| QPR Finances released 06:25 - Feb 28 with 53015 views | Jeff |
From Kieran Maguire in the Twitter:
[Post edited 28 Feb 2023 6:29]
|  |
| |  |
| QPR Finances released on 17:58 - Mar 2 with 3729 views | PinnerPaul |
| QPR Finances released on 11:05 - Mar 2 by slmrstid |
The devil is in the detail, but all monies owed in the accounts are owed by the club, not by the owners. The money the owners stand to lose is simply their share capital in the club (which is still a hell of a lot of money!)
From the accounts, I make it gross liabilities of £96.5m, £69.5m of which is presented as being payable within twelve months, £27m over twelve months.
This is all a bit broad brush but those numbers can largely be attributable to:-
- Shareholder loans - £52.2m (notable that not all of their loans are converted to capital, so as long as they remain loans they are treated as one day being due to be paid back)
- EFL loans (Covid related, I would guess) - £5.7m
- FFP Settlement - £10.3m
- Bond + Unpaid Interest - £16.6m
- Transfer fees - £2.1m
- HMRC - £2.1m (although worth noting they owe us £775k in VAT at year end, so nets off at £1.4m, even though you cant do the cash bit as a set-off)
- Other thats not worth breaking down, trade payables, HP accounts etc - £7.5m
So the vast majority of our debt carrying in the accounts is still to owners and bond holders - these two items account for just over 70% of the overall creditors of the club.
Importantly, the club's Strategic Report also notes that the shareholders have extended their financial support commitment to 31 May 2024 under deed, which is a twelve month extension from the prior year accounts which said 31 May 2023 which I believe was causing some worry on the internet a few weeks ago. So we're not going to get the rug pulled from underneath us just yet. |
Thanks, very useful.
I was going to ask, assuming the training ground costs don't appear in the P & L, as we discussed above, it being a balance sheet item, the actual 'cost' to the owners is greater than the headline P & L loss - is that correct?
Also, re the staff numbers, would they include staff related to the training ground build like architects, project managers etc?
Thanks |  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 20:02 - Mar 2 with 3531 views | slmrstid |
| QPR Finances released on 17:58 - Mar 2 by PinnerPaul |
Thanks, very useful.
I was going to ask, assuming the training ground costs don't appear in the P & L, as we discussed above, it being a balance sheet item, the actual 'cost' to the owners is greater than the headline P & L loss - is that correct?
Also, re the staff numbers, would they include staff related to the training ground build like architects, project managers etc?
Thanks |
I can't imagine we have any construction related staff on our payroll - the construction project will be contracted to a company so all of that staff is on their books, not ours.
Not 100% understand what you mean on the cost to owners Q (sorry!) Ultimately, the cost to owners is the extent of their investment in the business. As it stands, the club is insolvent to the tune of £49m as of May 2022 which is why it continues to rely on funding.
The cost of the training ground is a cost to the club, not the owners. |  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 20:19 - Mar 2 with 3487 views | PunteR |
| QPR Finances released on 07:58 - Mar 2 by toboboly |
Funny how for all those years of 16th place finishes we were told it was a waiting game, other clubs would fall foul of FFP and we would take advantage by running a smooth ship. Then one decent half season we get all starry eyed and spunked the lot on Jeff Hendrick, this club, this fcking club. |
It makes my head hurt thinking about it. This club is just ridiculous sometimes. Just a constant let down. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 20:56 - Mar 2 with 3420 views | Rangersw12 |
| QPR Finances released on 20:19 - Mar 2 by PunteR |
It makes my head hurt thinking about it. This club is just ridiculous sometimes. Just a constant let down. |
Don't say that the Brentford nauses will be on in a min telling us where it's all going wrong 🙄 | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 22:18 - Mar 2 with 3305 views | JamesB1979 |
| QPR Finances released on 11:05 - Mar 2 by slmrstid |
The devil is in the detail, but all monies owed in the accounts are owed by the club, not by the owners. The money the owners stand to lose is simply their share capital in the club (which is still a hell of a lot of money!)
From the accounts, I make it gross liabilities of £96.5m, £69.5m of which is presented as being payable within twelve months, £27m over twelve months.
This is all a bit broad brush but those numbers can largely be attributable to:-
- Shareholder loans - £52.2m (notable that not all of their loans are converted to capital, so as long as they remain loans they are treated as one day being due to be paid back)
- EFL loans (Covid related, I would guess) - £5.7m
- FFP Settlement - £10.3m
- Bond + Unpaid Interest - £16.6m
- Transfer fees - £2.1m
- HMRC - £2.1m (although worth noting they owe us £775k in VAT at year end, so nets off at £1.4m, even though you cant do the cash bit as a set-off)
- Other thats not worth breaking down, trade payables, HP accounts etc - £7.5m
So the vast majority of our debt carrying in the accounts is still to owners and bond holders - these two items account for just over 70% of the overall creditors of the club.
Importantly, the club's Strategic Report also notes that the shareholders have extended their financial support commitment to 31 May 2024 under deed, which is a twelve month extension from the prior year accounts which said 31 May 2023 which I believe was causing some worry on the internet a few weeks ago. So we're not going to get the rug pulled from underneath us just yet. |
Shareholder loans - this isn’t debt. Yes you put it in liabilities on the balance sheet but it’s not debt. It’s just a way to rank payments back to the owners ie. The shareholders. Think about what happens if they call this debt in? The shareholders are calling in debt on a company they own? We look at a lot of companies in my industry and it’s never treated as debt.
Trade payables - not debt (unless a lot of overdues in there). Need to look at the trade debtors here, which stand at 2m.
Also don’t forget we have 8m cash apparently. Got to include that.
FFP - aren’t owners paying that? So imagine this will be paid and become a shareholder loan eventually.
The bond would normally be a debt but is it also convertible?
7.5m other - your including accruals here I think of 5.5m…again exclude that.
So if we assume bond is convertible then our gross debt is c10m. Our net debt is roughly breakeven. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 23:28 - Mar 2 with 3178 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR Finances released on 09:34 - Mar 2 by francisbowles |
Yes, I understand your point but the fact is even if we were Cat1 other clubs could still pinch from our academy albeit it would cost them a jar of peanuts instead of a small bag.
Better facilities and a pathway to the first team, would be helpful in persuading some of those they try to pinch, that they might want to stay here.
It's not perfect or foolproof but we have just built it, having waited years for it, so if the owners are happy to give it a chance, then we should. It apparently makes sod all difference to FFP. |
Having provided no supporting evidence, I disagree with your jar of peanuts analogy. It stands to reason that if QPR were Cat 1, it could pinch players from Cat 2, develop them and make a profit.
As for pathway to the first team you still don't understand my point, so I'll give you a better analogy. When I was a young student I had a part-time job at the local supermarket operating the till. My name badge said 'Checkout Operator'. One day the store announced a refresh and supplied new uniforms. My new name badge said 'Customer Services Executive' but I was still ringing the till.
The point is getting rid of the Academy doesn't mean getting rid of the young players within it. Those same players will operate under a different umbrella (be it B Team, U18, Reserves, Customer Services) but continue to work at the same training ground, using the same facilities, with the same pathway to the first team. The difference is the club won't be vulnerable to EPPP so there's less chance of losing prospects for peanuts.
The club chose to move direction from spending millions on PL prima-donnas to developing players. This strategy will only work if QPR can buy low and sell high, the latter of which won't happen with any regularity if Cat1 clubs can just pop along and help themselves to our best young prospects.
Ultimately the proof is in the pudding. Having lost 5 players to EPPP, QPR have no talent coming through, are reliant on loans, made only £250k in player sales and posted a loss of £25m for 2021/22. That makes a lot of difference to FFP. |  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 07:48 - Mar 3 with 2981 views | SimonD |
| QPR Finances released on 23:28 - Mar 2 by Benny_the_Ball |
Having provided no supporting evidence, I disagree with your jar of peanuts analogy. It stands to reason that if QPR were Cat 1, it could pinch players from Cat 2, develop them and make a profit.
As for pathway to the first team you still don't understand my point, so I'll give you a better analogy. When I was a young student I had a part-time job at the local supermarket operating the till. My name badge said 'Checkout Operator'. One day the store announced a refresh and supplied new uniforms. My new name badge said 'Customer Services Executive' but I was still ringing the till.
The point is getting rid of the Academy doesn't mean getting rid of the young players within it. Those same players will operate under a different umbrella (be it B Team, U18, Reserves, Customer Services) but continue to work at the same training ground, using the same facilities, with the same pathway to the first team. The difference is the club won't be vulnerable to EPPP so there's less chance of losing prospects for peanuts.
The club chose to move direction from spending millions on PL prima-donnas to developing players. This strategy will only work if QPR can buy low and sell high, the latter of which won't happen with any regularity if Cat1 clubs can just pop along and help themselves to our best young prospects.
Ultimately the proof is in the pudding. Having lost 5 players to EPPP, QPR have no talent coming through, are reliant on loans, made only £250k in player sales and posted a loss of £25m for 2021/22. That makes a lot of difference to FFP. |
The jar of peanuts analogy is fine with me. The compensations is:
U9 - U11 - £3,000 per season regardless of category
U12 - U16
Cat 1 - £40,000 per season
Cat 2 - £25,000 per season
Cat 3 - £12,500 per season
So if a 15 year old kid, who had been at the club since he was 9 the compensation would be:
From a Cat 2 Academy: (3*3000)+(4*25,000) = £109,000
From a Cat 1 Academy: (3*3000)+(4*40,000) = £169,000 | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 08:24 - Mar 3 with 2907 views | QPR_Jim |
| QPR Finances released on 23:28 - Mar 2 by Benny_the_Ball |
Having provided no supporting evidence, I disagree with your jar of peanuts analogy. It stands to reason that if QPR were Cat 1, it could pinch players from Cat 2, develop them and make a profit.
As for pathway to the first team you still don't understand my point, so I'll give you a better analogy. When I was a young student I had a part-time job at the local supermarket operating the till. My name badge said 'Checkout Operator'. One day the store announced a refresh and supplied new uniforms. My new name badge said 'Customer Services Executive' but I was still ringing the till.
The point is getting rid of the Academy doesn't mean getting rid of the young players within it. Those same players will operate under a different umbrella (be it B Team, U18, Reserves, Customer Services) but continue to work at the same training ground, using the same facilities, with the same pathway to the first team. The difference is the club won't be vulnerable to EPPP so there's less chance of losing prospects for peanuts.
The club chose to move direction from spending millions on PL prima-donnas to developing players. This strategy will only work if QPR can buy low and sell high, the latter of which won't happen with any regularity if Cat1 clubs can just pop along and help themselves to our best young prospects.
Ultimately the proof is in the pudding. Having lost 5 players to EPPP, QPR have no talent coming through, are reliant on loans, made only £250k in player sales and posted a loss of £25m for 2021/22. That makes a lot of difference to FFP. |
I think what you're describing is a Cat4 academy, but assuming that you could go lower than that, our players would still get poached and could use the EPPP framework to get the fee down even further. I don't think there's an option to just change the name or rating of your academy to become exempt from EPPP
Besides, how do you attract talent to an academy that's lower ranked anyway? I could understand maybe cat2 with a pathway is better than cat 1 without but cat4 seems like a much bigger gamble for the player, so what are you going to be working with? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| QPR Finances released on 08:53 - Mar 3 with 2852 views | slmrstid |
| QPR Finances released on 22:18 - Mar 2 by JamesB1979 |
Shareholder loans - this isn’t debt. Yes you put it in liabilities on the balance sheet but it’s not debt. It’s just a way to rank payments back to the owners ie. The shareholders. Think about what happens if they call this debt in? The shareholders are calling in debt on a company they own? We look at a lot of companies in my industry and it’s never treated as debt.
Trade payables - not debt (unless a lot of overdues in there). Need to look at the trade debtors here, which stand at 2m.
Also don’t forget we have 8m cash apparently. Got to include that.
FFP - aren’t owners paying that? So imagine this will be paid and become a shareholder loan eventually.
The bond would normally be a debt but is it also convertible?
7.5m other - your including accruals here I think of 5.5m…again exclude that.
So if we assume bond is convertible then our gross debt is c10m. Our net debt is roughly breakeven. |
I said gross creditors, not net.
And trying to say all those items isn't debt is simply untrue.
Its also worth noting the current net liability position is minus £57m. That £8m cash isn't going to get you very far without significant future funding from someone.
The owners may not call in their debt - but it is debt and it is owed to them, and is until they either decide to call it in or convert it to capital.
Trade payables are debt regardless of whether they are overdue or not.
Accruals are debt because it is still money you expect to be paying out in the near future, which you may not yet have crystallised in other aspects of the accounts (such as payables).
I know we all want to get as much comfort as possible about the club's financial status, but also there's no point kidding ourselves about some of the uglyness of that balance sheet. [Post edited 3 Mar 2023 9:13]
| | | |
| QPR Finances released on 09:07 - Mar 3 with 2809 views | bosh67 |
If we'd asked Ivan Toney to put a £1,000 accumulator on 3-1 defeats for us we'd be out of this mess by now. |  |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 09:19 - Mar 3 with 2767 views | francisbowles |
| QPR Finances released on 23:28 - Mar 2 by Benny_the_Ball |
Having provided no supporting evidence, I disagree with your jar of peanuts analogy. It stands to reason that if QPR were Cat 1, it could pinch players from Cat 2, develop them and make a profit.
As for pathway to the first team you still don't understand my point, so I'll give you a better analogy. When I was a young student I had a part-time job at the local supermarket operating the till. My name badge said 'Checkout Operator'. One day the store announced a refresh and supplied new uniforms. My new name badge said 'Customer Services Executive' but I was still ringing the till.
The point is getting rid of the Academy doesn't mean getting rid of the young players within it. Those same players will operate under a different umbrella (be it B Team, U18, Reserves, Customer Services) but continue to work at the same training ground, using the same facilities, with the same pathway to the first team. The difference is the club won't be vulnerable to EPPP so there's less chance of losing prospects for peanuts.
The club chose to move direction from spending millions on PL prima-donnas to developing players. This strategy will only work if QPR can buy low and sell high, the latter of which won't happen with any regularity if Cat1 clubs can just pop along and help themselves to our best young prospects.
Ultimately the proof is in the pudding. Having lost 5 players to EPPP, QPR have no talent coming through, are reliant on loans, made only £250k in player sales and posted a loss of £25m for 2021/22. That makes a lot of difference to FFP. |
So you're saying that by not calling it an academy anymore, other clubs could no longer pinch our young players.
I don't think that's going to work. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 09:46 - Mar 3 with 2688 views | RangersDave |
| QPR Finances released on 11:54 - Mar 2 by BrianMcCarthy |
The bottle is loaned. |
and knowing our luck, empty too ! 🤬🤬🤬 |  |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 10:19 - Mar 3 with 2625 views | SimonD |
I apologise in advance of anyone watching this.
Who'd have guess that I'd get more down and broken over this than Clive? | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 18:07 - Mar 3 with 2413 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR Finances released on 07:48 - Mar 3 by SimonD |
The jar of peanuts analogy is fine with me. The compensations is:
U9 - U11 - £3,000 per season regardless of category
U12 - U16
Cat 1 - £40,000 per season
Cat 2 - £25,000 per season
Cat 3 - £12,500 per season
So if a 15 year old kid, who had been at the club since he was 9 the compensation would be:
From a Cat 2 Academy: (3*3000)+(4*25,000) = £109,000
From a Cat 1 Academy: (3*3000)+(4*40,000) = £169,000 |
It's not fine with me. Drilling down to unit figures is a very binary approach that doesn't consider the bigger picture, as explained in my earlier post.
Moreover, your figures only lend more weight to my argument against running an Academy (if indeed more were needed after the latest set of figures). [Post edited 3 Mar 2023 18:12]
| | | |
| QPR Finances released on 18:11 - Mar 3 with 2408 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR Finances released on 09:19 - Mar 3 by francisbowles |
So you're saying that by not calling it an academy anymore, other clubs could no longer pinch our young players.
I don't think that's going to work. |
Don't just think, look around you and learn. It worked for others. What makes Les (or you for that matter) think that they know better? The latest accounts do not lie, no matter how hard you try and sugar coat it. [Post edited 3 Mar 2023 18:13]
| | | |
| QPR Finances released on 19:20 - Mar 3 with 2346 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| QPR Finances released on 18:11 - Mar 3 by Benny_the_Ball |
Don't just think, look around you and learn. It worked for others. What makes Les (or you for that matter) think that they know better? The latest accounts do not lie, no matter how hard you try and sugar coat it. [Post edited 3 Mar 2023 18:13]
|
You have changed your tune. You said FFP was a hoax last week. |  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 19:50 - Mar 3 with 2265 views | paulparker |
| QPR Finances released on 19:20 - Mar 3 by BazzaInTheLoft |
You have changed your tune. You said FFP was a hoax last week. |
Are you going to change your tune and admit Les and Hoos haven’t really done their job properly and it’s time for a change ? |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| QPR Finances released on 20:41 - Mar 3 with 2202 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| QPR Finances released on 19:50 - Mar 3 by paulparker |
Are you going to change your tune and admit Les and Hoos haven’t really done their job properly and it’s time for a change ? |
Well, I agree with half that statement if that helps. [Post edited 3 Mar 2023 20:46]
| | | |
| QPR Finances released on 21:45 - Mar 3 with 2099 views | PunteR |
| QPR Finances released on 20:41 - Mar 3 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Well, I agree with half that statement if that helps. [Post edited 3 Mar 2023 20:46]
|
Which half? | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 09:36 - Mar 4 with 1930 views | francisbowles |
| QPR Finances released on 18:11 - Mar 3 by Benny_the_Ball |
Don't just think, look around you and learn. It worked for others. What makes Les (or you for that matter) think that they know better? The latest accounts do not lie, no matter how hard you try and sugar coat it. [Post edited 3 Mar 2023 18:13]
|
I don't need to look around and I'm not sugar coating anything!
I'm not arguing with how bad the latest set of accounts are. This is football though, not any other business. It's an industry where this seems to be typical. As long as the owners continue to convert debt to equity, they don't present an immediate problem.
I am debating FFP and the academy, need for it and the fact it doesn't count towards it. Therefore, it follows that cutting it doesn't do anything to solve FFP. It might even make it worse as we would lose solidarity payments.
Our most pressing issue is FFP and there is only one realistic way to fill that probable £10 million deficit. That is to cut relevant costs of which by far the largest is player costs.
Rueben, Tony and others shareholders can worry about the accounts, for now. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 09:48 - Mar 4 with 1895 views | PunteR |
Can someone explain turning debt(money?) Into equity. And can this just keep going?
And what's this £90 odd million we owe the owners ? [Post edited 4 Mar 2023 9:54]
| |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 10:37 - Mar 4 with 1815 views | terryb |
| QPR Finances released on 09:48 - Mar 4 by PunteR |
Can someone explain turning debt(money?) Into equity. And can this just keep going?
And what's this £90 odd million we owe the owners ? [Post edited 4 Mar 2023 9:54]
|
I'm not an expert Punter, but I will try to answer you & let others correct me.
Turning debt into equity - Roughly speaking, you issue more shares in the club/company which are taken up by the debtors. Instead of paying for the new shares, it reduces the debt that you owe to them.
£90 million owed to the owners - Again, this is only roughly speaking. This would be for the amounts that Reuben etc have paid out to keep the club afloat, like the £2 million a month that Clive refers to. They are not allowed under the FFP regulations to make these payments as gifts & they have to be loans. The same applies to the FFP fine that is currently being paid off. [Post edited 4 Mar 2023 10:39]
| | | |
| QPR Finances released on 11:11 - Mar 4 with 1786 views | PunteR |
| QPR Finances released on 10:37 - Mar 4 by terryb |
I'm not an expert Punter, but I will try to answer you & let others correct me.
Turning debt into equity - Roughly speaking, you issue more shares in the club/company which are taken up by the debtors. Instead of paying for the new shares, it reduces the debt that you owe to them.
£90 million owed to the owners - Again, this is only roughly speaking. This would be for the amounts that Reuben etc have paid out to keep the club afloat, like the £2 million a month that Clive refers to. They are not allowed under the FFP regulations to make these payments as gifts & they have to be loans. The same applies to the FFP fine that is currently being paid off. [Post edited 4 Mar 2023 10:39]
|
Thanks Terry. I struggle getting my head around these accounts , it takes me awhile..lol
I think someone has tried explaining this to me before.
So lets say the club if you wanted to buy it was worth £10 mill before, now with the debt (£90 mill)turned into equity the club is worth £100 mill.? | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 14:37 - Mar 4 with 1709 views | terryb |
| QPR Finances released on 11:11 - Mar 4 by PunteR |
Thanks Terry. I struggle getting my head around these accounts , it takes me awhile..lol
I think someone has tried explaining this to me before.
So lets say the club if you wanted to buy it was worth £10 mill before, now with the debt (£90 mill)turned into equity the club is worth £100 mill.? |
That would depend on whether the owners were prepared to write off the £90m debt! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
