| Losses Reduced on 15:56 - Mar 12 with 3047 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 15:52 - Mar 12 by ElHoop |
If they were up to something devious then why in god's name would they feed the money through QPR? And why call it Rangers Developments? |
There is nothing devious in the slightest going on.
Tune owning a new stadium and renting it to QPR is not devious, it's merely business. |  | |  |
| Losses Reduced on 16:12 - Mar 12 with 3017 views | W5R |
| Losses Reduced on 15:56 - Mar 12 by Jamie |
There is nothing devious in the slightest going on.
Tune owning a new stadium and renting it to QPR is not devious, it's merely business. |
They said we would own it though...
(on several occasions) |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 16:18 - Mar 12 with 3008 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 16:12 - Mar 12 by W5R |
They said we would own it though...
(on several occasions) |
We don't even have a new stadium though, so it's a pointless discussion - three blokes own a company. It happens. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 16:18 - Mar 12 with 3002 views | EastR |
| Losses Reduced on 16:12 - Mar 12 by W5R |
They said we would own it though...
(on several occasions) |
ShotKnees has got a stake in it | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 16:23 - Mar 12 with 2999 views | W5R |
| Losses Reduced on 16:18 - Mar 12 by ElHoop |
We don't even have a new stadium though, so it's a pointless discussion - three blokes own a company. It happens. |
Three blokes own a company who our club just gave 4 million quid to. Our maybe it was from one of the mortgages they took out guaranteed against the ground we do actually own?
It's an important question especially as the first "new ABC" style loan we were told was just to help our credit rating for the new stadium. The accounts give more questions than answers IMHO. They already racked up a quarter of a BILLION of debt which they've reduced to a FIFTH OF A BILLION of debt. Them setting up a third company (which deals in property), registering it a HQ is bound to ask questions.
They are custodians of OUR club thus far making the biggest hash of it ever. I think its pertinent to keep any eye on them and to query such things. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 16:46 - Mar 12 with 2948 views | whittocksRs |
I've never quite understood what FFP is trying to achieve — I thought it was either clubs living within their means or demanding owners don't spend money they can't cover.
If it's the former then we will still be hammered for those financials, as it is clearly a £69.8m loss and just clever accounting.
If it's the second then I can't see what's wrong — if Fernandes et al are happy to take the hit and push in £60m as profit against losses then that's their perogative.
The worrying thing is I don't think the Football League, the Premier League or UEFA even really know what they're hitting people for — the guidelines seem to be made up as they go along.
On the £4m Rangers Developments front, it's another worry about Fernandes' (very unclear) long-term goals for his business operations in London, which seem more tied into property ownership than football club ownership. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 17:15 - Mar 12 with 2902 views | Northernr |
| Losses Reduced on 16:46 - Mar 12 by whittocksRs |
I've never quite understood what FFP is trying to achieve — I thought it was either clubs living within their means or demanding owners don't spend money they can't cover.
If it's the former then we will still be hammered for those financials, as it is clearly a £69.8m loss and just clever accounting.
If it's the second then I can't see what's wrong — if Fernandes et al are happy to take the hit and push in £60m as profit against losses then that's their perogative.
The worrying thing is I don't think the Football League, the Premier League or UEFA even really know what they're hitting people for — the guidelines seem to be made up as they go along.
On the £4m Rangers Developments front, it's another worry about Fernandes' (very unclear) long-term goals for his business operations in London, which seem more tied into property ownership than football club ownership. |
That's the thing isn't it. Is FFP supposed to be levelling the playing field (laughable, it just keeps the smaller clubs small) or is it to stop owners loading debt against clubs? If it's the latter than our board taking a £60m hit and not passing it onto the club is exactly what it's there for. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 17:28 - Mar 12 with 2876 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 16:23 - Mar 12 by W5R |
Three blokes own a company who our club just gave 4 million quid to. Our maybe it was from one of the mortgages they took out guaranteed against the ground we do actually own?
It's an important question especially as the first "new ABC" style loan we were told was just to help our credit rating for the new stadium. The accounts give more questions than answers IMHO. They already racked up a quarter of a BILLION of debt which they've reduced to a FIFTH OF A BILLION of debt. Them setting up a third company (which deals in property), registering it a HQ is bound to ask questions.
They are custodians of OUR club thus far making the biggest hash of it ever. I think its pertinent to keep any eye on them and to query such things. |
Oh please get real can you?
This lot paid off the ABC loan as the club was already mortgaged up to its bald head when they came along. They've put in well north of £200m in loans and guarantees by the look of it. How much do you think that our bit of Shepherds Bush is actually worth? If Mittal didn't want to play new stadiums then they had no choice but do finance it through a different company. The only time that ownership of the club and stadium becomes an issue is when they decide to sell up. At the moment there is no separate stadium but if there were then the separation of club ownership from ground ownership would then be an issue. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Losses Reduced on 17:32 - Mar 12 with 2861 views | danehoop |
| Losses Reduced on 16:23 - Mar 12 by W5R |
Three blokes own a company who our club just gave 4 million quid to. Our maybe it was from one of the mortgages they took out guaranteed against the ground we do actually own?
It's an important question especially as the first "new ABC" style loan we were told was just to help our credit rating for the new stadium. The accounts give more questions than answers IMHO. They already racked up a quarter of a BILLION of debt which they've reduced to a FIFTH OF A BILLION of debt. Them setting up a third company (which deals in property), registering it a HQ is bound to ask questions.
They are custodians of OUR club thus far making the biggest hash of it ever. I think its pertinent to keep any eye on them and to query such things. |
Do be quiet Mr Jones. Your a very one track record. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 17:37 - Mar 12 with 2842 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 12:18 - Mar 12 by EastR |
Congratulations ShotKnees
You own 10,000 of the 3.6 billion shares issued by the company. Each one is worth £0.01.
Yours £100. |
Well, that's more than I thought they were worth.
Maybe I can put in a bid for SWP as a mobile dustbin.
I'd expect some serious change though. |  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 17:39 - Mar 12 with 2836 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 16:18 - Mar 12 by EastR |
ShotKnees has got a stake in it |
It's barely worth a cod and chips at Ocean Billy's once Paladini and Our Tone have finished splashing it out on midget strikers. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 17:54 - Mar 12 with 2827 views | derbyhoop |
| Losses Reduced on 17:37 - Mar 12 by ShotKneesHoop |
Well, that's more than I thought they were worth.
Maybe I can put in a bid for SWP as a mobile dustbin.
I'd expect some serious change though. |
Mobile? |  |
| "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 17:55 - Mar 12 with 2817 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 13:18 - Mar 12 by TheBlob |
They're worth fukkall.
I wiped my arse with ten grand of certificates ages ago. |
Blob - I salute you. You have even more reason to hate the mercenaries than I have.
Who persuaded you to invest that amount of dosh in QPR?
I have a brother who was a financial advisor, (not Tears Of A Clown - and he's had even more pips off me than the FI one) who said it was a great investment, because he was bunging in a real big wedge. Three months later he took the money out and put it in Vodaphone.
Was that a total emotional decision you made? Or did someone who "knew the markets" persuade you to part with the folding? I think we should be told. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 17:59 - Mar 12 with 2815 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 17:54 - Mar 12 by derbyhoop |
Mobile? |
SWP "puts in a shift" - or so some say. That infers mobility of some sort.
As for talent and ability, Anne Widdecombe has more chance of breaking the net than that Shyte Hawk. | |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 18:31 - Mar 12 with 2795 views | TheBlob |
| Losses Reduced on 17:55 - Mar 12 by ShotKneesHoop |
Blob - I salute you. You have even more reason to hate the mercenaries than I have.
Who persuaded you to invest that amount of dosh in QPR?
I have a brother who was a financial advisor, (not Tears Of A Clown - and he's had even more pips off me than the FI one) who said it was a great investment, because he was bunging in a real big wedge. Three months later he took the money out and put it in Vodaphone.
Was that a total emotional decision you made? Or did someone who "knew the markets" persuade you to part with the folding? I think we should be told. |
I totally ignored my own advice of letting the heart rule the head,never done that before or since in financial terms.Never even got so much as a "thanks for the dosh now f*ck off",it was all about offering discounts on executive boxes. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 09:31 - Mar 13 with 2620 views | pomanjou |
I've now had a chance to look at a hard copy of the accounts and I conclude that we have very generous, but football stoopid, benefactors in charge who are only learning very slowly. But maybe they understand the FFP rules more clearly than we appear to do.
They have converted £5m of shareholder loans into share capital which ultimately may have value (no don't scoff, in the distant future it might)
They have written off £60m of loans which clearly penalises the guardian of the miscreants Hughes and Redknapp, who misspent the shareholders money. They could have done a conversion job on those as well, again for a possible profit in the distant future. But they didn't.
It could be argued that the shareholders have therefore penalised themselves in a most contrite fashion and have 'paid' a massive penalty.
Is there anything in the FFP rules which says that the penalty is in cash?
Either way I can see good reason for Fernandez to fight this one as being onerous and the very basis of FFP being vexatious and affront to free trade. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 09:32 - Mar 13 with 2618 views | whittocksRs |
| Losses Reduced on 17:15 - Mar 12 by Northernr |
That's the thing isn't it. Is FFP supposed to be levelling the playing field (laughable, it just keeps the smaller clubs small) or is it to stop owners loading debt against clubs? If it's the latter than our board taking a £60m hit and not passing it onto the club is exactly what it's there for. |
The fact the authorities don't really seem to know what it's for is somewhat reassuring — wouldn't take the greatest lawyer to convince a tribunal you can't penalise someone for something you're not really sure of yourself. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:44 - Mar 13 with 2554 views | Juzzie |
| Losses Reduced on 17:55 - Mar 12 by ShotKneesHoop |
Blob - I salute you. You have even more reason to hate the mercenaries than I have.
Who persuaded you to invest that amount of dosh in QPR?
I have a brother who was a financial advisor, (not Tears Of A Clown - and he's had even more pips off me than the FI one) who said it was a great investment, because he was bunging in a real big wedge. Three months later he took the money out and put it in Vodaphone.
Was that a total emotional decision you made? Or did someone who "knew the markets" persuade you to part with the folding? I think we should be told. |
My application for shares (only a small amount though, I was young at the time) arrived a day late and I missed out. Oh how guteed was I at the time.
I still kept an eye on the AIM share prices from time to time in the evening standard and as I say the prive plummet, I was actually relieved. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:11 - Mar 13 with 2459 views | EastR |
For anyone who can’t be bothered to read the article, here’s a selection of important words extracted from it:
“Could be”
“If”
“Potentially”
And in summary:
“Quite how this now plays out remains to be seen: lawyers are likely to remain occupied for weeks if not months or years on both sides”.
In other words, they haven’t a clue. | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 14:25 - Mar 13 with 2436 views | rosseeles |
What a great artical.
it "COULD" be argued the mail havent got a clue what they are talking about and they "COULD" have made up some of the numbers to help sell some papers.
Todays word of the day is "Could" helping papers post crap for 50 years. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 14:27 - Mar 13 with 2432 views | whittocksRs |
| Losses Reduced on 14:11 - Mar 13 by EastR |
For anyone who can’t be bothered to read the article, here’s a selection of important words extracted from it:
“Could be”
“If”
“Potentially”
And in summary:
“Quite how this now plays out remains to be seen: lawyers are likely to remain occupied for weeks if not months or years on both sides”.
In other words, they haven’t a clue. |
There's absolutely no news in that article. Just a decently-researched look at the financials presented as a development. Journalist clearly lacking a scoop with an editor barking in their ear to get one. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
