| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole 17:20 - Jul 28 with 4598 views | enfieldargh |
Its a bit of a snide cop out to sell your ground to your owner. Derby sold for an over inflated cost of 80m and wiping out 40 million debt and sticking 40 M into the bank.
As someone mentioned surely you can only do this once plus its a hell of a lot of VAT(dont tell me thats exempt!)
If we tried to sell LR prime real estate in posh W12 we'd only get 15 million whilst Pride Park Meccano set stadium built on wasteland on the outskirts of one of the East Midlands most boring places in the country goes for what 80 million? Bloody estate agents
https://www.worldfootball.net/news/_n3722513_/ferdinand-urges-football-league-to |  |
| |  |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 17:31 - Jul 28 with 3532 views | isawqpratwcity |
I hope they do close that loophole.
We don't have a good record of spending large sums wisely. |  |
| |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 22:58 - Jul 28 with 2873 views | Northolt_Rs |
At least he has confirmed we’ve raised this as an issue with the EFL. |  |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 04:12 - Jul 29 with 2655 views | ozexile |
I thought FFP was allegedly bought in to stop this exact thing happening. |  | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 08:22 - Jul 29 with 2421 views | ElHoop |
If FFP is fundamentally unfair then I'm not sure that shutting the loopholes is the correct line of attack. |  | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:03 - Jul 29 with 2355 views | stevec |
As ludicrous as this loop hole is, the fundamental flaw in Les argument is that in 2014 we couldn’t have taken advantage even if this loophole had been available due to the simple fact the club didn’t own either the training ground or the stadium then either.
I maybe wrong but thought the ground was ‘sold’ some years back to the Directors during one of our previous encounters with financial prudency? |  | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:07 - Jul 29 with 2343 views | distortR |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 08:22 - Jul 29 by ElHoop |
If FFP is fundamentally unfair then I'm not sure that shutting the loopholes is the correct line of attack. |
The concept of ffp isn't fundamentally unfair, imho.
What it should do is stop reckless owners loading clubs with debt.
If someone wants to spend their own money bankrolling a team, I think that should be up to them.
But ffp seems to have been imposed with a lack of forethought, hence the changes in rules as it goes along. The fair thing to do would be to repeal the past and start again - but they can't do that as, although they can repay us, they can't undo the effect transfer embargo's have had on other teams. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:14 - Jul 29 with 2329 views | ElHoop |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:07 - Jul 29 by distortR |
The concept of ffp isn't fundamentally unfair, imho.
What it should do is stop reckless owners loading clubs with debt.
If someone wants to spend their own money bankrolling a team, I think that should be up to them.
But ffp seems to have been imposed with a lack of forethought, hence the changes in rules as it goes along. The fair thing to do would be to repeal the past and start again - but they can't do that as, although they can repay us, they can't undo the effect transfer embargo's have had on other teams. |
Well it is not fundamentally unfair if the owners convert their loans in to shares and do not saddle the company with debt. I think that most owners will ultimately fall into that category. In the past, owners have saddled clubs with third party debt and then disappeared. That should be what FFP protects us against.
If Sir Les asked the question 'what exactly is FFP trying to achieve with the FL giving real life situations as examples' then that would be a lot more productive, especially if he actually received an answer. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:25 - Jul 29 with 2295 views | distortR |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:14 - Jul 29 by ElHoop |
Well it is not fundamentally unfair if the owners convert their loans in to shares and do not saddle the company with debt. I think that most owners will ultimately fall into that category. In the past, owners have saddled clubs with third party debt and then disappeared. That should be what FFP protects us against.
If Sir Les asked the question 'what exactly is FFP trying to achieve with the FL giving real life situations as examples' then that would be a lot more productive, especially if he actually received an answer. |
Agreed.
Although whether certain owners would have converted their loans into shares without ffp looming over them may be considered a moot point. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:31 - Jul 29 with 2278 views | ElHoop |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:25 - Jul 29 by distortR |
Agreed.
Although whether certain owners would have converted their loans into shares without ffp looming over them may be considered a moot point. |
But converting loans into shares doesn't help at all with FFP.
Whether or not they thought that they'd get the loans back one day, the losses themselves would still determine whether or not they fail FFP rules. Converting loans to shares doesn't reduce a loss, it just means that the lender has accepted that the money won't be repaid by the club and the club can't be closed down for not repaying the loan. Somebody somewhere needs to give the League a number of different situations and ask them to explain what is wrong with some of those situations and why they are all treated in the same way. I might even do it myself if I get the time. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:41 - Jul 29 with 2250 views | distortR |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:31 - Jul 29 by ElHoop |
But converting loans into shares doesn't help at all with FFP.
Whether or not they thought that they'd get the loans back one day, the losses themselves would still determine whether or not they fail FFP rules. Converting loans to shares doesn't reduce a loss, it just means that the lender has accepted that the money won't be repaid by the club and the club can't be closed down for not repaying the loan. Somebody somewhere needs to give the League a number of different situations and ask them to explain what is wrong with some of those situations and why they are all treated in the same way. I might even do it myself if I get the time. |
I know mate, but converting loans into shares does reduce the club's indebtedness, which is surely what ffp wants to achieve.
I think we're in agreement!
the efl's implementation of ffp has been haphazard at best................. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:56 - Jul 29 with 2206 views | daveB |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:03 - Jul 29 by stevec |
As ludicrous as this loop hole is, the fundamental flaw in Les argument is that in 2014 we couldn’t have taken advantage even if this loophole had been available due to the simple fact the club didn’t own either the training ground or the stadium then either.
I maybe wrong but thought the ground was ‘sold’ some years back to the Directors during one of our previous encounters with financial prudency? |
The club do own the stadium so could have done it if they wanted to but thankfully didn't |  | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:58 - Jul 29 with 2199 views | ElHoop |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:41 - Jul 29 by distortR |
I know mate, but converting loans into shares does reduce the club's indebtedness, which is surely what ffp wants to achieve.
I think we're in agreement!
the efl's implementation of ffp has been haphazard at best................. |
I think that we are in agreement but I don't think that a lot of people understand that writing off the debt doesn't help with FFP. Not you though!
We tried to show the debt write off as 'income' in our accounts in order to avoid FFP, but they rejected that treatment. The panel which looked into it clearly took the view that the 'write off' shouldn't be allowed as a reduction of the losses, so in so doing they confirmed the policy of the FL to treat unpaid secured third party debt exactly the same as capital introduced by the owners. It's a dubious policy as everyone knows, but I'm not sure that banging on about stadium sales and such like is going to make things fundamentally better. It's so bloody obvious that selling your ground to avoid FFP is potentially far more risky for the future of a football club compared to owners putting up money which they don't expect to see again. At the end of the day I doubt that selling the odd ground for cosmetic reasons is going to do much harm to the finances of the FL. Preventing owners investing in clubs is and will do great damage, because that type of person will want to invest in short term success and not just long term infrastructure. This type of person has in the past tended to be a local person who has done well out of life and wants to give something back to the community by investing in the local football club. What's the point in stopping that you Football League blazers? | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:31 - Jul 29 with 2139 views | stevec |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 09:56 - Jul 29 by daveB |
The club do own the stadium so could have done it if they wanted to but thankfully didn't |
Are you sure about that?
I thought the club was 'sold' to Directors a long time ago and set up as a separate Company to protect it from Creditors if we'd ever gone down the same road as earlier this Century.
In which case, I don't think the club could legitimately sell it 'back' to cover any FFP shortfall.
Could be wrong though. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:35 - Jul 29 with 2133 views | daveB |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:31 - Jul 29 by stevec |
Are you sure about that?
I thought the club was 'sold' to Directors a long time ago and set up as a separate Company to protect it from Creditors if we'd ever gone down the same road as earlier this Century.
In which case, I don't think the club could legitimately sell it 'back' to cover any FFP shortfall.
Could be wrong though. |
I may well be wrong but don't remember that happening | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:57 - Jul 29 with 2085 views | Roller |
Under the heading of Freehold Land and Buildings in the Current Assets section of the last set of published accounts for QPR Holdings Ltd is a value of £17,136,000. I can't think what that would be if not the stadium. |  | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 11:11 - Jul 29 with 2051 views | isawqpratwcity |
As long as the club owns the stadium, there is nothing to stop the owners from setting up another company to purchase the stadium from the club and then hand it back on a peppercorn lease. But even if that gave us £100 million, we've spunked more than that in the past for no benefit whatsoever.
Don't forget, too, how the current stadium fails to provide the club with a sustainable business model. | |
| |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 11:25 - Jul 29 with 2013 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:57 - Jul 29 by Roller |
Under the heading of Freehold Land and Buildings in the Current Assets section of the last set of published accounts for QPR Holdings Ltd is a value of £17,136,000. I can't think what that would be if not the stadium. |
Must be mostly that Si. May include Harlington if we own that as well I guess? |  | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 11:33 - Jul 29 with 1982 views | ElHoop |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:57 - Jul 29 by Roller |
Under the heading of Freehold Land and Buildings in the Current Assets section of the last set of published accounts for QPR Holdings Ltd is a value of £17,136,000. I can't think what that would be if not the stadium. |
I think that we borrowed against the freehold in the past - a loan from ABC I think it was - someone a bit dodgy looking at the time anyway, and at high rates of interest, which made us very vulnerable. However I think that was paid off when Briatore's lot took over. We could end up doing what others have done, and future owners might want to take that option, so I'm not sure why we would want the loophole closed. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 11:35 - Jul 29 with 1976 views | distortR |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:57 - Jul 29 by Roller |
Under the heading of Freehold Land and Buildings in the Current Assets section of the last set of published accounts for QPR Holdings Ltd is a value of £17,136,000. I can't think what that would be if not the stadium. |
Qpr holdings are involved in building 600+ flats at royal oak - could it be part of that?
And does anyone know how qpr holdings property development will interact with the football side of things?
We are working with Genesis Housing Association in this development, "The housing association that will no longer build homes for the poor".
Genesis blamed government policy for it's decision, but funded the think policies that helped guide the government to that decision.
that info taken from a guardian article after i googled genesis ha | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 12:19 - Jul 29 with 1906 views | Benny_the_Ball |
What sticks in the throat is not the loophole per se but the fact that the loophole allows clubs like Derby to do the very thing that QPR was clobbered for. |  | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 12:38 - Jul 29 with 1867 views | Roller |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 11:35 - Jul 29 by distortR |
Qpr holdings are involved in building 600+ flats at royal oak - could it be part of that?
And does anyone know how qpr holdings property development will interact with the football side of things?
We are working with Genesis Housing Association in this development, "The housing association that will no longer build homes for the poor".
Genesis blamed government policy for it's decision, but funded the think policies that helped guide the government to that decision.
that info taken from a guardian article after i googled genesis ha |
Regardless of how the press report it, I'd be very surprised if any land purchased in Royal Oak or any development on it was on QPR Holdings books.
The equivalent freehold land and building figure in the May 2010 accounts is £21,250,000. There have been a number of additions all less than £1m (possibly the costs associated with the big screen and perimeter advertising etc.), a substantial re-evaluation down and standard depreciation charges. Nothing strikes me as exceptional.
I'm pretty sure that Imperial College own Harlington, but I can't recall who owns Heston. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 12:46 - Jul 29 with 1847 views | CroydonCaptJack |
I think a standard depreciation charge is 2% per annum but only on the buildings element of that so I can see why the book value would have gone down since 2010. You could write the asset value up for a revaluation but then your depreciation charge would increase and I am sure they so not want that. If and when we eventually move then I am sure the development value would be higher. | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 12:50 - Jul 29 with 1838 views | DejR_vu |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 22:58 - Jul 28 by Northolt_Rs |
At least he has confirmed we’ve raised this as an issue with the EFL. |
That should do it! 
In all seriousness, all of the clubs that are attempting to adhere to the rules in spirit as well as fact, should start with a coordinated approach to the authorities en masse. That seems pretty obvious but it sounds like Middlesbrough are attempting to take a stand on their own. If they continue to let certain clubs ride a Coach and Horses through it I would have thought the majority could agitate sufficiently to either force a rule amendment or just ignore it all together and the FL will end up with a farcical situation where about 20 of their members get points deductions, pretty much destroying the league as a sporting contest. | |
| |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 16:22 - Jul 29 with 1627 views | PinnerPaul |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 10:57 - Jul 29 by Roller |
Under the heading of Freehold Land and Buildings in the Current Assets section of the last set of published accounts for QPR Holdings Ltd is a value of £17,136,000. I can't think what that would be if not the stadium. |
Some must be the players? | | | |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 16:45 - Jul 29 with 1585 views | WatfordR |
| Les Speaks up on FFP loophole on 16:22 - Jul 29 by PinnerPaul |
Some must be the players? |
Given that it comes under the heading of Freehold Land and Buildings, possibly only Matt Smith the elder |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
