| Losses Reduced on 14:44 - Mar 2 with 3426 views | baz_qpr |
| Losses Reduced on 12:01 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Am I the only one super fvcked off with this?
The rules are there to stop financial doping. We bitch and moan about the authorities like the FA, FIFA, UEFA etc being ineffectual but when they actually do something for the benefit of the game clubs pull sh1t like this.
Yeah, yeah, Chelsea and Man C do the same thing on a bigger scale but that's not the point. We only want to see action taken when it's not us. |
Not sure how its beneficial for the game unless you are a big club of a certain size its essentially raising the drawbridge. If you think about tech businesses such as Google or Facebook, they only got to where they did because they could give their product away for free by being massively funded which got them into a position to gain and dominate market share and then implement revenue streams.
To block / limit investment is purest form of protectionism and will get taken down in court.
To say its for the good of the game is the same kind of nonsense as equating the deficit to a household budget. Its nonsense economics and designed for a specific purpose which is not the one being championed |  | |  |
| Losses Reduced on 15:01 - Mar 2 with 3370 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 14:44 - Mar 2 by baz_qpr |
Not sure how its beneficial for the game unless you are a big club of a certain size its essentially raising the drawbridge. If you think about tech businesses such as Google or Facebook, they only got to where they did because they could give their product away for free by being massively funded which got them into a position to gain and dominate market share and then implement revenue streams.
To block / limit investment is purest form of protectionism and will get taken down in court.
To say its for the good of the game is the same kind of nonsense as equating the deficit to a household budget. Its nonsense economics and designed for a specific purpose which is not the one being championed |
Is £60k a week on SWP / JS Park / Cisse etc an invesent then? |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 15:11 - Mar 2 with 3335 views | daveB |
I know we love to speculate but wouldn't it be an idea in this case to wait and see the accounts before passing judgement.
Seems like a lot of guesswork going on and include myself in that as I've not got a scooby whats going on |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 15:24 - Mar 2 with 3296 views | adhoc_qpr |
We know our owners are hopeless at footballing decisions, but this is pure numbers/book keeping combined with a football league rule with fairly shaky legal groundings - surely the high priced lawyers and accountants can sort this out for us? |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 15:51 - Mar 2 with 3235 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 15:24 - Mar 2 by adhoc_qpr |
We know our owners are hopeless at footballing decisions, but this is pure numbers/book keeping combined with a football league rule with fairly shaky legal groundings - surely the high priced lawyers and accountants can sort this out for us? |
Why can't they just publish the proper accounts and be done with it? |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 15:56 - Mar 2 with 3215 views | baz_qpr |
| Losses Reduced on 15:01 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Is £60k a week on SWP / JS Park / Cisse etc an invesent then? |
At the time given the assets on paper yes it was, whether it was a good investment is another thing altogether but any investment is a gamble, you only know how good it is in due course and you dont have the benefit of hindsight. On paper England International with top four club, Korean captain with worlds biggest club. French international proven goalscorer would look like a sensible investment. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 16:18 - Mar 2 with 3162 views | robith |
One thing *is* certain; Swissramble is currently firing up possibly the longest essay they've ever published |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 16:22 - Mar 2 with 3155 views | PinnerPaul |
| Losses Reduced on 15:51 - Mar 2 by ElHoop |
Why can't they just publish the proper accounts and be done with it? |
Erm....... they have & will this week? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Losses Reduced on 16:32 - Mar 2 with 3119 views | CanadaRanger |
| Losses Reduced on 13:38 - Mar 2 by eastside_r |
Not sure what to make of this.
I am a share holder and can confirm, that it is not me! |
Thank-you anyway, Eastside!
They just haven't told you yet?
 |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 17:06 - Mar 2 with 3033 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 16:22 - Mar 2 by PinnerPaul |
Erm....... they have & will this week? |
Well I can't see them. You can't say that you have published them if you plonk them in at Companies House and everyone has to wait and see what's there, whilst in the meantime you announce one or two bits of information from them. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 17:10 - Mar 2 with 3021 views | bosh67 |
The nub of this has to be to stick with Les, Chris and the current direction and continue as planned even if we get relegated.
The way to become profitable is to be the best scouting academy in Europe and get the kids in, the young non-league players through, the Ings, the Austins, The Les Ferdinands (let's face it) and have a policy to base teams around at least 8 of these types of players and 4-5 experienced heads aka Hill, Derry, Henry types, and keep them until about 23 and then either sell them on and replace them or keep them coming through until 27.
That way we have very little fee outlay and it is all done through what we get in. It also becomes the club that young people have a chance through and that could dramatically improve our commercial and support ventures around the world. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 17:25 - Mar 2 with 2988 views | adhoc_qpr |
| Losses Reduced on 17:10 - Mar 2 by bosh67 |
The nub of this has to be to stick with Les, Chris and the current direction and continue as planned even if we get relegated.
The way to become profitable is to be the best scouting academy in Europe and get the kids in, the young non-league players through, the Ings, the Austins, The Les Ferdinands (let's face it) and have a policy to base teams around at least 8 of these types of players and 4-5 experienced heads aka Hill, Derry, Henry types, and keep them until about 23 and then either sell them on and replace them or keep them coming through until 27.
That way we have very little fee outlay and it is all done through what we get in. It also becomes the club that young people have a chance through and that could dramatically improve our commercial and support ventures around the world. |
Agree with all of that apart from the stick with Chris Ramsey.
Let's assess him at the end of the season before we tie our long term future to a relative novice.
Surviving shouldn't guarantee him the job, nor should relegation mean he doesn't get it.
Let's see how he does, style of play, do players improve or regress, do they work for the manager, are the same mistakes being repeatedly made, is there continual improvement etc etc.
If Ramsey doesn't work out though, any new manager has to fit into the system with Les and DoF. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 17:55 - Mar 2 with 2932 views | terryb |
| Losses Reduced on 17:06 - Mar 2 by ElHoop |
Well I can't see them. You can't say that you have published them if you plonk them in at Companies House and everyone has to wait and see what's there, whilst in the meantime you announce one or two bits of information from them. |
Surely it is not up to any company to publish their financial results to the general public. I can't recall this ever happening. A short summary would be issued, but that is as far as it would go. Publishing your accounts is registering them with Companies House.
All relevant parties (banks, FA, Football League etc) would be in pocession, but Joe Public will have to wait until CH have them available on line.
I am assuming that we declared within the required time line & maybe the reason we have heard nothing from the FL is because they knew we were close to their target.
As a club, we would be insane not to pay the fine that we will be issued with.
I can't remember the criteria for the fine, but have it in my mind (don't know where from) that it will be 20% of £8 million plus 100% of the loss over that figure. I'm sure others can put me right on this! | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 18:18 - Mar 2 with 2874 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 17:55 - Mar 2 by terryb |
Surely it is not up to any company to publish their financial results to the general public. I can't recall this ever happening. A short summary would be issued, but that is as far as it would go. Publishing your accounts is registering them with Companies House.
All relevant parties (banks, FA, Football League etc) would be in pocession, but Joe Public will have to wait until CH have them available on line.
I am assuming that we declared within the required time line & maybe the reason we have heard nothing from the FL is because they knew we were close to their target.
As a club, we would be insane not to pay the fine that we will be issued with.
I can't remember the criteria for the fine, but have it in my mind (don't know where from) that it will be 20% of £8 million plus 100% of the loss over that figure. I'm sure others can put me right on this! |
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. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 18:30 - Mar 2 with 2845 views | TheBlob |
| 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. |
I'm a charitable eccentric.I gave ten grand to Chris Wright. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 18:41 - Mar 2 with 2821 views | terryb |
| 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. |
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I think the idea behind FFP was correct but was not thought through properly.
The idea that any club (or company) can rack up uncoverable debts or losses is unpalatable. Just as companies posting profits of billions of pounds without rewarding their customers is.
I just happen to think that the club (amazingly) took the decision in 2013 to inflate the losses so that they had a head start in reaching the FFP target. For that, I give them credit. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 19:09 - Mar 2 with 2774 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 18:41 - Mar 2 by terryb |
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I think the idea behind FFP was correct but was not thought through properly.
The idea that any club (or company) can rack up uncoverable debts or losses is unpalatable. Just as companies posting profits of billions of pounds without rewarding their customers is.
I just happen to think that the club (amazingly) took the decision in 2013 to inflate the losses so that they had a head start in reaching the FFP target. For that, I give them credit. |
Sorry mate, thought i'd pressed the green button not the other one. Wasn't a direct dig at your post. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 19:12 - Mar 2 with 2756 views | queensparker |
| Losses Reduced on 18:41 - Mar 2 by terryb |
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I think the idea behind FFP was correct but was not thought through properly.
The idea that any club (or company) can rack up uncoverable debts or losses is unpalatable. Just as companies posting profits of billions of pounds without rewarding their customers is.
I just happen to think that the club (amazingly) took the decision in 2013 to inflate the losses so that they had a head start in reaching the FFP target. For that, I give them credit. |
I'd absolutely love that to be the case (the owners purposely inflating losses and taking sh*t for a year in the press with a grand plan to write off the loans to show a 9 mill loss this year), but that would show a level of strategy and cunning that I would find hard to believe based on everything else they've done.
That we're delighted with a £9 million loss (at best, and only on paper, in one single year), does show what a basket case our finances have become.
If we can somehow do three/four more years in the Prem at this new, sensible level of spending, then we could get ourselves out of this. If we go down this year, I think it's going to be very difficult to come back up again for a long long time. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 19:15 - Mar 2 with 2750 views | queensparker |
| Losses Reduced on 18:41 - Mar 2 by terryb |
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I think the idea behind FFP was correct but was not thought through properly.
The idea that any club (or company) can rack up uncoverable debts or losses is unpalatable. Just as companies posting profits of billions of pounds without rewarding their customers is.
I just happen to think that the club (amazingly) took the decision in 2013 to inflate the losses so that they had a head start in reaching the FFP target. For that, I give them credit. |
[double post] [Post edited 2 Mar 2015 19:17]
| | | |
| Losses Reduced on 21:45 - Mar 2 with 2572 views | westolian |
Do I need to bring my bucket, or not ?? |  |
| I've found a team sheet for the weekend - anyone interested ? |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 22:26 - Mar 2 with 2479 views | 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. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 22:27 - Mar 2 with 2474 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Losses Reduced on 12:01 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Am I the only one super fvcked off with this?
The rules are there to stop financial doping. We bitch and moan about the authorities like the FA, FIFA, UEFA etc being ineffectual but when they actually do something for the benefit of the game clubs pull sh1t like this.
Yeah, yeah, Chelsea and Man C do the same thing on a bigger scale but that's not the point. We only want to see action taken when it's not us. |
I have some sympathy with your point. In principle FFP was the first attempt to do something about the craziness of football finances and since I agree that they are crazy I'd like to see FFP work.
But I don't agree that "it's not the point" that Chelsea and M City do the same thing - that's exactly my objection. Anything called Financial Fair Play that does not stop the league title being bought every season, or the League for Clubs Who Finished 4th from being a giant bag of cash for a cartel of clubs, just isn't living up to its name. I hate that we've become the poster boys for financial skulduggery when the Premier League was specifically set up to screw clubs like us for the benefit of clubs like Manchester United.
So until there is any genuine fairness, I'm very happy with anything our owners do to fight our corner. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 06:15 - Mar 3 with 2363 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 22:27 - Mar 2 by CiderwithRsie |
I have some sympathy with your point. In principle FFP was the first attempt to do something about the craziness of football finances and since I agree that they are crazy I'd like to see FFP work.
But I don't agree that "it's not the point" that Chelsea and M City do the same thing - that's exactly my objection. Anything called Financial Fair Play that does not stop the league title being bought every season, or the League for Clubs Who Finished 4th from being a giant bag of cash for a cartel of clubs, just isn't living up to its name. I hate that we've become the poster boys for financial skulduggery when the Premier League was specifically set up to screw clubs like us for the benefit of clubs like Manchester United.
So until there is any genuine fairness, I'm very happy with anything our owners do to fight our corner. |
This has nothing to with Man C or Chelsea because it is for football league clubs brought in by football league clubs. Their FFP is a UEFA initiative . | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:21 - Mar 3 with 2257 views | QPR_John |
| Losses Reduced on 06:15 - Mar 3 by BazzaInTheLoft |
This has nothing to with Man C or Chelsea because it is for football league clubs brought in by football league clubs. Their FFP is a UEFA initiative . |
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. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
