By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Is Tone a bit distracted on 19:51 - Feb 4 by Match82
Used that phrase to an American at work the other day
"I'm just taking the Mick" "The what?" "Taking the Mickey out of you" "What's that?" "You know, pulling your leg" "Doing what?" "Taking the p1ss mate" "I don't understand" "Oh my god, I'm winding you up" "What does that mean?"
I walked away.
Show him this:
Did I ever mention that I was in Minder?
0
Is Tone a bit distracted on 16:51 - Feb 6 with 1707 views
Is Tone a bit distracted on 16:22 - Feb 2 by BazzaInTheLoft
We lose money because we pay players too much, even now. This is from 2018/19 so a bit out of date but the point is the same.
Look at where some of those clubs with lower wage bills are. I'm thinking specifically about Brentford and Sheffield United here by the way. We can be successful and pay low wages if we are clever about it.
[Post edited 2 Feb 2020 16:29]
One of your better charts and shows what can be achieved with thought and scouting. Sheffield United are competitive in the PL with pretty much the same squad. Even with promotion clauses thrown in I suspect their wage bill is a fraction of what Fernandes et al were throwing around in the top flight.
0
Is Tone a bit distracted on 16:59 - Feb 6 with 1698 views
Is Tone a bit distracted on 11:15 - Feb 2 by DejR_vu
I think if the Mittals had wanted to buy it they would have by now. It feels to me like something Amit enjoys being involved in so they keep their shareholding. Lakshmi Mittal strikes me as too serious a businessman to actually want it lock stock. It’s not a good business proposition, he’s too grown up to need toys, and he doesn’t need his ego massaged.
[Post edited 2 Feb 2020 11:19]
He made an offer but it was rejected by Flavio and Bernie before Uncle Tony stepped in. Since then Mittal reduced his shareholding presumably because he was tired of the consortium wasting his money. If the rumours of bribery and money laundering are true then it could be an opportunity for Mittal to achieve his original ambition at a cut price.
0
Is Tone a bit distracted on 19:03 - Feb 6 with 1601 views
Is Tone a bit distracted on 16:59 - Feb 6 by Benny_the_Ball
He made an offer but it was rejected by Flavio and Bernie before Uncle Tony stepped in. Since then Mittal reduced his shareholding presumably because he was tired of the consortium wasting his money. If the rumours of bribery and money laundering are true then it could be an opportunity for Mittal to achieve his original ambition at a cut price.
Not sure that he diluted his shareholding by choice; I think that Reuban created and bought more shares to dilute the shareholding of the others...
I wonder whose "ambition it was to but the Rs" as its Amit who appears most interested although I can see him getting pee'd off by the crap he gets on Twitter...
Is Tone a bit distracted on 19:03 - Feb 6 by davman
Not sure that he diluted his shareholding by choice; I think that Reuban created and bought more shares to dilute the shareholding of the others...
I wonder whose "ambition it was to but the Rs" as its Amit who appears most interested although I can see him getting pee'd off by the crap he gets on Twitter...
I think you're mixing up several events which is understandable because it's super confusing and gives me a migrane.
Historically the club's debt was mainly loans owed to the directors. In 2015 the owners effectively wrote off club debts of £180million by coverting these loans to equity. This lit the fuse for the FFP inquiry as the EFL saw it as QPR trying to avoid FFP sanctions by posting a debt of £9million (instead of £189million). At this stage Mittal's company still owned 30% of QPR Holdings Ltd.
In 2016, Ruben increased his share to 33% by acquiring shares from both Mittal and Fernandes. Mittal's stake went down to 11% amid rumours that he was unimpressed with the board's spending strategy and subsequent FFP investigation.
In 2018 as part of the FFP settlement the club agreed to convert a further £22million of directors' loans to equity as well as pay a fine of £17million over 10 years. The irony here was that the EFL insisted on this measure even though it was the original capitalisation of £180million that incurred their wrath in the first place.
All this leaves the current owners in a conundrum as, though somewhat restricted by FFP, they can still spend within reason. However, having written off so much debt and seen the Old Oak project collapse, they have opted to sever the purse strings.
Directors' loans still stands at around £40million however balancing the books as well as securing the Warren Farm site has made the club more saleable. It's little wonder then that rumours are circulating that the owners want to sell and the Airbus saga may prove to be a catalyst.
[Post edited 6 Feb 2020 22:41]
2
Is Tone a bit distracted on 07:10 - Feb 7 with 1450 views
Is Tone a bit distracted on 22:36 - Feb 6 by Benny_the_Ball
I think you're mixing up several events which is understandable because it's super confusing and gives me a migrane.
Historically the club's debt was mainly loans owed to the directors. In 2015 the owners effectively wrote off club debts of £180million by coverting these loans to equity. This lit the fuse for the FFP inquiry as the EFL saw it as QPR trying to avoid FFP sanctions by posting a debt of £9million (instead of £189million). At this stage Mittal's company still owned 30% of QPR Holdings Ltd.
In 2016, Ruben increased his share to 33% by acquiring shares from both Mittal and Fernandes. Mittal's stake went down to 11% amid rumours that he was unimpressed with the board's spending strategy and subsequent FFP investigation.
In 2018 as part of the FFP settlement the club agreed to convert a further £22million of directors' loans to equity as well as pay a fine of £17million over 10 years. The irony here was that the EFL insisted on this measure even though it was the original capitalisation of £180million that incurred their wrath in the first place.
All this leaves the current owners in a conundrum as, though somewhat restricted by FFP, they can still spend within reason. However, having written off so much debt and seen the Old Oak project collapse, they have opted to sever the purse strings.
Directors' loans still stands at around £40million however balancing the books as well as securing the Warren Farm site has made the club more saleable. It's little wonder then that rumours are circulating that the owners want to sell and the Airbus saga may prove to be a catalyst.
[Post edited 6 Feb 2020 22:41]
Thanks, Benny, but still not sure that the Mittals sold shares. I thought that Reuban used the money to create more shares, which he bought thereby watering down the Mittals' overall %age holding without actually changing the number of shares they own.
I may have got that wrong and, if so, fair 'nuff; it doesn't really change things either way!
I still struggle to see how we would be attractive to any purchaser though with or without Warren Farm - the £40m debt to the current board must be a significant portion of the true worth of the club, especially as, we are constantly told that it doesn't matter how rich an owner is; they can't spend with the FFP rules in place.
Tony might now survive what's in front of him, so it is just as well he is not the sole owner...
Is Tone a bit distracted on 07:10 - Feb 7 by BrianMcCarthy
Excellent summary, Benny.
But this sentence is conjecture on your part, to be fair:
"However, having written off so much debt and seen the Old Oak project collapse, they have opted to sever the purse strings."
That's fair, Brian, though I would argue that the final part "they have opted to sever the purse strings" is indisputable, the reasons why are debateable. However, given the evidence at our disposal (writing off £200m of debt, FFP sanction, Mittal reducing his shareholding, the owners mishandling Old Oak/Car Giant, the battle for the Linford Christie stadium and the Warren Farm delays) I'd say that sentence is more than mere conjecture.
0
Is Tone a bit distracted on 13:05 - Feb 7 with 1297 views
Is Tone a bit distracted on 10:54 - Feb 7 by davman
Thanks, Benny, but still not sure that the Mittals sold shares. I thought that Reuban used the money to create more shares, which he bought thereby watering down the Mittals' overall %age holding without actually changing the number of shares they own.
I may have got that wrong and, if so, fair 'nuff; it doesn't really change things either way!
I still struggle to see how we would be attractive to any purchaser though with or without Warren Farm - the £40m debt to the current board must be a significant portion of the true worth of the club, especially as, we are constantly told that it doesn't matter how rich an owner is; they can't spend with the FFP rules in place.
Tony might now survive what's in front of him, so it is just as well he is not the sole owner...
The creation of more shares in exchange for writing off debts is effectively the capitalisation that occurred in 2015 and 2018. What happened in 2016 was a straight acquisition of shares from Tony and Mittal.
However, I agree it doesn't change much as we're still effectively owned by a consortium. The club is not overtly attractive to a purchaser but certainly more attractive than when it owed £240m to the owners and had no training ground.
As for FFP, it doesn't prevent rich owners from spending anything, it allows owners to spend within parameters and provides exceptions (e.g. the costs of developing Warren Farm will not count towards FFP calculations). The problem that QPR have is that FFP is measured over a 3 year rolling period therefore they have to wait for the ghosts of the PL years to disappear before they can start spending again. Next summer should tell us everything we need to know about the owners' ambition.
2
Is Tone a bit distracted on 15:57 - Feb 7 with 1222 views
Is Tone a bit distracted on 12:51 - Feb 7 by Benny_the_Ball
That's fair, Brian, though I would argue that the final part "they have opted to sever the purse strings" is indisputable, the reasons why are debateable. However, given the evidence at our disposal (writing off £200m of debt, FFP sanction, Mittal reducing his shareholding, the owners mishandling Old Oak/Car Giant, the battle for the Linford Christie stadium and the Warren Farm delays) I'd say that sentence is more than mere conjecture.
Absolutely conjecture as far as I can see. Based solely on your own beliefs rather than any reliable evidence.
1
Is Tone a bit distracted on 16:48 - Feb 7 with 1152 views
Is Tone a bit distracted on 13:05 - Feb 7 by Benny_the_Ball
The creation of more shares in exchange for writing off debts is effectively the capitalisation that occurred in 2015 and 2018. What happened in 2016 was a straight acquisition of shares from Tony and Mittal.
However, I agree it doesn't change much as we're still effectively owned by a consortium. The club is not overtly attractive to a purchaser but certainly more attractive than when it owed £240m to the owners and had no training ground.
As for FFP, it doesn't prevent rich owners from spending anything, it allows owners to spend within parameters and provides exceptions (e.g. the costs of developing Warren Farm will not count towards FFP calculations). The problem that QPR have is that FFP is measured over a 3 year rolling period therefore they have to wait for the ghosts of the PL years to disappear before they can start spending again. Next summer should tell us everything we need to know about the owners' ambition.
Top post.
I'd just hope the current owners, if still in the chair, don't get to the end of the 3 year cycle equate ambition with simply throwing money at players on reputation. We don't want another sugar rush.
I still maintain the make or break will be Warren Farm going ahead. Should that start at anytime in this decade it will be the start of a much better period for the club and prove we have a serious plan
Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
