The Amulya Loan & Ownership of Loftus Road

[eskey8]

Just to clarify Brie, Russell and GP have no other appointments and none of the above are listed to 'Amulya' or 'Amulya Property Limited'

[Macmoish]

I'm going to delete the addresses. But for the rest, thanks for posting

[eskey8]

Nov 12, 2010 14:09:41 GMT Macmoish said:

I'm going to delete the addresses. But for the rest, thanks for posting

Oh Sh1t!! To think I once picked you up on that - whoops!!

[Macmoish]

It's ok. Someone else very kindly pointed it out to me

[Zamoraaaah]

I don't think it's a big deal as they are in the public domain but it's probably good netiquette removing personal details on this occasion.

[eskey8]

Nov 12, 2010 14:36:02 GMT Zamoraaaah said:

I don't think it's a big deal as they are in the public domain but it's probably good netiquette removing personal details on this occasion.

Defo, - my bad!

[Macmoish]

As I did in the past. No big deal. It's good not to include. But all the information is public - and publicly available at a variety of places. On the other hand, there are some nuts out there.

But again, many thanks for posting what you did. Interesting information is out there

[Macmoish]

Maybe it's my Paypal account, or maybe not truly accessible. Didnt work for me.

But at Company House can buy this. (You have to buy to see, so don't know how much detail it gives

QPR - Filed on: 09 Nov 2010
Form: AR01 - Annual Return (A Full List of Directors and Shareholders, NOT Accounts)
07/11/10 FULL LIST
Price: £4.99 (excl. VAT)

www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/Company/AllDocuments/12514

[Macmoish]

And reminder of our finances - as of 18 months ago...so just bump the loss and the deby by xx millions of pounds (Many Thanks )

(The three columns are from left to right 2007, 2008 & 2009)


Date of Accounts: 31 May 2007 - 31 May 2008 - 31 May 2009
Currency GBP GBP GBP

Profit & Loss Account

Turnover 8,224,000 9,239,000 14,822,000

Pre-Tax Profit -4,729,000 -6,009,000 -18,824,000


Balance Sheet

Total Fixed Assets 20,407,000 27,165,000 28,187,000

Total Current Assets 1,529,000 2,205,000 1,677,000

Total Current Liabilities 8,584,000 17,926,000 14,530,000

Total Long Term Liabilities 17,184,000 11,285,000 21,103,000

Total Net Worth -4,467,000 -6,088,000 -12,462,000


Indicators

Trade Debtors 471,000 175,000 866,000

Working Capital -7,055,000 -15,721,000 -12,853,000


Acid Test Liquidity 0.16 0.12 0.10


Last set of accounts - QPR Accounts issued in 2010 qprreport.blogspot.com/2010/03/excerpts-from-qpr-accounts-almost-19.html

[Macmoish]

So wonder what happened/what's happening

And of course, a profound - and needless to say, totally sincere - APOLOGY to those who don't like these subjects being raised!


The recent AMulya Extension Letter

[Macmoish]

With the Ecclestone buying from Briatore, Just a reminder

[londonranger]

Sorry Mike, a reminder of what as I cant grasp this.

[Macmoish]

A reminder that if Ecclestone just bought Briatore's shares of QPR Holdings, the issue of the Stadium and control over that remains. Amulya lent QPR 10 million + . If don't repay (or extend) loan, can get Loftus Road. Amulya is in turn owned by Briatore and Bhatia.

[ingham]

Interesting to see who owns the Club and the Ground now, londonranger. If Briatore owned both before the stated Ecclestone buy-out, he had positioned himself rather interestingly.

To the effect that if he - as the owner of the Club - failed to repay himself - as the owner of the debt, ownership of the Ground - valued 3 years ago at roughly £25 million - would pass to him - or to Amulya - leaving the Club with nothing.

It's the obvious thing to do. When you were a young whippersnapper - according to another veteran youngster, Vic Gibbons - this couldn't happen. In former times, and pretty well since the League was formed, I believe, the Clubs were defined not as 'businesses', as they seem to be now, but 'sporting institutions'.

So the Board couldn't just help themselves to the Club's assets merely on the basis that they - the Board themselves - had screwed everything up badly, failed to make required payments, failed to secure the Club's assets, and made an art form out of losing money.

Compare that to now. When incompetence, losses, debt and doubletalk are considered the last word in running a Club.

O Brave New World.

It is also worth bearing in mind that when they talk about QPR this and QPR that, their real interest lies with gargoyles like 'Amulya', and it is through unpronounceable acronyms like that that Clubs forfeit their homes, their money and their prospects.

[Macmoish]

Bump: Given that the option was extended to January 31st of 2011 This month


And... Caliendo's 2 Million pound payment would also seem to be coming up

The Agreement as announced by QPR

"....5. Intentions with respect to Directors' and Shareholder Loans

In relation to the certain loans made to the Club by Mr Caliendo for, in total, £6,581,328, Mr Caliendo has entered into an agreement whereby £4,581,328 will be waived for nil consideration. Accordingly Mr Caliendo has outstanding a debt in the Company of £2.0 million. The Caliendo Loan is redeemable at any date before March 2011 at the option of QPR, and Mr Caliendo may not demand repayment of any amount of the loan until March 2011. The Caliendo Loan carries no interest.

ARM Corporate Finance Limited believe the repayment of the Caliendo Loan on the terms described above is fair and reasonable so far as other QPR Shareholders are concerned...."


"Two QPR "Due Dates" For Payment Coming Up?
qprreport.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=15120#ixzz19rnnCfIl
qprreport.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=15120

[Macmoish]

Continuing the "discussion"

Presumably not out of love for QPR or an obsession with football - or getting the prestige of a top, top club: For that he really would have bought Arsenal/Chelsea

So presumably to make money

And how does one make money?

Well there are the reports re QPR's new stadium by the old BBC...as part of a bigger property deal...And then selling Loftus Road.

And with all his influence, have to assume any obstacles will be overcome..

[ingham]

It's worth bearing in mind how involved our former 'investors' continued to be in QPR. Gregory? Marler? Saunders? Thompson? Wright? Blackburn? Caliendo? Did they all renew their 'season tickets'? Regularly seen at matches? or were they entirely taken up with whatever their new business interests were?

[Macmoish]

I think BP has remained concerned and involved

[obk]

BP we know for sure! The others though? It is an interesting thing to think about Ingham, are they really supporters or do they just say so when involved?
I mean if I was a billionaire and bought QPR, I would for sure continue going to matches even if I at some point sold the club, as would, of course, all of you do as well! In my case, I would even buy a place to live in London

[ingham]

bp is a good example. As a supporter, he is QPR. As an investor, his investment was QPR, then Swindon, if I'm not mistaken.

It isn't difficult to see how the distinction works. If an investor advances £10 million to a struggling club, it is better for the Club, all other things being equal, for the money to be a gift.

So when the money is gone, it is the investor's loss, not the Club's. This is good for the Club if the investor is also the person responsible for losing the Club's money, as he so often is.

But by and large investors don't make gifts to the Clubs. They make loans, so the loss is the Club's loss, not the investor's.

That is why all our major investors left the Club wealthy men. While the Club's losses continue to grow bigger and bigger year after year.

[londonranger]

But I guarantee you Ingham, if they sell the ground for housing, there will still be a QPRs supporters club. We will resurrect somewhere , and go through the whole bloody thing again.

[obk]

Jan 5, 2011 16:56:38 GMT ingham said:

bp is a good example. As a supporter, he is QPR. As an investor, his investment was QPR, then Swindon, if I'm not mistaken.

It isn't difficult to see how the distinction works. If an investor advances £10 million to a struggling club, it is better for the Club, all other things being equal, for the money to be a gift.

So when the money is gone, it is the investor's loss, not the Club's. This is good for the Club if the investor is also the person responsible for losing the Club's money, as he so often is.

But by and large investors don't make gifts to the Clubs. They make loans, so the loss is the Club's loss, not the investor's.

That is why all our major investors left the Club wealthy men. While the Club's losses continue to grow bigger and bigger year after year.

Indeed, which is why Platinis ideas about funding for football clubs might not be such a bad idea after all.