| Losses Reduced on 09:36 - Mar 2 with 12173 views | simmo |
- Club posted a loss of £9.8m for the year
- Expenditure was reduced by £22m
- Shareholders write off £60m of shareholder loans
Good news all around. The expenditure being reduced despite being back in the premier league is impressive, should be easy to do again with all the people coming out of contract end of this year.
I wonder how much of the written off debt is to do with FFP.... |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
|  |
| Losses Reduced on 09:36 - Mar 2 with 12163 views | Jamie |
The Mail newsroom will be in panic having insisted we were going to lose £50m..
Great news about the shareholders writing off £60m, but who is owed the other £140m+? |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:37 - Mar 2 with 12161 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Was just about to post this, thanks.
Is this not just clever wording? Despite the £60m write-off, we've still recorded an annual loss of £9.8m (ie the write-off brings our annual loss down from £69.8m to £9.8m) which I take it is added to our previous losses of £177m to bring them to £186.8m?
Still a relief that we've reduced our expenditure, but I'd still like the figures cleared up. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 09:37 - Mar 2 with 12151 views | Northernr |
Ahhh, circumnavigating the FFP problem by writing the money off and therefore not posting a rule-breaking loss. Clever (expensive) stuff. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:39 - Mar 2 with 12124 views | daveB |
excellent news |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:42 - Mar 2 with 12092 views | Rangersw12 |
| Losses Reduced on 09:37 - Mar 2 by BrianMcCarthy |
Was just about to post this, thanks.
Is this not just clever wording? Despite the £60m write-off, we've still recorded an annual loss of £9.8m (ie the write-off brings our annual loss down from £69.8m to £9.8m) which I take it is added to our previous losses of £177m to bring them to £186.8m?
Still a relief that we've reduced our expenditure, but I'd still like the figures cleared up. |
I look as it that we should avoid FFP complications if we go down the bigger picture is obviously we still made a loss and still in a massive hole but it could be a lot worse | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:42 - Mar 2 with 12086 views | PinnerPaul |
| Losses Reduced on 09:37 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
Ahhh, circumnavigating the FFP problem by writing the money off and therefore not posting a rule-breaking loss. Clever (expensive) stuff. |
I don't think the write off ( of previous loans) effects the P & L loss - it improves the balance sheet - level of debt.
FFP relates to profit/loss , not level of debt - another reason its a nonsense. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:42 - Mar 2 with 12074 views | wombat |
| Losses Reduced on 09:39 - Mar 2 by daveB |
excellent news |
arghh bugger i was looking forward to playing at some lower league grounds as well |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Losses Reduced on 09:42 - Mar 2 with 12081 views | pomanjou |
So they have paid the fine by improving the balance sheet. Nice one and very creditable solution, right? |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 09:44 - Mar 2 with 12061 views | francisbowles |
Writing off 60 million to save a further 35 million fine? I guess they just had to do it.
It seems like good news but wait for the outrage that will surely follow. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:46 - Mar 2 with 12038 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 09:37 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
Ahhh, circumnavigating the FFP problem by writing the money off and therefore not posting a rule-breaking loss. Clever (expensive) stuff. |
The debt being written off wouldn't affect the P&L.
The only way they could write off their debt and affect the P&L would be for the dirctors to 'buy' a service from the club. But that would almost certainly be disallowed for FFP, as it was in Man City's case. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 09:52 - Mar 2 with 11977 views | Lblock |
I'm no accountant but there must surely be a way around simply writing off a debt a club owes you?
Maybe these have been converted to debentures or some other charge against the club?
No matter, I always expected some form of clever commercial wizardry to improve the clubs standing before we go into FFP battle mode. The approach taken in the transfer window totally backed that up |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 09:58 - Mar 2 with 11914 views | ElHoop |
As someone else has said, writing off the loans is not a part of the 'profit and loss account' for the purposes of FFP. The £9.8m loss is presumably before that write off is taken into account. Otherwise we lost £69.80m.
I think that I'd like to see the accounts before deciding whether this is a surprisingly good set of figures. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:00 - Mar 2 with 11894 views | 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. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:05 - Mar 2 with 11861 views | adhoc_qpr |
I don't really understand the complexities, but this seems like a logical approach to take.
Might as well write off the debt to yourself and make up for it at a later date, than pay it to the Football League to give away to charity (another bonkers rule from FFP).
The only concerning bit on that statement is the bit about the growing income of the premier league - chance are will go down this season and it's hellishly competitive at the moment in the Championship, so bouncing back again would be a massive ask. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:06 - Mar 2 with 11849 views | qpr1976 |
I thought £60m write off is old debt, from previous years results not these ones.
These are up to May '14, so prior to rejoining Prem, although there would be a parachute payment included.
I also think this means we have failed FFP AGAIN. Can't recall if limit it £6 or 8m loss ?
But this is in addtion to previous massive losses.
So if relegated, presumaby we'd get stung for £40/50m for previous losses and then they would consider this new set of figures ? Hopefully. Seeing expenditure & losses dropping so much will show the clubs is changing it's policy and trying to stay within the rules.
Hopefully, we fight any huge fine, but I guess if we still have to pay £40m or even £20m in fines, we'll automatically fail next year as well (unless fines don't count as expenditure !)
Best to not go down I think and the get SWP off the payroll ! [Post edited 2 Mar 2015 10:12]
| | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:07 - Mar 2 with 11842 views | Northernr |
| Losses Reduced on 09:42 - Mar 2 by PinnerPaul |
I don't think the write off ( of previous loans) effects the P & L loss - it improves the balance sheet - level of debt.
FFP relates to profit/loss , not level of debt - another reason its a nonsense. |
It looks to me like they're saying that although we lost £69m last season (which would trigger all manner of FFP horror) in actual fact £60m of it was effectively a gift and therefore we only lost £9m which will only trigger a small FFP fine. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:13 - Mar 2 with 11787 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Losses Reduced on 10:07 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
It looks to me like they're saying that although we lost £69m last season (which would trigger all manner of FFP horror) in actual fact £60m of it was effectively a gift and therefore we only lost £9m which will only trigger a small FFP fine. |
That's my reading, as well. But, as Elhoop says, the full set of accounts will reveal all. | |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 10:14 - Mar 2 with 11774 views | daveB |
| 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. |
previous year loss was 64 million i think. In the year announced today we did sell Samba for 12 million and several others were off the wage bill but even with that and the parachute money losses were probably at a similar level which is why they have written off the 60 million to get a smaller fine.
No idea if they can do this or not but the football league rules were not the clearest which is why they changed again this season | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:15 - Mar 2 with 11762 views | DevonWhite |
| Losses Reduced on 10:07 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
It looks to me like they're saying that although we lost £69m last season (which would trigger all manner of FFP horror) in actual fact £60m of it was effectively a gift and therefore we only lost £9m which will only trigger a small FFP fine. |
It's not that easy to circumnavigate FFP though surely? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:17 - Mar 2 with 11744 views | danehoop |
Income may have increased depending upon the terms of any transfer dealing we have made. So when did the payments for Remy kick in (loan fees from Newcastle) or scheduling of payments for other inward/outward transfers for example?
When did the Nike kit deal pay us from and how much was upfront or downstream? Did any other sponsorship deals have increments linked to promotion? When did income from the playoffs hit the account?
So quite a lot of ways for income to have increased that might not be immediately obvious on the outside. Or I am just grasping at straws....
Certainly a rather annoying headline if your from one of the red tops or the daily fail. Wait for the QPR Cheat FFP Rules headline and moral outrage (rather than fact based journalism). Martin Samuels will be straight on the phone to Bagpuss to dig out some kind of nonsense line on why this improvement was all down to Arry and nothing to do with anyone else. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 10:19 - Mar 2 with 11736 views | qpr1976 |
| Losses Reduced on 10:07 - Mar 2 by Northernr |
It looks to me like they're saying that although we lost £69m last season (which would trigger all manner of FFP horror) in actual fact £60m of it was effectively a gift and therefore we only lost £9m which will only trigger a small FFP fine. |
I think they are saying the £60 write off is on the old level of debt of £177m
So in theory (hopefully), we lost £9.8m last season which makes our current level of debt £127m approx. (117 + 9.8)
This would trigger a small fine, or if they agreed we'd done our best to reduce losses massively, a slap on the wrist or suspended fine if losses increase next year ?
The huge fine of £40m+ Still hangs over us for previous FFP rule breaking ? And that I think would be fought in court. Much depending on the current ongoing case mentioned last week ? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:19 - Mar 2 with 11731 views | francisbowles |
| 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. |
But using your calculation if they had included the 60 million as income we would have made a profit of 42 million? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:20 - Mar 2 with 11729 views | PinnerPaul |
| Losses Reduced on 09:46 - Mar 2 by Jamie |
The debt being written off wouldn't affect the P&L.
The only way they could write off their debt and affect the P&L would be for the dirctors to 'buy' a service from the club. But that would almost certainly be disallowed for FFP, as it was in Man City's case. |
Exactly Jamie - as I said above, writing off debt, doesn't impact of P & L. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:25 - Mar 2 with 11674 views | Irish_Hoop |
Accountant here!
Depends what they mean by "write off"
If they have truly written off the debt then the book keeping means that the benefit of the write off will be taken to the profit and loss account, so that the loss of £9.8m is after taking the benefit (i.e a real loss of £69.8m)
If they have converted the loans into capital then this will simply be a balance sheet movement from debts to capital so no impact on the profit.
I would expect the former is the case (the use of the term "write off" is key). But let's see what the accounts say | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
