| Losses Reduced on 10:25 - Mar 2 with 3413 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 10:15 - Mar 2 by DevonWhite |
It's not that easy to circumnavigate FFP though surely? |
The accounts themselves will reveal everything.
No you cannot circumvent FFP by writing off loans or any other debts of that nature. Even issuing more shares wouldn't help. If that were the case then FFP wouldn't be a viable concept at all.
I just don't know how else we could get the losses down to £9.8m when we had so many players on the books who were presumably farmed out for some sort of fee but who were still getting wages from us. The accounts would also have to accrue for any anticipated FFP payment, which makes me think that £69.8m is the actual loss. Of course the football league can't charge us FFP penalties for the part of the loss arising from FFP as that would effectively be a 'tax' on a 'tax'. So these numbers really don't tell us anything at all. Zilch. |  | |  |
| Losses Reduced on 10:27 - Mar 2 with 3403 views | qpr1976 |
These results are from Championship year endi g May '14
So only Prem money would have been parachute payment (£16m ?)
Not sure if Nike paid anything up front but we gave all the Playoff money to Derby.
The winners generally hand all money from the Final to the losers ! |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:27 - Mar 2 with 3402 views | toboboly |
| 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. |
As long as £60m in losses has gone I don't mind if it is purely to circumvent the FFP rules. We need those losses minimised no matter what. Some good news. |  |
| Sexy Asian dwarves wanted. |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 10:28 - Mar 2 with 3392 views | baz_qpr |
I thought the Football League rules were quite clear that they could convert losses to "investment" to avoid the fine
Because the shareholders have equally put in the loans in proportion to their equity its pretty much the same thing but far more tax efficient. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:28 - Mar 2 with 3390 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Losses Reduced on 10:27 - Mar 2 by toboboly |
As long as £60m in losses has gone I don't mind if it is purely to circumvent the FFP rules. We need those losses minimised no matter what. Some good news. |
Fair point. |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 10:29 - Mar 2 with 3383 views | kingsburyR |
Wish I could write of £60 Mill!!! |  |
| Dont know why we bother. .... but we do! |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 10:30 - Mar 2 with 3374 views | qpr1976 |
When are the full accounts published ? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:33 - Mar 2 with 3355 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 10:30 - Mar 2 by qpr1976 |
When are the full accounts published ? |
They were probably filed at Companies House on friday and at the moment the Welsh are taking about 2 weeks to get filed accounts visible online. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Losses Reduced on 10:33 - Mar 2 with 3355 views | essextaxiboy |
| Losses Reduced on 10:25 - Mar 2 by 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 |
When we go.to.the new ground they will buy LR for a.quid .. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:33 - Mar 2 with 3351 views | danehoop |
| Losses Reduced on 10:25 - Mar 2 by ElHoop |
The accounts themselves will reveal everything.
No you cannot circumvent FFP by writing off loans or any other debts of that nature. Even issuing more shares wouldn't help. If that were the case then FFP wouldn't be a viable concept at all.
I just don't know how else we could get the losses down to £9.8m when we had so many players on the books who were presumably farmed out for some sort of fee but who were still getting wages from us. The accounts would also have to accrue for any anticipated FFP payment, which makes me think that £69.8m is the actual loss. Of course the football league can't charge us FFP penalties for the part of the loss arising from FFP as that would effectively be a 'tax' on a 'tax'. So these numbers really don't tell us anything at all. Zilch. |
I think it tells us that we starting to rehearse how we will fight any attempt at FFP by giving the base from which any conversation will start.
Again, as I said on the original FFP thread, a lot of this will come down to whether both sides want a full legal argument in court on this issue, considering the original FFP guidelines were so flawed that they have since been amended, there is an open question over the applicability to QPR due to the circumstances/timing of around when they were created, and the wider question of legality being tested in Europe this year.
In putting out the numbers and in the manner they are presenting it, QPR are providing a mechanism to save face alround. If in the worst case scenario it comes to a legal battle, I'd think I'd back the legal team (and resources available) of Tune Group and Mittals to win the day. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 10:33 - Mar 2 with 3351 views | daveB |
| Losses Reduced on 10:19 - Mar 2 by qpr1976 |
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 ? |
The rules were not in place when we had big losses before, this is the first time we are affected |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:39 - Mar 2 with 3305 views | Jamie |
| Losses Reduced on 10:25 - Mar 2 by 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 |
As said though, to transfer the £60m to PL would almost certainly be disallowed for FFP. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:40 - Mar 2 with 3302 views | Phildo |
It is possible they have added 'income' we know nothing about but then why write of the 60m debt. They may be presenting the accounts in a way to maximise the chance of a sucsessful legal challenge to any FFP attempt. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:43 - Mar 2 with 3286 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 10:40 - Mar 2 by Phildo |
It is possible they have added 'income' we know nothing about but then why write of the 60m debt. They may be presenting the accounts in a way to maximise the chance of a sucsessful legal challenge to any FFP attempt. |
They can't present the accounts in any way that isn't approved by the external auditors, unless the accounts are qualified by the auditors. They can only accrue for certain income but they must accrue for all known potential liabilities (which would include FFP). The way that the loans write off is presented would have to be in line with accouting convention. You can't just do what you want. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:44 - Mar 2 with 3283 views | qpr1976 |
| Losses Reduced on 10:33 - Mar 2 by daveB |
The rules were not in place when we had big losses before, this is the first time we are affected |
Really ? I thought they were Dave. When did the FFP rules come in then ?
I'm sure last season we were told Promotion was our only way of not getting fined for massive previous losses of £64m...... Then when we got promoted, we were told no matter, we can still fine you if you come back down again ? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 10:53 - Mar 2 with 2996 views | nadera78 |
As ever with QPR the devil will be in the detail. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:02 - Mar 2 with 2945 views | Gloucs_R |
"We've reduced our debts, learnt our lesson and are trying to change our ways. Now lets come to an agreement that is sensible and fair to all parties" |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 11:04 - Mar 2 with 2937 views | daveB |
| Losses Reduced on 10:44 - Mar 2 by qpr1976 |
Really ? I thought they were Dave. When did the FFP rules come in then ?
I'm sure last season we were told Promotion was our only way of not getting fined for massive previous losses of £64m...... Then when we got promoted, we were told no matter, we can still fine you if you come back down again ? |
Last season was the first time they came into effect so if we had lost at Wembley would have been a transfer embargo, as we won it's a fine.
The media just guessed at our losses which is where the big fine came from | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:05 - Mar 2 with 2927 views | JonDoeman |
| Losses Reduced on 11:02 - Mar 2 by Gloucs_R |
"We've reduced our debts, learnt our lesson and are trying to change our ways. Now lets come to an agreement that is sensible and fair to all parties" |
Yeah we won't do it again, lets forget all about it!! ;) |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 11:10 - Mar 2 with 2896 views | davman |
| 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 read it the other way (despite what 'qualified' Irish Hoop posted). The £60m write off is from the historic debt (£177m) and the 'loss' quoted is the real loss - Income minus Expenditure.
I mean that'd be the simple explanation, but how could Irish and his Accounting brethren make any money if it were that easy?
Seriously, I earn £X and spend £Y (including interest on any loans I have out and any tax, etc., etc.), so my profit for the year is P = £X - £Y isn't it? Alongside that, I started the year with a debt of £A, so at the end of the year, my overall debt is £A - £P isn't it?
Actually, don't answer that, I am just a simple, logical Engineer and don't have to fudge my figures to paint a certain picture that often. If I knew the secrets of the financial institutions, I think I'd hate them even more...
 |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 11:10 - Mar 2 with 2896 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 10:53 - Mar 2 by nadera78 |
As ever with QPR the devil will be in the detail. |
They've told us enough already to make some assumptions. If expenses are only down by £22m then there's no way that we can have cut our losses by £50m as income will also have fallen following relegation. So we lost about £70m and then wrote off loans of £60m. How much of the loss of £70m is a provision for FFP we don't know as FFP is quite complex in itself. But working the basic numbers on the back of an envelope would indicate a trading loss of £40m with a FFP fine of about £29m if it has been provided for in the accounts. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:17 - Mar 2 with 2850 views | Irish_Hoop |
| Losses Reduced on 10:43 - Mar 2 by ElHoop |
They can't present the accounts in any way that isn't approved by the external auditors, unless the accounts are qualified by the auditors. They can only accrue for certain income but they must accrue for all known potential liabilities (which would include FFP). The way that the loans write off is presented would have to be in line with accouting convention. You can't just do what you want. |
Agreed - but the recognition standard for the liability is such that there must be a very real prospect of it arising. As our relegation is not certain, and indeed the legality of the FFP sanction is also in some doubt, it wouldn't be a big stretch for the auditors to agree that only disclosure of the potential liability in the notes to the accounts, as opposed to including it as an accrued liability, is all that's needed | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:22 - Mar 2 with 2809 views | Irish_Hoop |
| Losses Reduced on 11:10 - Mar 2 by davman |
I read it the other way (despite what 'qualified' Irish Hoop posted). The £60m write off is from the historic debt (£177m) and the 'loss' quoted is the real loss - Income minus Expenditure.
I mean that'd be the simple explanation, but how could Irish and his Accounting brethren make any money if it were that easy?
Seriously, I earn £X and spend £Y (including interest on any loans I have out and any tax, etc., etc.), so my profit for the year is P = £X - £Y isn't it? Alongside that, I started the year with a debt of £A, so at the end of the year, my overall debt is £A - £P isn't it?
Actually, don't answer that, I am just a simple, logical Engineer and don't have to fudge my figures to paint a certain picture that often. If I knew the secrets of the financial institutions, I think I'd hate them even more...
|
Northern is right. The £60m is effectively a gift.
I'd stick to engineering if I was you
 | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:22 - Mar 2 with 2806 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 11:17 - Mar 2 by Irish_Hoop |
Agreed - but the recognition standard for the liability is such that there must be a very real prospect of it arising. As our relegation is not certain, and indeed the legality of the FFP sanction is also in some doubt, it wouldn't be a big stretch for the auditors to agree that only disclosure of the potential liability in the notes to the accounts, as opposed to including it as an accrued liability, is all that's needed |
I think that might stretch the concept of 'prudence' Irish, given that FFP is such a hot subject. I can't see any reason why you wouldn't acknowledge the possibility of FFP even if you disagreed with it. If you look at the Tesco shambles for instance, it's doubtful that a registered auditor would want that sort of publicity regarding FFP. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:28 - Mar 2 with 2784 views | qpr1976 |
| Losses Reduced on 11:04 - Mar 2 by daveB |
Last season was the first time they came into effect so if we had lost at Wembley would have been a transfer embargo, as we won it's a fine.
The media just guessed at our losses which is where the big fine came from |
So the BIG fine (whatever the papers guess) from losing £65m ish in our relegation year still stands over us and we'll be hit with it if we are relegated ?
And then this set of results will be a seperate case and could result in an embargo or future (smaller) fine dependant on whether we come back up or not NEXT season ?
Then after that I think the £6 or 8m loss limit goes up to £45m over 3 seasons.
Is that all correct Dave ? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
