The Amulya Loan & Ownership of Loftus Road

[Markqpr]

DC, so, as money pours out of the club and we stand to lose our one asset, for nothing after throwing millions down the drain to prevent this, to the very men that 'saved' us thereby finally stripping the flesh from our bones, it's not all bad because we're not Palace?

You have a point.


Just need someone to save us from our 'saviours', again.

[Shamie]

Nov 3, 2010 10:37:18 GMT finney said:

was it not said that if we get into the PL that GP will get 500k?

Was it?

When and by whom?

Don't suppose you've got a link
to a newpaper article or somesuch
where this was stated.Would be interested
in having read of it if you do.

[Macmoish]

Finney responsed in another thread.

Of course the central concern - or at least should be the central concern - is not trying to document whether Paladini is or is not going to get a bonus and of what size. But the issue of Briatore and Ecclestone and Bhatia and ownership of the club and the Stadium.

Or at least that's what it seems to me is the core issue

[dc]

Mark,
I wasn't quite saying that.

But we all need to accept the fact that we have been running at a loss, to quite a large degree I think we will find, for so many years now that one cannot simply heap all the blame on the current owners. Many successive groups are equally to blame for this situation. It just seems to me that at least the current owners have the financial clout to get us out of a serious problem should one indeed occur. None of the previous chancers did.

[Hogan]

Nov 3, 2010 19:30:18 GMT dc said:

Mark,
I wasn't quite saying that.

But we all need to accept the fact that we have been running at a loss, to quite a large degree I think we will find, for so many years now that one cannot simply heap all the blame on the current owners. Many successive groups are equally to blame for this situation. It just seems to me that at least the current owners have the financial clout to get us out of a serious problem should one indeed occur. None of the previous changers did.

One such serious problem being the £10M loan. Mr Mittal can fix this from his petty cash account so why not then?

[finney]

Nov 3, 2010 19:04:34 GMT Shamie said:

Nov 3, 2010 10:37:18 GMT finney said:

was it not said that if we get into the PL that GP will get 500k?

Was it?

When and by whom?

Don't suppose you've got a link
to a newpaper article or somesuch

It was said as i said else where on the radio by the man himself just before the takeover hope that helps.
It was a question shamie just to clear that up as well.

where this was stated.Would be interested
in having read of it if you do.

[Macmoish]

Throw in...When Blackburn and then Bill Power were in charge, things were improving...
When Paladini mounted his "coup" he himself spoke of getting a balanced budget - Surely he was not telling an untruth?

But the losses got bigger...

But NO ONE got the losses to the level that Briatore-Ecclestone did. I mean how the hell do you go to an almost 20 million pound loss (and not a one time loss) in a single year?

[finney]

On a serious note he told shareholders the club was going to break even when we were close to going bust that is more of a crime than anything else i can think of for a person who holds the office he did at the time.
And that is a matter of fact.

[Macmoish]

And a number of past quotes by Gianni re finances (and other matters) were compiled and are available!

But again, the central issue is Briatore-Ecclestone-Mittal and the current ownership of club, ground, and debt

[Shamie]

It was said as i said else where on the radio by the man himself just before the takeover hope that helps.
It was a question shamie just to clear that up as well.

Did'nt see/read the other thread,Paul.

Just a question from me also.

Would'nt mind having a listen to that
if someone could dig up a link for it.

[cpr]

This thread isn't about what Paladini earns or whether he gets a bonus.

Like I've already mentioned, I thought that was Colin's bonus but don't really care who's it is!

This is about a letter to the shareholders that is, to say the least, alarming.

[finney]

Nov 3, 2010 19:52:06 GMT Shamie said:

It was said as i said else where on the radio by the man himself just before the takeover hope that helps.
It was a question shamie just to clear that up as well.

Did'nt see/read the other thread,Paul.

I don't get the big deal shamie i heard it on the radio hence asking the question.
It's only a question and not like i said he took a bung like someone said about Sousa and failed to back it up.
I have no link to him saying he did not swear in court but i heard him say it and i know its not true.

Same as he never played for Italy and Juve.
Perhaps someone could do a fake interview with him like they did with Flavio.

[Zamoraaaah]

Nov 3, 2010 20:09:39 GMT cpr said:

This thread isn't about what Paladini earns or whether he gets a bonus.

Like I've already mentioned, I thought that was Colin's bonus but don't really care who's it is!

This is about a letter to the shareholders that is, to say the least, alarming.

Indeed.

There is another thread for those that wish to discuss Paladini.
The non payment of loan/ground issue is far more worrying.

[Shamie]

Nov 3, 2010 20:24:47 GMT finney said:

Nov 3, 2010 19:52:06 GMT Shamie said:

It was said as i said else where on the radio by the man himself just before the takeover hope that helps.
It was a question shamie just to clear that up as well.

Did'nt see/read the other thread,Paul.

I don't get the big deal shamie i heard it on the radio hence asking the question.
It's only a question and not like i said he took a bung like someone said about Sousa and failed to back it up.
I have no link to him saying he did not swear in court but i heard him say it and i know its not true.

Same as he never played for Italy and Juve.
Perhaps someone could do a fake interview with him like they did with Flavio.

Now why are you trying to make out that i'm making a big deal of it?

You asked a question and so did i.

What you posted piqued my interest.

Can't see the point of you posting the other stuff TBH,nothing to do with the question i asked.

I never said or implied that you did'nt hear it on the radio.
If that interview is out there i would'nt mind having a listen to it.
Thats all theere is to what i posted.
Nothing more than that.

No need to go on the offensive because someone asked you a question.

I won't bother asking again.

[Zamoraaaah]

Nov 3, 2010 20:51:35 GMT Shamie said:

Nov 3, 2010 20:24:47 GMT finney said:

Did'nt see/read the other thread,Paul.

I don't get the big deal shamie i heard it on the radio hence asking the question.
It's only a question and not like i said he took a bung like someone said about Sousa and failed to back it up.
I have no link to him saying he did not swear in court but i heard him say it and i know its not true.

Same as he never played for Italy and Juve.
Perhaps someone could do a fake interview with him like they did with Flavio.

Now why are you trying to make out that i'm making a big deal of it?

You asked a question and so did i.

What you posted piqued my interest.

Can't see the point of you posting the other stuff TBH,nothing to do with the question i asked.

I never said or implied that you did'nt hear it on the radio.
If that interview is out there i would'nt mind having a listen to it.
Thats all theere is to what i posted.
Nothing more than that.

No need to go on the offensive because someone asked you a question.

I won't bother asking again.

Shamie,
Please post on the other thread. I'm sure you don't mean to but you are effectively hijacking this one.

BTW I think you have the wrong end of the stick. It appears you are being overly defensive.

[finney]

Nov 3, 2010 20:51:35 GMT Shamie said:

Nov 3, 2010 20:24:47 GMT finney said:

Did'nt see/read the other thread,Paul.

I don't get the big deal shamie i heard it on the radio hence asking the question.
It's only a question and not like i said he took a bung like someone said about Sousa and failed to back it up.
I have no link to him saying he did not swear in court but i heard him say it and i know its not true.

Same as he never played for Italy and Juve.
Perhaps someone could do a fake interview with him like they did with Flavio.

Now why are you trying to make out that i'm making a big deal of it?

You asked a question and so did i.

What you posted piqued my interest.

Can't see the point of you posting the other stuff TBH,nothing to do with the question i asked.

I never said or implied that you did'nt hear it on the radio.
If that interview is out there i would'nt mind having a listen to it.
Thats all theere is to what i posted.
Nothing more than that.

No need to go on the offensive because someone asked you a question.

I won't bother asking again.

Shamie i think you have taken me up wrong was not having a go and sorry if it came across as if i was
sorry again.

[Shamie]

Nov 3, 2010 20:56:33 GMT Zamoraaaah said:

Nov 3, 2010 20:51:35 GMT Shamie said:

Now why are you trying to make out that i'm making a big deal of it?

You asked a question and so did i.

What you posted piqued my interest.

Can't see the point of you posting the other stuff TBH,nothing to do with the question i asked.

I never said or implied that you did'nt hear it on the radio.
If that interview is out there i would'nt mind having a listen to it.
Thats all theere is to what i posted.
Nothing more than that.

No need to go on the offensive because someone asked you a question.

I won't bother asking again.

Shamie,
Please post on the other thread. I'm sure you don't mean to but you are effectively hijacking this one.

BTW I think you have the wrong end of the stick. It appears you are being overly defensive.

Apologies Zed.

Have'nt seen/read the other thread.

Will look for it now.

No intention to hi-jack anyones thread.
Apologies again.

[Zamoraaaah]

No worries Shamie.

qprreport.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=17647

[Markqpr]

Nov 3, 2010 19:30:18 GMT dc said:

Mark,
I wasn't quite saying that.

That's why I made a joke out of it.

Nov 3, 2010 19:30:18 GMT dc said:

But we all need to accept the fact that we have been running at a loss, to quite a large degree I think we will find, for so many years now that one cannot simply heap all the blame on the current owners.

I don't think you will find that anyone on this board has ever put across the idea to the contrary. What makes you think that we don't know that? Can you be less assuming and stick only to the subject in your replies to me please, bullshit condescending conjecture only serves to devalue your argument.

Nov 3, 2010 19:30:18 GMT dc said:

Many successive groups are equally to blame for this situation.

Again, what makes you say that? We know. This thread is a direct result of the Amulya loan situation bought about by the letter shareholders received alerting us to the fact that our board members are acting against the interest of the club. The thread title and first post bear this out so why the need to mention the past when we are discussing the present, specifically one instant of it and it's impact on the future of the club? Pointless and reaching.

Nov 3, 2010 19:30:18 GMT dc said:

It just seems to me that at least the current owners have the financial clout to get us out of a serious problem should one indeed occur. None of the previous chancers did.

Seems to me that they are using their financial clout to separate the club from the ground at a massive profit for themselves and at a huge loss for us.

Losing the ground for less than half it's actual value after paying millions in interest payments is a serious problem. Of their making. They could easily reverse this situation but they instead do the exact opposite.

None of the previous chancers ever passed resolutions in the board room allowing them to do this and we've never defaulted on our payments resulting in the option coming into play on the ground before, so how exactly are these guys better?

And how exactly is that a benefit to QPR FC?

[ingham]

The Club is funding the 'investors' regime. That is why spending constitutes a loss to the Club, not the investors.

The illusion that the various speculators and moneylenders are funding the Clubs arises, in part, because we imagine that 'the business' is the football club itself.

I think the evidence suggests otherwise. The football clubs aren't 'the business', they're a resource. In the same way that the homes for sale in an estate agent's window aren't 'the business'. The estate agency is.

With the important difference that estate agents aren't usually able to appropriate their clients' property by authorising enormous loans from themselves which the clients can't pay, and which result in the client's losing their home to their supposed representatives.

As a rule, this can't happen. For one thing, the agent's fee might seem stiff at 3%, but it is nothing compared to the vast losses 'billionaires' run up at football clubs. And for another, the client is able to act independently.

Because of the way football is organised, it is impossible for the Club to act in its own interest. The Club can't say 'no'. And whereas the authorities once said 'no' on the Clubs' behalf, they have become part of the problem, not the solution.

[finney]

Well way i see it is that one day someone will pop up on the board and say how do you guys feel about us playing at Fulham?

Now it would not shock me if we get to the prem and then it is said that LR is not up to it and they want to do the old girl up and shock of all shocks we will be sharing Fulham as they have a prem set up and no need to pay for a new 25k seater ground.
then it will be sold as shock horror it would cost too much then they will say they are looking for a new area for a new ground.
And we will never have our own ground again.
Still, what do i know.

[The Scooter]

Fulham fans felt exactly the same when sharing with us Finney. It was touch and go for them for a while and rumour was that Fayed had to be crow barred into upgrading Craven Cottage. I understood that Mr Wright was most upset when Fulham signalled the go ahead for work on the Cottage.

[dc]

Mark

I really am struggling to remember if I've ever seen such a totally unjustified, blatantly hostile attack in response to one particular post, which in itself was neither controversial, rude to anybody or contained anything in the least bit unpleasant. And to top it all, it comes from someone who as a "moderator", really should know better.

I shall not respond in detail to your points as it is clear from your post that you already have opinions which are not likely to be changed by the facts. Your last points with regard to the ground are so wide of reality as to make me wonder how on earth you can have arrived at those conclusions.

There are countless reasons why things have been done as they have and decisions have no doubt been taken with advice from those who know a thing or two about it. Just because it does not make obvious sense to those who do not understand these things in full, does not make it in any way underhand or ill advised.

Apologies to anyone else who feels I have been "assuming" and spouted "bullshit condescending conjecture", as Mark so eloquently put it. I really did not mean to come across as such.

[Markqpr]

Nov 4, 2010 15:15:52 GMT dc said:

Mark

I really am struggling to remember if I've ever seen such a totally unjustified, blatantly hostile attack in response to one particular post, which in itself was neither controversial, rude to anybody or contained anything in the least bit unpleasant. And to top it all, it comes from someone who as a "moderator", really should know better.

I shall not respond in detail to your points as it is clear from your post that you already have opinions which are not likely to be changed by the facts. Your last points with regard to the ground are so wide of reality as to make me wonder how on earth you can have arrived at those conclusions.

There are countless reasons why things have been done as they have and decisions have no doubt been taken with advice from those who know a thing or two about it. Just because it does not make obvious sense to those who do not understand these things in full, does not make it in any way underhand or ill advised.

Apologies to anyone else who feels I have been "assuming" and spouted "bullshit condescending conjecture", as Mark so eloquently put it. I really did not mean to come across as such.

Not even the counter argument that it's only a negotiating tactic, the option is only being used to settle the deal sooner rather than later and nothing else and therefore the grounds ownership is not actually under threat at all?

They just don't see the point of paying interest payments on a deal about to go thru even?

I'm not suggesting anything underhand, I never did, I just can see the bad side to this announcement as it was required by law due to it being against our interests and am not as relaxed about it as you.

Sorry to have upset you like this, if I'm wide of the mark, let me know how, why and by how much.

If you'd just rather leave it as is, I understand and hope that you are right.

[Macmoish]

Guess time to bump, assuming Finney's correct

And Bhatia's recent PR Comments
qprreport.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=17562&page=1

[Macmoish]

The recent AMulya Extension Letter

[eskey8]

Why can't I find 'Amulya' or 'Amulya Property Limited' on companies house?

[ingham]

Interesting. The charge over the property in their name should appear on the title deeds lodged at the Land Registry. I assume it is possible to access that information through the Land Registry site in the same way as the material at Companies House.

Top man for checking

[moriarty]

That is strange that Amulya Property Limited is not listed at Companies House - I was under the impression that all limited companies had to be registered at Companies House - and considering that this company had access to £10million to enable it to loan QPR Holdings Limited that sum, and of course the interest payments it has received over the previous 2 years.

The only thing I can think of is that Amulya Property Limited is registered in the Bahamas or somesuch place like that to avoid tax.......

[eskey8]

Please moderators feel free to delete/remove the following if it against any rules you may have;

Appointmentships
Briatore;

03197756 QPR HOLDINGS LIMITED Director 12 Dec 2007 75
00060094 QUEENS PARK RANGERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CLUB,LIMITED,(THE) Director 12 Dec 2007 1

Russell;

03197756 QPR HOLDINGS LIMITED Director 03 Jul 2009 75
00060094 QUEENS PARK RANGERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CLUB,LIMITED,(THE) Director 03 Jul 2009 1


Paladini,
03197756 QPR HOLDINGS LIMITED Director 06 Jul 2005 75
00060094 QUEENS PARK RANGERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CLUB,LIMITED,(THE) Director 26 Oct 2005 1

Amit;
03197756 QPR HOLDINGS LIMITED Director 19 Dec 2007 75

Rapini;
03197756 QPR HOLDINGS LIMITED Director 20 Feb 2008 75

BRUNO THIERRY SEBASTIEN MICHEL;
03197756 QPR HOLDINGS LIMITED Director 26 Oct 2007 75
Select 00060094 QUEENS PARK RANGERS FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC CLUB,LIMITED,(THE) Director 26 Oct 2007 1

The Bruno guy also has a few GP appointments as well