qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 13, 2012 19:39:08 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. It's interesting to note that Phil Beard says no debt, apart from the shareholders. This may well mean that all of the existing /historical debts are effectively swapped in lieu of a new debt to TF and co. As always with all but a couple of the top clubs, Gooners Manu, Spuds; we are at the behest of rich backers, and the sun shines so long as they remain involved!
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Mar 13, 2012 19:42:54 GMT
Pretty frightening stuff , thankyou QPRDAD !
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Mar 13, 2012 21:35:08 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. So basically what they are saying is that the debts the club have are with the the people who own it and as such as there are no outside debts to any third parties therefore the club is effectively 'debt free'? That's not quite how I'd assess the term 'debt free', but fair enough it does make sense from their point of view. How does that stack up against the new rules that UEFA are bringing in? Will they buy it?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 13, 2012 21:39:11 GMT
Maybe it will change in the next accounts (the way it's done, obviously will be more)
Strange to my untutored eye that they then say " "Net Debt as of 31 May 2011 has increased to ÂŁ56.2 million..."
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Mar 13, 2012 21:49:28 GMT
Maybe it will change in the next accounts (the way it's done, obviously will be more) Strange to my untutored eye that they then say " "Net Debt as of 31 May 2011 has increased to ÂŁ56.2 million..." Only anything after the Fernandes led takeover is relevant to the now.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 13, 2012 22:00:07 GMT
Agree...But will be "interesting" when in next year account they speak of a debt (and I bet they do) Probably 70 million plus. But will see
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Mar 13, 2012 23:34:20 GMT
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. It's interesting to note that Phil Beard says no debt, apart from the shareholders. This may well mean that all of the existing /historical debts are effectively swapped in lieu of a new debt to TF and co. As always with all but a couple of the top clubs, Gooners Manu, Spuds; we are at the behest of rich backers, and the sun shines so long as they remain involved! You hit the nail on the head qprdad, and solved the riddle ;D
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 14, 2012 10:12:42 GMT
The impression they like to give is that debt to the shareholders isn't the same thing as money owed to outsiders.
In fact, it is worse, far worse, because outsiders can't prevent the Club clearing its debt if it wants to. Nor can outsiders run up even bigger losses without dealing with the existing ones, as each successive bunch of speculators has done at QPR.
This myth is familiar from the ABC loan. Although very damaging, the loan arose not because ABC turned the screws on the Club, but because the people running the Club found it a satisfactory way to get money for themselves at the Club's expense.
ABC were bound by the agreement they made, enforceable in law. These people are bound by nothing. They can run up losses, speculate against assets like the Ground, sell them off, and use the Club's revenue to pay for their own shareholding, the proceeds from which go into the speculators' pockets, not the Club's.
All of it paid for by QPR.
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 14, 2012 13:18:58 GMT
Maybe it will change in the next accounts (the way it's done, obviously will be more) Strange to my untutored eye that they then say " "Net Debt as of 31 May 2011 has increased to ÂŁ56.2 million..." Mac, that's the cashflow statement, the net liabilities, i.e. all assets, less all liabilities is ÂŁ23m (off the top of my head)
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 16, 2012 7:02:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 16, 2013 9:09:25 GMT
Just to bump
|
|