| Losses Reduced on 11:40 - Mar 2 with 2825 views | Rangersw12 |
| Losses Reduced on 11:28 - Mar 2 by qpr1976 |
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 ? |
No I think the losses of 65 million in the Prem don't count as we were not under the the FL FFP then as we wasn't in the division when it came in
We will done for our losses from our last season in the championship which is the latest accounts of a 9 million loss |  | |  |
| Losses Reduced on 11:50 - Mar 2 with 2783 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Big elephant in the room for me is the remaining debt of £186.9m
Imagine two successive relegations (not hard) and we are a league 1 club with that hanging over us. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:56 - Mar 2 with 2756 views | daveB |
| Losses Reduced on 11:28 - Mar 2 by qpr1976 |
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 ? |
no you get no fine or anything for those losses under Hughes/redknapp
Last season was the only time we had to comply so if we made losses over £8million then the punishments were fine if we go up or transfer embargo if we didn't. Judging by this the losses were 9million so the fine will be small although it's unclear if writing off 60 million is allowed. It's not under the UEFA model but the football league made their own rules up.
Clear as mud I know |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 11:56 - Mar 2 with 2753 views | johncharles |
| 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. |
Clever stuff indeed and thank god for it. Good to see the club are making some intelligent moves to stave off the FFP fine.
People are quick to point out that the situation is still not good but at least it's less bad. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 11:57 - Mar 2 with 2754 views | daveB |
| Losses Reduced on 11:50 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Big elephant in the room for me is the remaining debt of £186.9m
Imagine two successive relegations (not hard) and we are a league 1 club with that hanging over us. |
or we stay in the prem for 2 years, get the new stadium and that debt is cut in half at the very least | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:00 - Mar 2 with 2744 views | stevec |
So basically, if you've got wealthy owners who are able to write off shareholder loans then it's business as usual.
This does seem sensible all round, rather than the club carrying the debt in the form of loans the owners now have to write off any significant losses personally, to avoid FFP fines.
If that is the case, then good on all the clubs shareholders, shows their hearts are in it. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:01 - Mar 2 with 2737 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Am I the only one super fvcked off with this?
The rules are there to stop financial doping. We bitch and moan about the authorities like the FA, FIFA, UEFA etc being ineffectual but when they actually do something for the benefit of the game clubs pull sh1t like this.
Yeah, yeah, Chelsea and Man C do the same thing on a bigger scale but that's not the point. We only want to see action taken when it's not us. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:02 - Mar 2 with 2730 views | Irish_Hoop |
| Losses Reduced on 11:22 - Mar 2 by ElHoop |
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. |
I'm betting we'll see it disclosed as a possible future liability, rather than an accrual - much in the way that Apple made a disclosure about the EU investigation into their tax affairs | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Losses Reduced on 12:04 - Mar 2 with 2718 views | EalingHoop81 |
The accounts aren't showing up at Companies House as yet but they usually take a few days to be uploaded.
The £60m write off will appear as a credit in the P&L account, so the real loss will be closer to £70m. What concerns me is the small print on FFP. The rules are there to stop clubs from being bank rolled and I expect there may be clauses as to what constitutes the loss, i.e. the pre tax loss plus add backs for this exact sort of write off - but I say that without having looked at the rules myself.
Just looking at the fines process logically - if they hadn't forgiven the loan and were hit be a £50m fine because we suffered a huge loss then the shareholders would be a further £50m out of pocket. Better just provide against it because in cash flow terms it's much more prudent........ | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:05 - Mar 2 with 2717 views | Addinall |
| 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" |
Well said Gloucs.A lone beacon amongst the usual doom and gloom. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:09 - Mar 2 with 2699 views | qpr1976 |
| Losses Reduced on 11:56 - Mar 2 by daveB |
no you get no fine or anything for those losses under Hughes/redknapp
Last season was the only time we had to comply so if we made losses over £8million then the punishments were fine if we go up or transfer embargo if we didn't. Judging by this the losses were 9million so the fine will be small although it's unclear if writing off 60 million is allowed. It's not under the UEFA model but the football league made their own rules up.
Clear as mud I know |
Ok, thanks Dave
So we've missed by £1.8m
I wonder if we can argue that we gave up £1m+ to Derby from the PlayOff Final gate receipts and claim that would have reduced our losses further ?
Anyway, it feels like we're heading in the right direction. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:13 - Mar 2 with 2689 views | isawqpratwcity |
F*ck me drunk!
Debt reduced 85% to under 10 million pound? 60 mill of shareholder debt written off?
This is the best news since Redknapp walked out...actually, no, this is the best news since Wembley!
YOU LITTLE BEAUTY!!! |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 12:14 - Mar 2 with 2689 views | daveB |
| Losses Reduced on 12:01 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Am I the only one super fvcked off with this?
The rules are there to stop financial doping. We bitch and moan about the authorities like the FA, FIFA, UEFA etc being ineffectual but when they actually do something for the benefit of the game clubs pull sh1t like this.
Yeah, yeah, Chelsea and Man C do the same thing on a bigger scale but that's not the point. We only want to see action taken when it's not us. |
The rules are made to protect the big clubs and make sure no club can ever do a Man city or a PSG and gatecrash the party by spending big | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:16 - Mar 2 with 2681 views | davman |
| Losses Reduced on 12:01 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Am I the only one super fvcked off with this?
The rules are there to stop financial doping. We bitch and moan about the authorities like the FA, FIFA, UEFA etc being ineffectual but when they actually do something for the benefit of the game clubs pull sh1t like this.
Yeah, yeah, Chelsea and Man C do the same thing on a bigger scale but that's not the point. We only want to see action taken when it's not us. |
Baz, I don't bitch and moan about the way Chelscum and City are financed. Good luck to 'em that they have found someone willing to bankroll their clubs. Scum fans are classless, but that was always the case before the money; what I object to mostly with them is that the 44,000 or so that go regularly now were all there in the 80s when they averaged no more than 16,000.
City, on the other hand, got 30,000 in League One - fair play to them simply for that... and Jamie Pollock of course!
If football closed the door to sugar daddies; we might as well pack the big 6 off now to their big super league as no-one will ever break-in. What I object to most of all though are **investors** who try to get away with loaning clubs money. If you want to spend your money gambling the future, fine, do it, but don't gamble with money the club hasn't got. This is why such a write off is long, long overdue, but nonetheless welcome. As others have said, I'd like to know how / when the remaining obscene amount is going to be similarly written off.
I'm not holding my breath... |  |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 12:19 - Mar 2 with 2668 views | ElHoop |
| Losses Reduced on 12:02 - Mar 2 by Irish_Hoop |
I'm betting we'll see it disclosed as a possible future liability, rather than an accrual - much in the way that Apple made a disclosure about the EU investigation into their tax affairs |
You might well be right. We got £40m from Sky in 2012/13 and I think that parachute money for 13/14 was £16m. Loss of income of £24m then, whereas expenses definitely down by £22m as per announcement. So net loss of £2m. We lost £65m in 2013 so not difficult to see how we could have lost £70m in 2014. So FFP charge would be about £57m by my back of envelope reckoning!
So you could argue that we actually lost £127m!!! |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:22 - Mar 2 with 2656 views | Rangersw12 |
| Losses Reduced on 12:01 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Am I the only one super fvcked off with this?
The rules are there to stop financial doping. We bitch and moan about the authorities like the FA, FIFA, UEFA etc being ineffectual but when they actually do something for the benefit of the game clubs pull sh1t like this.
Yeah, yeah, Chelsea and Man C do the same thing on a bigger scale but that's not the point. We only want to see action taken when it's not us. |
What do you want to happen if we get relegated ?
Us to announce 70 million losses get a massive fine under ffp , a transfer embargo and then more than likely go down to the 3rd division
Other owners have been writing of debts for years Al Fayed wrote of all Fulhams debt for example so why can't we do it ? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:25 - Mar 2 with 2641 views | YorkRanger |
At face value good news, and as others have said it appears an expensive way to circumvent the FFP rules.
Let's see what the Accounts show |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:31 - Mar 2 with 2610 views | connell10 |
so is this good news or bad news?? im confused! |  |
| AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!! | | Poll: | best number 10 ever? |
| |
| Losses Reduced on 12:34 - Mar 2 with 2600 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 12:22 - Mar 2 by Rangersw12 |
What do you want to happen if we get relegated ?
Us to announce 70 million losses get a massive fine under ffp , a transfer embargo and then more than likely go down to the 3rd division
Other owners have been writing of debts for years Al Fayed wrote of all Fulhams debt for example so why can't we do it ? |
I want a financially stable club that runs on it's own steam. If that means football league status then so be it.
Of course I don't want a massive fine for the club. But I want 'football' businessmen taught a lesson, including our own dear leader and fellow shareholders.
The 'they did it first' argument is childish. Murder / rape / FGM (a LFW favourite) have also been done before. Why can't we do that too? | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:35 - Mar 2 with 2592 views | QPR_Jim |
| Losses Reduced on 12:01 - Mar 2 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Am I the only one super fvcked off with this?
The rules are there to stop financial doping. We bitch and moan about the authorities like the FA, FIFA, UEFA etc being ineffectual but when they actually do something for the benefit of the game clubs pull sh1t like this.
Yeah, yeah, Chelsea and Man C do the same thing on a bigger scale but that's not the point. We only want to see action taken when it's not us. |
I thought the rules were to stop chairman / shareholders saddling a club with debts to themselves in the form of loans. Therefore if it's written off and no longer a loan it's what the football league wanted.
If it was purely about living within your means and never spending more than you earn it would prevent fair competition. |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:39 - Mar 2 with 2575 views | ElHoop |
So we've lost £10m, £70m or £125m.
Take your pick. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:39 - Mar 2 with 2572 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 12:35 - Mar 2 by QPR_Jim |
I thought the rules were to stop chairman / shareholders saddling a club with debts to themselves in the form of loans. Therefore if it's written off and no longer a loan it's what the football league wanted.
If it was purely about living within your means and never spending more than you earn it would prevent fair competition. |
You can still saddle a club with loans if you spend it on infrastructure (i've been told) so no, it is more about financial doping. | | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:40 - Mar 2 with 2572 views | CanadaRanger |
Can I just say "Thank-you" to the shareholders... :) |  | | |
| Losses Reduced on 12:46 - Mar 2 with 2537 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Losses Reduced on 12:40 - Mar 2 by CanadaRanger |
Can I just say "Thank-you" to the shareholders... :) |
Yeah cheers lads.
I'm sure you're doing all this for the love of football and QPR, and no other reason. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
came on here about a year ago and suggested the club get together with the shareholders about a "write off" in the best interests of the club? 