| QPR Finances released 06:25 - Feb 28 with 57465 views | Jeff |
From Kieran Maguire in the Twitter:
[Post edited 28 Feb 2023 6:29]
|  |
| |  |
| QPR Finances released on 23:04 - Feb 28 with 2407 views | Monkey_Roots |
| QPR Finances released on 20:26 - Feb 28 by CateLeBonR |
I very much doubt that is the case.
I'll be honest I find it all it bit mental that people think we need to spend more of the 'owners' money to get out of this. We need to do the opposite. We need to do the opposite. We need to produce more. Even if the current plan hasn't worked how we liked, if it was a good plan then we should stick to it. Look how quickly things have changed in the last few years. Whose to say they won't change again in the next few years to our benefit? |
What evidence is there to suggest that it will change?
The plan is sound, but clearly our execution of it isn’t. |  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 23:37 - Feb 28 with 2327 views | JamesB1979 |
| QPR Finances released on 14:39 - Feb 28 by daveB |
It's a very simplistic way of looking at it from me but I just think as a club we need to do everything better
Bringing in revenue we do nowhere near enough to get people in the door, nowhere near enough to have good food and drink options and nowhere near enough to hire staff who can pour a drink.
Trying to buy a ticket to get in is laughable and has been for years, that ticketing website is just not fit for purpose.
All of that falls on Lee Hoos, he needs to do much better or be replaced by someone else.
On the playing side we spend far too much on the academy, we've gone from one extreme to the other so unless it produces first team players it's white elephant. We pay Chris Ramsey very good money to put the cones out, I've lost track of the number of jobs he's had now.
Our recruitment isn't good enough, we spend far too much on players not good enough and the more you get wrong the bigger the hole you fall into. That needs to be a million times better and that falls on Les Ferdinand who needs to be much better or be replaced.
I could go on but it's all quite depressing |
Nail on head…with exception that they’ve had 8 years in the job and look at us. No more chances. |  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 00:41 - Mar 1 with 2224 views | Jigsore |
| QPR Finances released on 09:17 - Feb 28 by toboboly |
I know we all rate Willock, Chair, and Dieng but even before their injuries/the current abyssal plunge there was little to no interest in any of them when we were carving through the league like butter.
Whilst taking into account the lack of mid level Championship purchases since covid it makes you wonder why, what are other clubs seeing or hearing that means they won't even bid/enquire? |
I can answer that! it's because we're cursed.
I legitimately cannot understand why we can't even get a derisory bit for those players while they were in scintillating form while Bristol City get £10m for Semenyo (he's... fine?) and Stoke get £15m for Souttar (one good pass against France). Huddersfield got something around £8m for Lewis O'Brien. Even Blackpool got £4m for Josh Bowler.
Maybe it's because we have a purposeful tendency to take a hit on injury-ridden players but some of those lads had close to a year of good form and we still didn't attract much interest.
Witch's Curse |  |
| “The thing about football - the important thing about football - is that it is not just about football.†|
| |
| QPR Finances released on 07:53 - Mar 1 with 1998 views | distortR |
| QPR Finances released on 19:57 - Feb 28 by SimonD |
I've not double checked my spreadsheet, read through all of the notes in the accounts etc, but I think we've still got £13m headroom after this set of accounts. There was a big loss rolling out of the reporting period.
I'll try to get a proper update to Clive on Thursday with a detailed explanation of how, why and what. I don't see us breaching this season, the issue is still the one after. |
Chop chop, fella.
(Great work, by the way!) | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 08:15 - Mar 1 with 1969 views | wombat |
| QPR Finances released on 07:53 - Mar 1 by distortR |
Chop chop, fella.
(Great work, by the way!) |
tried to make head for tail of the accts and failed obv we are in the brown stuff big time even by our standards but one thing can anyone answer
with the jigh turnover of managers this season is the pay offs to them still to be added to our shortfall ? |  |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 08:57 - Mar 1 with 1902 views | ngbqpr |
| QPR Finances released on 22:26 - Feb 28 by PunteR |
Conner? |
Connor's gone? NOOOOO!!!!
When did this happen? HOW did this happen?
Heads must roll. |  |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 09:08 - Mar 1 with 1875 views | stanistheman |
| QPR Finances released on 18:59 - Feb 28 by daveB |
If Dieng , Field, Dykes, Willock and Chair go we'd be getting transfer fees for those as well |
True, but selling them and replacing them with lesser quality players on lower wages is likely to leave the team struggling to stay in the Championship.
We would become a side like Rotherham, Peterborough, Barnsley or Wycombe. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 09:24 - Mar 1 with 1800 views | hubble |
It's funny, I never thought all those years ago, when I got the bug, the passion, the madness of supporting the rip roaring Rangers, that I'd be spending my latter years reading sets of accounts. These days it's more like I'm deeply involved with the ups and downs of a stationery supplier from Slough than a football club. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| QPR Finances released on 09:27 - Mar 1 with 1792 views | PinnerPaul |
| QPR Finances released on 20:10 - Feb 28 by 1JD |
Clive, you have a right to be negative, as you frequently are, but I personally find it draining. We are not in a good way, granted, but there is a huge amount of supposition. Whilst other information is being wilfully ignored. I’ve outlined multiple reasons, I won’t continue. And we will see what actually transpires. As I’ve said, let’s come back to this. |
Thing you and Clive both make good points.
What Clive says about not sugar coating anything is true, but equally so are some your assertions.
I can't really believe a "qualified accountant" comes on for example and says lets assume operation losses = FFP losses as "a starting point" - that is errant nonsense - the losses can't be any more than stated and I have copied the list of exemptions from the EFL website.
Dave mentions Covid losses, but again SEE ABOVE, there are many more allowable costs.
One of which is the "over staffed over paid" academy set up - You can't moan about how much that 'must cost' without acknowledging that if it IS as expensive as you assume than whilst not good news for the clubs P & L it does help with the FFP calculations.
Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over.
Clearly many things 'wrong' in there but to just take the outline P & L losses over 3 years and say we are in breach is not being pessimistic, doom and gloom etc it is just patently not true. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 09:50 - Mar 1 with 1700 views | CateLeBonR |
| QPR Finances released on 23:04 - Feb 28 by Monkey_Roots |
What evidence is there to suggest that it will change?
The plan is sound, but clearly our execution of it isn’t. |
Yeh I know I’m clutching at straws a bit. Maybe the new training ground will make a difference in coming years. Maybe we need to make some changes in personnel, players, coaches, DoF. I dunno.
I guess my point is that spending even more of the owners money doesn’t guarantee success either. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 9:52]
|  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:06 - Mar 1 with 1610 views | EastR |
| QPR Finances released on 09:27 - Mar 1 by PinnerPaul |
Thing you and Clive both make good points.
What Clive says about not sugar coating anything is true, but equally so are some your assertions.
I can't really believe a "qualified accountant" comes on for example and says lets assume operation losses = FFP losses as "a starting point" - that is errant nonsense - the losses can't be any more than stated and I have copied the list of exemptions from the EFL website.
Dave mentions Covid losses, but again SEE ABOVE, there are many more allowable costs.
One of which is the "over staffed over paid" academy set up - You can't moan about how much that 'must cost' without acknowledging that if it IS as expensive as you assume than whilst not good news for the clubs P & L it does help with the FFP calculations.
Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over.
Clearly many things 'wrong' in there but to just take the outline P & L losses over 3 years and say we are in breach is not being pessimistic, doom and gloom etc it is just patently not true. |
"Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over".
From the notes to the accounts: (P16)
"Land and assets under construction are not depreciated"
And their policy for Freehold Buildings is over 10 to 50 years. When the training ground is completed they'll start charging it to the P&L, and very likely over the 50 year time period. | |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 10:08 - Mar 1 with 1603 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Nothing new in these headline figures that Simon and Clive hadn't told us was coming.
Personally not as worried by us losing money as the potential FFP breach. We've known for a long time that the monthly loss-making is funded by the owners, and while we'd all prefer to be sustainable we also have to be realistic enough to realise that most - I said most!- sustainable clubs run the real risk of being relegated. Failing FFP, however, really scares me and with the collapse of the Championship transfer market now followed by the loss of form and value of our players it's hard to imagine where that £10-15m sale/promotion/wage reduction will come from.
Will be interesting to hear the reports from the LSA meeting. Hope it doesn't escalate. At least I think I hope that. Not sure protests during a relegation fight will help anyone. |  |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 10:08 - Mar 1 with 1602 views | slmrstid |
| QPR Finances released on 09:27 - Mar 1 by PinnerPaul |
Thing you and Clive both make good points.
What Clive says about not sugar coating anything is true, but equally so are some your assertions.
I can't really believe a "qualified accountant" comes on for example and says lets assume operation losses = FFP losses as "a starting point" - that is errant nonsense - the losses can't be any more than stated and I have copied the list of exemptions from the EFL website.
Dave mentions Covid losses, but again SEE ABOVE, there are many more allowable costs.
One of which is the "over staffed over paid" academy set up - You can't moan about how much that 'must cost' without acknowledging that if it IS as expensive as you assume than whilst not good news for the clubs P & L it does help with the FFP calculations.
Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over.
Clearly many things 'wrong' in there but to just take the outline P & L losses over 3 years and say we are in breach is not being pessimistic, doom and gloom etc it is just patently not true. |
Thanks for the "qualified accountant" dig Paul. I'll refer to you as a "qualified referee" from now on 
I would also point out, politely, that the costs of the training ground have not hit the P&L yet as they have not yet begun to be depreciated and won't be until it is complete. This is shown quite clearly in note 10 of the accounts with the "Assets Under Construction" figure, but as I clearly don't know what I'm talking about because I'm "qualified" I'll leave it to you to have another dig about something else. |  | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:08 - Mar 1 with 1599 views | slmrstid |
| QPR Finances released on 09:27 - Mar 1 by PinnerPaul |
Thing you and Clive both make good points.
What Clive says about not sugar coating anything is true, but equally so are some your assertions.
I can't really believe a "qualified accountant" comes on for example and says lets assume operation losses = FFP losses as "a starting point" - that is errant nonsense - the losses can't be any more than stated and I have copied the list of exemptions from the EFL website.
Dave mentions Covid losses, but again SEE ABOVE, there are many more allowable costs.
One of which is the "over staffed over paid" academy set up - You can't moan about how much that 'must cost' without acknowledging that if it IS as expensive as you assume than whilst not good news for the clubs P & L it does help with the FFP calculations.
Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over.
Clearly many things 'wrong' in there but to just take the outline P & L losses over 3 years and say we are in breach is not being pessimistic, doom and gloom etc it is just patently not true. |
Oo-er accidental double post from sausage fingers. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 10:09]
| | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:09 - Mar 1 with 1595 views | Northernr |
All being well recording analysis for the Patreon with Kieran Maguire and Simon tomorrow afternoon... |  | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:10 - Mar 1 with 1580 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| QPR Finances released on 10:09 - Mar 1 by Northernr |
All being well recording analysis for the Patreon with Kieran Maguire and Simon tomorrow afternoon... |
Great work.
I may need some hard drugs in me to listen to it, mind you. | |
| |
| QPR Finances released on 10:11 - Mar 1 with 1565 views | JamesB1979 |
| QPR Finances released on 09:27 - Mar 1 by PinnerPaul |
Thing you and Clive both make good points.
What Clive says about not sugar coating anything is true, but equally so are some your assertions.
I can't really believe a "qualified accountant" comes on for example and says lets assume operation losses = FFP losses as "a starting point" - that is errant nonsense - the losses can't be any more than stated and I have copied the list of exemptions from the EFL website.
Dave mentions Covid losses, but again SEE ABOVE, there are many more allowable costs.
One of which is the "over staffed over paid" academy set up - You can't moan about how much that 'must cost' without acknowledging that if it IS as expensive as you assume than whilst not good news for the clubs P & L it does help with the FFP calculations.
Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over.
Clearly many things 'wrong' in there but to just take the outline P & L losses over 3 years and say we are in breach is not being pessimistic, doom and gloom etc it is just patently not true. |
I’m an accountant too but not a very good one I admit. The problem with all the above (and accountants in general) is that we’re too focused on accounting treatment and P&L. What really matters is cashflow. Whether it’s allowable (under FFP) or not, it’s money out and if we can’t balance that with income (not money from shareholders) then someone (ie the owners) have to pay for it. We can moan about the owners until the cows come home but they are paying huge sums to stop us going bankrupt so we can pay the huge outgoings. Our wage bill has ballooned, our staff has increased and the result? Well look at the league table. We’re not making same mistakes as before….just a whole lot of new ones and not on as big a scale. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:19 - Mar 1 with 1509 views | johnhoop |
| QPR Finances released on 10:10 - Mar 1 by BrianMcCarthy |
Great work.
I may need some hard drugs in me to listen to it, mind you. |
I would save them for the matches we’ve got coming up. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:28 - Mar 1 with 1462 views | terryb |
| QPR Finances released on 09:27 - Mar 1 by PinnerPaul |
Thing you and Clive both make good points.
What Clive says about not sugar coating anything is true, but equally so are some your assertions.
I can't really believe a "qualified accountant" comes on for example and says lets assume operation losses = FFP losses as "a starting point" - that is errant nonsense - the losses can't be any more than stated and I have copied the list of exemptions from the EFL website.
Dave mentions Covid losses, but again SEE ABOVE, there are many more allowable costs.
One of which is the "over staffed over paid" academy set up - You can't moan about how much that 'must cost' without acknowledging that if it IS as expensive as you assume than whilst not good news for the clubs P & L it does help with the FFP calculations.
Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over.
Clearly many things 'wrong' in there but to just take the outline P & L losses over 3 years and say we are in breach is not being pessimistic, doom and gloom etc it is just patently not true. |
I think Paul that any depreciation on equipment (and this will definitely apply), will be offset by appreciation on the value of the land.
The appreciation might be a balance sheet item though, unless we were to sell the land for the profit! | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:31 - Mar 1 with 1449 views | PinnerPaul |
| QPR Finances released on 10:09 - Mar 1 by Northernr |
All being well recording analysis for the Patreon with Kieran Maguire and Simon tomorrow afternoon... |
Thanks Clive | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:34 - Mar 1 with 1432 views | PinnerPaul |
| QPR Finances released on 10:06 - Mar 1 by EastR |
"Likewise the training ground - yes it IS an asset - balance sheet item - but the cost DOES hit the P & L through depreciation, so if they have begun that depreciation already then those costs can come off for FFP purposes as well, and if they haven't they come off over the next 3 years or whatever period they depreciate over".
From the notes to the accounts: (P16)
"Land and assets under construction are not depreciated"
And their policy for Freehold Buildings is over 10 to 50 years. When the training ground is completed they'll start charging it to the P&L, and very likely over the 50 year time period. |
Thanks - excellent spot.
So nothing to 'take off' the P & L losses for the building work in these or next set of accounts as we will probably start depreciating from 23/24 onwards. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:37 - Mar 1 with 1401 views | slmrstid |
| QPR Finances released on 10:28 - Mar 1 by terryb |
I think Paul that any depreciation on equipment (and this will definitely apply), will be offset by appreciation on the value of the land.
The appreciation might be a balance sheet item though, unless we were to sell the land for the profit! |
You can't recognise appreciation value of an asset as income in a P&L unless it is realised.
If you revalue an asset upwards then the balancing entry sits in your Capital & Reserves as a Revaluation Reserve figure and it would only be recognised as income in a P&L if that asset was later sold and the gain realised. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 10:39]
| | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:38 - Mar 1 with 1392 views | PinnerPaul |
| QPR Finances released on 10:08 - Mar 1 by slmrstid |
Thanks for the "qualified accountant" dig Paul. I'll refer to you as a "qualified referee" from now on
I would also point out, politely, that the costs of the training ground have not hit the P&L yet as they have not yet begun to be depreciated and won't be until it is complete. This is shown quite clearly in note 10 of the accounts with the "Assets Under Construction" figure, but as I clearly don't know what I'm talking about because I'm "qualified" I'll leave it to you to have another dig about something else. |
I'm not having a dig but will repeat that the training ground construction cost is NOT the only allowable cost - its there in black and white on the EFL website, so why ignore all the other areas?
That's my question and apology if I was 'digging', wasn't meant to, but you haven't really answered that point. The FFP losses will NOT be £24M this year - you can't argue that surely? | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:40 - Mar 1 with 1372 views | slmrstid |
| QPR Finances released on 10:38 - Mar 1 by PinnerPaul |
I'm not having a dig but will repeat that the training ground construction cost is NOT the only allowable cost - its there in black and white on the EFL website, so why ignore all the other areas?
That's my question and apology if I was 'digging', wasn't meant to, but you haven't really answered that point. The FFP losses will NOT be £24M this year - you can't argue that surely? |
No I can't, but I can argue that none of us have the true figure because none of us have the detailed information to say what it is.
£24m is an absolutely appalling loss whichever way you look at it, and removes a hell of a lot of wriggle room the club may have had. | | | |
| QPR Finances released on 10:41 - Mar 1 with 1367 views | terryb |
| QPR Finances released on 10:37 - Mar 1 by slmrstid |
You can't recognise appreciation value of an asset as income in a P&L unless it is realised.
If you revalue an asset upwards then the balancing entry sits in your Capital & Reserves as a Revaluation Reserve figure and it would only be recognised as income in a P&L if that asset was later sold and the gain realised. [Post edited 1 Mar 2023 10:39]
|
Yes, I realised that as I was posting.
Thus, the second paragraph as being a BS item unless we sold for profit. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
