| QPR accounts 12:58 - May 22 with 12742 views | superhoopdownunder |
Just released
Losses increased due to impact of covid (no crowds) and no parachute payments
|  | | |  |
| QPR accounts on 13:58 - May 24 with 3639 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR accounts on 13:53 - May 24 by Maggsinho |
Legal fees, architects fees, surveys, planning, etc, etc presumably. |
£4.5 million on a few designs and plans for a training ground they were going to rent from Ealing Council? Really? I seriously doubt it. |  | | |
| QPR accounts on 14:09 - May 24 with 3614 views | Maggsinho |
| QPR accounts on 13:58 - May 24 by Benny_the_Ball |
£4.5 million on a few designs and plans for a training ground they were going to rent from Ealing Council? Really? I seriously doubt it. |
Eight and a half years of legal battles all the way to the Supreme Court wouldn't come cheap.
Either that or they were making paper aeroplanes with Warren Farm scribbled on it out of £50 notes - take your pick. |  | | |
| QPR accounts on 14:11 - May 24 with 3607 views | slmrstid |
| QPR accounts on 13:58 - May 24 by Benny_the_Ball |
£4.5 million on a few designs and plans for a training ground they were going to rent from Ealing Council? Really? I seriously doubt it. |
These things are hellishly expensive, I fully believe it. Ultimately a disappointing folly though. |  | | |
| QPR accounts on 14:50 - May 24 with 3523 views | HanwellHoopster |
Anyone know if that £4.5m on Warren Farm would fall under capital spending, and therefore not be part of the FFP calculation? That would significantly improve our FFP situation. | | | |
| QPR accounts on 16:31 - May 24 with 3356 views | ed_83 |
| QPR accounts on 14:50 - May 24 by HanwellHoopster |
Anyone know if that £4.5m on Warren Farm would fall under capital spending, and therefore not be part of the FFP calculation? That would significantly improve our FFP situation. |
Not sure, but my guess is they probably aren't included in FFP. I remember Clive saying that costs related to the new training ground (buying the land, building on it, mortgage payments going forward) aren't included in FFP calculations, but rent for the current / old training ground is. So presumably (please correct me if I've misremembered / misunderstood) even though the new training ground will cost us more in the short term, we'll see an improvement in our FFP figures the moment we move. [Post edited 24 May 2021 16:33]
| | | |
| QPR accounts on 17:57 - May 24 with 3195 views | hantssi |
| QPR accounts on 13:58 - May 24 by Benny_the_Ball |
£4.5 million on a few designs and plans for a training ground they were going to rent from Ealing Council? Really? I seriously doubt it. |
Consultant fees are really expensive, anyone remember the Schools for the Future project?
They managed to spend nearly two thirds of the budget before putting a spade in the ground!
A mate of mine is involved in a project that will spend over £6M in fees just to get to the planning stage.
These things don’t come cheap! | | | |
| QPR accounts on 01:41 - May 25 with 2899 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR accounts on 14:09 - May 24 by Maggsinho |
Eight and a half years of legal battles all the way to the Supreme Court wouldn't come cheap.
Either that or they were making paper aeroplanes with Warren Farm scribbled on it out of £50 notes - take your pick. |
First off, it was Ealing Council taking the case all the way to Supreme Court (albeit supported by QPR).
Secondly, these accounts do not cover the 8 years QPR spent trying to secure Warren Farm. They are specifically for the financial year 2019-20.
So the question remains, what on earth did QPR spend £4.5 million on during that financial year? | | | |
| QPR accounts on 01:46 - May 25 with 2890 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR accounts on 14:11 - May 24 by slmrstid |
These things are hellishly expensive, I fully believe it. Ultimately a disappointing folly though. |
I don't because these accounts are just for the financial year 2019-20. All legal avenues were exhausted by November 2018. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| QPR accounts on 08:19 - May 25 with 2739 views | slmrstid |
| QPR accounts on 01:46 - May 25 by Benny_the_Ball |
I don't because these accounts are just for the financial year 2019-20. All legal avenues were exhausted by November 2018. |
I think you're misunderstanding it Benny. They didnt spend £4.5m in one year, those are the costs capitalised during the whole time the project was ongoing (which under accounting law they are able to do).
The costs are only then written off when it is clear there is no justification for the continued capitalisation of the costs.
Even though publicly the project was abandoned before the financial year, there must have been some private behind the scenes justification for the costs to continue to sit in our balance sheet until being written off in the 2019-20 year. | | | |
| QPR accounts on 10:36 - May 25 with 2523 views | derbyhoop |
| QPR accounts on 08:19 - May 25 by slmrstid |
I think you're misunderstanding it Benny. They didnt spend £4.5m in one year, those are the costs capitalised during the whole time the project was ongoing (which under accounting law they are able to do).
The costs are only then written off when it is clear there is no justification for the continued capitalisation of the costs.
Even though publicly the project was abandoned before the financial year, there must have been some private behind the scenes justification for the costs to continue to sit in our balance sheet until being written off in the 2019-20 year. |
Ask an accountant what 2+2 makes?
The answer - what figure did you have in mind? |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| QPR accounts on 10:51 - May 25 with 2487 views | slmrstid |
| QPR accounts on 10:36 - May 25 by derbyhoop |
Ask an accountant what 2+2 makes?
The answer - what figure did you have in mind? |
As an accountant myself....
I fully agree with this comment
 | | | |
| QPR accounts on 10:58 - May 25 with 2465 views | LazyFan |
| QPR accounts on 10:36 - May 25 by derbyhoop |
Ask an accountant what 2+2 makes?
The answer - what figure did you have in mind? |
You are correct.
They even have a term for it, it's called "Adjustment". Classically called making a "topside adjustment". Whereby they just make it up in reality.
How can they do this? Well, they claim it's justifiable and can be explained within the rules, their interpretation of the rules of course.
This is okay, except they constantly pass off the profession as if all the figures are solidly understood and it's all done in a scientific way and as a result, we are locked into the rules and that's the way it is. When in reality it's peoples interpretation of the rules to the strictness their personal bias (however low or high that is at the time) dictates.
My personal experience of accountants and I have worked with many accountants as a customer and also working in the Finance departments of many many Banks, is they don't really know their own profession properly and have no regards for quality. And worse do not have an adaptable mindset to see opportunities for their clients and don't really help them. As such, they are really bad tradespeople who would be banned under Check a Trader sites.
For example, a standard company set-up of an LLP, which is a standard company setup and plenty of accountants are set up this way, in my experience 90% of accountants don't know how to do this and don't want to know-how as its more work, yet they themselves maybe set up this way in running of their own company. At first, I thought they did not bother as there is no money in it, but then I went to the accountant's websites with their own discussion forums and discovered, nope, most of them don't know how to do it. Basics, they cannot do, this is the accountancy profession as whole for you.
It's all made up! |  |
| |
| QPR accounts on 17:47 - May 25 with 2187 views | TGRRRSSS |
All in all considering it looks a good year especially considering we later on sold Exe - not in that years account however Covid will have a much bigger impact. |  | | |
| QPR accounts on 16:21 - May 26 with 1898 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR accounts on 08:19 - May 25 by slmrstid |
I think you're misunderstanding it Benny. They didnt spend £4.5m in one year, those are the costs capitalised during the whole time the project was ongoing (which under accounting law they are able to do).
The costs are only then written off when it is clear there is no justification for the continued capitalisation of the costs.
Even though publicly the project was abandoned before the financial year, there must have been some private behind the scenes justification for the costs to continue to sit in our balance sheet until being written off in the 2019-20 year. |
At last, a sensible response. Thanks for the explanation. Still odd, however, that the write-off has been incorporated in 2019-20.
Is this what they call creative accounting? Back in the day it was set of books A and B; A in case a man in a bowler hat knocked on the door and B for internal use only. | | | |
| QPR accounts on 16:53 - May 26 with 1823 views | slmrstid |
| QPR accounts on 16:21 - May 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
At last, a sensible response. Thanks for the explanation. Still odd, however, that the write-off has been incorporated in 2019-20.
Is this what they call creative accounting? Back in the day it was set of books A and B; A in case a man in a bowler hat knocked on the door and B for internal use only. |
Given what we know now, it looks odd it wasnt written off in 18-19, but there might have been a reason for that at the time that allowed for it to be carried forward - we can only guess what that might have been though.
I wouldn't call it creative accounting per se - if the project had gone ahead it would have been part of the overall cost of the site and asset so perfectly justifiable to be capitalised. Creative accounting would more be capitalising costs you have no real justification to do so. The great Glasgow Rangers tax case involved a hell of a lot of creative accounting and that didn't end well for them.
Mind you, I've had LazyFan completely trash my profession so perhaps I back out of this conversation now...  | | | |
| QPR accounts on 18:13 - May 26 with 1735 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| QPR accounts on 16:53 - May 26 by slmrstid |
Given what we know now, it looks odd it wasnt written off in 18-19, but there might have been a reason for that at the time that allowed for it to be carried forward - we can only guess what that might have been though.
I wouldn't call it creative accounting per se - if the project had gone ahead it would have been part of the overall cost of the site and asset so perfectly justifiable to be capitalised. Creative accounting would more be capitalising costs you have no real justification to do so. The great Glasgow Rangers tax case involved a hell of a lot of creative accounting and that didn't end well for them.
Mind you, I've had LazyFan completely trash my profession so perhaps I back out of this conversation now... |
"if the project had gone ahead it would have been part of the overall cost of the site and asset so perfectly justifiable to be capitalised"
Given that QPR never owned the site (they were renting from Ealing Council), why would it be considered an asset?
(Genuine question out of interest, not trashing your profession!) | | | |
| QPR accounts on 09:08 - May 27 with 1608 views | slmrstid |
| QPR accounts on 18:13 - May 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
"if the project had gone ahead it would have been part of the overall cost of the site and asset so perfectly justifiable to be capitalised"
Given that QPR never owned the site (they were renting from Ealing Council), why would it be considered an asset?
(Genuine question out of interest, not trashing your profession!) |
If you have a leasehold interest in a site you are still able to capitalise costs.
My company moved offices in January on a 10 year lease, so the amounts we have spent refurbishing the new office have all been capitalised in our accounts, albeit being amortised over the length of the lease.
It might have been, and this is only guessing, the costs we incurred might have been amortised over a period of X years once we actually moved into the refurbed site as I believe all the build costs would still have been incurred by us.
So that would be the way I assume it was all looked at accounting wise. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
