|
|
Post by gibraltar on Sept 22, 2011 8:47:35 GMT
Bump - 4 Years Ago www.westlondonsport.com/qpr/qpr-would-cope-with-relegation-bhatia/QPR would cope with relegation – Bhatia22/09/2011 by David McIntyre Big-spending QPR would cope financially if they are unable to stay in the Premier League this season, Amit Bhatia has insisted. The Tony Fernandes-led takeover at Loftus Road resulted in significant investment in new players before the transfer deadline – and added to the club’s already swelled wage bill. With the likes of Joey Barton and Shaun Wright-Phillips having made an immediate impact – as demonstrated in Saturday’s 3-0 win at Wolves – Rangers now appear capable of comfortably avoiding the drop. But QPR Holdings vice-chairman Bhatia, who describes the club as “debt-free”, says the new-look regime first discussed what would happen in the event of relegation before deciding to spend. “The signings we’ve made mean we have every chance of staying up but of course we had to think about the alternative in case that did not happen,” Bhatia told West London Sport. “For example, in some cases we have relegation clauses in the players’ contracts. In others we were not able to do so but I’ve spoken to Tony about this and we’re both happy.” QPR’s accounts showed heavy annual losses throughout Flavio Briatore and Bernie Ecclestone’s four years as co-owners, during which a number of directors’ loans financed spending on and off the pitch. An even worse situation developed during the Chris Wright era, when similar funding failed to deliver success and Rangers ended up in administration with Wright as their main creditor. Bhatia says there is no question of a similar scenario developing under the current owners. He said: “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.
“Cash is now being provided by the owners with no burden being placed upon the club and we felt that was the best way.
“The main thing is that we’ve brought stability to QPR, which was badly needed. It gives us a chance to achieve what we all want for the club.” |
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Sept 22, 2011 8:56:01 GMT
Now that is bloody great news!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 22, 2011 9:09:22 GMT
Thanks Gibraltar. Although I'm sceptical re the debts...They're not gifts. Somehow I'm sure "The Club" still owes them. (Like Chelsea, like Fulham).
Will be interesting when the accounts come out to cover this period
|
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on Sept 22, 2011 9:37:37 GMT
I think, Mac, that maybe some of the promotion / tv money has come through, and is paying off a large chunk of what Amitone refinanced.
My guess, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Sept 22, 2011 10:30:30 GMT
He said: “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.
Now that is impressive!!
|
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Sept 22, 2011 10:38:44 GMT
Thanks Gibraltar. Although I'm sceptical re the debts...They're not gifts. Somehow I'm sure "The Club" still owes them. (Like Chelsea, like Fulham). Will be interesting when the accounts come out to cover this period that would make him a liar Mac and I don't believe we have any reason to doubt his word yet I suspect they will make money somewhere along the way (and good on them) but this is the most positive statement I've heard about the club since relegation  |
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Sept 22, 2011 11:19:54 GMT
QPR’s accounts showed heavy annual losses throughout Flavio Briatore and Bernie Ecclestone’s four years as co-owners, during which a number of directors’ loans financed spending on and off the pitch. An even worse situation developed during the Chris Wright era, when similar funding failed to deliver success and Rangers ended up in administration with Wright as their main creditor. Bhatia says there is no question of a similar scenario developing under the current owners. He said: “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. “Cash is now being provided by the owners with no burden being placed upon the club and we felt that was the best way. It's still true for me that to this day that Chris Wright is the worst chairman we ever had and to people who tell me that he supported the club, so did Ken Bates at one stage and he never fu(ked us over financially. I know we've been misdirected by Bhattia in the past over the finances and what was going to happen to the club when he first came in but thanks to Fernandes I think he actually has the opportunity to do what he is saying, unlike previously when he found out too late that Ecclestone and Briatore just saw him as a token member of the boardroom to begin with and after they used him and Saksena where Briatore had spectacularly failed. |
|
|
|
Post by gibraltar on Sept 22, 2011 11:38:45 GMT
Surprisingly Mark, Briatore and Ecclestone as the main shareholders in QPR could not get us into the EPL, so they allowed Bhatia/Saksena/Mittal (however you want to juggle it) to get us to the promised land, only for the new shareprice they wanted to be out of consideration for Bhatia/Mittal.
Tough for them knowing that by boosting their 33% share value (via success), they pushed the remainder further away than they dared to reach.
Can you imagine how much easier it would have been if Amit was in control from the get go?
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 22, 2011 11:43:14 GMT
...Can you imagine how much easier it would have been if Amit was in control from the get go? Certainly would have made life a simpler for those who kept spinning on whether it was Briatore or Bhatia (or Fernandes) they were backing and praising! |
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Sept 22, 2011 11:58:54 GMT
It's a very positive article. The club is light years away from the shambles created by Paladini. Happy days!
|
|
|
|
Post by eusebio13 on Sept 22, 2011 12:20:50 GMT
It's a very positive article. The club is light years away from the shambles created by Paladini. Happy days! Hey Zed Loving the Mayhew banner...just up the road of course and often bump into their staff in King Eddies or even Tiverton |
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Sept 22, 2011 12:26:33 GMT
Well I thought I was dreaming when I read this thread. But now I know that I must be dreaming as I've just read Marks' post and he was being nice about Amit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Sept 22, 2011 12:47:54 GMT
It's a very positive article. The club is light years away from the shambles created by Paladini. Happy days! Hey Zed Loving the Mayhew banner...just up the road of course and often bump into their staff in King Eddies or even Tiverton A local institution. I'm sure you know about the great work their staff and volunteers do. We've had animals from them in the past and try to do our bit for fundraising etc. As of last week we're on the dog foster list. Expecting a mutt to join our 2 rescues anytime now. They have a few QPR links too. Like Rangers they are 125 years old and the current (expanded) site is where Christ Church Rangers HQ used to be. Also Jude fundraises for them and was hiding out from Flavio there! For those who may not be aware: www.mayhewanimalhome.org/www.mayhewanimalhome.org/125/history/index.php |
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Sept 22, 2011 13:15:20 GMT
Well I thought I was dreaming when I read this thread. But now I know that I must be dreaming as I've just read Marks' post and he was being nice about Amit. Actions speak louder than words. And with that in mind I'll stand up and applaud him when he takes his seat on Saturday. Real change has finally been bought about and for that thanks and praise will always be offered, as and when it's due. |
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Sept 22, 2011 13:37:04 GMT
Why are our owners talking about relegation? NW certainly isn't. Let's be like NW half full please!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Sept 22, 2011 13:42:46 GMT
One wonders,what the significance is of his statement to Mcintyre. What pops in to my mind is, the talk about a new stadium is premature, which seems to be the most talked about issue lateley.
Though on the reality side, a well run business must take into account the possibilities that the team could go down, for financial planning. However, the loan of Hill tells me that the bloated payrolls they inherited have put them in a position
where they can only spend so much to be able to survive in the drop.
It also says I think, that if we seem to be circling the drain next February, dont expect a couple of big buys to plug it.
|
|
tom007
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,612
|
Post by tom007 on Sept 22, 2011 15:02:06 GMT
some months ago we were all saying that no matter where we are or whatever league we are in all we want is debt free.
Big-spending QPR would cope financially if they are unable to stay in the Premier League this season, Amit Bhatia has insisted.
The Tony Fernandes-led takeover at Loftus Road resulted in significant investment in new players before the transfer deadline – and added to the club’s already large wage bill.
With the likes of Joey Barton and Shaun Wright-Phillips having made an immediate impact – as demonstrated in Saturday’s 3-0 win at Wolves – Rangers now appear capable of comfortably avoiding the drop.
But QPR Holdings vice-chairman Bhatia, who describes the club as “debt-free”, says the new-look regime first discussed what would happen in the event of relegation before deciding to spend.
“The signings we’ve made mean we have every chance of staying up but of course we had to think about the alternative in case that did not happen,” Bhatia told West London Sport.
“For example, in some cases we have relegation clauses in the players’ contracts. In others we were not able to do so but I’ve spoken to Tony about this and we’re both happy.”
QPR’s accounts showed heavy annual losses throughout Flavio Briatore and Bernie Ecclestone’s four years as co-owners, during which a number of directors’ loans financed spending on and off the pitch.
An even worse situation developed during the Chris Wright era, when similar funding failed to deliver success and Rangers ended up in administration with Wright as their main creditor.
Bhatia says there is no question of a similar scenario developing under the current owners.
He said: “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.
“Cash is now being provided by the owners with no burden being placed upon the club and we felt that was the best way.
“The main thing is that we’ve brought stability to QPR, which was badly needed. It gives us a chance to achieve what we all want for the club.”
now that is the best news for us since i dont know when.
how many teams no matter what division can say they are debt free.
you could probably count them on 1 hand.
fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Sept 22, 2011 15:08:41 GMT
If QPR is debt free then somehow the debts from previous years has been absorbed, either through profits, write-off's, sky money, gifts/donations or whatever other means. The tens of millions of debt didn't just dissapear into a hole in the ground did they? So please lets hear exactly how we have become debt free.
|
|
tom007
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,612
|
Post by tom007 on Sept 22, 2011 15:16:10 GMT
bhattia has paid it all off it was mentioned if friatore and ecclestone left he would do this and he has obviously been true to his word.
what is the point of building up interest if you have the money to pay it off interest free.
|
|
|
|
Post by waterbuffalo on Sept 22, 2011 15:23:33 GMT
Bhatia sounds like a straight shooter
I'll take his word for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Sept 22, 2011 15:26:45 GMT
I am a Mittal/Bhattia fan, but i cannot see that they have paid off all the debt whilst allowing TF to come in as a majority shareholder into a debt free club, that would not have happened, definately not.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Sept 22, 2011 16:01:34 GMT
An excerpt from a poster on Indyrs.
To tell the truth, I'm interested to know where he got the money to pay off Briatore and Ecclestone. At first, he made out there was no leveraging so there could be no dumping of debt on the Club. But leveraging wouldn't dump debt on the Club, it would dump debt on him. And anyway, why tell us about something that didn't happen when he could tell us what is actually going on.
What the Club's actual debt is. Rather than how much he spent buying Ecclestone's shares. How much the debt has risen by with the latest set of loans from Fernandes (he mentioned at least two).
What happened to the £25 million losses incurred under Paladini, the further £24 million losses incurred under Ecclestone, and whatever sums were lost in the last one and a half seasons?
It did cross my mind that if the Premiership is worth £60 million, as some suggest, all or most of the money to pay off Ecclestone and Briatore might have come directly from the Club, and not from Fernandes at all? then his comments (in an earlier article) would more or less correspond with the truth. That they hadn't borrowed the money to buy the Club. They simply took the Club's money to do so. Or permitted Ecclestone and Briatore to. Both parties would have a say on how much debt would be paid off, and how much would remain.
If not, why is a Club which is guaranteed £40 million from TV and other sources only spending £12 million on players? Even if the money is coming in instalments.
And the ABC loan hasn't been written off, and the charge over the Ground remains. They aren't charging interest, they say, but that is less than a million a year, while the capital is £10 million. I know which sum bothers me. Despite all the millionaires and billionaires nobody has been willing to swallow that loss. And although they make any amount of profit in the businesses they talk about so much - however irrelevant they are to football - they never make a profit at QPR. None of them has, all the ultra-wealthy investors.
They are here to get money out of the Club, not the other way around. A hold on the Ground gives them a hold over the Club and its finances. Even, or especially, when they sell up.
Nothing I hear from him or the others amounts to more than platitudes, just the sort of thing they say at any Club.
Results have improved, of course, and performances. But improvements happen on a fairly regular basis, and any number of Clubs have been promoted to the top flight since we were last there. I don't read all that much into it, unless they are sustained over a decade or more, and unless the Club itself becomes big, rich, successful.
Not just the speculators.
As a supporter, I would always credit successes to the Club, whose successes they are, no-one else. Not the manager or the players, because everything they do is done in the name of the Club, and, more to the point, with the Club's money, and certainly not the investors, who keep on losing QPR's money in a way they are always careful not to do with their own.
v
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Sept 22, 2011 16:13:15 GMT
The top post here is too close to McIntyres post on Amits discourse above. this post needs to be added to that post.
I dont know how to condense posts but hopefully there is a mod in vicinity who can do it. Thank you.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Sept 22, 2011 18:12:03 GMT
I am impressed with Hogan's circumspection all the more because he's prepared to give them a cautious welcome and the benefit of the doubt.
These remarks of Bhatia's will be interpreted in different ways, but I'm sure Hogan is right to raise his doubts.
For example:
"Previously directors provided loans and those debts no longer exist".
When I hear something like this, 4 questions arise in my mind.
1. What is he saying? (Often more importantly, what is he NOT saying?)
2. What does he want us to THINK he is saying?
3. Is it true?
4. Is it misleading?
We've been through this before. The 'ABC' loan. The previous regime, of which Bhatia was a member, told us, with considerable fanfare, that the ABC loan was 'paid off', and giving the distinct impression that it had been written off when it hadn't - not then. And not now.
In this case, Bhatia says "those" debts - the loans made "previously" - no longer exist. But we know that. The outgoing investors's loans would be replaced or transferred. And the new investors would own the debt. Or the shares, if the loans were converted to equity. But that is another issue.
So the Club's debt remains the same. Just a different lender. On the face of it, there is no less debt under this regime than its predecessor.
And we know there ARE "loans". Fernandes said so. And we know the 'ABC' loan is still in place because Bhatia or someone told us.
So I would say his statements are misleading. tom007 certainly takes him to mean that there is no debt. To me, it looks like that is what he is saying. But, on closer examination, is he really saying something else?
Notice the roundabout way he says the Club is 'debt-free'. "In fact I would go so far as to describe the club as being ..... debt-free". Like a leader at a party conference, he is picking his words too carefully. Not 'the Club is debt-free'. But 'in fact I would describe the Club as being' debt-free.
As Ms Rice-Davies said, he would, wouldn't he?
But can we?
Like Paladini's bamboozling claims, doubletalk of this kind makes them sound stupid.
1. The previous regime's loans are 'wiped out'.
2. But there are loans, nonetheless.
3. Therefore the Club is debt-free?
I think not.
What do you think?
|
|
weareqpr12
Ian Holloway
** Banned user **
Posts: 308
|
Post by weareqpr12 on Sept 22, 2011 18:17:05 GMT
A very interesting post. When do the club get the sky money? Our revenue with an 18k stadium won't be great and I think the 40m from sky really is the important factor for a club of our size. Some people have said we don't see that money till the end of the season but surely we have?
|
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Sept 22, 2011 18:18:21 GMT
A very interesting post. When do the club get the sky money? Our revenue with an 18k stadium won't be great and I think the 40m from sky really is the important factor for a club of our size. Some people have said we don't see that money till the end of the season but surely we have? I don't think we get it in one lump payment, we get it over several years. |
|
weareqpr12
Ian Holloway
** Banned user **
Posts: 308
|
Post by weareqpr12 on Sept 22, 2011 18:23:17 GMT
I thought if we stayed up and finished 17th we would get about 38 million and then you got about 500k for each place above that. If you are relegated then you get parachute payments over the following 3 of 4 seasons but i'm sure the money is spread out once the final league placing has been decided, could be well off the mark but we might not see it till the end of the season and if thats the case maybe they paid the debt off otherwise it seems poor business sense to be paying off interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Sept 22, 2011 18:26:14 GMT
I thought if we stayed up and finished 17th we would get about 38 million and then you got about 500k for each place above that. If you are relegated then you get parachute payments over the following 3 of 4 seasons but i'm sure the money is spread out once the final league placing has been decided, could be well off the mark but we might not see it till the end of the season and if thats the case maybe they paid the debt off otherwise it seems poor business sense to be paying off interest. Blackpool got hardly anything from TV last season. It also depends on how many times your match is actually shown I think. |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Sept 22, 2011 18:31:24 GMT
Really? I know little about the way the Premiership works, but there is a certain comic quality if a Club comes into the Prem, is given little money to spend in the most spendthrift league in the world, but then, when it is relegated, the money comes through.
Surely that can't be right, can it? If the Premiership cash is spread over several seasons, a relegated Club would get some or maybe most of its premiership cash in the Championship, so why bother handing over parachute payments as well?
And wouldn't that mean that relegated Clubs actually got more money in the Championship than they received in the Premiership?
I have no idea. I merely ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Sept 22, 2011 18:44:10 GMT
Ingham thanks. iIhad these thoughts too but you put it much more succinctly. You are quoted on another post in this thread which I brought over from another Blog. I will bump it up as these two threads are twins.
|
|
