| Losses Reduced on 18:10 - Mar 3 with 3925 views | terryb |
| Losses Reduced on 17:03 - Mar 3 by Jamie |
Worded incorrectly on my part perhaps, the clubs auditors ensure that the accounts are legal, the FL auditors decide if they pass the FFP guidelines laid out to them. |
The accounts have been audited. Therefore they must comply with company & accounting laws.
The Football League may find it difficult to disregard those laws if they wish to dispute our "true" figures. Unless, of course, the auditors have attached notes of qualification with the accounts.
The law of the land always takes preference over rules of companies or associations. Therefore, if we went to court it would be up to the FL to prove financial malpractice.
I think that the priniple of FFP is sound, but it would be easy to argue that they were not admissable/correctly applied as they have had a major overhaul after just one year.
The chances that the FL would be allowed to implement the punishments that were in place for last season would appear to be remote.
I am sure that in practice we have made substantial losses, but it is what appears on paper that counts!
Read more: http://qprreport.proboards.com/thread/41065/losses-announced-football-league-sta |  | |  |
| Losses Reduced on 19:22 - Mar 3 with 3838 views | Hayesender |
Well I've just read through seven pages on this, and I can honestly say I haven't got a fecking scooby what most of you or the club are going on about.
Hence why I don't work in finance |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 20:04 - Mar 3 with 3789 views | kensalriser |
| Losses Reduced on 19:22 - Mar 3 by Hayesender |
Well I've just read through seven pages on this, and I can honestly say I haven't got a fecking scooby what most of you or the club are going on about.
Hence why I don't work in finance |
I don't think anyone else has a scooby either. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 03:07 - Mar 4 with 3660 views | DylanP |
| Losses Reduced on 10:00 - Mar 2 by dsr_burnley |
Those numbers don't make sense. The previous year's loss was what, £40m? Reduce expense by £22m, that would improve the loss to £18m. So to get it down to £9m, income must have increased by £9m. Which it didn't.
They must be counting the £60m write off as income - which is contrary to accounting rules, because it isn't income, it's inward capital investment. It won't count as income for FFP purposes unless the people who drew up the rules are complete financial illiterates. |
Of course income increased. We are in the Prem this year. Last year we were in the Championship. Our income will have improved int eh areas of TV revenue, shirt sales, ticket sales and so on. Our expenditures would have increased as well. But the P&L, being the difference between the two, improved because our income improved more than our expenditures went up. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 07:28 - Mar 4 with 3615 views | derbyhoop |
The accounts cover the 2013/14 season when we were in the Championship. Therefore, income would have fallen from approx £70m in the PL TO £30_35m. If player costs were down by £22m there's no way the Operating loss can be down to 9.8m. |  |
| "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 |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 07:51 - Mar 4 with 3599 views | terryb |
| Losses Reduced on 07:28 - Mar 4 by derbyhoop |
The accounts cover the 2013/14 season when we were in the Championship. Therefore, income would have fallen from approx £70m in the PL TO £30_35m. If player costs were down by £22m there's no way the Operating loss can be down to 9.8m. |
Actually, income wouldn't have decreased by that amount.
Although ticket prices decreased, we had four mome league games & a play off semi final extra at Loftus Road. Add to that the crowd nunbers were very similar to the previous season.
Sponsorships were already in place so that income wouldn't have been affected. TV money isn't paid as much in the championship, but we were screened far more than the season before.
Add to that the sale of Samba etc. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Losses Reduced on 11:25 - Mar 4 with 3532 views | dsr_burnley |
| Losses Reduced on 18:10 - Mar 3 by terryb |
The accounts have been audited. Therefore they must comply with company & accounting laws.
The Football League may find it difficult to disregard those laws if they wish to dispute our "true" figures. Unless, of course, the auditors have attached notes of qualification with the accounts.
The law of the land always takes preference over rules of companies or associations. Therefore, if we went to court it would be up to the FL to prove financial malpractice.
I think that the priniple of FFP is sound, but it would be easy to argue that they were not admissable/correctly applied as they have had a major overhaul after just one year.
The chances that the FL would be allowed to implement the punishments that were in place for last season would appear to be remote.
I am sure that in practice we have made substantial losses, but it is what appears on paper that counts!
Read more: http://qprreport.proboards.com/thread/41065/losses-announced-football-league-sta |
The Football League doesn't need to disregard accounting laws to decide that FFP hasn't been complied with. The accounts as published will include a note about a transactions with related parties - Fernandes, persumably - and give details of the write-off of the £60m. All legal. But FFP, so they tell me, have a rule that says transactions with related parties can be reassessed at fair value rather than the accounts value. The FL will no doubt hold that the £60m is not genuine trading income and shouldn't be counted for FFP purposes.
It's just the same principle as for tax. For tax purposes, the £60m will not count as taxable income because it's basically a gift from the shareholder. It doesn't mean the taxman is disregarding the accounts, just that the accounts are prepared under Company Law, which is not the same as Tax Law or FFP rules. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 13:37 - Mar 4 with 3460 views | pomanjou |
| Losses Reduced on 11:25 - Mar 4 by dsr_burnley |
The Football League doesn't need to disregard accounting laws to decide that FFP hasn't been complied with. The accounts as published will include a note about a transactions with related parties - Fernandes, persumably - and give details of the write-off of the £60m. All legal. But FFP, so they tell me, have a rule that says transactions with related parties can be reassessed at fair value rather than the accounts value. The FL will no doubt hold that the £60m is not genuine trading income and shouldn't be counted for FFP purposes.
It's just the same principle as for tax. For tax purposes, the £60m will not count as taxable income because it's basically a gift from the shareholder. It doesn't mean the taxman is disregarding the accounts, just that the accounts are prepared under Company Law, which is not the same as Tax Law or FFP rules. |
I am sure the accounts will be 100% kosher (am I allowed to say that in these enlightened times?) so we should find out, probably tomorrow, when they come up on the companies house website.
For FFP one could surely argue that its a loan that has not been repaid and not capitalised to equity and therefore has to go through as income. Where else would it be reflected? I've convinced myself  |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 13:50 - Mar 4 with 3461 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Losses Reduced on 11:25 - Mar 4 by dsr_burnley |
The Football League doesn't need to disregard accounting laws to decide that FFP hasn't been complied with. The accounts as published will include a note about a transactions with related parties - Fernandes, persumably - and give details of the write-off of the £60m. All legal. But FFP, so they tell me, have a rule that says transactions with related parties can be reassessed at fair value rather than the accounts value. The FL will no doubt hold that the £60m is not genuine trading income and shouldn't be counted for FFP purposes.
It's just the same principle as for tax. For tax purposes, the £60m will not count as taxable income because it's basically a gift from the shareholder. It doesn't mean the taxman is disregarding the accounts, just that the accounts are prepared under Company Law, which is not the same as Tax Law or FFP rules. |
This.
My understanding is that fair value item is to stop related parties paying way over the odds for something like Ground naming rights or sponsorships just to reduce any losses. Given we have simply written off some of the loans I can't see why they wouldn't disallow the whole £60m .
As much as it pains me to say it although it is great for the club that this £60m has been written off (and shows the commitment of TF etc to the cause) I think we will still fall foul of FFP. The idea of FFP is to try and get clubs to operate within certain parameters to not give them an unfair advantage and allow a level playing pitch. Ironically it favours the bigger clubs who have bigger (and existing) Revenues but that is the principal behind it. If Clubs can simply write off loans and push that credit through the P&L Account everyone will be doing it. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it in Statutory terms but in FFP terms I think it would be disallowed. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:28 - Mar 4 with 3412 views | stevec |
Is there any point the Football League fighting this? If they lose it'll cost them a packet, if they win they will put the club on the brink of administration and any money they do get they have to give to charity.
They're all fcking mad. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:30 - Mar 4 with 3410 views | terryb |
| Losses Reduced on 11:25 - Mar 4 by dsr_burnley |
The Football League doesn't need to disregard accounting laws to decide that FFP hasn't been complied with. The accounts as published will include a note about a transactions with related parties - Fernandes, persumably - and give details of the write-off of the £60m. All legal. But FFP, so they tell me, have a rule that says transactions with related parties can be reassessed at fair value rather than the accounts value. The FL will no doubt hold that the £60m is not genuine trading income and shouldn't be counted for FFP purposes.
It's just the same principle as for tax. For tax purposes, the £60m will not count as taxable income because it's basically a gift from the shareholder. It doesn't mean the taxman is disregarding the accounts, just that the accounts are prepared under Company Law, which is not the same as Tax Law or FFP rules. |
I wasn't sugesting that the FL may try to disrergard the £60 million.
What I was stating was that if we took it to court, they would probably find in our favour as rules of companies/associations take second place to the laws.
By financial laws we would have to declare any write back from creditors as part of the P&L. I don't doubt that the FL may be upset, but I doubt that they can do Sweet Fanny Adam about it!
As a matter of interest, are you posting on Leicester boards about their seeming ascape from FFP punishment & please could you explain the difference between how Queens Park Rangers & Leicester have approached this problem? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:33 - Mar 4 with 3404 views | QPR_John |
If I understand this correctly the shareholders have written off £60M but many still think we will get a £50M fine from the FL. So what reason had the shareholders to write off the £60M if that is indeed the case. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:45 - Mar 4 with 3388 views | dsr_burnley |
Leicester's escape was always more likely to succeed because they started from much lower "real" losses, so covering them up in a believable way is a lot easier.
In outline, they shifted about £8m of expenses backwards - mainly by writing down the transfer values of players. (When you buy a player, the transfer fee is capitalised and written off to P&L a/c evenly over the time of his contract.) So Leicester pointed to some expensive players, said they aren't worth what their transfer fee says they are, and took the hit all in 2012-13 instead of gradually over the next couple of years. They admitted that at the time, but it's a valid treatment for accounts purposes and isn't specifically covered in the FPP rules (so far as I know).
That made losses of £27m in 2012-13 into £35m, and also made losses of about the same in 2013-14 into £20m. Then of that £20m, £10m is promotion bonuses so counts as a Premier League expense under the rules, and the rest of the loss is small enough that academy costs and other allowable stuff knocks it down to within the limit.
So Leicester have legally got away with it.
FWIW, Burnley made a loss of £8m which was entirely caused by promotion bonuses. We would have broken even if we hadn't gone up. (That was more because our directors haven't any money rather than a deep desire to comply with FFP.) | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:47 - Mar 4 with 3382 views | terryb |
One further question.
If I was to make a donation to Queens Park Rangers, would it not have to appear as income? I don't see how else it could be accounted for & I'm fairly certain that would not be against the FL rules on FFP.
What would be the difference between my donation & that of TF etc!
It must also be remembered that the FL have thrown those rules out of the window after ONE YEAR as their members found them to be unrealistic.
Once again, I state that I'm sure our cashflow would not reflect a loss of only 9.8 million but it is the amounts on paper that will carry the argument. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 15:30 - Mar 4 with 3356 views | EastR |
| Losses Reduced on 14:47 - Mar 4 by terryb |
One further question.
If I was to make a donation to Queens Park Rangers, would it not have to appear as income? I don't see how else it could be accounted for & I'm fairly certain that would not be against the FL rules on FFP.
What would be the difference between my donation & that of TF etc!
It must also be remembered that the FL have thrown those rules out of the window after ONE YEAR as their members found them to be unrealistic.
Once again, I state that I'm sure our cashflow would not reflect a loss of only 9.8 million but it is the amounts on paper that will carry the argument. |
The difference between your donation and theirs : about £59,999,980? | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 15:42 - Mar 4 with 3343 views | DejR_vu |
This is QPR; you can bet there will have been some legitimate ways to have written down the losses (Leicester) that we've walked past, only to have to take a gamble on something at the last minute.
If we're looking for creative ways to avoid any potential FFP fine, given some of the dross we've signed over the last few years and the salaries handed out, why not register as a charity for over-the-hill footballers and then, rather than be fined, we might even be the beneficiaries of other clubs' fines! | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 15:54 - Mar 4 with 3319 views | dsr_burnley |
| Losses Reduced on 14:47 - Mar 4 by terryb |
One further question.
If I was to make a donation to Queens Park Rangers, would it not have to appear as income? I don't see how else it could be accounted for & I'm fairly certain that would not be against the FL rules on FFP.
What would be the difference between my donation & that of TF etc!
It must also be remembered that the FL have thrown those rules out of the window after ONE YEAR as their members found them to be unrealistic.
Once again, I state that I'm sure our cashflow would not reflect a loss of only 9.8 million but it is the amounts on paper that will carry the argument. |
The difference would be that Tony Fernandes is a related party (because he's the owner) and you're not. There are specific (complicated) legal definitions of who is a related party, in outline meaning major shareholders, directors, and companies owned by or controlled by shareholders and directors. And once it has been decided who is a related party and who isn't, there are differenct accounts disclosures, tax treatments, and it seems FFP treatments for transactions between related parties and normal business transactions.
In QPR's full accounts, which will become public sooner or later because someone can download them as a pdf from Companies House for £1, there will be a note about transactions with related parties. It should spell out the details of the £60m.
(If you personally gave QPR £60m, you might have trouble persuading the world that you aren't a related party and don't have some sort of control over what they spend it on. It can be proved that someone who gives shedloads of money isn't a related party, but the presumption is that they would be. Fernandes is the owner, whether personally or via his companies, so he won't be able to argue he isn't related.) | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 20:54 - Mar 11 with 3180 views | ElHoop |
Accounts should be visible tomorrow - they are currently 'pending' at companies house |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 21:21 - Mar 11 with 3116 views | HollowayRanger |
| Losses Reduced on 20:54 - Mar 11 by ElHoop |
Accounts should be visible tomorrow - they are currently 'pending' at companies house |
    |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 08:31 - Mar 12 with 2990 views | wombat |
think ill avoid the baord tommorow, might get a tad heated |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 09:00 - Mar 12 with 2948 views | SpiritofGregory |
Can't see what's so fair about allowing some clubs spend more than others. Some of those big clubs that are enjoying the benefits of FFP, actually spent big to get where they are.
The big clubs are now enjoying protection of ongoing success and revenue even though the rules are unlawful. It's about time someone took UEFA/FA to court over this issue. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:28 - Mar 12 with 2916 views | JonDoeman |
|  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 10:05 - Mar 12 with 2862 views | EastR |
| Losses Reduced on 09:28 - Mar 12 by JonDoeman |
|
Thanks for posting that link JD
Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to read the details on the financial statements as the tables are all over the show
I'll have a look and see if I can do a summary | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
