QPR accounts

[Dougie]

Piss off gypo.

Charming !

 

[Dougie]

Have you been told off for using the P word but can use a synonym ?

Better than the "m " word he normally favours .

 

[El Presidente]

This is the nitty-gritty of FFP being played out. I hope Paul Barber reads this thread and understands just how hacked off Albion fans are about teams around us like QPR, Leicester, Forest abusing the rules and gaining an unfair advantage. The Football League clubs HAVE to ensure that QPR are penalised over this.

The bottom line is everyone can live without football. The World Cup has been ruined because it will be held in corrupt Qatar and Russia, the Champions League has been ruined by divers and cheats, the FA Cup has been ruined by playing the semis at Wembley, the Premier League has been ruined by money. If the corruption filters down to Championship level and is allowed to remain then what IS the point? The buzz of football is terrific but if the competitiveness and integrity of the sport has gone then that might be that.

Jumpers for goalposts, tubby full backs sneaking a smoke from spectators on the touchline, dog plop, freezing girlfriends who wish they were anywhere else and referees who call everyone 'sonny'. You can't beat Sunday morning football. It's cheaper too!

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I'm assuming that if the Football League say "no, sorry, not accepting that. You're deliberately trying to circumvent FFP" the owners won't be able to then turn around and say "actually, about that 60m, we're still gonna want that back" so that after having to pay 57m in fines, they will still take 60m (plus interest) back out.

Sure, they'll still be down, but will eventually be less that 57m down instead of £120m down i.e. wipe the loan to the club to the tune of 60m, get fined 57m, leaving you 117m down (plus missing out on interest earned on the 60m loan) whereas getting the original 60m loan back in loan payments over time, with interest means you get 60+m back, leaving you 57m down.

Also, don't forget that a club with a 60 million debt, is worth 60 million less than a club with no debt. So they'll be able to now sell the club for more money.

 

[El Presidente]

If qpr get away with this do you think tony will splurge more wonga on a all out assault next season ? Or do you reckon he will carry on running a tight ship ?

It's a gamble that can easily go tits up, as Harry and his bunch of triffic lads nearly found out themselves.

 

[El Presidente]

Also, don't forget that a club with a 60 million debt, is worth 60 million less than a club with no debt. So they'll be able to now sell the club for more money.

They might get a little more money but not much as the market value of the £60m debt was effectively zero to begin with.

 

[Hillian1]

Better than the "m " word he normally favours .

Piss off mong.

Better?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

This is the rule that will see the football league losing all its power and maybe see the premier league 2 being started.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

If qpr get away with this do you think tony will splurge more wonga on a all out assault next season ? Or do you reckon he will carry on running a tight ship ?

Here we go again. What does this have to do with your hideous little club? Nothing. Then go away.

And BTW, 'a all' should be 'an all'.

 

[Weststander]

Not specifically to do with football clubs, but all loan w/offs in company accounts I've seen have always been shown in the Profit and Loss Account, in exactly the way QPR have shown it. Accounting rules were firmed up many years ago to ensure that all such items, either debits or credits, DO go through the Profit and Loss Account, and are not hidden all on the balance sheet.

The question is simply a FL FFP rules one - does this £60m exceptional credit count towards the FL FFP interpretation of income and the result for the year? I would very much hope not. The rules are in black and white, so let the FL decide.

 

[Weststander]

Jumpers for goalposts, tubby full backs sneaking a smoke from spectators on the touchline, dog plop, freezing girlfriends who wish they were anywhere else and referees who call everyone 'sonny'. You can't beat Sunday morning football. It's cheaper too!

Many are voting with their feet and/or remote controls, and are increasingly turned off by top level football, and that would extend to the Championship/PL with unethical littles moves like QPR's. So many other things to do in the world other than watching football, although the odd chat on NSC is still wonderful of course!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I’m no accountant but if FFP was brought in to stop clubs being saddled with a huge debt then having owners write off that debt must be a good thing for that club, even if done for the wrong reasons? The owners will be out of pocket although this is a gamble with the hope (for them) that it can be reclaimed if QPR stay in the PL.

Exactly what i was going to post.

FFP was supposed to stop clubs running up massive debts that threatens the future long term survival of a club (there is a transition period to allow clubs to adapt to it with the falling levels of acceptable losses until FFP becomes properly established)

Why shouldn't an owner be able to give the club multi-millions which are then written off from the accounts and that debt is wiped from the books if he is happy to lose that money.

Surely long term it's better for the club than losing money each season and that debt piling up and continue to be hanging over the club (Bolton owe how much again?)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Reading comments on here it's interesting that some see FFP as a way to have every team in a given division have exactly the same amount of money to spend each season (fair/flat playing field) which isn't the case.

There will always be clubs with more spending power even if they all complied and all broke even. Some clubs have a bigger fan base and therefore larger income being one reason for example.

It reminds me of a question someone recently asked on FB, if all the Worlds wealth was distributed evenly, would it stay even or would it eventually return to the imbalance we have today - the answer (imo) is like FFP, it will never be level in terms of every club having the same income & same expenditure as each other (regardless of level) - Man Utd will have a bigger income than us in the PL if we ever make it and we have a bigger income than someone like Peterborough, Morecambe or Gillingham.

So does FFP actually keep the imbalance or even exaggerate it, because those already there benefit from higher incomes and previously one of the few ways to breach that gap was for money to be pumped in by a rich owner (Blackburn to win the PL for example or Crawleys rise from non league) - if FFP was always around and all of the clubs had complied with it, would they ever have been able to break through and reach those heights

If FFP proves successful and safeguards all of the clubs futures, will a side effect be that the haves more likely to remain the haves as a result? - would their secured futures make FFP worthwhile (if making football less competitive as a result)?

 

[AZ Gull]

Why shouldn't an owner be able to give the club multi-millions which are then written off from the accounts and that debt is wiped from the books if he is happy to lose that money.

Because that club doesn't exist in isolation - it competes with other clubs. If an owner is allowed to pump multi-millions in to the playing budget (with no regard to the club's income), then transfer fees and player wages will rise "artificially", forcing other clubs to follow suit if they wish to remain competitive. You then get the spiralling wages that we have seen in recent years, with the clubs collectively making huge losses because outgoings (primarily wages) bear no relationship to the clubs' ability to generate income.

As I see it, FFP (which, let's not forget, was voted in by the then-Championship clubs, rather than being something that was forced on them against their will), was an attempt to link a club's spending to it's ability to generate revenue; I'm struggling to understand how any genuine football fan can be against that principle. Surely long-term financial sustainability should be an objective of all clubs?

Of course, "bigger" clubs would still have more income and consequently bigger budgets, but at least the sport as a whole would be less of a financial basket case. And, to be clear, the FFP regulations still permit a club owner to spend as much money as they like on infrastructure (such as stadiums) and youth development - things which will support the goal of long-term sustainability.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think the issue is being over-complicated here. Turnover £38 mill, Cost of Sales £95 mill. Gross Loss £57 mill. For every £2 the club generated they spent £5 AND STILL GOT PROMOTED WITH FFP IN PLACE! This is a complete travesty.

 

[wonkydog]

It is quite interesting reading through the posts from some quite sensible and learned people on NSC; but i note that no one has mentioned the impending court case beginning this summer in the European Courts. The same lawyer that took on and won the Jean-Marc Bosman case has taken UEFA & FIFA to court under European
competition law alleging that FFP is a restrictive practise and illegal under those statutes.
Having won the Bosman case and by doing so won himself a terrific reputation in sporting legal circles it would seem to me that he would be most unlikely to take on such a high profile and potentially far reaching case; unless he was very confident of victory in the courts.
Personally i hope he wins and then takes on the other thorny subject of the imposed transfer windows, which benefit only the greedy agentsand serves to further inflate the already obscene transfer fee and wages that proliferate in football these days.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Because that club doesn't exist in isolation - it competes with other clubs. If an owner is allowed to pump multi-millions in to the playing budget (with no regard to the club's income), then transfer fees and player wages will rise "artificially", forcing other clubs to follow suit if they wish to remain competitive. You then get the spiralling wages that we have seen in recent years, with the clubs collectively making huge losses because outgoings (primarily wages) bear no relationship to the clubs' ability to generate income.

As I see it, FFP (which, let's not forget, was voted in by the then-Championship clubs, rather than being something that was forced on them against their will), was an attempt to link a club's spending to it's ability to generate revenue; I'm struggling to understand how any genuine football fan can be against that principle. Surely long-term financial sustainability should be an objective of all clubs?

Of course, "bigger" clubs would still have more income and consequently bigger budgets, but at least the sport as a whole would be less of a financial basket case. And, to be clear, the FFP regulations still permit a club owner to spend as much money as they like on infrastructure (such as stadiums) and youth development - things which will support the goal of long-term sustainability.

Isn't there still a chance of wage inflation even with FFP as clubs will still try to compete with teams that are bigger than them by over spending (even if only by a small amount each season but that debt mounts up)

Providing debts are settled (each season by the owner making up the difference or putting hte finances in to cover the entire length of players contracts), then whats the problem with a big investment in a tea.

The wage inflation caused by other teams also trying to compete could be controlled if those who don't have the money to settle face the risk of penalties rather than also punish those who can put the money in to a club without wanting it back.
for example - if a multi-Billionaire brought the Albion, he would only be able to run the club at the limit of the agreed losses under FFP (say £8m) whereas he may have loaned and written off £100m spent on the playing side. the money involved may only be peanuts to him and he would be willing to lose it by spending on the club

He could try to put the money into the club by sponsoring a stand or something for that £100m, the sponsorship money goes into the club and isn't a debt but this isn't allowed by FFP but it could allow the club to be financially stable.

Why would someone very rich invest in a lesser club if they have no way / or a much lesser chance of gaining promotion to the top flight because FFP is preventing it (so potentially no more Wimbledons, Wigans of several seasons ago, or 4th Division / non league side looking for success, etc ever being a top flight side again. - so ultimately more of a closed shop) - Is that good for football?

Provided the debt is paid off by the owners pumping money into the club rather than letting debt pile up, (be it as a written off debt / donation / sponsorship deals, etc) I can't see why this can't be acceptable. The club would be in a better position that a lot of others financially (those that lose a small to medium amount each season and their debts just continue to build until someone finally calls it in)

If clubs can't afford the inflated wage demands, they should say no and look for cheaper alternatives, even if they arn't as good. Most clubs do this and suddenly wages will fall as opportunities for employment lessen and therefore what they can demand also lessens.

 

[Baldseagull]

It is quite interesting reading through the posts from some quite sensible and learned people on NSC; but i note that no one has mentioned the impending court case beginning this summer in the European Courts. The same lawyer that took on and won the Jean-Marc Bosman case has taken UEFA & FIFA to court under European
competition law alleging that FFP is a restrictive practise and illegal under those statutes.
Having won the Bosman case and by doing so won himself a terrific reputation in sporting legal circles it would seem to me that he would be most unlikely to take on such a high profile and potentially far reaching case; unless he was very confident of victory in the courts.
Personally i hope he wins and then takes on the other thorny subject of the imposed transfer windows, which benefit only the greedy agentsand serves to further inflate the already obscene transfer fee and wages that proliferate in football these days.

QPR dont have to pay the fine, only if they want to play football in the Championship. They are free to play in any other competition or league that will accept them.
In my opinion it is not a restrictive practice, it is a rule of the competition, play by the rules or play elsewhere.
Former first division clubs decided they did not like sharing all the TV money throughout the divisions and having so many games to play. They created their own league to play in and have their own rules about all kinds of things that clubs can or cannot do if they want to play in the Premier League. Maybe QPR and Leicester could set up a new "Limbo league", for clubs relegated from the prem but won't pay any Championship fines still owing. It would be similar to the old Scottish Premier, with only 2 clubs really in it.

A fully open transfer market throughout the season would be a pain.

 

[El Presidente]

Twenty Four Hours after NSC SCOOPS the QPR accounts, The Daily Mail produces this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2993315/QPR-fined-50m-breaching-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html?ITO=1490

I think they have a MOLE on NSC, does [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] know who it is?

 

[Bozza]

Twenty Four Hours after NSC SCOOPS the QPR accounts, The Daily Mail produces this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2993315/QPR-fined-50m-breaching-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html?ITO=1490

I think they have a MOLE on NSC, does [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] know who it is?

No.

Although it reminds me to do something with www.PriceOfFootball.com...