|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 2, 2011 17:08:11 GMT
I've been waiting/looking for these (and will order them)  As posted by QPRDad on WATRB (who helped analyze them for us last year) 2010 QPR Holdings Plc Accounts The accounts of the holding company have just been published at Companies House, I shall review them and post a summary in the next couple of hours. Headline information (in £000's): Turnover is £14,380 Cost of Sales £24,256 Admin expenses £5,998 Operating loss £(15,567) Profit on player reg'n sales £2,307 Interest payable £131 LOSS FOR THE YEAR £13,698 * Actually I see they're listed as out by Company House...But I'm not sure they're available yet for me |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 2, 2011 17:15:36 GMT
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113 
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 2, 2011 17:30:16 GMT
Greetings to all on QPR Report, I come in peace!
As mentioned by Report in another thread, herewith the summary in exactly the same format as last year, which I hope is of interest!
I have now reviewed the 2010 accounts, which were published earlier today, and have summarised them in the same way as I did last year:
QPR Football & Athletic Club Limited (Club) is a wholly owned subsidiary of QPR Holdings Plc (Holdings).
Holdings published accounts, which include both Holdings and Club – I therefore only summarise Holdings, which includes Club as follows: all values are £000 i.e. £8,600,000 (8.6 million is written as £8,600)
Turnover - £14,380 (2009 - £14,822)
Cost of Sales - £24,256 (2009 - £25,633)
Administration costs - £5,998 (2009 - £6,563)
Player registrations - £2,307 Profit (i.e. income, not a cost) (2009 - £218 Profit)
Interest received - £0 (2009 - £63)
Interest paid - £131 (2009 - £1,731)
Corporation Tax paid - £0
Overall loss for the year £13,698 (2009 - £18,824)
On the balance sheet, all the assets are:
Player Registrations - £3,902 (2009 - £6,693)
Land and Buildings - £20,720 (2009 – 21,250)
Plant & Machinery - £253 (2009 - £229)
Fixtures & Fittings - £39 (2009 - £15
Stock - £316 (2009 - £269)
Trade debtors - £2,867 (2009 - £866) … this is money owed to the club
VAT - £0 (2009 – £16)
Other debtors - £341 (2009 - £231)
Prepayments - £548 (2009 - £78)
Cash in bank £944 (2009 - £217)
TOTAL of ASSETS £29,930 (2009 - £14,530)
On the balance sheet, all the liabilities are:
Loans - £275 (2009 - £500)*
Overdraft - £4,790 (2009 - £3,295)
Trade creditors - £3,461 (2009 - £4,358) …money the club owes
Tax - £2,212 (2009 - £1,466) (tax on players / staff wages and VAT)
Accruals and deferred income - £3,969 (2009 - £4,911) (mostly season tickets paid for in advance i.e. the club owes the value of the games not played)
Other creditors - £18,600 (2009 - £nil)* This is a loan from Sarita Capital of £8,600 and £10,000 from Amulya Property.
Both the Sarita and Amulya loans are interest free and repayable on demand. The loan from Amulya has a fixed charge over the Freehold of LR stadium as well as an option to acquire LR in settlement of the loan.
The overdraft is also secured on LR stadium.
TOTAL of LIABILITIES due in less than one year - £33,307 – (2009 - £14,530)
Add to this loans due after one year - £10,980 (2009 - £21,103)*
Trade creditors - £110 (2009 - £0)
TOTAL LIABILITIES - £44,397 (2009 - £35,633)
*Loans etc in the accounts include the following:
£8,600 – Sarita Capital Investments
£10,000 – Amulya Property Limited
£9,906 – Sarita Capital Investments
£2,247 – Sea Dream Limited
£1,435 – Bernie Ecclestone personally
£346 – Football league
£2,000 – A Calliendo personally
Bernie was appointed as a director on 17th February 2011, GP, Bruno Michel, Marco Rapini and Comical Ali all resigned as directors on 16th February 2011
During the year, the company made payments of £40k to Moorbound Limited which is controlled by GP. GP owes the company £215k in loans to him from the company.
The company issued new shares for £5,000m to the existing shareholders.
Please feel free to ask me any questions if you are not sure about anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 2, 2011 17:30:56 GMT
And as I've noted (NUMEROUS Times) Repayment of 2 million pounds to Caliendo was due by latest, Feb 28, 2011
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 2, 2011 17:33:27 GMT
And as I've noted (NUMEROUS Times) Repayment of 2 million pounds to Caliendo was due by latest, Feb 28, 2011 Ahh.... the accounts were signed off on 22nd February 2011... so you're going to have to wait another year to find out! |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 2, 2011 17:36:18 GMT
And it's greatly appreciated, QPR Dad
I'm sure questions will be forthcoming.
On the one hand, the loss is less than the previous year. On the other hand, it is still a pretty big los (million pounds a month)
It says "Both the Sarita and Amulya loans are interest free and repayable on demand." - But when the Sarita loans were originally announced, they were said to have an interest
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 2, 2011 17:38:19 GMT
[I merged this thread with the thread I started. It was meant to be with QPRDad's post coming first. Sorry)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Mar 2, 2011 18:15:21 GMT
And as I've noted (NUMEROUS Times) Repayment of 2 million pounds to Caliendo was due by latest, Feb 28, 2011 Ahh.... the accounts were signed off on 22nd February 2011... so you're going to have to wait another year to find out! I'm sure we will hear from Caliendo if he has not received payment. |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 2, 2011 18:26:56 GMT
Ahh.... the accounts were signed off on 22nd February 2011... so you're going to have to wait another year to find out! I'm sure we will hear from Caliendo if he has not received payment. I thought he was guaranteed it on promotion. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 2, 2011 19:41:54 GMT
"During the year the company paid amounts totalling £40,000 (2000 £40,000) to Moorbound Limited, a company in which O Pladini, the wife of G Paladini, is the only shareholder, in relation to G Paladini's role as a director"
"Included in other deebtors is an interest free loan of £215,000 (2009 £140,000) to G. Paladini. A loan of £50,000 was made to G Paladini in May 2010 and £25,000 of payments were made on behalf of G Paladini during the year."
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Mar 2, 2011 23:05:09 GMT
Thanks QPR Dad, a very interesting read for sure. Wait another 12 months? OMG!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Mar 3, 2011 10:20:46 GMT
Annual operating loss is more than total turnover.
Oh lordy!
|
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Mar 3, 2011 10:40:16 GMT
Page 5 :
Mr G Paladini Resigned as a director on 28th January 2011....
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 3, 2011 10:52:59 GMT
That's the holding company not the football club aitch, pay attention.  |
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Mar 3, 2011 10:59:49 GMT
That's the holding company not the football club aitch, pay attention. I know Baz, he is still chairman of the Club, but is no longer a director. Was just thinking, does that mean an end to his interest free loans? Also noticed on page 14 under employees : in 2009 we had 17 staff involved in Community Projects. In 2010 we had a grand total of 0....... Does this mean that we have got rid of our QPR in the Community staff?  Have to say the whole accounts thing might as well be written in ancient Sanskrit as far as I am concerned..... |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Mar 3, 2011 11:02:43 GMT
That's the holding company not the football club aitch, pay attention. I know Baz, he is still chairman of the Club, but is no longer a director. Was just thinking, does that mean an end to his interest free loans? Also noticed on page 14 under employees : in 2009 we had 17 staff involved in Community Projects. In 2010 we had a grand total of 0....... Does this mean that we have got rid of our QPR in the Community staff? Have to say the whole accounts thing might as well be written in ancient Sanskrit as far as I am concerned..... I know what you mean, total gibberish and only designed to confuse methinks! My mate still works for the community setup but I think it's charity status run now, could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 3, 2011 11:02:56 GMT
re the Staff: I imagine it's to do with setting up QPR in the Community Trust as a tax deductible or tax free (or however it is is n the US) Charitable organization...So they're employed by that entity rather than by QPR (which of course would remove their wages from the total accounts)
|
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Mar 3, 2011 11:04:40 GMT
re the Staff: I imagine it's to do with setting up QPR in the Community Trust as a tax deductible or tax free (or however it is is n the US) Charitable organization...So they're employed by that entity rather than by QPR (which of course would remove their wages from the total accounts) I suppose that makes sense........ As I said I really don't do accounts, now if they were written in assembler I might have a chance...... ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 3, 2011 11:06:21 GMT
And of course to recall: These accounts end May 31, 2010...So presumably will have to add another number of million pounds we will have lost in the period since then. Making our total debt even larger
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 3, 2011 12:35:25 GMT
On the one hand, the loss is less than the previous year. On the other hand, it is still a pretty big los (million pounds a month) It says "Both the Sarita and Amulya loans are interest free and repayable on demand." - But when the Sarita loans were originally announced, they were said to have an interest The accounts do not spell out what has happened, BUT the loans of £18,600,000 are new loans, and the T & C's are interest free and repayable on demand. A sensible bet is that these loans have superceeded the previous, which in turn suceeded the previous, ABC loan etc. |
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 3, 2011 12:39:04 GMT
re the Staff: I imagine it's to do with setting up QPR in the Community Trust as a tax deductible or tax free (or however it is is n the US) Charitable organization...So they're employed by that entity rather than by QPR (which of course would remove their wages from the total accounts) This is correct, the whole in house operation has been hived off to a seperate entity. |
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 3, 2011 12:40:44 GMT
Thanks QPR Dad, a very interesting read for sure. Wait another 12 months? OMG! Always a pleasure never a chore....... and just think, in 12 months time we'd have preformed the double over Chelski, along with a couple of no hoper Prem glory boys! |
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Mar 3, 2011 12:47:41 GMT
Thanks for all of that QPRdad.
Nice to know that someone knows what all the accounts mean!!!!!
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 3, 2011 13:02:22 GMT
Interested to hear any interpretations of our finances, based on the accounts. This is mine.
There are 3 ways, broadly speaking, of pumping money out of a Club. (1) Shares (2) the Ground (3) Debt.
And the three are, for practical purposes, interchangeable. Loans become shares, loans become charges over assets (like the Ground). Shares metamorphose into debt - like the £10 million paid to Thompson by Wright which emerged as the ABC loan 10 years later - while loans become shares by converting them to equity.
What doesn't change is the direction in which the money flows - out of the Club.
Essentially these losses are the cost to the Club of funding the moneylending, property and share business of the 'investors'.
In the last five years, the figures have been as follows, according to the accounts.
Under Caliendo and his predecessors
1. Total losses stood at £25 million.
Under Briatore & Co
2. Another £6 million loss.
3. Another loss of £18 milliion.
4. A further loss of £13 million.
To see what it means in practice, a few examples, recent and not so recent.
(A) When Thompson sold to Wright, the cost 'to Wright' was £10 million. But when Wright bowed out, the Club was left with a £10 million loss, in the form of the notorious ABC loan.
Ultimately, the cost of Wright's share deal was met, not by Wright, but by the Club.
(B) There was a loss to the Club of £18 million in the last set of accounts but one. The Board subsequently had these loans 'converted to equity'. So the investors in question acquire an asset - £18 million worth of shares - at the Club's expense.
And because loans become shares, and shares become loans, there is every chance that the £18 million loss will resurface once again in the form of a loan, when the incoming investor dumps the cost of the deal on the Club, Man Utd or Liverpool-style.
(C) As we see in the various summaries of the accounts, the ABC loan is STILL around. Some 16 years after Thompson sold to Wright and the best part of 10 years since Wright stepped down. And as those summaries also show, some of our present or past investors are now in a position to acquire the Ground for themselves (worth £21 million), because they own the Amulya debt (of £10 million).
Thus backing the Club into a corner where it loses £10 million if its representatives decide it can keep its own property, or £21 million (the value of the Ground) if they decide they want the Club to lose it.
Thanks to qprdad and everyone else for providing the numbers.
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 3, 2011 14:43:32 GMT
Ingham, a very resonably argued case and one that I would not disagree with at all.
It's clear, for all to see, the likes of football clubs become the playthings of wealthy investors, and the fans are dragged along for the rollercoaster ride.
In the case of Rangers in the past (and other clubs of similar size / organisation) they have been acquired by ''fans'' (who, away from the club have done well for themselves in business); these ''fans'' then discover that they cannot keep up with the running costs. So, when they decide (or) have to bail out, they want and sometimes achieve a return of the money lost.
The hard reality is that a Football Club, by definition will always burn a hole in someones' pocket, as it will always need cash spent on it. Even if it is sucessful, the cash will need to be pumped in to keep it afloat. Chelski is a perfect example of this!
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Mar 3, 2011 16:39:23 GMT
Chelsea's finances have interested me for a long time, qprdad. Mears ruined their finances, Marler wanted to sell off the Ground, Bates 'saved' it, only to sell it off himself, and then, when a Russian oligarch came along, strange to tell, the loftiest motives were ascribed to him.
Odd, considering that after RA and the other oligarchs set about the Russian economy, the number of Russians living below the poverty line rose from 1.5% to 40%. Which must represent a rise of from 3 million or so, to around 100 million.
But, of course, Roman may be an exception. I'm sure he must be.
And if I'm not so sure, well, there are plenty of believers. It was widely assumed that he was so rich he didn't care about the odd £700 million or so. Billionaires are not interested in such paltry sums, we were, and still are told. This is a hobby to them. They don't care about the losses they sustain.
Of course, you cynics cry! They aren't sustaining any losses!
And I agree. To me, these supposed lofty motives don't make much sense. The sums in question, for example. £700,000,000? And he doesn't care? A man who is so anxious over every single pound coin that he has taken the trouble to accumulate over 10 billion of them?
Surely it just doesn't ring true. For one thing, and although it was on a smaller scale, the same thing had been said about Chris Wright. He was rich, so money didn't matter (a curious logic). He was clever, so he wouldn't lose money anyway. And if we imagined he would lose QPR's money, well, he loved us, so he was far too LOYAL to do that.
Well, we know that isn't true. I imagine Wright still has a home, although Wasps haven't, and by all accounts, Wycombe Wanderers will lose theirs if he has his way, just as QPR would have done all those years ago in his proposed move to Milton Keynes merging QPR out of existence with Wimbledon.
And bizarrely, it isn't just Wright and Abramovich. Even in the narrow confines of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
There is our old chum Mr Fayed. Also fabulously rich. Or so he or his cheerleaders claimed. Also devoted to his Club. Another one who was too cunning to lose money, too clever to fail, and too loyal to the Club to make it pay for for his failures.
And like the other two, for a few years after he arrived at the Cottage, all the talk was of Fayed's 'generosity'. Until, that is, a few cold blooded characters took a look at the accounts. And there it was.
Fulham were £100 million in debt, and Fayed was going on £15 million a year of their money. Modest when compared to the scale of Chelsea's losses bailing out Abramovich's regime year after year, but staggering for a Club like Fulham.
And are Fulham more successful up there than QPR under Gregory were? Not even remotely. Even more worrying for Chelsea is that their major rivals, United, almost effortlessly outperform them.
Remarkable, given that the comparable £750 million debt at Old Trafford is actually PREVENTING United from signing players. While Chelsea's PROVIDES the money.
Ponder that for a moment.
If each of those Clubs made itself genuinely debt-free - and not just by smoke and mirrors creative accounting - the gulf between them in spending power will be of the order of £1.5 billiion.
With United able to spend £750 million more, and Chelsea £700 million less.
Of course, we don't know how it will all turn out, qprdad, but as you say, it is noteworthy that all these wealthy investors remain wealthy when they leave the Clubs, while the Clubs are usually even more indebted than when their 'benefactors' arrived.
Another intriguing instance is Gold and Sullivan at West Ham. Lots of camouflage about the Olympic Stadium, meanwhile the real issue - to my mind - is who profits from the sale of Upton Park? I can't see that West Ham need an Olympic Stadium. But I can see that people who like to line their pockets would love to get their hands on the proceeds of Upton Park.
At Birmingham, G and S inherited £1 million of debt, and paid £1 for the Club.
When they left, Birmingham were £20 million in debt.
But not G and S. They pocketed £80 million from the deal. Good business, they will say. Yes, but they're supposed to be the representatives of the Club, so how come they pocket the £80 million windfall, while the Club picks up a £20 million loss?
Great to get a chance to talk about these things, and especially so when the likes of you and others have put figures to our doubts and concerns.
Football is a hard environment. Few of these people have a talent for it, either on the pitch, or financially, as their accounts almost invariably show, and that is great cause for concern when we see how much money is haemorrhaging from QPR's future earnings, and from that incomparable asset, the Ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0hwestlondon on Mar 3, 2011 18:29:18 GMT
its about time football as whole was made to get its house in order, these losses worry me, the premier league is a must with these losses, but then you look at the prem and that seems to bring more debt to clubs, with the stupid and ridiculous wages and transfer fees, whats the point of playing in the so called richest league in the world if all it brings is mountains of debt, it doesn't make sense to me i hope like everyone else that we get to the prem, but we need to use the finances it brings wisely otherwise were end up like pompey, for me rules need to be put in place that clubs cant go in to debt, if that means that as a club we end up a solvent championship club, then so be it rather that than no club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Mar 3, 2011 21:33:08 GMT
You mean "live according to how our cloth is cut"??
|
|
qprdad
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 113
|
Post by qprdad on Mar 3, 2011 23:14:40 GMT
Ingham, when I was younger, my then boss once said to me ''so, synical, so young'' ...... and that's the reality here, isn't it.
I agree with your sentiments and your post wholly; a sad, but completely accurate endictment of the ownership of football clubs in probably the best two leagues in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Mar 26, 2011 20:17:28 GMT
Bumpy
(And one to go)
|
|
