|
Post by marshbowles10 on Mar 10, 2014 10:35:08 GMT
Given the size of the debt and the potential fine to the Club if we don't get promotion, I have to change my opinion.
I am watching games with disbelief this season at supposedly great names on huge salaries do nothing more than very, very average Championship players. I have not seen many 'manager eureka' moments when the state of a game has been changed by the tactical genius of the manager.
I have been bored with the football and felt a change of manager now we cannot be relegated and to build for the future seemed, until the release of the figures, to be what was best for QPR.
But unless I have been sold a pup by the promised land too, unless Harry can get us promoted, and from a financial viewpoint it now makes sense to get us promotion through the play offs, we as a club face an even gloomier picture if we don't get promoted this season. The spectre of facing a huge Championship fine before a second tier ball is kicked next season hangs large.
So for the good of QPR I have to admit, I was wrong in wanting the manager to go and for us not to be promoted this year. To go up in 2015/6 with a younger, well prepared and hungry squad with some of the enthusiasm we saw over the weekend from the likes of Wigan or even Sheffield Utd.
For potentially the existence of QPR it seems we have to be promoted this season.
I just hope and pray that TF and his board have really learned that money can buy players but it can't buy a team.
Good old Harry, please lead us to the promised land.
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Mar 10, 2014 10:42:47 GMT
Personally I don't think the FL will get close to imposing fines and embargo's on clubs. They would face so much opposition and would be facing court cases and legal challenges up to their eyeballs and as we know, the FA/FL love to back down.
The owners and shareholders will have known about the debt and money stuff for months now, this isn't a new thing that will have shocked them. The debt isn't even owed to any outside sources apart from the £15m back debt. As long as the owners are here (which they will be for the long term) we won't have anyone chasing the club down for money.
Although the fact we've ran up this debt is ridiculous when you consider the lack of success the money has brought us, I think there's been a huge over reaction when you see people saying the club is screwed.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 10, 2014 17:19:53 GMT
I must have misunderstood the punishments. I was under the belief that violating Championship teams would face a transfer embargo and a much smaller fine, whereas teams in the premier league would face huge fines but had a much larger debt allowance.
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Mar 10, 2014 17:24:24 GMT
If we somehow incur what the papers are saying ie 40mill fine then what is the point of trying trying to stop clubs spending beyond their means and and in the same breath put them out of business........crazy and surly illegal.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 10, 2014 18:19:15 GMT
Yeah the massive fine doesn't really help anything. I can understand a transfer embargo if it allows players to go out, but not come in.
|
|
|
Post by gramps on Mar 10, 2014 18:38:32 GMT
Yeah the massive fine doesn't really help anything. I can understand a transfer embargo if it allows players to go out, but not come in. Can't say I really understand the nuts and bolts of all this but it would seem to me that either way could lead to the destruction of our club.
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Mar 10, 2014 18:39:47 GMT
There is no penalty for the accounts just issued IMO.
It is the next years accounts that would have an effect. I think (providing I read Bushman correctly) that these will be for the year ending 31/5/14 & have to be filed by 30/11/14 so that any penalty will be applied in January 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 10, 2014 19:02:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on Mar 10, 2014 22:51:21 GMT
If they do get fined 40 mill will it go as debt on the club accounts for the following year ?
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 13, 2014 19:29:48 GMT
I suppose the logic is, as marshbowles says, that we must go up because we can't cope with our current losses outside the top flight.
Well, hmmmm, yes. But our current losses were created IN the top flight.
Let's see if I can get this straight. Accounting-wise, we're working a year behind, so we don't know this year's loss, or the current level of debt, right?
So the £177 million is basically the total debt after the 2012-2013 season, the relegation season. In that season, the debt DOUBLED from £89 million to £177 million, £89 million being the total debt at the end of the relegation near-miss season, having almost DOUBLED that season with a further £45million loss from £54 million the year before, the promotion year.
The year concerning which the common denominator to these appalling losses - Bhatia - soothed our concerns. This is the man whose regime:
best part of DOUBLED the Club's 23-year losses in a single season, 2010-11 then almost DOUBLED the entire 24-year losses AGAIN in the next year 2011-12 and DOUBLED the total 25-year losses AGAIN - unbelievably - in the year 2012-13
When Bhatia and his fellow directors including Fernandes lost in ONE season THE SAME SUM the Club lost over the entire period from 1987 to 2012.
And this is what Bhatia said when his fellow directors Ecclestone and Briatore departed.
“Let’s be clear, previously directors provided loans and those debts no longer exist. They have been wiped out. In fact I would go so far as to describe the club as being debt free".
Of course, he doesn't actually SAY that the Club IS debt-free at that point. He says only that he would go so far as to DESCRIBE it as debt-free.
“Cash is now being provided by the owners with no burden being placed upon the club and we felt that was the best way".
So he paid off the £54 million owed to the Club's directors to such an extent that the same sum of £54 million was still owed to the Club's directors.
And, as Fernandes keeps insisting, still is. Along with the £123 million Fernandes lost in two years IN THE PREMIERSHIP. When the Club earned £40 million a season just for turning up.
Now, HOW ON EARTH could Fernandes and Bhatia SPEND, let alone LOSE, £123 million ON TOP OF the £80 million they were receiving for membership of the Premiership alone.
And how on earth are they going to cope EXCEPT by doing the same thing? If DOUBLING the Club's debt year by year produced one of the worst QPR sides EVER in the top flight (or THE worst, the 69 side was stripped of players and left to fend without even the talent it had in the Third Division), how are they going to IMPROVE things?
So I agree that getting stuck in the Championship looks like a nightmare scenario with reduced earnings and vast losses, it is a nightmare created above all in the Premiership. The old idea was that once you were in the big money, all your worries disappeared. You earned £40 million a year, so that £54 million debt you incurred getting there would disappear provided you stayed there a few years.
But we KNOW that isn't true. There are very few examples of investors using revenue in the Premiership to pay down existing debts. Almost invariably, they have no interest at all in doing so. Because the failures of previous regimes would reduce their own chances of succeeding.
So, like Fernandes and his predecessors, they just lose more and more and more.
I must say I don't believe the bullshit about soft loans. ALL debt is external, there are no internal debts. How on earth could the Bhatia Fernandes regime pretend on the one hand that they paid off existing loans owed to the directors of the Club - and therefore 'soft' loans - while pretending that vastly bigger debts which, no differently, are owed to directors of the Club are somehow 'softer' and constitute 'no burden on the Club'.
Maybe the Premiership option will work out. But on the evidence so far, it is looking very much like damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
If these big sums of money don't really matter, why can't the Clubs persuade the overpaid players that that is the case. And pay them nominal wages until they actually produce performances that are profitable enough to pay them?
Why are supporters obliged to believe that the Club losing money is all right, and means nothing, while the very people responsible ensure that THEY won't lose a penny and the burden IS all on the Club?
Brilliance, sheer, dazzling, amazing skill, masterful appointments, superb buys, stunning youth policy, clever team-building, extraordinary tactical awareness, and an obviously superior set-up from top to bottom ...
... yes, I think that would work, and QPR could become the next United or Arsenal or Man City.
But the finances prevent them doing that. The more they lose, the more the sensible, steady, 10-15 year option isn't an option. Take your time, learn the game, get the balance right, set the foundations, don't rush things.
As marshbowles says, we can't even wait one season. Although the regime reckons it can. But then, the regime told us we weren't in debt.
And what is actually happening is not even all right. For the money they've spent, they don't even look good at this level. And there is no particular reason to think they'll finish in the top three, even via the play-offs, than outside it.
We HOPE they will. Or do we? Can they avoid doubling the debt to £340 million in one season?
But why, why, why were they losing money ON TOP OF that enormous Premiership income anyway? Why were they making loans? If relegation doesn't matter,why not take relegation in their stride. Two or three times if necessary. If the money will be there long-term, as Fernandes makes out.
But will it? Is it like Bhatia's debt-free? Just tell them anything. Even if it is obvious it isn't true. No debt, big stadium, no worries.
TRUST US. Well, no, I don't. They could pay off the debt in one go. And show that THEY believed what they tell us. That they'll get the money back from making QPR a big, successful Club that will push their share price into the stratosphere. Or just high enough to recover the current losses.
But they don't seem to believe that, do they? They really do not want to put a single penny of their own money into the Club.
Why?
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Mar 13, 2014 22:00:17 GMT
Personally I don't think the FL will get close to imposing fines and embargo's on clubs. They would face so much opposition and would be facing court cases and legal challenges up to their eyeballs and as we know, the FA/FL love to back down. The owners and shareholders will have known about the debt and money stuff for months now, this isn't a new thing that will have shocked them. The debt isn't even owed to any outside sources apart from the £15m back debt. As long as the owners are here (which they will be for the long term) we won't have anyone chasing the club down for money. Although the fact we've ran up this debt is ridiculous when you consider the lack of success the money has brought us, I think there's been a huge over reaction when you see people saying the club is screwed. You might be right about the legal implications of applying the fines. But I think your are wrong about the comfort of our debt situation. My reasoning is because this is a mirror of Portsmouth FC and I have discussed this similarity with my friend who is a director at Pompey. They thought they had an owner for life too.
|
|
|
Post by marshbowles10 on Mar 14, 2014 6:50:40 GMT
The more I read our posts, the more worried I become about the future of the Club. I am one of the fans that is generational. I came with my father in the late 60's. My son, now 26 has been coming for 21 years.
My new 3 month old granddaughter will follow in time..........I hope.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 14, 2014 7:19:14 GMT
I think you're misreading the situation
Our Chairman said just yesterday (besides calling me "extremely negative") "NO DEBT EXCEPT STADIUM RELATED"
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 15, 2014 11:51:15 GMT
Hahaha - yes, Mac, and what does he mean by THAT claptrap? That they've already LOST the entire cost of the NEW stadium.
If it relates to the stadium, why has he spent it on players? Especially when the Club won't even OWN the new stadium. Given that the losses this season must take the total debt to well over £200 million, they've squandered all the equity in the new ground BEFORE IT HAS EVEN BEEN BUILT!!!!
Or is he trying the Bhatia game, and implying that only the historic Richard Thompson debt STILL secured against Loftus Road and STILL not cleared, counts as debt?
If that were true, those figures are the figures that would be in the Accounts.
This sounds about as plausible as Bhatia's 'debt-free'. And the question still stands. If it doesn't matter, if the debt isn't REAL debt because it is owed to 'directors', why does it exist AT ALL?
Debt owed to directors is external debt like any other. Fernandes is not QPR. And a lender who only provided the money, and didn't also LOSE it, would be far better than Fernandes, Bhatia, Mittal, Briatore, Paladini and all the others who ran up colossal losses and did absolutely NOTHING about them.
Even if we looked on these loans as a mortgage against QPR's equity (not just the equity in the stadium, but the Club's worth as a potential Premier League Club), every time the money loaned is lost, more of the equity disappears.
Once the realistic market value of the Club in losses is reached, where will they find more of this so-called 'investment'?
If the argument is made that they will simply make more loans and spend more on players like Chelsea and City, why haven't they done so already? Why didn't they buy QUALITY players and appoint WORLD CLASS managers to ensure, at the very least, that QPR would be building in the way the other £1 billion spenders build, from the Champions League places upwards.
It isn't the debt itself which is so sinister. It is what the debt indicates about their thinking. That however much they spend, it isn't worth RISKING any of it themselves. If they simply pay the Club's bills themselves, they'll lose money hand over fist. They like to give us the impression that what we're getting for the money will be worth the losses in the short- to medium-term, but if that was true, it would be worth THEIR while losing THEIR money.
Then there would be no debt. And we could join with the supporters of other Clubs in laughing at their mistakes, at how ridiculous it is to just squander money on this scale with absolutely no idea what they will get for it, if anything.
But they know what they will get. They'll get their money back. When there isn't any possibility of getting the money back by selling the Club to a NEW lender, then we'll suddenly hear them talking about running the Club properly, QPR is only a small Club, QPR can't sustain big spending like big Clubs, or run up big losses.
To me, it looks as though the only thing wrong with owing money to what they call OUTSIDE lenders is that someone ELSE will own the debt, not them.
Worth bearing in mind that in the pre-eminent lending institution, a bank, the money on deposit constitutes the bank's liabilities. It is the debts the bank owns which are its assets.
Looking at the £177 million as they do, as their ASSET, not the Club's liability, which it is, no wonder they are doing all they can to expand it as quickly as possible.
Furthermore, if, as Fernandes seems to be suggesting, the losses are already being sustained by the Club TO PAY FOR THE STADIUM, doesn't that suggest what kind of asset QPR's debt really is.
A way of enslaving the Club like an indentured labourer. Obliged to provide revenue for a Landlord, and unable to play its way out of trouble, talent or not, because the kind of Landlord we get will be able to keep the Club in debt - and therefore dependent on him and his heirs - indefinitely.
Getting two Clubs would be even better, with each liable for the other's losses, in the event that the usual incompetence drove one of them towards bankruptcy sooner rather than later. And with Fulham floundering, and their vast debt still unpaid - I believe the story that it doesn't exist in the same way I believe Bhatia's story that QPR's doesn't exist - and Craven Cottage worth a pretty penny ...
... well, interesting to see which way they go. If they get the world class manager, and the quality squad, we might expect Champions League football after all. But their spending isn't anything like enough, and there is no guarantee that even a successful QPR would earn enough to cover the losses incurred.
And it wouldn't have any assets to cover the debt, which Fernandes seems to think is so closely connected to stadiums (as assets, I take it).
If they don't, will the present decline be just the start?
Now, there's an interesting way to look at what Fernandes has said. Let's say the Club remains at this level, or even does a Southampton or Norwich and goes down to the third tier.
Will £177 million plus of debt be any problem to QPR if we DON'T go up soon? According to Fernandes, no, it seems. The money is owed to him, so ... it doesn't matter.
The debt will just go on growing (with revenue much reduced as it will be) and it will just go on not mattering.
Or will there be another spending splurge to get us back up to the Premiership, and an even bigger one to keep us there? Presumably, that is why Redknapp is here. To be a wise, steady, more sophisticated version of Warnock. Coolly directing us back to the big time, wiser and ready to get things right this time.
Can't help remembering he was at Portsmouth. And it is uncomfortable to see how far ahead Leicester are. And Burnley. Won't mean we can't go up. But as up to 12 different Clubs will have gone from the Championship to the Premier league in the next four years - before the stadium is up and running, that is - how does QPR perform sufficiently differently not to simply disappear into the mass of dozens of such Clubs as we have done in the last 20 years?
Apart from the colossal borrowing ON TOP OF Premiership revenue that we've seen in the last two seasons.
|
|