Quantcast
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
QPR Companies House 15:12 - Jul 15 with 6009 viewsMedwayR

I sometimes have a quick look for QPR on companies house just to see if there's anything of interest, today I noticed a "confirmation statement", can anyone explain what this is and it's purpose???

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03197756/filing-history

Poll: Who would you rather go up?

0

QPR Companies House on 15:15 - Jul 15 with 4893 viewscolinallcars

Don't know, but anything financial worries me !
0

QPR Companies House on 15:44 - Jul 15 with 4779 viewsBoston

C’mon Medway, if you can’t be arsed to read 335 pages why should we?

Poll: Thank God The Seaons Over.

2

QPR Companies House on 16:15 - Jul 15 with 4718 viewsEsox_Lucius

Pages 7 until the end just contain an extensive list of QPR Holdings shareholders and the number of shares they hold. It appears to be just a standard form confirming that the accounts have been filed.

The grass is always greener.

0

QPR Companies House on 18:38 - Jul 15 with 4535 viewsthorpebankR

Genuine question as I know nothing about these things. What happened to the shares supporters bought 20 years ago?
0
QPR Companies House on 18:47 - Jul 15 with 4504 viewsEsox_Lucius

QPR Companies House on 18:38 - Jul 15 by thorpebankR

Genuine question as I know nothing about these things. What happened to the shares supporters bought 20 years ago?


Judging by the names and quantities in that document I would say they are still valid. I saw one person named who only held a single share.

The grass is always greener.

0
QPR Companies House on 19:31 - Jul 15 with 4419 viewsstevec

QPR Companies House on 18:38 - Jul 15 by thorpebankR

Genuine question as I know nothing about these things. What happened to the shares supporters bought 20 years ago?


Didn’t the club go into administration, in which case the shares are worth diddly squat I’m afraid.
0

QPR Companies House on 19:35 - Jul 15 with 4415 viewsBazzaInTheLoft

Sunderland PLC own one share apparently.

Is that the football club, and if so is that allowed????????
0
QPR Companies House on 20:06 - Jul 15 with 4357 viewsJeff

QPR Companies House on 19:31 - Jul 15 by stevec

Didn’t the club go into administration, in which case the shares are worth diddly squat I’m afraid.


they were always worth diddly squat. coupled by the fact that everytime Ruben bailed the club out over the last few years the shares were again massively diluted, the individual shares are now so diluted even a homeopath thinks that they're a bit weak...

Can we not knock it?

1
Login to get fewer ads


QPR Companies House on 14:09 - Jul 17 with 3986 viewsNorthernr

0
QPR Companies House on 14:49 - Jul 17 with 3860 viewsBoston

QPR Companies House on 14:09 - Jul 17 by Northernr



But this is ‘Queens’ Park Rangers, surely we’re supposed to be getting royalties!

Poll: Thank God The Seaons Over.

0

QPR Companies House on 14:51 - Jul 17 with 3853 viewsBoston

....and come to that, are we ‘By Appointment’?

Poll: Thank God The Seaons Over.

0
QPR Companies House on 19:50 - Jul 17 with 3570 viewseastside_r

QPR Companies House on 16:15 - Jul 15 by Esox_Lucius

Pages 7 until the end just contain an extensive list of QPR Holdings shareholders and the number of shares they hold. It appears to be just a standard form confirming that the accounts have been filed.


This.

Used to be called the Annual Return and is just a standard document to confirm trading status, who is involved, directors etc.

Wasn't aware that all shareholders had to be listed (I thought it was just the main ones) although great to see my name on there. My 1500 shares now worth f@ck all - not that I bought them to make money.
[Post edited 17 Jul 2018 19:51]
0
QPR Companies House on 20:17 - Jul 17 with 3519 viewsHunterhoop

QPR Companies House on 14:09 - Jul 17 by Northernr



To the accountants out there, am I misreading this or is this not good news to the club?

They’ve turned debt the club had to shareholders (their loans) and the extortionate interest owed on those debts into shares. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t this just the owners removing debt from the club by diluting shares which were already worth far less than the debt converted, because shares are only worth what someone will pay for them?

It’s simply another right off, like the £180m. Yes, you could ask why the shareholders chose to leave this debt and earn interest off it in the meantime (presumably to help with cash flow for themselves or Tune group), but it still frees the club, as an entity, from debt it owed.

My only slight concern is “why” now. Makes me think they’ve re-run the numbers, potentially after McClaren has asked for a budget of X, or based on our existing cost base now we it’s a new contract year (July-June) and they’ve realised we’re still short of FFP.
0

QPR Companies House on 20:35 - Jul 17 with 3490 viewsolderR

It gives a list of past and current directors etc. In addition to their position in company it gives their occupation.
TF is listed as director, occupation none.
Air Asia?
0
QPR Companies House on 22:20 - Jul 17 with 3393 viewsstevec

QPR Companies House on 20:17 - Jul 17 by Hunterhoop

To the accountants out there, am I misreading this or is this not good news to the club?

They’ve turned debt the club had to shareholders (their loans) and the extortionate interest owed on those debts into shares. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t this just the owners removing debt from the club by diluting shares which were already worth far less than the debt converted, because shares are only worth what someone will pay for them?

It’s simply another right off, like the £180m. Yes, you could ask why the shareholders chose to leave this debt and earn interest off it in the meantime (presumably to help with cash flow for themselves or Tune group), but it still frees the club, as an entity, from debt it owed.

My only slight concern is “why” now. Makes me think they’ve re-run the numbers, potentially after McClaren has asked for a budget of X, or based on our existing cost base now we it’s a new contract year (July-June) and they’ve realised we’re still short of FFP.


I’d say that’s about right. The extortionate interest is effectively boosting the shareholding of directors who are putting the most in to cover the debt over those directors who aren’t. Seems fair enough and they’re not likely to benefit greatly unless the club makes it back to the premier and they sell up.

Either way it keeps the clubs head above water.
0
QPR Companies House on 05:36 - Jul 18 with 3238 viewsqprd

QPR Companies House on 20:17 - Jul 17 by Hunterhoop

To the accountants out there, am I misreading this or is this not good news to the club?

They’ve turned debt the club had to shareholders (their loans) and the extortionate interest owed on those debts into shares. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t this just the owners removing debt from the club by diluting shares which were already worth far less than the debt converted, because shares are only worth what someone will pay for them?

It’s simply another right off, like the £180m. Yes, you could ask why the shareholders chose to leave this debt and earn interest off it in the meantime (presumably to help with cash flow for themselves or Tune group), but it still frees the club, as an entity, from debt it owed.

My only slight concern is “why” now. Makes me think they’ve re-run the numbers, potentially after McClaren has asked for a budget of X, or based on our existing cost base now we it’s a new contract year (July-June) and they’ve realised we’re still short of FFP.


Its neither good nor bad. It really just affects the respective holdings between the shareholders. If you think Ruben is a better steward for the club than TF, than you might think its good.

On the interest rate:

QPR, like almost every non Premier League football club, loses money each year

If QPR were required to actually pay interest on the shareholder loans on top of its normal operating loss, the club would be bankrupt. Collecting interest would be nice for TF or Ruben, but they don't want to do so at the cost of negatively affecting performance on the pitch (by directing funds from wages and player transfers to interest payments), bankrupting their team and destroying the value of their investment

The higher interest rate just permits Ruben to further dilute TF and Mittals.

As for the why now question: I wouldn't read anything into it. Shareholders debt is a hybrid instrument which has features which are like equity (ie shares) and others which are like debt. One feature of debt is that it has a maturity date (i.e., the date the debt has to be repaid). I recall from looking at the accounts that the maturity date of the shareholder loans is around June 30. On June 30, the shareholders who extended the shareholder loans can either demand repayment (not possible b/c QPR doesn't have the cash) or convert the shareholder loans into shares (which is what they have been doing).

Another point on timing to put this into context: essentially, every summer, QPRs owners inject some cash into the business. QPR runs out of that cash over the course of the next 12 months and then in the following summer, they need to go back to the shareholders to ask for more
[Post edited 18 Jul 2018 5:41]
0
QPR Companies House on 08:20 - Jul 18 with 3099 viewsisawqpratwcity

QPR Companies House on 05:36 - Jul 18 by qprd

Its neither good nor bad. It really just affects the respective holdings between the shareholders. If you think Ruben is a better steward for the club than TF, than you might think its good.

On the interest rate:

QPR, like almost every non Premier League football club, loses money each year

If QPR were required to actually pay interest on the shareholder loans on top of its normal operating loss, the club would be bankrupt. Collecting interest would be nice for TF or Ruben, but they don't want to do so at the cost of negatively affecting performance on the pitch (by directing funds from wages and player transfers to interest payments), bankrupting their team and destroying the value of their investment

The higher interest rate just permits Ruben to further dilute TF and Mittals.

As for the why now question: I wouldn't read anything into it. Shareholders debt is a hybrid instrument which has features which are like equity (ie shares) and others which are like debt. One feature of debt is that it has a maturity date (i.e., the date the debt has to be repaid). I recall from looking at the accounts that the maturity date of the shareholder loans is around June 30. On June 30, the shareholders who extended the shareholder loans can either demand repayment (not possible b/c QPR doesn't have the cash) or convert the shareholder loans into shares (which is what they have been doing).

Another point on timing to put this into context: essentially, every summer, QPRs owners inject some cash into the business. QPR runs out of that cash over the course of the next 12 months and then in the following summer, they need to go back to the shareholders to ask for more
[Post edited 18 Jul 2018 5:41]


"Its neither good nor bad."

Don't be such an ingrate: it's bloody marvellous for the club! An owner 'lends' the club cash and all he gets back are shares? As Hunter pointed out, the club is worth what it is worth, so increasing the number of shares just makes each share worth less. Between the owners, they are just giving the club money. (Of course, this all counts as a loss for FFP.)

The high interest rate that was the subject of much complaint is, again, only a cost to the other owners, not the club. Lee Hoos knows he can't find a better deal.
[Post edited 18 Jul 2018 8:38]

Poll: Deaths of Thatcher and Mandela this year: Sad or Glad?

0
QPR Companies House on 08:43 - Jul 18 with 3050 viewsHunterhoop

QPR Companies House on 08:20 - Jul 18 by isawqpratwcity

"Its neither good nor bad."

Don't be such an ingrate: it's bloody marvellous for the club! An owner 'lends' the club cash and all he gets back are shares? As Hunter pointed out, the club is worth what it is worth, so increasing the number of shares just makes each share worth less. Between the owners, they are just giving the club money. (Of course, this all counts as a loss for FFP.)

The high interest rate that was the subject of much complaint is, again, only a cost to the other owners, not the club. Lee Hoos knows he can't find a better deal.
[Post edited 18 Jul 2018 8:38]


When you say, this all counts as a loss for FFP, does it?

Debt, in the shape of these loans and interest, would have sat as just that on the balance sheet, and if paid, surely would have counted as loss/outgoings.

However, in effect, of someone converts debt to shares, is this not akin to income, thus not a loss? In effect a party or parties have effectively paid an amount (the debt) for shares, which is how most plcs, for example, raise cash for investment.

Or have a missed something?
0
QPR Companies House on 09:05 - Jul 18 with 3016 viewsqprd

QPR Companies House on 08:43 - Jul 18 by Hunterhoop

When you say, this all counts as a loss for FFP, does it?

Debt, in the shape of these loans and interest, would have sat as just that on the balance sheet, and if paid, surely would have counted as loss/outgoings.

However, in effect, of someone converts debt to shares, is this not akin to income, thus not a loss? In effect a party or parties have effectively paid an amount (the debt) for shares, which is how most plcs, for example, raise cash for investment.

Or have a missed something?


Your understanding is correct, and the poster above you is mistaken in two ways.

First, to the extent the item is reflected in a profit/loss statement, its income and not loss.

Second, and more relevantly, these types of items don't count towards FFP.
0
QPR Companies House on 10:34 - Jul 18 with 2943 viewsisawqpratwcity

QPR Companies House on 09:05 - Jul 18 by qprd

Your understanding is correct, and the poster above you is mistaken in two ways.

First, to the extent the item is reflected in a profit/loss statement, its income and not loss.

Second, and more relevantly, these types of items don't count towards FFP.


Of course it counts toward FFP, or FFP would be unenforceable. Everyone would just convert 'loans' to shares, while spending as much as they like.

Poll: Deaths of Thatcher and Mandela this year: Sad or Glad?

0
QPR Companies House on 13:14 - Jul 18 with 2830 viewsrrrspricey

QPR Companies House on 14:09 - Jul 17 by Northernr



There are a few tweets on that thread from a "Mr Jones"...is he that knob Scott that appeared on here and WATRB a few years back?
0
QPR Companies House on 13:29 - Jul 18 with 2809 viewsrsonist

QPR Companies House on 13:14 - Jul 18 by rrrspricey

There are a few tweets on that thread from a "Mr Jones"...is he that knob Scott that appeared on here and WATRB a few years back?


Correct.
0
QPR Companies House on 13:52 - Jul 18 with 2755 viewsqprd

QPR Companies House on 10:34 - Jul 18 by isawqpratwcity

Of course it counts toward FFP, or FFP would be unenforceable. Everyone would just convert 'loans' to shares, while spending as much as they like.


The opposite is true.

Take a look at QPR's P&L from a few years ago:

https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/8qSVgoTvL6-1XZW

In particular, look at page 8. In the P&L, there is 60m of income characterized as "Exceptional item". Because of this exceptional item, QPR's operating loss was 65m, but their actual loss was only 10m.

Next to the exceptional item line item on page, there is a footnote 3 which explains the exceptional item. Footnote 3 says verbatim "The exceptional item in the prior year is historic loans that the shareholders agreed to write off".

So yes, the opposite is true. Writeoffs get reflected as income on the income statement and not loss. For this reason, they don't count towards FFP because they create a workaround for owners to skirt FFP rules.

Technically, there is a slightly different accounting treatment for pure write offs vs capitalization, but no one cares so ill leave it at that....
0
QPR Companies House on 14:03 - Jul 18 with 2740 viewsisawqpratwcity

QPR Companies House on 13:52 - Jul 18 by qprd

The opposite is true.

Take a look at QPR's P&L from a few years ago:

https://document-api-images-prod.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/8qSVgoTvL6-1XZW

In particular, look at page 8. In the P&L, there is 60m of income characterized as "Exceptional item". Because of this exceptional item, QPR's operating loss was 65m, but their actual loss was only 10m.

Next to the exceptional item line item on page, there is a footnote 3 which explains the exceptional item. Footnote 3 says verbatim "The exceptional item in the prior year is historic loans that the shareholders agreed to write off".

So yes, the opposite is true. Writeoffs get reflected as income on the income statement and not loss. For this reason, they don't count towards FFP because they create a workaround for owners to skirt FFP rules.

Technically, there is a slightly different accounting treatment for pure write offs vs capitalization, but no one cares so ill leave it at that....


The link didn't work. Was it for 2012-13?

Poll: Deaths of Thatcher and Mandela this year: Sad or Glad?

0
QPR Companies House on 15:22 - Jul 18 with 2636 viewsqueensparker

QPR Companies House on 13:14 - Jul 18 by rrrspricey

There are a few tweets on that thread from a "Mr Jones"...is he that knob Scott that appeared on here and WATRB a few years back?


I see his latest fantasy is that he's best mates with Tommy Robinson. What a step up from Paladini
0

Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2020