|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 19, 2012 11:19:52 GMT
On these kind of Premiership wages?
Even with TV money/Sponsorship/Premiership money?
Even if build bigger stadium, the payments on that will cost...
|
|
|
Post by kempton ranger on Jan 19, 2012 11:35:58 GMT
I am not so sure we would, but if it does all go according to TF plans then sometime in the future the club will be a better place with regard to modern stadia and training facilities. This will be TF And the Mittals legacy and hopefully the academy will be bringing through some good talent like some of our other London clubs. Financially Greece might have less of a debt than us , but we will have had more fun than them.
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Jan 19, 2012 11:43:55 GMT
We can't. Apparently we have put in a bid today for the centre back that doesnt even play for City of £80k a week. So this will become the benchmark at LR for every other target or out of contract player. It is truly ludicrous wages. So let's average 17,000 people at Loftus Road paying say £35 average per ticket equates to a stadium bum on seats revenue of £595,000 per game. Assume with a Cup Run 20 games. Bums on seats revenue is £11,900,000. Divide this by 52 since this is how players are quoted equates to £228,000 a week revenue generated by our arses.
Onuoha ? £80k Barton £80k SWP £50k JB £35k
Already Barton, SWP and JB's wages are £165,000 per week (£8.5 million per year) Add Onuoha and the wages of 4 players will be more than the annual revenue of ticket sales.
It is complete and utter madness.
If the Man city player apparently is on £60k a week not getting a game why the hell are we or anyone else offering him a 33% increase?
The economics of the madhouse that one day will end in disaster.
Football needs a dose of reality. We need a maximum wage now.
If the idiots at Man C are prepared to pay average players (ie Wayne Bridge £90k a week) why does this become the benchmark for every other left back?
It's TOTALLY understandable a footballer will take as much as he is allowed to take but PLEASE there is a limit. But it's our fault you and me that buy the tickets, buy the shirts, buy the Sky football package.
And don;t get me started on the phrase 'He has been a great servant to the club'
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jan 19, 2012 11:47:35 GMT
Don't believe that crap about 80k a week. It's just paper talk. In fact Ian Taylor made in interesting comment on Twitter earlier saying all the paper talk about wages and fee's is ludicrous and over the top.
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Jan 19, 2012 11:49:47 GMT
Do any teams actually break even these days?
Ticket prices don't even come close, what else is there to balance the books?
Crazy wages, one day it is all going to come tumbling down.......
Damn you Sky.....
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Jan 19, 2012 11:53:19 GMT
We can't. Apparently we have put in a bid today for the centre back that doesnt even play for City of £80k a week. So this will become the benchmark at LR for every other target or out of contract player. It is truly ludicrous wages. So let's average 17,000 people at Loftus Road paying say £35 average per ticket equates to a stadium bum on seats revenue of £595,000 per game. Assume with a Cup Run 20 games. Bums on seats revenue is £11,900,000. Divide this by 52 since this is how players are quoted equates to £228,000 a week revenue generated by our arses. Onuoha ? £80k Barton £80k SWP £50k JB £35k Already Barton, SWP and JB's wages are £165,000 per week (£8.5 million per year) Add Onuoha and the wages of 4 players will be more than the annual revenue of ticket sales. It is complete and utter madness. If the Man city player apparently is on £60k a week not getting a game why the hell are we or anyone else offering him a 33% increase? The economics of the madhouse that one day will end in disaster. Football needs a dose of reality. We need a maximum wage now. If the idiots at Man C are prepared to pay average players (ie Wayne Bridge £90k a week) why does this become the benchmark for every other left back? It's TOTALLY understandable a footballer will take as much as he is allowed to take but PLEASE there is a limit. But it's our fault you and me that buy the tickets, buy the shirts, buy the Sky football package. And don;t get me started on the phrase 'He has been a great servant to the club' Good post that and probably hits the spot about how most football fans feel about finance in football. Its probably a bit simplistic considering that TF and Co. can do arithmentic as well as anyone on this board and they are still going for it so there must be something else we havent included. Having said that though it points straight at the obcenity of +£100k per week wage awards or even +£50k per week (just what is the average annual wage these days for a senior nurse), and dont say they provide enertainment value because I can think of a number of senior nurses that could entertain me quite happily.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 19, 2012 11:54:10 GMT
Yes Taylor immediately after I tweeted re our Man City "Signing" (Obviously a coincidence)
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Jan 19, 2012 11:56:51 GMT
Got to be a worry, but while Amit is still there. I'm still trusting it.
|
|
Doudou
Dave Mangnall
The Four Year Plan
Posts: 222
|
Post by Doudou on Jan 19, 2012 12:02:59 GMT
Please note that Blackpool received £39.1m in TV money last season when they were in the Premiership. They were the lowest earners in terms of TV money, Chelsea received £57.7m, Arsenal £56.2m and United £60.4m. That is how we finance these wages (although I am fully on board that it is ludicrous). Problem is when we get relegated. We could get stuck with a huge wage bill and we would only get a £15m parachute payment. Then we are really in trouble. Link to TV money paid last season: www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/24/manchester-united-premier-league-tv
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Jan 19, 2012 12:40:44 GMT
Well their not all greedy boys , LY took a small reduction on what he was on to come to LR .
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Jan 19, 2012 12:44:23 GMT
Changing manager, trying to buy your way out of relegation for money above and beyond your means seems like pissin' in your pants to keep warm to me.
|
|
|
Post by powerpump on Jan 19, 2012 12:50:37 GMT
Interesting thread this:
anyone know if we can discover what is the club's current monthly income and expediture? And the current state of QPR's finances? Assets? loans? etc? Presumably the business is run by a limited company, so the directors can incur massive debts via the company without personal liability?
I agree that the wages are ludicrous, and the risk being taken is that before the year is out we could be playing against the likes of Stevanage.
|
|
|
Post by gramps on Jan 19, 2012 12:52:49 GMT
<(just what is the average annual wage these days for a senior nurse)>
For a staff nurse, about £450 a week. Would take a bit over two and a half years of back breaking hard work to earn what Joey gets in a week.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Jan 19, 2012 13:00:34 GMT
;D well put Z!
|
|
|
Post by londonscottish on Jan 19, 2012 13:41:15 GMT
Up to a point, running at loss doesn't matter.
Like Newcastle FC, QPR is a loss-making part of a much larger empire. Newcastle's being retail, QPR's being aviation.
(1) If the value of the publicity (shirts, TV coverage, press column inches etc) is more than the annual operating loss of the club then it's worth doing. This is what TF has to argue to the various investors of his airlines.
(2) In the longer term, improving the image, brand, fan base and table position can greatly increase the value of the club. I woud suspect that this is where TF's consortia partners focus.
Obviously staying in the prem is vital for (1) and therefore a pre-requisite for (2). If Rangers are relegated then TF may well have to back down on (1) and his other investors may give up on (2). And then the financial situation becomes fraught.
But it's OK as we'll finish 17th spot. :-)
|
|
|
Post by gramps on Jan 19, 2012 15:06:26 GMT
Up to a point, running at loss doesn't matter. Like Newcastle FC, QPR is a loss-making part of a much larger empire. Newcastle's being retail, QPR's being aviation. (1) If the value of the publicity (shirts, TV coverage, press column inches etc) is more than the annual operating loss of the club then it's worth doing. This is what TF has to argue to the various investors of his airlines. (2) In the longer term, improving the image, brand, fan base and table position can greatly increase the value of the club. I woud suspect that this is where TF's consortia partners focus. Obviously staying in the prem is vital for (1) and therefore a pre-requisite for (2). If Rangers are relegated then TF may well have to back down on (1) and his other investors may give up on (2). And then the financial situation becomes fraught. But it's OK as we'll finish 17th spot. :-) ;D ;D
|
|
tom007
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,612
|
Post by tom007 on Jan 19, 2012 15:23:36 GMT
tf aint making a loss thats for sure . its a bit like going shopping for white goods you go in and the price is marked up as say 400.00 you may knock them down to 350.00 if you are lucky but if you are a business you will get it for 250.00 - 300.00 and they are still making a profit because they dont give nothing away.the same as the sales they always make a profit just not as big a profit. TF will be making shit loads of money thats for sure or he wouldnt be here. He knows if we go down that is the end of that so staying in this league is paramount , i know people on here said if we went down it would not be the end of the world but believe me it would. we wont go down because everyone at our club now are winners,so were the last 2 idiots and despite their obvious faults we still were succesful with them and we will be even more succesful now,in 5 yrs time i believe we will be chanting chelsea,fulham who are ya.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 19, 2012 16:26:49 GMT
tf aint making a loss thats for sure . its a bit like going shopping for white goods you go in and the price is marked up as say 400.00 you may knock them down to 350.00 if you are lucky but if you are a business you will get it for 250.00 - 300.00 and they are still making a profit because they dont give nothing away.the same as the sales they always make a profit just not as big a profit. TF will be making shit loads of money thats for sure or he wouldnt be here. He knows if we go down that is the end of that so staying in this league is paramount , i know people on here said if we went down it would not be the end of the world but believe me it would. we wont go down because everyone at our club now are winners,so were the last 2 idiots and despite their obvious faults we still were succesful with them and we will be even more succesful now,in 5 yrs time i believe we will be chanting chelsea,fulham who are ya. There's blind optimism and there is blissful ignorance. I'll leave it for others to decide whilst I build a bunker in my back yard in preparation for the end of world!
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Jan 19, 2012 17:07:06 GMT
As I tweeted earlier last year Wigan's 1st team playing staff of 30 players were paid £39.4m which equates to a little over £25k per player per week and they reported pre tax losses of £4m. That's a £4m loss even after the Sky money and other generated income. Last season they averaged 17,998 people through the gate at the DW. We will probably average a similar if not slightly lower amount. Given the position they finished, which works out at £800k per place in the Premiership and where we might finish we are probably looking at similar income level as them. My assumption is that our kit sponsorship is better and that due to being new to the Premiership we've been shown more times than they were so more money will be generated but what about our outgoings?
As marshbowles rightly points out we're already reportedly paying some of our players far more than £25k pw. Plus we have more than 30 first team players actually as many as 40. How much of a loss are Fernandes and Bhatia prepared to take? How much will be debt tied to the club and how much will the two of them personally write off?
|
|
|
Post by qpranger10 on Jan 19, 2012 20:20:44 GMT
Football finance is about as false as hedge fund capitalism. So far Platini's Fair Play restrictions don't seem to be having any effect whatsoever. In our case, and others, we have an owner like TF who will patently fund transfer dealing as much as he can, and if his credit card gets maxed out probably Amit and his father in law could make use of their Amex Plats. There's probably a lot more marketing we could do to bring in more money and maximise our assets. We could probably build a new ground to bring in much bigger gate and sponsorship revenue without busting the bank (Arsenal did it). But if those are the ladders there are also a lot of snakes. What if Murdoch reeps what he has sown in terms of phone tapping, goes bust and then has to back out of, or pay much less in terms of TV rights. This bubble has been threatening to burst for years and it may not have much more life in it. I also think that the increasing TV coverage of the game will eventually start to hit gates, especially if the Tories inflict 5 more years of penury on us. Finally I think in the end clubs and Football Associations will have to introduce caps on players' contracts and on the amount that clubs in each league can spend on the transfer market. Only then will there be anything like a level playing field. The cap on spending will also mean clubs have to devote more time and attention to cultivating their own talent. Clubs would save a bucketload of cash through those two measures. But we would need to ensure that the spare cash didn't just finds its way back into the pockets of owners and shareholders. Supporters should get their share of the profits through cheaper admission charges, better promotions offering cut price or even free tickets for youngsters, especially disadvantaged kids from the Bush. Sorry if I've gone on...
|
|
|
Post by qpranger10 on Jan 19, 2012 20:23:01 GMT
Football finance is about as false as hedge fund capitalism. So far Platini's Fair Play restrictions don't seem to be having any effect whatsoever. In our case, and others, we have an owner like TF who will patently fund transfer dealing as much as he can, and if his credit card gets maxed out probably Amit and his father in law could make use of their Amex Plats. There's probably a lot more marketing we could do to bring in more money and maximise our assets. We could probably build a new ground to bring in much bigger gate and sponsorship revenue without busting the bank (Arsenal did it). But if those are the ladders there are also a lot of snakes. What if Murdoch reeps what he has sown in terms of phone tapping, goes bust and then has to back out of, or pay much less in terms of TV rights. This bubble has been threatening to burst for years and it may not have much more life in it. I also think that the increasing TV coverage of the game will eventually start to hit gates, especially if the Tories inflict 5 more years of penury on us. Finally I think in the end clubs and Football Associations will have to introduce caps on players' contracts and on the amount that clubs in each league can spend on the transfer market. Only then will there be anything like a level playing field. The cap on spending will also mean clubs have to devote more time and attention to cultivating their own talent. Clubs would save a bucketload of cash through those two measures. But we would need to ensure that the spare cash didn't just finds its way back into the pockets of owners and shareholders. Supporters should get their share of the profits through cheaper admission charges, better promotions offering cut price or even free tickets for youngsters, especially disadvantaged kids from the Bush. Sorry if I've gone on...
|
|
|
Post by qpranger10 on Jan 19, 2012 20:26:33 GMT
One final addendum. I dn't think we should worry unduly about how to pay these huge salaries (whether they are exaggerated or not). Most of the players we are signing will probably insist on clauses on their contracts allowing them to move on if we get relegated, or even if a better offer comes in. Look at all the players Blackpool bought in last season and how many of them are still these this season. Blackpool may even have got a surplus selling them on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 5:24:14 GMT
Interesting thread this: anyone know if we can discover what is the club's current monthly income and expediture? And the current state of QPR's finances? Assets? loans? etc? Presumably the business is run by a limited company, so the directors can incur massive debts via the company without personal liability? I agree that the wages are ludicrous, and the risk being taken is that before the year is out we could be playing against the likes of Stevanage. A 5 minute journey for me to watch QPR play the mighty Stevenage, sounds ok to me
|
|
|
Post by londonscottish on Jan 20, 2012 9:38:27 GMT
This bubble has been threatening to burst for years and it may not have much more life in it. ...........Finally I think in the end clubs and Football Associations will have to introduce caps on players' contracts and on the amount that clubs in each league can spend on the transfer market. Only then will there be anything like a level playing field. The cap on spending will also mean clubs have to devote more time and attention to cultivating their own talent. Clubs would save a bucketload of cash through those two measures. Hasn't this finally happened in Leagues 1 and 2? There were certainly proposals tabled over the summer and I think the majority of clubs were in favour.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Dec 4, 2012 8:00:23 GMT
Bump: Our Discussion from LAST year... And that was before all those Summer Signings (although our wages have actually gone down since then)
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Dec 5, 2012 10:20:13 GMT
Mittal does not spend a penny of his money on QPR.
If they are paying the bills, the Club isn't. Simple as that.
How could QPR be losing money if so-called 'investors' like Mittal are paying for it all?
They aren't.
'Investors' do not spend any money at all on QPR. If they did, THEY, and not the Club, would sustain the losses.
You wouldn't see them for dust.
That is why the Club isn't spending £1 billion securing the Title. Like a home owner, the Club can only spend what it is GOOD FOR.
A homeowner on a salary of £200,000 a year will be able to spend a lot more on his home than the person who only earns £20,000 a year.
If investors were paying the bills, Stevenage could easily replace Manchester United, and QPR or Norwich could replace Arsenal or Manchester City.
QPR doesn't EARN enough.
That is why it is so damaging to the Club. The homeowner gets a house, which IS an investment, and is fundamentally useful.
The Club gets nothing. A Club like ours paying over the odds for success it has never achieved is in the position of a homeowner paying over the odds for a house he never lives in.
That is where the trickery lies. The pretence that the Club is getting something for its money when it ISN'T.
It is like those Nigerian and other cons. The art is to get people to part with some money at the outset. Once they've done that, they can be induced to part with more and more, because each sum - small at first - commits them to the IDEA of success, of riches, of being a winner. In football, people who know nothing about football or winning - that's ALL investors and almost every manager - sign shedloads of players, to keep expectations high. The manager doesn't know what to do with them, and it goes without saying the players don't know what to do, PERFECT. The chancers can start all over again, raising expectations once more, signing more underperforming players and appointing another manager.
And the soaring debt doesn't make them any more eager to pay it off. You ever heard of any of these people paying off the Club's debt out of their own pocket?
Yeah, right. Like they're going to stump up for all their pathetically expensive mistakes themselves.
No, the ever increasing losses create ever increasing expectations. It won't be enough for us to break even - just read this thread and others about how likely that is. Now, we must be in the Champions League, or we must have a 45,000 capacity stadium.
Raising expectations again, and keeping those awkward questions at bay.
If our wealthy owners are really paying for it all, did ticket prices FALL when Mittal came along? Of course not. Since he arrived, they've whacked up ticket prices up as HIGH as they can.
The Club and its supporters finance THEIR lifestyle. Ever wondered why they all live in millionaire or billionaire style while QPR's ground actually got SMALLER!
They are here to pump money OUT of the Club.
|
|