qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 8, 2012 12:44:01 GMT
Hi All, the 2011 accounts of QPR Holdings Plc are published today, and I attach a copy hereto. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Mar 8, 2012 13:12:26 GMT
Thankyou qprdad. Will make an interesting read for sure, and next years one especially.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 8, 2012 13:13:41 GMT
Many thanks QPR Dad...Much appreciated...Now to read them!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 8, 2012 13:42:27 GMT
For Year Ending May 31, 2011...
"Group Operating losses were ÂŁ25.7 million
"Net Debt as of 31 May 2011 has increased to ÂŁ56.2 million (2010 ÂŁ33.8 Million"
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Mar 8, 2012 13:43:02 GMT
So total debt is around ÂŁ43 Million ?
|
|
|
Post by moriarty on Mar 8, 2012 13:43:05 GMT
Had a brief look through - am I right in summising that we are ÂŁ56million in the red?
And I notice a payment to Moorbound Ltd of ÂŁ40,000 during the year (same as last year), but according to Companies House, Moorbound Ltd was dissolved 17/11/2009 - surely it can't still be billing?
What do you make of the accounts qprdad?
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Mar 8, 2012 13:44:19 GMT
Had a brief look through - am I right in summising that we are ÂŁ56million in the red? And I notice a payment to Moorbound Ltd of ÂŁ40,000 during the year (same as last year), but according to Companies House, Moorbound Ltd was dissolved 17/11/2009 - surely it can't be still be billing? What do you make of the accounts qprdad? I make it around ÂŁ43M ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 13:47:03 GMT
All the accounts mean are we have to avoid relegation and most of all Tony and the Mittals need to stay around
|
|
|
Post by moriarty on Mar 8, 2012 13:47:12 GMT
Had a brief look through - am I right in summising that we are ÂŁ56million in the red? And I notice a payment to Moorbound Ltd of ÂŁ40,000 during the year (same as last year), but according to Companies House, Moorbound Ltd was dissolved 17/11/2009 - surely it can't be still be billing? What do you make of the accounts qprdad? I make it around ÂŁ43M ? Balance sheets are not my strong point - hopefully qprdad will give us a precis soon
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Mar 8, 2012 13:50:28 GMT
Don't understand most of this but by the comments above would I be right in saying that if we go down we are right in the shit??
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Mar 8, 2012 14:00:27 GMT
Don't understand most of this but by the comments above would I be right in saying that if we go down we are right in the shit?? Depends how you look at it. To some, no, not with the backers we've got. To others, yes, we're in the shit now because of the backers we've got. For the average fan though the answer is no. Our board will look to return as soon as possible and will spend as much of the club's money as they can to make that happen in one season. It's frustrating as the accounts only go up to May of last year as required so they are not up to present date but until all loans are payed off, the training ground and new stadium are built and operating, we won't be in the black as the club looks to seriously invest in it's-self.
|
|
|
Post by gramps on Mar 8, 2012 15:13:27 GMT
Could we have a whip round?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 8, 2012 15:13:39 GMT
Wages and Salaries: Went up 11 million pounds: from ÂŁ15,016 in 2010 to ÂŁ26,377 in 2011.
I appreciate there may be promotion bonuses...But WOW!
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 8, 2012 19:10:51 GMT
Thanks dad, as always! I wonder if dad, or Hogan, or any of my fellow contributors to this excellent thread know whether any debt has been converted to equity, and whether this is in addition to the declared losses. There is no reason to suppose that an investor will be any more reluctant to recover the value of his shareholding than he is to recover the value of his loans, so I am inclined to think this is window-dressing, where it is not also an attempt to hoodwink the authorities into believing that the investors aren't the liability that their accounts reveal them to be.
The easiest way to relieve a Club of its liabilities is to write them off. But that would mean writing off the money they expect to make out of the Club, and few of them show any interest in doing THAT!
Great stuff everyone. That figure of ÂŁ56 million looks rather low to me. What do you think, Report? I wonder if it includes the loan secured on the Ground. And I wonder what happened to the debt that Ecclestone and Co inherited.
A few points about the Club's 'backers'. To my way of thinking, they are not backing the Club at all. They are the people who create its losses and debts.
The Club doesn't 'lose money' by leaving it lying around and then forgetting where it put it. The losses, and the 'backers' investment - they're one and the same thing. The 'backers' don't line the Club's pockets in its hour of need. They're creating the Club's hour of need to line their own pockets.
If the Club didn't have 'backers', it wouldn't be in debt. If you lose money, someone must first provide you with the money to lose. If you're spending your own money, the money isn't 'lost' at all. You spent it. You only 'lose' money when the money you spend is owed to someone else. Whether it is the milkman, or some dodgy football 'moneylender' making out he represents the CLUB'S interests.
When you spend someone else's money, THEIR money isn't gone. And when the Club spends on players, that's QPR's money, not the 'backers'. That is how banks operate. In a bank, the assets aren't the money the bank has in your account. That's your money, and it appears as a liability in the accounts, because the bank must account for it to YOU. The bank's assets are its LOANS.
And it is our money they're lending out. Similarly, it is QPR's money that QPR wastes on underperforming players every year. It doesn't cost our 'backers' a thing, because the entire sum advanced is still owed to them, and because they control the Club, they're in a position to ensure it is repaid.
That's why we've had some of the wealthiest and most successful investors in football in the past 50 years, and when they left QPR, they were still wealthy and successful in their own business dealings, while QPR is getting progressively screwed, is never successful, and just gets deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.
Strange that they all seem to be quite capable of making profit after profit for THEMSELVES. But when they're running QPR - supposedly in the Club's best interests - they lose money hand over fist year by year.
That is no accident. If QPR didn't lose money, they couldn't make money lending it. They couldn't make money selling on or selling off the Ground. And they couldn't make money speculating against the Club's resources through shares in the various companies they control.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Mar 8, 2012 20:30:19 GMT
Thanks dad, as always! I wonder if dad, or Hogan, or any of my fellow contributors to this excellent thread know whether any debt has been converted to equity, and whether this is in addition to the declared losses. There is no reason to suppose that an investor will be any more reluctant to recover the value of his shareholding than he is to recover the value of his loans, so I am inclined to think this is window-dressing, where it is not also an attempt to hoodwink the authorities into believing that the investors aren't the liability that their accounts reveal them to be. As of these accounts up to May 11, none of the shareholders loans were converted to equity before these accounts were filed. Fernandes took over in August 11 and said he would approach Mittal over converting his loans then. Otherwise there is a schedule of payments due as stated in the accounts. From the accounts, the loans are interest free, but the accounts also imply that further loans will be forthcoming rather than actual investment. As for backers, which one out of investors, speculators or rapists do you think is more applicable?
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 9, 2012 8:13:57 GMT
Bhatia said we are debt free. We are, therefore, debt free. I heard him say it to me on QPR Player, he made it so.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Mar 9, 2012 9:41:51 GMT
So these don't tell us anything about how the finances changed after TF came in?? This is all up to the point when Flavio and Bernie still owned the club?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 9, 2012 9:50:47 GMT
Well there are a few snippets re after the takeover. But yes, next year will be very interesting..All those signings and even-higher wages. If we're still in the Premiership, will be more of a one-time setting up process. If we're in the Championship (especially if we're not set for promotion), will make terrible reading
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Mar 9, 2012 9:59:06 GMT
Bhatia said we are debt free. We are, therefore, debt free. I heard him say it to me on QPR Player, he made it so. Exactly. And he'll never change the badge, hold regular meetings with the fans and Briatore left in the summer 2010. Wait a minute.................... If when Fernandes took over they settled the debts to Bernie and Flabio in full and Mittal converted his to shares when Bhattia said that (Aug 11) then that would be the case. As these accounts finish before that point though and show the list of creditors and schedule of payments agreed with them, we don't actually have the information to tell us that. If that is the case surely it's in their interests to tell us?
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 9, 2012 11:02:22 GMT
Bhatia said we are debt free. We are, therefore, debt free. I heard him say it to me on QPR Player, he made it so. Exactly. And he'll never change the badge, hold regular meetings with the fans and Briatore left in the summer 2010. Wait a minute.................... If when Fernandes took over they settled the debts to Bernie and Flabio in full and Mittal converted his to shares when Bhattia said that (Aug 11) then that would be the case. As these accounts finish before that point though and show the list of creditors and schedule of payments agreed with them, we don't actually have the information to tell us that. If that is the case surely it's in their interests to tell us? Do they have an obligation, legal or othrwise, to tell us anything?
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Mar 9, 2012 11:33:10 GMT
Exactly. And he'll never change the badge, hold regular meetings with the fans and Briatore left in the summer 2010. Wait a minute.................... If when Fernandes took over they settled the debts to Bernie and Flabio in full and Mittal converted his to shares when Bhattia said that (Aug 11) then that would be the case. As these accounts finish before that point though and show the list of creditors and schedule of payments agreed with them, we don't actually have the information to tell us that. If that is the case surely it's in their interests to tell us? Do they have an obligation, legal or othrwise, to tell us anything? No, I don't believe they do, not even to minority shareholders like myself and others. After the last 10 years that we've had and the financial uncertainties surrounding football, particularly in the light of Portsmouth and Glasgow Rangers, surely it would benefit their standing within the fan base to tell us if it is the case, that we are now actually debt free, instead of filling our heads with future plans in order to look benevolent.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Mar 9, 2012 12:16:30 GMT
Can't we write our debt off and some sort of charitible donation? Shit, the club might even get a refund
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 9, 2012 15:31:37 GMT
So total debt is around ÂŁ43 Million ? Sorry for the delay in responding... work has gotten in the way! The total debt is ÂŁ72.775m... this is the total of note 15 and note 16 on the balance sheet. The net debt (total assets, less total liabilities) is a net liability of ÂŁ43.843m
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 9, 2012 15:39:43 GMT
Thanks dad, as always! I wonder if dad, or Hogan, or any of my fellow contributors to this excellent thread know whether any debt has been converted to equity, and whether this is in addition to the declared losses. There is no reason to suppose that an investor will be any more reluctant to recover the value of his shareholding than he is to recover the value of his loans, so I am inclined to think this is window-dressing, where it is not also an attempt to hoodwink the authorities into believing that the investors aren't the liability that their accounts reveal them to be. These accounts show that none of the bebt has been converted into equity, and form a review of forms lodged at companies house post takeover, it doesn't look likely that this has occured since. These accounts are more or less the endgame of Tango & Cash, and we all remember far too well, what lack of interest they were showing in us up to this time (Amit resigned on 25th May 2011). These accounts are not really revialing, in that they are more of the same that have been served up for the last couple of years - next year will hopefully be far more interesting as it will revial TF's hand fat more fully. It's abundantly clear though, like most clubs at this level, you need a rich backer(s) as a football club will always consume cash. Remove the backing and the result is mysery.
|
|
julia
Gerry Francis
Posts: 11
|
Post by julia on Mar 13, 2012 8:57:54 GMT
I've tried to download the accounts from this thread twice, on to two different computers, but keep getting a "file damaged" error message when I try to open them. Any help appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 13, 2012 9:14:16 GMT
I've tried to download the accounts from this thread twice, on to two different computers, but keep getting a "file damaged" error message when I try to open them. Any help appreciated. I'm sorry re that. I think it may be your computer. Because I just tried clicking again on that link...You have to wait a few seconds...But then it downloaded perfectly for me. Maybe try a different browser. Other than that not sure what to suggest On the bright side, if you wait a while (days, weeks, months, maybe even years - given the last set of accounts posted on the Official Site are from several years ago!)...you'll be able to see it all glossy...
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 13, 2012 17:14:12 GMT
I've tried to download the accounts from this thread twice, on to two different computers, but keep getting a "file damaged" error message when I try to open them. Any help appreciated. It should open as a pdf... maybe you haven't got a pdf viewer on either computer.I agree with Mac, I've downloaded it from three different computers without a hitch. PM me if you can't get any further and I'll e-mail you a copy.
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Mar 13, 2012 18:17:31 GMT
Bhatia said we are debt free. We are, therefore, debt free. I heard him say it to me on QPR Player, he made it so. And, just to confirm what Amit told you before ;D Beard remains upbeat. The Tony Fernandes-led regime’s attempt to spend big in order to stay in the top flight looks like it may backfire, but Beard believes they will not be deterred should Rangers return to the Championship. He said: “The thing I think is really important is that we’ve got a group of shareholders who are totally committed. “My understanding – and I spend a lot of time with them – is that they are 100% committed to this club in the short, medium and long term.” Last September QPR vice-chairman Amit Bhatia told West London Sport the club was “debt free” following the Fernandes-led takeover. Despite huge spending on players, Beard agrees with that assessment and insisted: “We have no debts in the club whatsoever. The only debt is with the shareholders." Here is a riddle for you all: When is a debt not a debt? ? Read more: qprreport.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=30212&page=1#242448#ixzz1p1Q2HumS.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Mar 13, 2012 19:25:25 GMT
QPR Holdings and QPR FC are two separate entities are they not?
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 13, 2012 19:35:18 GMT
QPR Holdings and QPR FC are two separate entities are they not? Yes they are two seperate companies, FC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Holdings.
|
|