaul |
| Losses Reduced on 14:51 - Mar 3 by BazzaInTheLoft |
We are all only here speculating about stuff none of us has a clue about because the club is opaque as fvck with stuff that really matters, ie our finances.
Any press release from HQ is either forced by circumstance filtered spin (the Harold departure for example) or propaganda on a scale New Labour would have been proud of (the stadium BS).
Anyway I bore myself and you probably so that's my final rant on the matter. |
Juts because we don't understand it, doesn't mean they are being opaque.
They have filed audited accounts as required, same as 100s of other companies.
Google (As I did) "Writing off Directors Loans" and you'll see loads of stuff on it - how to treat in P & L, tax implications etc etc etc so we're hardly unique in doing that! | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 17:03 - Mar 3 with 2362 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 14:18 - Mar 3 by EastR |
They are working to the same accounting standards as set out by the FRC.
But yes, perhaps the FFP rules are different. |
Worded incorrectly on my part perhaps, the clubs auditors ensure that the accounts are legal, the FL auditors decide if they pass the FFP guidelines laid out to them. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 17:09 - Mar 3 with 2351 views | whittocksRs |
| Losses Reduced on 14:01 - Mar 3 by Jamie |
It's going to be pretty easy to find the £60m on the P&L over the previous season, even for someone who has never seen a P&L before. |
Not if the directors claim it has been written off - they're efffectively saying they've taken a hit, whether that is totally true or not; not as clear-cut as you think it is. I've seen various companies do similar things and get no follow up. Anyway, we'll see how smart Fernandes is as this all comes out in the wash. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
