Forum | 180million Write Off by daveB |

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

180million Write Off 20:59 - Nov 9 with 10526 views

daveB

probably a Spackman

http://www.westlondonsport.com/qpr/qprs-owners-write-off-180m

180million Write Off on 10:40 - Nov 10 with 2801 views

stevec

Don't know why everyone was fretting over the £180m, it was past losses the owners financed and unrecoverable from the club given the size of the 'debt'.

I suspect the dilution into share capital is predominantly part of a behind the scenes deal with FFP lawyers to dot the i's and cross the t's so QPR were shown to be in a solvent position going forward. I wouldn't be surprised if the potential £50m FFP fine was dangled over their heads as an encouragement to tidy things up.

Downside, expect a big clear out in January.

180million Write Off on 10:41 - Nov 10 with 2791 views

adhoc_qpr

I don't understand high finance, but like others I feel that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is...

However, even the appearance of having less debt is a positive one for the time being.

Now if we don't bungle the managerial appointment and Warnock can stabilise the performances on the pitch in the meantime, things are looking up.

180million Write Off on 10:41 - Nov 10 with 2791 views

Northernr

180million Write Off on 10:40 - Nov 10 by stevec

That's an upside! Who are we so desperate to keep other than Austin?

180million Write Off on 10:43 - Nov 10 with 2785 views

stevec

180million Write Off on 10:41 - Nov 10 by Northernr
That's an upside! Who are we so desperate to keep other than Austin?

Fair comment, although I reckon Charlie will be the first one out the door.

180million Write Off on 10:55 - Nov 10 with 2754 views

adhoc_qpr

180million Write Off on 10:43 - Nov 10 by stevec
Fair comment, although I reckon Charlie will be the first one out the door.

I don't think so re Austin.

Charlie is hardly going to be keen to go and chase long balls for Big Sam's Sunderland or join the circus at Mclaren's Newcastle.

Maybe Palace might appeal, but he's have far more options and attract a far more lucrative contract as a freebie next summer.

Also with Vardy's being flavour of the month and Kane back scoring, his chances of an England squad place are pretty remote.

180million Write Off on 10:59 - Nov 10 with 2744 views

JonDoeman

180million Write Off on 10:41 - Nov 10 by Northernr
That's an upside! Who are we so desperate to keep other than Austin?

I wasn't desperate to keep him in the summer, he should have gone for what we could get for him. Only way that wasn't bad business is if we go up, which seems somewhat unlikely.

It Is What It Is !!

180million Write Off on 11:01 - Nov 10 with 2734 views

JonDoeman

180million Write Off on 10:55 - Nov 10 by adhoc_qpr

He's already said he's staying in January. And he will be absolutely desperately trying to avoid injury. Bad business.

It Is What It Is !!

180million Write Off on 11:05 - Nov 10 with 2724 views

adhoc_qpr

180million Write Off on 11:01 - Nov 10 by JonDoeman
He's already said he's staying in January. And he will be absolutely desperately trying to avoid injury. Bad business.

I think that's a bit insulting to Charlie's professionalism - he's not Scott Sinclair!

While he's here, he'll try his best.

It up to Warnock/new manager to get the team back to creating chances for him.

180million Write Off on 11:11 - Nov 10 with 2703 views

JonDoeman

180million Write Off on 11:05 - Nov 10 by adhoc_qpr
I think that's a bit insulting to Charlie's professionalism - he's not Scott Sinclair! While he's here, he'll try his best. It up to Warnock/new manager to get the team back to creating chances for him.

He's a good lad, but he will look after number one , its human nature .

It Is What It Is !!

180million Write Off on 11:15 - Nov 10 with 2689 views

Jamie

180million Write Off on 10:40 - Nov 10 by stevec

I would imagine that most people's worry was over the £27m bank loan secured against Loftus Road, and the further £37.5m of loans also secured against Loftus Road...

180million Write Off on 11:20 - Nov 10 with 2678 views

paulparker

180million Write Off on 10:38 - Nov 10 by Discodroids
what if he bought you a pint PP and threw in some nobbys nuts?

I might then change my mind Disco
Tony Fernandes clap,clap,clap , Tony Fernandes clap,clap, clap

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

180million Write Off on 11:31 - Nov 10 with 2646 views

TheBlob

Poll:

So how was the season for you?

180million Write Off on 11:32 - Nov 10 with 2641 views

stevec

180million Write Off on 11:15 - Nov 10 by Jamie
I would imagine that most people's worry was over the £27m bank loan secured against Loftus Road, and the further £37.5m of loans also secured against Loftus Road...

Wasn't aware of the £37.5m and a different kettle of fish! That said, loans are of a more long term nature but does emphasis the need to eventually get back amongst the big boys, like it or not.

180million Write Off on 12:28 - Nov 10 with 2558 views

1BobbyHazell

180million Write Off on 09:01 - Nov 10 by PunteR
A shrewd lunatic..

Love this.

We could have Shrewd Lunatic Top Trumps.

I'd play Donald Rumsfeld.

Lunatic enough to send an army to commit mass genocide in the 100's of 1000's in an illegal invasion that started with mass murder and has ended as creating a hotbed for the creation and rise of the likes of ISIS.

Shrewd enough to have shares in both arms companies that provided the murderous weaponary AND construction companies employed to rebuild the damage they did.

Beat that. He's like Gary Sobers was in my cricket trumps back in the day.

[Post edited 10 Nov 2015 15:28]

180million Write Off on 14:35 - Nov 10 with 2441 views

wombat

180million Write Off on 11:15 - Nov 10 by Jamie
I would imagine that most people's worry was over the £27m bank loan secured against Loftus Road, and the further £37.5m of loans also secured against Loftus Road...

so 50 plus million loaned against a piece of land worth prob 24million in present climate , lands worth no more than that as land locked so no bigger development aval unless they decide to build over the BBC park

Poll:

which is your favouite foot

180million Write Off on 16:13 - Nov 10 with 2389 views

LythamR

I thought the original loan from Barclays was repaid and then a further loan taken out, not even a bank as mad as barclays would loan money against an asset it had already used as collateral for an existing loan

Question needs asking at the Fans Forum, what loans are currently outstanding now that the £186 has been written down

180million Write Off on 16:36 - Nov 10 with 2359 views

Jamie

180million Write Off on 16:13 - Nov 10 by LythamR
I thought the original loan from Barclays was repaid and then a further loan taken out, not even a bank as mad as barclays would loan money against an asset it had already used as collateral for an existing loan Question needs asking at the Fans Forum, what loans are currently outstanding now that the £186 has been written down

Per the last accounts, there is still a £19m mortgage outstanding to Barclays against Loftus Road.

Presumably the £37.5m loans to directors secured against the ground were part of this bulk write off, but there's been nothing filed at CH discharging the Barclays loan.

180million Write Off on 16:48 - Nov 10 with 2347 views

wombat

180million Write Off on 16:36 - Nov 10 by Jamie
Per the last accounts, there is still a £19m mortgage outstanding to Barclays against Loftus Road. Presumably the £37.5m loans to directors secured against the ground were part of this bulk write off, but there's been nothing filed at CH discharging the Barclays loan.

thought that was repaid within 12 months of the loan being taken out ?

Poll:

which is your favouite foot

180million Write Off on 17:23 - Nov 10 with 2302 views

Jamie

180million Write Off on 16:48 - Nov 10 by wombat
thought that was repaid within 12 months of the loan being taken out ?

I presume that was the £15m they took out.

As said, as at the last accounts £19m was still outstanding to Barclays, having repaid £8m during the last accounting year.

180million Write Off on 17:25 - Nov 10 with 2299 views

classof93

180million Write Off on 16:48 - Nov 10 by wombat
thought that was repaid within 12 months of the loan being taken out ?

No the bank loan is still there secured against the ground.

At the end of the day it's bank debt that is the risk, as if the bank call it in or the debt can't be serviced it's a problem.

Shareholder debt (although doesn't look great on the balance sheet) isn't an issue really as it would need the shareholders to demand it back and put the club into liquidation.

If they get rid of the bank debt then fair play to them.

180million Write Off on 18:34 - Nov 10 with 2239 views

johncharles

ONEHUNDREDANDEIGHTY !!!!! Means a lot in darts. I've got a Yamaha gakki 180. That will mean something to some people. Writing off £180 million ? Means nothing to me. Vienna.

Strong and stable my arse.

180million Write Off on 18:44 - Nov 10 with 2225 views

BazzaInTheLoft

I think we can agree on one thing. The finances of QPR Football Club are as complicated as fvck which worries me...

As with everything in the last 10 - 15 years nobody outside a small section really knows the truth.

180million Write Off on 21:13 - Nov 10 with 2139 views

vblockranger

180million Write Off on 18:44 - Nov 10 by BazzaInTheLoft
I think we can agree on one thing. The finances of QPR Football Club are as complicated as fvck which worries me... As with everything in the last 10 - 15 years nobody outside a small section really knows the truth.

"transparent" doncha know....

180million Write Off on 22:46 - Nov 10 with 2068 views

FredManRave

180million Write Off on 21:13 - Nov 10 by vblockranger
"transparent" doncha know....

Beat me to it VB. Transparent my arse.

	I've got the Power.
Poll:	MOM from todays Teasing at Teesside?

180million Write Off on 23:28 - Nov 10 with 2038 views

Ingham

TF said a year or two ago that the debt - I can't recall offhand the expression he used but it was to the effect that it was 'related to' the ground. Once upon a time, Moneylenders who were Owners borrowed against the equity in the Ground on the Club's tab, but LR isn't worth enough to be used in that way against loans of £180 million or more. So the implication was that it was the NEW Ground the loans were connected with.

Beard did say the new Ground would cost £200 million - I think he said 'cost' not 'would be worth' that sum. But I can't see how there could be a relationship between money already spent and lost on non-performing players, and money yet to be spent building the Stadium. If the money was already gone, there wouldn't be any to build the Ground.

And if the building costs were still available, why would the new owners - who wouldn't be QPR, if Beard was to be believed - encumber their own asset with someone else's (QPR's) losses?

I can't take seriously the idea that in football money is of the first importance when it comes to borrowing it and spending it, but once it has gone, the liability incurred by all that borrowing simply vanishes, or is swept away, so the Club won't need to be bothered with it any more, and the owners will cheerfully take the hit.

That hardly tallies with the fact that the QPR debt has been steadily rising over the past 25 years, despite the increasing wealth of the Club's owners.

It WOULD be the case if the debt actually was 'written off', as Scottish BANKS have done with the chronically indebted and equally chronically underfunded Scottish Clubs. But, as far as I can make out, it hasn't been. Which leaves the question of whether the Club's value is now more or less equivalent to the size of its former debt. Or whether the value of the Club remains what it is.

I must say, I doubt that.

The tendency for there to be more and bigger loans chasing football Clubs with Premiership potential suggests that Clubs are no longer valued by their Owners on the basis of their fixed assets - the Ground essentially - but on the basis of that Premiership potential.

In the same way that the value of properties in the housing market rises steadily - or even dizzyingly - where demand exceeds supply (as I imagine it does where Premier League Football Clubs are concerned), even though the value of the property - in terms of its effectiveness as a property - never alters, any more than the effectiveness of most football clubs.

They just cost more to buy because there is more money swilling around than ever before.

If the Owner owns the shares as part of his wealth in the same way he owned the debt that has been converted to shareholder equity, then - in principle - is he really out of pocket? Judging by the scepticism in many of the posts above, there isn't yet widespread acceptance that this manoeuvre is being performed for the benefit of QPR, rather than the people running the Club.

And one lamentable difference between the housing property market and the football property market is that in the housing market, the Lender is only the Lender, NOT the person who also spends and squanders and loses the money as well, as is the case in football.

When I KNOW that the Club has benefited, and that TF or whoever is running the Club has lost £200 million of their own money securing QPR's future - just because they're nice chaps - then I will be grateful to them for that.

Opinions differed about the new stadium project, but it sounded nightmarish to me. QPR would presumably pay for it, as tenants do, but would own nothing. I can't believe that it is important for almost anyone else to own assets of that kind, but not the Club that the people in question are supposed to represent, and be acting in its interests, while the talk about world class talent and champions league proved about as far from reality as it could have been, and the stadium size didn't make sense to me (though I'm interested to see how close West Ham get to filling their Arsenal-sized new stadium without anywhere near Arsenal sized support, or the long history of top flight success over many, many decades that helps to keep Arsenal the big Club they are.

Lurking behind all the doubletalk we find it so difficult to get behind, is the problem of talent. If they really ARE writing off £200 million, or some lesser but still enormous sum, have they just given up - like the Scottish Banks - any hope of ever seeing the money again?

If so, what does that mean for QPR? That the Club will return to the Premiership, earn £80 million a year for 10 years, say, and the Owners won't bother to recover the £100 million plus that they're out of pocket?

Does it mean that the big money that should have improved the Club is gone, the big dreams are abandoned, and we must settle for being what we were anyway, a struggling second tier side?

Worried about the penalties for carrying debt?

Or Selling up, on the basis that at £80 million a year in income, if the Club is in the Premiership, someone will pay them £200 million or more for QPR, BECAUSE of that £80 million a year.

Will that solve the problem? And will it give them what they wanted all along, a significant increase in the share value and a reasonable profit?

Or must Loftus Road be sold to give them £20 million quid or so clear profit?

The trouble seems to be that everyone looks at football clubs as successful or not on the basis, not of what they EARN - and therefore how brilliantly successful they are - but, still, on the basis of what they spend. The Premiership revenue from TV etc doesn't really count competitively because every Club gets the money, so they are still scrambling around frantically trying to find a player or manager who will make a REAL difference. And at smaller Clubs nowadays, they more or less don't exist. The geniuses of old who won titles and even European Cups at small Clubs have vanished.

And my guess is that that is precisely because they all start with the question of money, and not with the question of talent.

All the Clubs in the Premiership get that £80 million or so, I assume, but they don't all finish up in the same position in the league, and it is THAT difference - partly due to the disparity in size between small Clubs and much bigger ones, and partly due to the gap between the few who really KNOW what they're doing, and the great majority up and down the league, who don't.

Not to the extent that they can combat the inertia that each Club has built in and which is determined largely by the size of the Club, and which can't be changed significantly except with a VAST increase in the talent available to that one specific Club.

We've never solved the talent riddle. And I don't see any sign that the Board are addressing it, even now. There just seem to be more nonchalant urgings to everyone to just accept that things are fine, and, once again, impressive sounding announcements about the Club's finances of the 'debt-free' kind we've heard before.

Perhaps they'll surprise us. And perhaps PLEASANTLY, for once. Just now, this announcement raises more questions than answers, and it is the hardest thing of all, understanding the game and solving the problem of talent, that will make the difference.

Nothing they and their predecessors have said indicates they even understand that there ARE problems of that kind in the game generally, let alone at QPR. If they do understand that, they've never mentioned it.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread