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.
I think these must be imminent now. I am pretty sure they were due by the end of Feb so we should find out pretty soon how much better (or less worse!) we are doing as regards to FFP.
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 10:12 - Mar 2 with 9889 views
Yeah, report says 'financial statements too old' at mo.
QPR Holdings Ltd last accounts show an increasing figure for Tangible Assets (£26m) and decreasing figure for Intangible assets (£19m). Does anybody know if the stadium is held within Tangible Assets in QPR Holdings Ltd, because if it's in the same trading company I'd have thought the Football League will have TF over a barrel with FFP.
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 15:22 - Mar 2 with 9727 views
they should have been filed by 28 Feb (9 months after the year end of 31 May). They may be at Companies House now and just not available yet to see on their website.
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 10:12 - Mar 2 by stevec
Yeah, report says 'financial statements too old' at mo.
QPR Holdings Ltd last accounts show an increasing figure for Tangible Assets (£26m) and decreasing figure for Intangible assets (£19m). Does anybody know if the stadium is held within Tangible Assets in QPR Holdings Ltd, because if it's in the same trading company I'd have thought the Football League will have TF over a barrel with FFP.
Can you explain please
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 17:16 - Mar 2 with 9633 views
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 10:12 - Mar 2 by stevec
Yeah, report says 'financial statements too old' at mo.
QPR Holdings Ltd last accounts show an increasing figure for Tangible Assets (£26m) and decreasing figure for Intangible assets (£19m). Does anybody know if the stadium is held within Tangible Assets in QPR Holdings Ltd, because if it's in the same trading company I'd have thought the Football League will have TF over a barrel with FFP.
I wont bore people with the details, but there is nothing untoward about this. If you look at note 10, its pretty apparent the stadium is in tangible assets
Not to mention, FFP regulations relate to the profit and loss statement (ie, the statement that shows your costs and revenues), not the balance sheet (ie the statement that tells you the value of your assets against the value of your liabilities and equity). The value of tangible/intangible assets is a balance sheet item, not a profit and loss satement item, so outside scope of FFP
The reduction in intangible assets is due to a somewhat technical accounting concept referred to as impairment charges....
[Post edited 2 Mar 2018 17:20]
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 20:50 - Mar 2 with 9481 views
The accounts should contain some fairly interesting details. If the fine has been levied but is being challenged I would expect there to be quite a detailed contingent liabilities note at the very least. Alternatively there may be a provision for the full amount. Which one will depend on the facts and circumstances. Either way there will be some decent disclosure on the issue in both the front end statements and the relevant notes.
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 14:31 - Mar 6 with 9225 views
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 20:50 - Mar 2 by EalingHoop81
The accounts should contain some fairly interesting details. If the fine has been levied but is being challenged I would expect there to be quite a detailed contingent liabilities note at the very least. Alternatively there may be a provision for the full amount. Which one will depend on the facts and circumstances. Either way there will be some decent disclosure on the issue in both the front end statements and the relevant notes.
That's interesting, Ealing.
Would you think there would be a contingency inserted if (as in this case) the owners had pledged to pay the fine themselves?
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 14:38 - Mar 6 by BrianMcCarthy
That's interesting, Ealing.
Would you think there would be a contingency inserted if (as in this case) the owners had pledged to pay the fine themselves?
Just a reminder as to what was disclosed in the accounts last year:
Contingent Liability Legal proceedings are on-going between the club and the Football League. QPR challenges the legality of the Football League’s Championship Financial Fair Play rules and any charge against QPR (if any) for breach of FFP rules shall not be commenced pending the outcome of that challenge. The proceedings are confidential in nature and neither party is entitled to comment upon the proceedings until the independent arbitral panel has delivered its decision.
Things have moved on a good deal since then (including in the period since 31 May last year) and so as Ealing mentions we should expect to see something more substantial as a disclosure this time around. If its considered significant by the auditors it may have to be disclosed in these accounts as a 'Post Balance Sheet Event' i.e. even if it has materialised in what would be the accounting period we are now in (ending 31 May 2018)
It could be that they have to put a provision (an amount set aside) as an estimate for any fine - that would put a number on it. That would show as being liable to be paid by the club (QPR Holdings Limited). The owners may inject capital to cover the cost of that.
All that is speculative for now, but we haven't long to find out....
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 14:55 - Mar 6 by EastR
Just a reminder as to what was disclosed in the accounts last year:
Contingent Liability Legal proceedings are on-going between the club and the Football League. QPR challenges the legality of the Football League’s Championship Financial Fair Play rules and any charge against QPR (if any) for breach of FFP rules shall not be commenced pending the outcome of that challenge. The proceedings are confidential in nature and neither party is entitled to comment upon the proceedings until the independent arbitral panel has delivered its decision.
Things have moved on a good deal since then (including in the period since 31 May last year) and so as Ealing mentions we should expect to see something more substantial as a disclosure this time around. If its considered significant by the auditors it may have to be disclosed in these accounts as a 'Post Balance Sheet Event' i.e. even if it has materialised in what would be the accounting period we are now in (ending 31 May 2018)
It could be that they have to put a provision (an amount set aside) as an estimate for any fine - that would put a number on it. That would show as being liable to be paid by the club (QPR Holdings Limited). The owners may inject capital to cover the cost of that.
All that is speculative for now, but we haven't long to find out....
Brian - yes I would. Irrespective of any commitment by the owners to cover the debt the Company has the contingent liability or provision. It would be a separate transaction with the owners and the Company’s if they loaned the cash to pay the fine or put in additional capital.
The difference between this year and last is my understanding is that the fine has been determined. Accordingly if the FL has found against us and that amount can be reliably estimated - i expect the accounts will show a big old liability. Alternatively if there is some significant uncertainty that remains then there may be an expanded contingent liability note.
1
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 23:15 - Mar 6 with 8493 views
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 18:43 - Mar 6 by EalingHoop81
Brian - yes I would. Irrespective of any commitment by the owners to cover the debt the Company has the contingent liability or provision. It would be a separate transaction with the owners and the Company’s if they loaned the cash to pay the fine or put in additional capital.
The difference between this year and last is my understanding is that the fine has been determined. Accordingly if the FL has found against us and that amount can be reliably estimated - i expect the accounts will show a big old liability. Alternatively if there is some significant uncertainty that remains then there may be an expanded contingent liability note.
I wouldn’t get hung up on the provision. It’s just accounting Mumbo jumbo
We know the claim. We know The amounts. We know the uncertainty
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 12:25 - Mar 7 with 8306 views
Some extracts from first glance (others will probably highlight anything of interest I’ve missed in the first run through, and with apologies to Acton): For clarity the figures are the ‘group’ — i.e. the results of the holding company and the football club consolidated
Income for the year was £47.964m (2016 £41.853m). Of this the broadcasting rights were £35.528m (2016 £29.575m). Gate receipts were £5.2m (£2016 £5.466m) The payroll reduced from £40.8m in the previous year to £30.6m in 2017, even though the playing staff and coaches number remained the same are 111.
Profit on disposal of players £7.3m.
The loss for the year was £6.4m, compared to £11m in the previous year. This brings the cumulative loss over the tenure of the owners to £240m. (the cost of the folly of the past few years)
During the year there was interest payable to the shareholders amounting to £7.5m This wasn’t paid but instead was converted into shares.
At the date of the accounts there were short term convertible shareholder loans outstanding for £46m, with interest due on £30m of that at 1% per month and 2% on the remaining £16m. (this is the interest that’s been converted to shares) There is £4m due on a bank loan secured on the stadium.
The Mittals have reduced their shareholding again — down to 3.41%. The current ownership is: 51.17% Total Soccer Growth Sdn Bhd (Ruben Gnanalingam) 45.2% Tune Group (Fernandes and Kamarudin Meranum) 3.41 % Mittals 0.22% other minority shareholders
Nothing has been set aside in the accounts for FFP. The update on that is:
"The hearing for the challenge against the legality of the FL FFP Rules was completed in mid-June 2017. In October 2017 the arbitral panel dismissed the club’s claim that the Rules were unlawful under competition and also found that the fine levied by the FL on the club was not disproportionate. The Club has subsequently appealed the decision and due to the confidential nature of the proceedings the Club is not able to comment on the details of the hearings until the appeals process has been concluded. Despite the decision in October 2017, after considering the merits of the appeal, the directors are f the opinion that it can be overturned on appeal."
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 12:25 - Mar 7 by Scotlandrs
Accounts are now available - no provision made for FFP, big one year £34m loan from Ruben at about 15% pa is about all I can make of them.
Over to the accountants...
Not an accountant, but know a thing or two about this:
Highlights: -Loss decreased from £10.9m to £6.4m
-Slashed our wage bill from about £35.9m to £27.3m (it appears that the wage total captures management and other key executive compensation, so there is a bit of non-player wages in that amount)
-Revenues increased from£41.9 to £48m. Our revenues from sponsorship, ticketing and commercial activity all decreased, but yet our revenues increased (which is due to an increase in parachute payments bc of increased tv money in the prem)
-Mittals continued to be diluted; their ownership is now down to 3%
-Quite a bit of shareholder loans from Ruben G to fund the company
Clive, or maybe someone else who knows for sure: when do parachute payments end for QPR? is it this year or next year?
1
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 13:32 - Mar 7 with 8092 views
Some extracts from first glance (others will probably highlight anything of interest I’ve missed in the first run through, and with apologies to Acton): For clarity the figures are the ‘group’ — i.e. the results of the holding company and the football club consolidated
Income for the year was £47.964m (2016 £41.853m). Of this the broadcasting rights were £35.528m (2016 £29.575m). Gate receipts were £5.2m (£2016 £5.466m) The payroll reduced from £40.8m in the previous year to £30.6m in 2017, even though the playing staff and coaches number remained the same are 111.
Profit on disposal of players £7.3m.
The loss for the year was £6.4m, compared to £11m in the previous year. This brings the cumulative loss over the tenure of the owners to £240m. (the cost of the folly of the past few years)
During the year there was interest payable to the shareholders amounting to £7.5m This wasn’t paid but instead was converted into shares.
At the date of the accounts there were short term convertible shareholder loans outstanding for £46m, with interest due on £30m of that at 1% per month and 2% on the remaining £16m. (this is the interest that’s been converted to shares) There is £4m due on a bank loan secured on the stadium.
The Mittals have reduced their shareholding again — down to 3.41%. The current ownership is: 51.17% Total Soccer Growth Sdn Bhd (Ruben Gnanalingam) 45.2% Tune Group (Fernandes and Kamarudin Meranum) 3.41 % Mittals 0.22% other minority shareholders
Nothing has been set aside in the accounts for FFP. The update on that is:
"The hearing for the challenge against the legality of the FL FFP Rules was completed in mid-June 2017. In October 2017 the arbitral panel dismissed the club’s claim that the Rules were unlawful under competition and also found that the fine levied by the FL on the club was not disproportionate. The Club has subsequently appealed the decision and due to the confidential nature of the proceedings the Club is not able to comment on the details of the hearings until the appeals process has been concluded. Despite the decision in October 2017, after considering the merits of the appeal, the directors are f the opinion that it can be overturned on appeal."
[Post edited 7 Mar 2018 13:43]
EastR, wanted to follow up one point:
During the year there was interest payable to the shareholders amounting to £7.5m This wasn’t paid but instead was converted into shares. If this hadn’t happened and the interest had been paid, it would have increased the loss from £6.4m to £15.9m. This transaction looks like a nice sleight of hand to keep the losses down for FFP.
Take a look at the finance costs on the P&L: says finance costs were £6m, and if you go to the corresponding note, £5.8m of that was interest on shareholder loans
if anything, in real terms, we should exclude the £5.8m from the losses....
1
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 13:43 - Mar 7 with 8065 views
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 13:32 - Mar 7 by qprd
EastR, wanted to follow up one point:
During the year there was interest payable to the shareholders amounting to £7.5m This wasn’t paid but instead was converted into shares. If this hadn’t happened and the interest had been paid, it would have increased the loss from £6.4m to £15.9m. This transaction looks like a nice sleight of hand to keep the losses down for FFP.
Take a look at the finance costs on the P&L: says finance costs were £6m, and if you go to the corresponding note, £5.8m of that was interest on shareholder loans
if anything, in real terms, we should exclude the £5.8m from the losses....
Good point qprd - I missed the disclosure in note 7 showing the detail of the finance charges.
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 13:22 - Mar 7 by qprd
Not an accountant, but know a thing or two about this:
Highlights: -Loss decreased from £10.9m to £6.4m
-Slashed our wage bill from about £35.9m to £27.3m (it appears that the wage total captures management and other key executive compensation, so there is a bit of non-player wages in that amount)
-Revenues increased from£41.9 to £48m. Our revenues from sponsorship, ticketing and commercial activity all decreased, but yet our revenues increased (which is due to an increase in parachute payments bc of increased tv money in the prem)
-Mittals continued to be diluted; their ownership is now down to 3%
-Quite a bit of shareholder loans from Ruben G to fund the company
Clive, or maybe someone else who knows for sure: when do parachute payments end for QPR? is it this year or next year?
For this set of accounts we got a parachute payment of about £20-25m I think. It's down to £10m for the season we're in now (next set of accounts) and we get another £10m next season and then that's it.
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 14:18 - Mar 7 with 7945 views
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 13:22 - Mar 7 by qprd
Not an accountant, but know a thing or two about this:
Highlights: -Loss decreased from £10.9m to £6.4m
-Slashed our wage bill from about £35.9m to £27.3m (it appears that the wage total captures management and other key executive compensation, so there is a bit of non-player wages in that amount)
-Revenues increased from£41.9 to £48m. Our revenues from sponsorship, ticketing and commercial activity all decreased, but yet our revenues increased (which is due to an increase in parachute payments bc of increased tv money in the prem)
-Mittals continued to be diluted; their ownership is now down to 3%
-Quite a bit of shareholder loans from Ruben G to fund the company
Clive, or maybe someone else who knows for sure: when do parachute payments end for QPR? is it this year or next year?
We have one more season (18/19) of parachute payments
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 15:39 - Mar 7 with 7745 views
all in all Uncle Tony & Friends have spunked 240 million to put us in a worse position to when they found us in its going to take a very long time to get us into a competitive side even for this division a long hard road awaits
And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
0
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 15:42 - Mar 7 with 7738 views
Financial statements to 31/5/17 on 15:17 - Mar 7 by wombat
with a stadium our size we are never going to break even , even with the salaries being cut and squad being reduced to one man and his dog
Still a lot better than it was.
Frightening how little ticket income pays towards the bills, doubt if it would fund our 17 player match day squad having a kick about on the Scrubs each week.
Whatever we think of Sky think what would happen without it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
