Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

QPR, FFP and what does it mean for us?



Mental Lental

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,300
Shiki-shi, Saitama
From the financial fair play website........

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/



QPR need quick Premier League return to avoid becoming a 'zombie club'

Now that QPR have finally been relegated, it seems an appropriate time to outline the financial implications for the club (and other clubs in the Championship).

Perhaps the best place start is with a projection of the financial position for the club up to the end of next season (i.e. the end of their first season in the Championship):

I should point out that this carries a much heavier ‘health-warning’ than most of my projections – we simply don’t know how successful the club will be in getting players to leave in the Summer and we don’t have a full picture of the impact of any relegation clauses the club may have in place to reduce wages. However it does provide a useful yardstick for comparison.

Although we are going to have to wait nearly 12 months to see the impact of this season’s foolhardy spending. The projection suggests QPR will have lost around £68.4m during the current season. It appears that the wage spend is now well over £80m and the amortisation (i.e. the impact of transfer fee expenditure) has doubled. The Exceptional items represent the cost of sacking Warnock (2010/11) and Hughes (2011/12).

The last annual accounts (2011/12) records the net debt at £88.9m. The club recently took out a further loan of £15m for development of a Training Ground. Factoring in the above projection, net debt at the club at the end of the current season is likely to be around £168m.

With this level of debt, fans are likely to be concerned that the club could represent another ‘Portsmouth’. However, due to the club’s ownership profile, QPR are highly unlikely to suffer the same fate. QPR are 66% owned by Fernandes, Meranun and Gnanalingham and 33% owned by the Mittal family. The Mittal family are by all accounts extraordinarily wealthy (worth $10.4bn according to Forbes). Gnanalingham also has significant family money. Fernandes and Meranum will more impacted by the ongoing losses at QPR (via loans from their Tune Group). Both made their money with AirAsia and have large share-holdings in the company (valued at around £220m each). However, it is the ongoing support of the Mittal family that is the key to QPR’s stability – both the Mittal family and Tune Group provided further loans to the club in 2011/12. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that the Mittal family would be willing to let QPR get into financial difficulty.

It is interesting to note that if QPR had escaped relegation, they would not have been able to meet UEFA’s FFP Break-Even criteria (losing £91m over the two seasons of the first Monitoring Period vs the £38m maximum permitted loss). As a Championship Club, QPR do not have to apply for a UEFA licence next season unless they are fortunate enough to win a UEFA place via the League Cup or the FA Cup. However the figures suggest that the club would not be granted a licence in this scenario – QPR fans might think twice about supporting their team in the domestic cups next season, knowing that it is not possible to gain a UEFA slot even if they win the competition. In any event the UEFA rules would require the owners to put their hand in their pocket and convert around £80m+ of debt into equity – the fact that the club recently took out a £15m loan suggests the owners are not looking to reduce club debts in this way.

Looking into next year, QPR will benefit from a £23m parachute payment. However, this does not make up for the lost TV income (see TV Revenue row for the impact). It seems likely that the club will be able to manage some players out of the club and it will probably have some wage-reduction clauses in the existing contracts (although reports suggest that most high-earners don’t have these contract clauses). The heavily caveated projection suggests the club could report a loss of around £61.5m during their first season in the Championship. This figure is well above the new FFP rules for the Championship and will have significant implications for the club.

From next season, strict new FFP rules for the Championship have been introduced (with penalties). All clubs (including QPR) will need to keep club losses below £8m for the coming season. Any overspend will become apparent when the accounts for the 2013/14 season are submitted in December 2014. An overspending club will be given a transfer ban (with the first ban coming into effect in January 2015). Once this is understood, the need for QPR to ‘bounce back’ and win promotion at the very first attempt becomes apparent. If they don’t bounce-back immediately, QPR will almost certainly not be able to sign any new players after end August 2014. This would severely hamper their campaign during their second season in the Championship.

Given that only one club out of the last 9 have bounced back at the first attempt, QPR’s challenge should not be underestimated. The matter becomes even more pressing when you consider that the Transfer Ban would not be lifted until the club can prove that it was on track to bring losses below £6m season (£5m from 2016) – conceivably QPR could have Transfer Ban in place for several seasons.

If QPR were fortunate enough to win promotion at the first attempt, they would be affected by the new ‘Fair Play Tax’. Any club that wins promotion as a result of overspending will have to pay ‘tax’ based on a sliding scale. Assuming QPR lose £61.5m next season, the club would end up paying a tax of £58.2m – a huge amount. This tax would then be divided up and allocated to those clubs in the Championship that have complied with the FFP rules (adding an extra incentive for overspending clubs such as Leicester to comply). Interestingly, as any unused parachute payments are also divided up amongst clubs, some Championship outfits may ultimately be happy to see QPR bounce back as the scenario would benefit them by a further £2m.

Given the need for QPR to win promotion at their first attempt, it will be interesting to see if the new FFP rules actually encourage QPR to continue their overspending. The club will have to weigh up the potential benefits of a place in the Premier League, against the Transfer Tax and the risk of becoming a 'zombie club' with an almost indefinite Transfer Ban should they fail to quickly return to the top flight.


So as I see it the clubs coming down will have parachute payments, but they're so fecked due to their high wage bills that these payments will be swallowed up post haste. THEN they have to get their shit in order before they submit their accounts in December.

I can't remember what our deficit was last year but wasn't it something like 20-odd million? We need to get that down to 8 before we submit the accounts in December 2014 if we are to avoid a transfer embargo.

Looks like TB's hands are tied and that he can't give Gus more money even if he wanted to.
 




Miami Seagull

Grandad
Jul 12, 2003
1,479
Bermuda
I believe our losses were around 8mil, the club also invested heavily in the training ground but that is not counted in this. Next season we benefit from the first year of our new AMEX sponsorship deal, plus we'll have more season ticket holders and somewhat higher crowds are expected as the new seats will be available all season long. All this means we'll have more income than this year. So, conceivably, we should have a little more for playing costs. I'm trying to be optimistic.
 


Mental Lental

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,300
Shiki-shi, Saitama
I believe our losses were around 8mil, the club also invested heavily in the training ground but that is not counted in this. Next season we benefit from the first year of our new AMEX sponsorship deal, plus we'll have more season ticket holders and somewhat higher crowds are expected as the new seats will be available all season long. All this means we'll have more income than this year. So, conceivably, we should have a little more for playing costs. I'm trying to be optimistic.

Looks like you're right according this article.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20980190

So we actually need to slightly reduce our budget for next season based on the current financial info.

Optimistically I think there's gotta a be a lot of clubs, ESPECIALLY those relegated from the prem, that are in a much worse position than we are.

So Gus may not get the money he wants BUT the other clubs are in a position where they are gonna have to slash their wage bills by so much that their squads are gonna be decimated.

It could be argued that this squad would have got auto promotion if we'd had Ulloa from the start of the season. So all we really need to do is maintain the core of the squad and support it with additions from the money saved through players leaving. (I'm sure the money saved on Vicente's wages will allow us to get a couple of decent players in).
 




Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
16,066
The money thing is a bit of an odd one for me. A few months back, Gus said something along the lines of "If Ulloa was here at the beginning of the season we would be in the top two." Which clearly means that he seemed happy with the squad when Spanish Len finally arrived. As has been pointed out before, we were four points off automatic promotion - turn a few of those 18(?) draws around, and we're there.

Maybe his quotes say more about the potential to keep hold of the likes of Bridge and Upson, but there are going to be loads of PL players available on free transfers and loans next season, and I reckon we'll be able to find some gems, whoever is in charge. We seem to have a good network of scouts/agents to get the right people in, in the right positions, so I have no doubt that we'll be competitive, whether the team are playing for Gus, Di Matteo, Benitez, or whoever.

The biggest loss could/will be Bridcutt, but we are surely not going to let him go cheap, so stand to make a shed load of profit on him, which will help balance the books.
 




W.C.

New member
Oct 31, 2011
4,927
Reading that BBC article it's fairly clear to me our situation.

What I find difficult to understand is other club's situations, when we are the best attended club in the league. I can't imagine that many other clubs are making that much money beyond the people who pay for tickets and eat and drink at the ground and buy replica shirts.

Surely they are in far more difficult position than us?
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,224
Seaford
Optimistically I think there's gotta a be a lot of clubs, ESPECIALLY those relegated from the prem, that are in a much worse position than we are.

So Gus may not get the money he wants BUT the other clubs are in a position where they are gonna have to slash their wage bills by so much that their squads are gonna be decimated.

Assuming that relegated clubs actually bother about FFP. As the article says the first impact doesn't come till January 2015 so clubs like QPR may well ignore it knowing they have one full season and the main transfer period of the 2nd to work in
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,224
Seaford
Reading that BBC article it's fairly clear to me our situation.

What I find difficult to understand is other club's situations, when we are the best attended club in the league. I can't imagine that many other clubs are making that much money beyond the people who pay for tickets and eat and drink at the ground and buy replica shirts.

Surely they are in far more difficult position than us?

I've assumed the costs of running our stadium and non playing admin are significantly higher than others so negating much of the benefit of increased crowds. Don't know for sure, one of the accountants on here may have a better view from the 1st year accounts.
 




Mental Lental

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,300
Shiki-shi, Saitama
Assuming that relegated clubs actually bother about FFP. As the article says the first impact doesn't come till January 2015 so clubs like QPR may well ignore it knowing they have one full season and the main transfer period of the 2nd to work in

Even if they go back up they will have to write the rest of the Chamionship a hefty cheque........

If QPR were fortunate enough to win promotion at the first attempt, they would be affected by the new ‘Fair Play Tax’. Any club that wins promotion as a result of overspending will have to pay ‘tax’ based on a sliding scale. Assuming QPR lose £61.5m next season, the club would end up paying a tax of £58.2m – a huge amount. This tax would then be divided up and allocated to those clubs in the Championship that have complied with the FFP rules


It will be interesting to see how the QPR fans will react given that they KNOW they will be ****ED if they don't go straight back up. I'd start organising the protest marches now if it's blatently obvious that 'Arry and the QPR board's plan for a solvent future of the club was to "go straight back up" without thought for the consequences if they don't succeed.

If they get on it now and start asking serious questions of their board then I'm sure we'd back them up in the true Fan's United spirit. BUT, if they do a Portsmouth and just go along with the "take the piss out of the other clubs in the division by ridiculous over-spending in order to get back on the Premiership gravy train" plan, than they will get no sympathy from me.
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
14,533
Manchester
Assuming that relegated clubs actually bother about FFP. As the article says the first impact doesn't come till January 2015 so clubs like QPR may well ignore it knowing they have one full season and the main transfer period of the 2nd to work in

I think that means that is when the sanctions - the transfer embargo and fines - will come into effect. It's definitely the 2013/14 season that FFP targets have to be met for the first time.
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,224
Seaford
It will be interesting to see how the QPR fans will react given that they KNOW they will be ****ED if they don't go straight back up. I'd start organising the protest marches now if it's blatently obvious that 'Arry and the QPR board's plan for a solvent future of the club was to "go straight back up" without thought for the consequences if they don't succeed.

If they get on it now and start asking serious questions of their board then I'm sure we'd back them up in the true Fan's United spirit. BUT, if they do a Portsmouth and just go along with the "take the piss out of the other clubs in the division by ridiculous over-spending in order to get back on the Premiership gravy train" plan, than they will get no sympathy from me.

If they (QPR) benefactors want it enough it seems they have the funds to do it. I'm sure they will cut their costs significantly I'm just not convinced they will be panicking too much about FFP. Also given the huge parachute of £20+M they are at a huge advantage to the non relegated sides and I can't see any making the same mistakes as those who came down last year.

Also think FFP could take a few years to settle down. If big companies can find ways to avoid paying tax when the system has been operating for hundreds of years, I'm sure a few crafty moves will get pulled for the next few to avoid FFP constraints
 




nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
14,533
Manchester
I've assumed the costs of running our stadium and non playing admin are significantly higher than others so negating much of the benefit of increased crowds. Don't know for sure, one of the accountants on here may have a better view from the 1st year accounts.

Increased crowds will always mean more money, but yes it's not as simple as saying that having an extra 5k through the gates means an extra 5k x £20 profit. It'll be interesting to see the difference that an extra 6k for every home game makes, in ticket income and commercial revenue.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,750
The Fatherland
Reading that BBC article it's fairly clear to me our situation.

What I find difficult to understand is other club's situations, when we are the best attended club in the league. I can't imagine that many other clubs are making that much money beyond the people who pay for tickets and eat and drink at the ground and buy replica shirts.

Surely they are in far more difficult position than us?

FFP will benefit any club which is well run and not laden with debt. I imagine it will be therefore improve our financial standing relative to others.
 


wadhurstseagull

Active member
Jul 26, 2003
496
There was some comment after the Ars/Wigan game last night that FFP was being challenged in the courts and may not happen anyway. First I had heard of this or did I infact mis-hear?
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,750
The Fatherland
There was some comment after the Ars/Wigan game last night that FFP was being challenged in the courts and may not happen anyway. First I had heard of this or did I infact mis-hear?

There are a number of FFPs knocking around though. There is the UEFA version, the Prem FFP-lite version and the FL version. As I understand it the FL FFP was voted in by its members i.e. the clubs so I'm not sure on what grounds it can be challenged. I'm certain this is the case, or will be the case, for the Prem as well.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,750
The Fatherland
There was some comment after the Ars/Wigan game last night that FFP was being challenged in the courts and may not happen anyway. First I had heard of this or did I infact mis-hear?

It will happen.
 








KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
21,102
Wolsingham, County Durham
That article is misleading. The Football League FFP regulations state:

Clubs relegated from the Premier League will not be subject to sanctions in their first season in the Championship as long as they have met their financial obligations under Premier League regulations. They would, however, be subject to the potential of a Fair Play Tax if they achieved promotion in their first season in the Championship whilst not complying with the FFP regulations.

So my interpretation is that if they get promoted in the first year, they will pay all the conforming clubs a tax (hoorah!), but if they do not get promoted, they will NOT get a transfer embargo in the first year. Subsequent years, they will.

Don't forget that part of PB's job is to increase our income as well, so whilst our playing budget may not go up, it may not go down either. There are loads of other costs in the club that can be reduced.

The Premier League have NOT agreed to FFP yet, so that is maybe where the legal challenge is coming from. The Football League clubs have agreed to it.
 


Couldn't Be Hyypia

We've come a long long way together
NSC Patron
Nov 12, 2006
16,736
Near Dorchester, Dorset
Mittal could sponsor the ground, the shirts, individual stands, jackets of the stewards in the car parks or anything else for millions and QPR's income would rise and losses brought under control (see Man City and the Etihad sponsorships - and PSG getting 200m euros A YEAR from Quatar Tourism to promote Qatar - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/04/manchester-city-financial-fair-play). These are massive firms with expensive accountants who will find loopholes.

Nothing fair about FFP - it protects the top clubs and legislates against the smaller ones and anyone not in the Prem.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here