| Club Accounts 12:42 - Feb 17 with 14488 views | wombat |
Due out oin the next few days i belive |  |
| |  |
| Club Accounts on 07:17 - Feb 19 with 1911 views | JamesB1979 |
| Club Accounts on 23:36 - Feb 18 by stainrods_elbow |
As the data shows, it isn't merely, or even mostly, a matter of turnover or budgets - it's a question of culture and mindset. Ours isn't so much aspirational as moribund! |
All those things are needed to be a successful football club. I would also say that all of them take time to build. |  | | |
| Club Accounts on 08:13 - Feb 19 with 1730 views | Northernr |
| Club Accounts on 23:14 - Feb 18 by daveB |
Yes that is true and I wonder if thats part of why the club don't seem worried |
As I understand the new rules it restricts you to spending a percentage of your revenue on wages and transfer fees - 85% I think is the limit the Prem has set. Given we're spending 98%, and it's going up, and we're handing out long contracts, I'm not sure that's going to save us either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
SCR will not worry the biggest clubs with the best commercial operations.
But linking the wage bill to income is not attractive to clubs with less financial resources.
That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against.
Bournemouth's ground holds just over 11,000 but they need to pay Premier League wages so could be one of the losers, and it is a similar situation for Fulham.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Club Accounts on 08:48 - Feb 19 with 1635 views | TheChef |
| Club Accounts on 17:30 - Feb 18 by mart_Goblin |
Trying to not be too negative as some have trouble with too much negativity on here .
So gave the Warnock / premier league mini-era the benefit of the doubt just in case.
But you are right . The 15 years before Warnock weren’t exactly wonderful times .
It proves my point more emphatically that I think as a fanbase , we have been patient long enough .
But all we really get is more people year after year swan through telling us we “need to be patient” whilst certain fans climb on board and tell us we are too negative and just argue any point raised with nonsense stats or links that can be manipulated anyway your argument intends.
Apologies again. Sounds like a whinge.
But I just want to see the club start moving forward again, because don’t be under any illusion , we are a bit of a laughing stock of West London football at the moment.
As a loyal and passionate fan base , I think we deserve more than that .
And that isn’t really to do with today’s finances or Saturdays abomination.
Prolonged periods of improvement across the board. Not just the odd victory or the odd transfer window . Sustained improvements on and off the pitch .
Starting to think we will never see it .
And only speaking for myself, it can be demoralising. |
Don't worry, at some point we'll win another game and all will be fine for five minutes.
Then we'll lose another game and it will be the end of the world again. |  |
| |
| Club Accounts on 11:11 - Feb 19 with 1441 views | Hunterhoop |
| Club Accounts on 08:13 - Feb 19 by Northernr |
As I understand the new rules it restricts you to spending a percentage of your revenue on wages and transfer fees - 85% I think is the limit the Prem has set. Given we're spending 98%, and it's going up, and we're handing out long contracts, I'm not sure that's going to save us either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
SCR will not worry the biggest clubs with the best commercial operations.
But linking the wage bill to income is not attractive to clubs with less financial resources.
That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against.
Bournemouth's ground holds just over 11,000 but they need to pay Premier League wages so could be one of the losers, and it is a similar situation for Fulham.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Isn’t our 98% just wages, and excludes net transfer spend?
Even more reason why we need to sell well. Whether it is PSR or the potential wages/transfer spend to income, we are going to need to sell well and regularly.
For that to happen players need to first be fit, and secondly, playing in a team that is doing reasonably well, as well as the obvious invest in the right players to begin with. |  | | |
| Club Accounts on 11:47 - Feb 19 with 1319 views | dm97 |
| Club Accounts on 08:13 - Feb 19 by Northernr |
As I understand the new rules it restricts you to spending a percentage of your revenue on wages and transfer fees - 85% I think is the limit the Prem has set. Given we're spending 98%, and it's going up, and we're handing out long contracts, I'm not sure that's going to save us either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
SCR will not worry the biggest clubs with the best commercial operations.
But linking the wage bill to income is not attractive to clubs with less financial resources.
That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against.
Bournemouth's ground holds just over 11,000 but they need to pay Premier League wages so could be one of the losers, and it is a similar situation for Fulham.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Right understood. Yeah you would assume if applied at championship level the thresholds would be uplifted to account for the bat s*** crazy revenue to wage ratios across the league.
Ours is awful by premier league/european standards, but from memory Kieran Maguire has said it’s about average for the league (90-100% that is)? Again not absolving us here just pointing out that while it’s mental for a normal business to operate like this but it isn’t for a championship football club in 2026.
The deeper we get into this mire the worse the landscape for the championship looks like. Probably the most financially inept league in the world, and no signs of a regulator doing anything to address the balance with premier league opulence.
Leicester look set to follow SW, Derby, Bury and on and on it goes |  | | |
| Club Accounts on 12:19 - Feb 19 with 1223 views | Northernr |
| Club Accounts on 11:47 - Feb 19 by dm97 |
Right understood. Yeah you would assume if applied at championship level the thresholds would be uplifted to account for the bat s*** crazy revenue to wage ratios across the league.
Ours is awful by premier league/european standards, but from memory Kieran Maguire has said it’s about average for the league (90-100% that is)? Again not absolving us here just pointing out that while it’s mental for a normal business to operate like this but it isn’t for a championship football club in 2026.
The deeper we get into this mire the worse the landscape for the championship looks like. Probably the most financially inept league in the world, and no signs of a regulator doing anything to address the balance with premier league opulence.
Leicester look set to follow SW, Derby, Bury and on and on it goes |
Yeh it's about par for the Championship course but you become Sheff Wed the moment the owner turns the tap off, particularly in our case where atm we have pitiful other revenue streams. | | | |
| Club Accounts on 12:27 - Feb 19 with 1183 views | HammersmithR |
Well Co-Pilots view of our accounts…
⭐ Summary of the Main Points from the Accounts
1. Financial Performance
• Turnover: £28.0m (up from £25.9m).
“Group turnover was £28.0m, which is higher than in the previous year (£25.9m).”
• Gate receipts: £6.8m (slightly down).
• Operating loss: £18m after player trading (up from £13m).
• Overall loss for the year: £20m.
“The loss for the year amounted to £20m (2024: £13.5m).”
• Bank reserves: £1.9m (down from £2.2m).
• Net liabilities: £70.9m deficit (worse than £64.8m prior year).
2. Cash Flow
• Operating cash outflow: £13.2m.
• Player purchases: £6.4m (up from £1.1m).
• Shareholder financing received: £19m.
3. Going Concern
• The club is dependent on shareholder funding to survive.
• Three major shareholders have signed deeds of support promising up to £40.6m each until May 2027.
• BUT — these deeds are not legally binding, so the auditors highlight a material uncertainty. “This indicates that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
4. Player Trading Strategy
• Club explicitly states it is “fine tuning our player trading model” to comply with league financial rules.
• Aim: self‑sustainability and younger squad profile.
5. Corporate / Debt
• A £10m unsecured bond (6%) issued to the owner’s spouse has been extended to 2030 at 8%, with an option for a charge over the training ground. This is a related‑party transaction with governance implications.
6. Women’s Team
• Brought in‑house from the Community Trust.
• Cost: £260k.
7. Auditor’s Report
• Clean audit opinion.
• BUT: Material uncertainty over going concern due to reliance on shareholder funding.
• No issues with record‑keeping or compliance.
---
⭐ How This Looks Against EFL Championship Rules (PSR)
Here’s the key part: Are QPR in danger of breaching Profit & Sustainability Rules?
1. PSR Loss Limits
Championship clubs may lose:
• £39m over 3 years (averaging £13m per season),
• BUT only £5m of that can be actual cash losses — the rest must be covered by owner equity.
QPR’s position:
• Loss this year: £20m
• Loss last year: £13.5m
• Loss the year before (not shown here, but historically high)
This means QPR are almost certainly over the £39m rolling limit, unless:
• Large losses are excluded (academy, women’s football, infrastructure),
• Or owners convert loans to equity.
The accounts repeatedly emphasise:
• Player trading is essential to compliance.
• Shareholder funding is essential to survival.
This is exactly the language of a club operating right on the PSR edge.
2. Going Concern vs PSR
The auditors highlight: “Material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
This is not a PSR breach in itself, but it signals:
• Heavy reliance on owner funding
• No sustainable operating model
• High risk if owners withdraw support
The EFL expects clubs to demonstrate secure funding for the season — QPR just about meet this through shareholder deeds.
3. Related‑Party Transactions
The £10m bond to the owner’s spouse, now extended at 8% with potential security over the training ground, is:
• Allowed under EFL rules
• BUT must be declared and may be scrutinised for fair market terms
• Securing the training ground could affect future borrowing capacity
4. Player Trading Model
The club explicitly states this is the core mechanism for PSR compliance.
This aligns with EFL expectations — but also confirms:
• QPR must sell players regularly
• They cannot sustainably compete without sales
• Squad planning is financially driven
5. Shareholder Funding
The EFL allows owner funding, but:
• It must be equity, not loans, to count toward PSR
• These accounts show loans, not equity injections
• That means they do not reduce PSR losses
This is a critical point:
QPR’s reliance on loans worsens their PSR position.
---
⭐ Overall Assessment: Are QPR Compliant?
Based on the accounts:
QPR are compliant only because of:
• Player sales
• Owner funding
• Cost‑cutting
• A younger, cheaper squad
But they are operating at the very limit of PSR.
The accounts show:
• Large recurring losses
• Heavy reliance on owners
• No sustainable business model
• A need for ongoing player sales
• A material going‑concern warning
This is exactly the profile of a club that:
• Must sell players each summer
• Cannot afford relegation
• Cannot afford a major wage increase
• Is one bad season away from a PSR breach | | | |
| Club Accounts on 12:43 - Feb 19 with 1125 views | kensalriser |
I have to ask, is that AI slop at all useful in the context of all the other, sometimes quite informed, discussion here? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Club Accounts on 15:13 - Feb 19 with 843 views | wombat |
| Club Accounts on 12:27 - Feb 19 by HammersmithR |
Well Co-Pilots view of our accounts…
⭐ Summary of the Main Points from the Accounts
1. Financial Performance
• Turnover: £28.0m (up from £25.9m).
“Group turnover was £28.0m, which is higher than in the previous year (£25.9m).”
• Gate receipts: £6.8m (slightly down).
• Operating loss: £18m after player trading (up from £13m).
• Overall loss for the year: £20m.
“The loss for the year amounted to £20m (2024: £13.5m).”
• Bank reserves: £1.9m (down from £2.2m).
• Net liabilities: £70.9m deficit (worse than £64.8m prior year).
2. Cash Flow
• Operating cash outflow: £13.2m.
• Player purchases: £6.4m (up from £1.1m).
• Shareholder financing received: £19m.
3. Going Concern
• The club is dependent on shareholder funding to survive.
• Three major shareholders have signed deeds of support promising up to £40.6m each until May 2027.
• BUT — these deeds are not legally binding, so the auditors highlight a material uncertainty. “This indicates that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
4. Player Trading Strategy
• Club explicitly states it is “fine tuning our player trading model” to comply with league financial rules.
• Aim: self‑sustainability and younger squad profile.
5. Corporate / Debt
• A £10m unsecured bond (6%) issued to the owner’s spouse has been extended to 2030 at 8%, with an option for a charge over the training ground. This is a related‑party transaction with governance implications.
6. Women’s Team
• Brought in‑house from the Community Trust.
• Cost: £260k.
7. Auditor’s Report
• Clean audit opinion.
• BUT: Material uncertainty over going concern due to reliance on shareholder funding.
• No issues with record‑keeping or compliance.
---
⭐ How This Looks Against EFL Championship Rules (PSR)
Here’s the key part: Are QPR in danger of breaching Profit & Sustainability Rules?
1. PSR Loss Limits
Championship clubs may lose:
• £39m over 3 years (averaging £13m per season),
• BUT only £5m of that can be actual cash losses — the rest must be covered by owner equity.
QPR’s position:
• Loss this year: £20m
• Loss last year: £13.5m
• Loss the year before (not shown here, but historically high)
This means QPR are almost certainly over the £39m rolling limit, unless:
• Large losses are excluded (academy, women’s football, infrastructure),
• Or owners convert loans to equity.
The accounts repeatedly emphasise:
• Player trading is essential to compliance.
• Shareholder funding is essential to survival.
This is exactly the language of a club operating right on the PSR edge.
2. Going Concern vs PSR
The auditors highlight: “Material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
This is not a PSR breach in itself, but it signals:
• Heavy reliance on owner funding
• No sustainable operating model
• High risk if owners withdraw support
The EFL expects clubs to demonstrate secure funding for the season — QPR just about meet this through shareholder deeds.
3. Related‑Party Transactions
The £10m bond to the owner’s spouse, now extended at 8% with potential security over the training ground, is:
• Allowed under EFL rules
• BUT must be declared and may be scrutinised for fair market terms
• Securing the training ground could affect future borrowing capacity
4. Player Trading Model
The club explicitly states this is the core mechanism for PSR compliance.
This aligns with EFL expectations — but also confirms:
• QPR must sell players regularly
• They cannot sustainably compete without sales
• Squad planning is financially driven
5. Shareholder Funding
The EFL allows owner funding, but:
• It must be equity, not loans, to count toward PSR
• These accounts show loans, not equity injections
• That means they do not reduce PSR losses
This is a critical point:
QPR’s reliance on loans worsens their PSR position.
---
⭐ Overall Assessment: Are QPR Compliant?
Based on the accounts:
QPR are compliant only because of:
• Player sales
• Owner funding
• Cost‑cutting
• A younger, cheaper squad
But they are operating at the very limit of PSR.
The accounts show:
• Large recurring losses
• Heavy reliance on owners
• No sustainable business model
• A need for ongoing player sales
• A material going‑concern warning
This is exactly the profile of a club that:
• Must sell players each summer
• Cannot afford relegation
• Cannot afford a major wage increase
• Is one bad season away from a PSR breach |
So is nourry doing a cooking job ?
Asking for a friend | |
| |
| Club Accounts on 17:26 - Feb 19 with 658 views | BklynRanger |
| Club Accounts on 12:43 - Feb 19 by kensalriser |
I have to ask, is that AI slop at all useful in the context of all the other, sometimes quite informed, discussion here? |
I'm firmly anti-AI too, but I did a bit of a comparison yesterday on something else and co-pilot came out best of the culture-destroying, planet-ending options these days. Very good for summarising book chapters anyway.
So although there has been some decent discussion on here, few of us ever I'd say read the whole document, sometimes not even the document. At least this death-cyborg has done it for us, and this among other things makes concerning reading.
'5. Corporate / Debt
• A £10m unsecured bond (6%) issued to the owner’s spouse has been extended to 2030 at 8%, with an option for a charge over the training ground. This is a related‑party transaction with governance implications.' |  | | |
| Club Accounts on 17:37 - Feb 19 with 628 views | derbyhoop |
| Club Accounts on 17:26 - Feb 19 by BklynRanger |
I'm firmly anti-AI too, but I did a bit of a comparison yesterday on something else and co-pilot came out best of the culture-destroying, planet-ending options these days. Very good for summarising book chapters anyway.
So although there has been some decent discussion on here, few of us ever I'd say read the whole document, sometimes not even the document. At least this death-cyborg has done it for us, and this among other things makes concerning reading.
'5. Corporate / Debt
• A £10m unsecured bond (6%) issued to the owner’s spouse has been extended to 2030 at 8%, with an option for a charge over the training ground. This is a related‑party transaction with governance implications.' |
It's that last bit that really concerns me. I invested in the 2021 Bond, which helped to build the training ground. I've extended it for another 3 years to support the love to Cat 1 Academy.
But if there's a £10m charge over the ground, the value of the bond would be close to negligible. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Club Accounts on 17:45 - Feb 19 with 607 views | Northernr |
| Club Accounts on 17:26 - Feb 19 by BklynRanger |
I'm firmly anti-AI too, but I did a bit of a comparison yesterday on something else and co-pilot came out best of the culture-destroying, planet-ending options these days. Very good for summarising book chapters anyway.
So although there has been some decent discussion on here, few of us ever I'd say read the whole document, sometimes not even the document. At least this death-cyborg has done it for us, and this among other things makes concerning reading.
'5. Corporate / Debt
• A £10m unsecured bond (6%) issued to the owner’s spouse has been extended to 2030 at 8%, with an option for a charge over the training ground. This is a related‑party transaction with governance implications.' |
Asked NIall about that on the podcast which will be on Patreon before the end of the week.
Sorry, running to catch up at this point.
Simon Dorset going up tonight. | | | |
| Club Accounts on 20:06 - Feb 19 with 382 views | OldPedro |
| Club Accounts on 12:19 - Feb 19 by Northernr |
Yeh it's about par for the Championship course but you become Sheff Wed the moment the owner turns the tap off, particularly in our case where atm we have pitiful other revenue streams. |
The one thing I've been thinking about recently is what would happen if Ruben decided to stop funding the club or if something happened to him and his family decided not to fund us?
I seem to remember that Bolton got into trouble when their benefactor died and his family didn't want to keep funding the club. |  |
| Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man |
| |
| Club Accounts on 20:25 - Feb 19 with 352 views | jack10qpr |
| Club Accounts on 08:47 - Feb 18 by mart_Goblin |
Now you know why it was done last week |
I for one am glad he clarified that we have heard of Norway and that it is probably unlikely we will be able to flip "Loftus" 90 degrees. |  | | |
| Club Accounts on 21:38 - Feb 19 with 222 views | Northernr |
| Club Accounts on 20:25 - Feb 19 by jack10qpr |
I for one am glad he clarified that we have heard of Norway and that it is probably unlikely we will be able to flip "Loftus" 90 degrees. |
Vital stuff  | | | |
| Club Accounts on 00:05 - Feb 20 with 100 views | numptydumpty |
I guess its a worry.
Have read the accounts analysis and this spread of costs over years seems to delay money concerns. However, with the increase in contract lengths of players is always a risk, especially as obviously a few signings won't live up to the hype/hope.
For me, one of the traits of Nourry, I would least worry about is the money and numbers side of the game, but yes we need at least two of our signings to be sold for decent profits every other season, at best.
Sometimes with accounts, the overall message could be distorted by slightly devious but legal disguising of costs and expenses, which this amortisation of assets seems to do.
But, have to say, although I have not been particularly critical of Christian Nourry with his guarded announcements, the fact these accounts are released just after he has answered random selected questions with his form of fans forum, tbh the timing suggests he does not want to answer any queries about the accounts and that's a cowardly approach and if you read between the lines - why does he not want to answer questions on the accounts - maybe its because he wants to hide away from possible issues that he may well know, others could see through.
If the club could explain to the fan base about our profit and loss statement and also our balance sheets, because PEOPLE CAN SEE THAT THE Q&A WAS COMPLETED JUST PRIOR TO THIS RELEASE & THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.
Be good if they could present the accounts to our fan base and explain what the figures mean for our short and long term futures. If the club are saying they are being transparent then we do need to all be aware, where we are at.
We could all maybe do a sponsored silence at the next home game to raise a few shillings then if necessary !!! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
