|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 5, 2010 0:00:00 GMT
[[Edit: Note the links to the accounts which Scott posted are no longer active] Excerpts From the QPR Accounts: Dispelling the BS I've read the accounts. There's a lot there, which others are free to post and understand And just remember these accounts go up to May 31, 2009...We've obviously lost some more since then. Thanks to Scott Jones A link to the two accounts: QPR Limited and QPR Holdings - www.mediafire.com/?mizvzttjjmz- www.mediafire.com/?ymb54jjyjmm EXCERPTS FROM THE ACCOUNTS (Which Cover Period Up to May 31, 2009QPR HOLDINGSChairman Statement - Ali Russell " During 2009/09 we took the decsion to part with two first team managers Iain Dowie and Paulo Sousa..." (page 2) The loss for the year amounted to £18,824,000" (p 3) ".. Net cash outflow from operations amounted to £12.1 million as compared to £3.3 million for the prevous year. This reflects the ongoing investment in player salary cost, stadium refurbishment cost and minial player sales" "The group paid £3.4 M (2008 - £6.90M) to aquire additional players during the year." " Net debt as at 31 May 2009 has increased to £24.7 million (2008- £16.9 million" "...The strategy is to ensure we retain the highest quality playing staff by securing long-term contracts..." "The Group made a loss of £18,824,000 during the year ended 31 May 2009 and at that date the Group's liabilities exceeded its total asets by £5,769,000 (p7) Loss for the Financial year, £18,824,000 Loss for 2009 (£6,009,000) On the 1 September 2007 A. Claiendo waived £4,212,882 of the loan. £2,000,000 is still included in creditors in relation to Mr. Caliendo's original loan (14) Particulars of Employes - Number of Administrative Staff - In 2009, 20...In 2009 11 The aggregrate payroll costs of the above were Wages and Salaries2009 £15,322,000 2008 £9,271,000 Renumeration of highest paid director $181,000 (2008 - £196,000) "The loss dealt with the financial statements of the parent company was £19,242,000 (2008, £6,104,000 " The overdraft is secuired by personal guarantees and a second legal charge over the Loftus Road Stadium" (19) Included with long term creditors are the following loansA £8,600,000 loan facility from Sarita Capital Investments... A £10,000,000 from Amulya Propert Limited which is interest bearing at 8.5% A £503,000 Interest free lon from the Football League a £2,000,000 interest free loan owing to Mr A Caliendo "During the year the copany paid amounts totalling £40,000 (2008 £75,000 to Moorbound Limited...in relation to G. Paladini's role as a director. In addition...an interest free loan of £140k (2008 £140K) to G Paladini" Post Balance Sheet Events "Transfer activity...a number of player join the club on permanent transfers, notably Alejadnro Faurlin, Alessandro Pellicori and Nigel Quashie. |
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 5, 2010 0:03:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on Mar 5, 2010 0:29:56 GMT
Weird that the depreciation on the fixtures & fittings & others to do with renovation amounted to 20% ?
The loan system/wages are catastrophic to the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by toboboly on Mar 5, 2010 0:44:35 GMT
I'm a little drunk having just come from a gig but five things immediately stand out even for me;
1) They admit to parting with Sousa which surely wouldn't impact on the accounts should he have been fired without pay, hence they paid him off. Yes, no?
2) £3.4m for players eh? We didn't spend anywhere near that according to Pete in two years.
3) £18,824,000 Loss is rather a large loss for a Premier League club. Let alone a Championship one.
4) Quashie didn't sign during that time. Does that mean we are putting forward fraudulent accounts?
5) Where/when has that loan from the football league come about?
Paladini right for the job/club my fcuking arse!
|
|
|
|
Post by toboboly on Mar 5, 2010 1:10:12 GMT
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Take a look at this!!!; www.wearetherangersboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54247Should you not wish to dirty your internet browser then the master of both numbers and percussion has these wise words to impart; "At 31 May 2009 Queens Park Rangers Athletic and Football Club Limited made a profit after tax of £418,000, up from £98,000 the previous year. the group has net current liabilities £12.8 million, and net liability of £5.7 million (from last 12 months) QPR Holdings Limited itself has chosen not to publish its own profit and loss account, but it indicates to me the football side of things made a profit, (the holdings part of the buisness lost money) so spending millions on players is a total smokescreen by people who don't really understand the ins and outs of how it works. We seem to be losing 5-6 million a year " |
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 5, 2010 1:20:21 GMT
What can one say?
|
|
|
|
Post by toboboly on Mar 5, 2010 1:34:10 GMT
Apart from
"you're a lying scum-bag"?
Not much. I have just asked him on one of his threads why he seems to think the holding company and club are seperate entities when Saints were undone by the holding company going into admin. Also Report, my Q's 4 and 5, any idea on them?
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 5, 2010 2:14:00 GMT
Wouldnt make any difference Tobob. Use your energy for more interesting things. He live in a world of his own creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by toboboly on Mar 5, 2010 2:16:55 GMT
Fair enough London, though if anyone can answer or give an explanation to my 5 questions I would appreciate it!
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 5, 2010 3:25:23 GMT
Last year we had a debt of more than 50 mil. Now would be 65 mil. Ingham has all the correct figures and he calculates accurateley.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Mar 5, 2010 3:27:16 GMT
Remember they owe us 20,000 for the grounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 5, 2010 7:33:47 GMT
I'm a little drunk having just come from a gig but five things immediately stand out even for me; 1) They admit to parting with Sousa which surely wouldn't impact on the accounts should he have been fired without pay, hence they paid him off. Yes, no? A: I think tha's just part of the summary of where we are rather than meaning financially for this period2) £3.4m for players eh? We didn't spend anywhere near that according to Pete in two years. A: HMMMMMM!3) £18,824,000 Loss is rather a large loss for a Premier League club. Let alone a Championship one. A: YES!4) Quashie didn't sign during that time. Does that mean we are putting forward fraudulent accounts? A: Again, A: I think tha's just part of the summary of where we are rather than meaning financially5) Where/when has that loan from the football league come about? A: No idea!Paladini right for the job/club my fcuking arse! |
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 5, 2010 7:49:41 GMT
I think some of the comments elsewhere are very hard to understand. One can offer explanations and talk about investments, and reasons and optimism about the future, etc, etc, etc.
But if one was to do a Q&A with club officials, I'm sure their response would be not the response I read.
I also think it confirms that Briatore et al DID spend a lot of money. Now you can argue whose money it was (added to their debt, or ours, etc). You can certainly debate whether it was well spent. You can argue who at QPR, if anyone was to blame. And debate what you think of Briatore. But just on the actual facts: No doubt we have spent a LOT of money since Briatore et al took over
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 5, 2010 8:36:20 GMT
Don't believe your own eyes an documented accounts Mike, you know he knows best even though he's a self confessed liar.
Amazing anyone still believes him, if in fact, anyone actually does.
|
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Mar 5, 2010 10:07:15 GMT
We used to have a saying in the army : Bulls**t baffles brains... I think these accounts are a perfect example of that. So Paladini gets yet another £140K interest free loan. Admin staff increased, community staff decreased.....  Wages massively up. Lots spent on transfers, I think some one needs to re-evaluate their extensive research... One thing I do find strange (remember I am not an accountant, so I could be wrong) in section 6 of the Holdings accounts under amounts paid to third parties it is given as £0, but under section 21 Related Party Transactions it lists £40K to Moorbound Ltd in relation to GP as a director. Are these two not contradicting each other? I am going to go and lie down in a dark room now....  |
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 5, 2010 10:10:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Mar 5, 2010 10:18:58 GMT
That's the one.....
|
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 5, 2010 14:21:01 GMT
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 5, 2010 18:21:43 GMT
I must say I'm dazed. Are these the latest set of accounts, or what?
Did they really lose £18 million last year? When I first saw it, I took it to be their '£19 million' total debt, a figure which was apparently arrived at by subtracting the previous year's loss from the year before's £25 million debt.
If this vast black hole really opened up in the Club's finances, then the figure of £50 million is correct.
Except that I was including the near £25 million value of the Ground. Briatore said 'we' had acquired it, and as the Board - on 3 December 2008 - had voted on whether to permit Board members to act in conflict with the Club's interests, to keep their actions secret, and to keep any money they made from such actions secret, it seemed entirely possible that they had helped themselves - Noades-style - to the Club's only asset.
But £18 million! In a single YEAR?
That 'ABC' debt now looks very modest, doesn't it? Replaced, as it has been, with debts of £2 million, £8 million AND £10 million.
Difficult to know what the total damage can be? £24 million lost in 2 seasons on top of the previous £25 million debt, is £49 million.
And there's this season's losses, isn't there?
No wonder supporters aren't buying tickets.
And Warnock jumped ship at Palace to come here?
|
|
|
|
Post by klr on Mar 5, 2010 20:16:04 GMT
The level of Financial Mismanagement we are dealing with here speaks for itself.
Quite Incredible, a large amount of money appears to have quite literally disapeared from the clubs coffers ?
What's going on ?
|
|
|
|
Post by saphilip on Mar 6, 2010 12:56:17 GMT
It's the 18 mill figures that gets me: how did we lose so much in one year?
I can only imagine the following - the compensation paid to Dowie & Sousa (and we must have done) must have been pretty high and probably a reason why ID seesm happy to staynon at sky.
God knows how much we will have paid this season - because I doubt Magilton, Hart & co left without a penny.
Good news to look forward to for this year's P&L - it will include the comp that we paid Palacefor NW.
We must have sold Blackstock & Camp at a loss - and those were probably among our best players.
Remind me again - how much did we pay for agent fees (and do you think there might be a link to the man whose name cannot be mentioned)?
The upgrade of the boardroom must have cost much, much more than we thought (depreciation figure is pretty nifty - all that bling must be rather expensive).
If you lose over 4k fans in 4 years (that is drop of around 25%) then no amount of price increases can ever compensate for that loss no matter how hard creative accountants try to be. They always forget to add the lost revenue (such as drop in merchandising, refreshments, programmes, etc) when they make their calculations and alway give over optimistioc predictions that will never happen in the real world (and not one in a recession).
7.5% pa on a 10 mill loan (probably more) - that is a helluva lot of money to pay out in a year and it is dead money. You are servicing the debt at the expense of other things.
I love to see the salary bill of our players - because right now they don't give value for money. Not by a long shot.
Loan players are a drain on resources - 7 of them is more than a drain - it's a vortex.
Bottom line:
Players in players out - loan players and more loan players, useless players with long contracts and agent fees, a disillusioned fan base voting with their feet, a coaching merry go riound that is no longer a joke but a national disgrace and relying on the advise of a two bit former agent (whose honestly was questiond at a hight court trial) and you have a recipe for disaster. Our figure sreflect that.
Simply put our saviours are guilty of financial mismanagement - debts in excess of 5 mill (close to 6 mill) and losses approaching the 20 mill mark don't happen on their own. Trust me on that last point as I am an accountant.
A
|
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 7, 2010 11:11:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Mar 7, 2010 11:21:01 GMT
A decent accounts summary ruined by the author's rant and personal views. Shame.  |
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113 
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 7, 2010 17:55:22 GMT
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 7, 2010 18:15:38 GMT
Exactly as we suspected - the Club has lost millions again on players, surprise, surprise.
But now, something new.
If the article is correct, investors forced the Club to pay for the shares they own to the tune of £15 million. This is real money, the loss is real, the accountants have recorded it, and it's another £15 million on the Club's debt.
In a QPR version of what happened to Manchester United. One bunch of investors trousers the money, the other trousers the shares, the Club pays for the deal, and the debt-free giant sustained a £650 million loss, the basis for it's soaring long-term DEBT.
At this point, the author of the piece becomes confused about the difference between the price of shares, and their value.
Suggesting that the £15 million doesn't really matter, and hasn't cost the Club anything. It is real, it matters, and it has cost the Club £15 million.
But even if the share value now fluctuates, falls, or collapses completely, the shareholders won't be out of pocket a penny. While if it soars, even above the £15 million the Club paid, QPR gets nothing.
Another confusion arises between annual losses and accumulated debt. The annual losses, this year and last, aren't the same thing as the debt, which has been accumulating for 9 years.
Even if we accept that Caliendo 'wrote off' £4 million, the accounts show overall liabilities close to £50 million:
£2 million debt owed to Caliendo (2010)
£10 million debt owed to a front company (2010)
£8 million debt, plus interest (the old 'ABC' debt) - (2010)
further £6 million loss - (2009 accounts)
further £18 million loss - (2010 accounts).
Even more alarming is the prospect that the Ground is 'now' owned by Briatore & Co, putting overall losses to the Club at nearer £70-£75 million, based on QPR1st and the LSA's statement that the Ground had been valued at £24 million.
£24 million? Well, if total debt is only £24.7 million now, as this article claims, how can liabilities exceed assets by £5 million as the accounts say?
Is the accelerating pace of these losses a sign that we're in the endgame now? Before the rats begin to desert the sinking ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Mar 7, 2010 18:47:02 GMT
That's more like it. Thanks very much QPRDad. An excellent summary.  |
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 7, 2010 19:56:39 GMT
That's more like it. Thanks very much QPRDad. An excellent summary. Always a pleasure, and never a chore! |
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 7, 2010 21:03:10 GMT
QPR Dad, I have a seperate question re the Briatore sell of shares:
What's the legal requirement before they publicly (or at least publicly accessible) have to report share purchases and sales.
Would be nice to know for sure that Briatore truly is now in the minority
Thanks
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 7, 2010 22:19:41 GMT
QPR Dad, I have a seperate question re the Briatore sell of shares: What's the legal requirement before they publicly (or at least publicly accessible) have to report share purchases and sales. Would be nice to know for sure that Briatore truly is now in the minority Thanks Well - as I originally said, it is a legal requirement to disclose a director(s) controlling interest in a set of accounts. This is either done by showing the shares owned in the directors report, or by way of a seperate note within the accounts - this however has not been done. This is either an oversight, or deliberate omission in the knowledge that it's no big deal in the greater sceme of things - who knows! As Holdings is not publically quoted on a stock exchange, and is a 'close company' (defined as controlled by 5 or fewer people), then the shareholding changes need not be shown until a seperate document is filed. This seperate document is an annual return of directors, shareholders etc, but no financial information (given the snappy title of 'Company Annual Return'. I can't remember off the top of my head when the last return was made, but I think it's not due for quite a few months yet - so no news at all, or any way of finding out how many shares FB has disposed. I'm not a gambling man, but my 'money' will definately be on FB losing his controlling interest (more than 50%) because of the fit and proper ''problem'' he's inevitably going to have in the relatively short-term future. Also, AB / Mittals active involvement in recent weeks is further indication that they now have overall control. Regarding control, > 50% gives control and >75% gives virtual omnipotence! I have a monitor on the company, and Companies House e-mail me whenever documents are published, so I shall report to all directly I receive notice. |
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Mar 7, 2010 22:27:09 GMT
Many thanks. I this is probably something all QPR fans would be interested in!
|
|
