|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 27, 2020 8:52:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 27, 2020 8:53:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by harr on Feb 27, 2020 9:14:35 GMT
insert code here
|
|
|
Post by harr on Feb 27, 2020 9:17:01 GMT
insert code here
|
|
|
Post by harr on Feb 27, 2020 9:22:41 GMT
insert code here
|
|
|
Post by surreychad on Feb 27, 2020 10:06:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by surreychad on Feb 27, 2020 10:23:05 GMT
I see the new training ground key to your thoughts 75, I believe the aim is that with a better training facilities we can be bringing in a couple of youth players each year that can bridge that gap on the finances. Its working for Brentford who rely on at least one major sale per year to survive.
One thing I question is the amount of training staff we have, and I say this with a lack or knowledge on others, but we seem to have a massive list of coaches and back room staff. Are other clubs comparable or is it part of the grand project to develop stars of the future?
It will be interesting to see what happens about rail seating, if it is introduced then the capacity goes up meaning we could get more people in at a lower cost which should mean a better atmosphere and higher sales in other areas, programmes, club shop, refreshments, etc
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Feb 27, 2020 11:54:26 GMT
This is a tremendous achievment by the club & by Lee Hoos in particular.
Does anybody know (without research!) what our current rolling three year loss is before deducting the allowable costs?
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 27, 2020 16:44:52 GMT
Not easy to deduce too much from these figures, but at least there were no bad surprises. The average wage of £11k is just that - an average of all players on the staff but not sure if it includes the Academy players or not. The Academy cost is excluded from the FFP calculation, but may be included in these performance indicators. It would have a big bearing on the average. We know we had plenty of high earners in the period, so £11k average looks admirable in the circumstances, especially if it excludes the Academy headcount. We obviously compare well with most of the other clubs. But some of the clubs at the top of the charts must be in serious FFP disaster area. But compare and contrast promoted sides Sheffield United and Norwich. It gives us hope that a well run club can still achieve promotion and even survive. But FFP remains a huge secret. In many ways it is the current key performance indicator and yet not reported or analysed. Looking at Reading, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and Aston Villa's figures prompts quite a few questions. What a mess! Without knowing the exempt FFP expenditure or the fancy accounting scams, hard to know the full extent per club. Perhaps more will emerge in due course. This time next year we will be looking at a big drop in income, banked player sales income and lower average wages. But all in all, a truly remarkable turn around. Well done to Hoos, Ferdinand & Warburton. Big thank you to our shareholders for overseeing this turnaround and for continuing to invest money into our bottomless pit.
|
|
|
Post by surreychad on Feb 27, 2020 16:52:51 GMT
Just thinking ahead, I wonder what the plans are for the cost of the new training ground? Will this be financed outside the club so as to avoid losses, if so who will the owner be? Will there be a bond option so fans can "buy in" to it? Have we ever owned our own training ground?
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Feb 27, 2020 16:55:04 GMT
As an aside about FFP, isn't there some kind of reporting made around this time of year? Not for every club, but I thought that with accounts coming out, those who are close to the limits are supposed to have that assessed by the league, because post-January, the bulk of expenditure for the rest of the financial year are a known quantity? As I believe that's how they begin the arguments over possible sanctions and make sure stuff is being prepared so things are in place before the summer window opens..?
Swear that came up before about us and Derby.?
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Feb 27, 2020 16:56:43 GMT
Just thinking ahead, I wonder what the plans are for the cost of the new training ground? Will this be financed outside the club so as to avoid losses, if so who will the owner be? Will there be a bond option so fans can "buy in" to it? Have we ever owned our own training ground? Not sure. I'm pretty sure Hoos spoke about the possibility of fans having a bond option as an almost crowdfunding method...unless I imagined that. I thought the messaging was that it would be funded by the owners and that any expenditure is exempt from FFP, right? Edit: didn't imagine the bond bit, but the part about the owners completely funding I was wrong about. There's bits and bobs online from Amit Bhatia: www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/qpr-owners-wont-foot-all-the-bills-for-new-training-ground-or-stadium-says-amit-bhatia-a3997266.html
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 27, 2020 16:58:51 GMT
Just thinking ahead, I wonder what the plans are for the cost of the new training ground? Will this be financed outside the club so as to avoid losses, if so who will the owner be? Will there be a bond option so fans can "buy in" to it? Have we ever owned our own training ground? Not sure. I'm pretty sure Hoos spoke about the possibility of fans having a bond option as an almost crowdfunding kind of option...unless I imagined that. I thought the messaging was that it would be funded by the owners and that any expenditure is exempt from FFP, right? The training ground would not count towards FFP calculation. Of course, the money still has to be found and our owners would rather not spend their own money on this - hence the bond scheme.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 27, 2020 17:09:47 GMT
As an aside about FFP, isn't there some kind of reporting made around this time of year? Not for every club, but I thought that with accounts coming out, those who are close to the limits are supposed to have that assessed by the league, because post-January, the bulk of expenditure for the rest of the financial year are a known quantity? As I believe that's how they begin the arguments over possible sanctions and make sure stuff is being prepared so things are in place before the summer window opens..? Swear that came up before about us and Derby.? Yes correct. The published accounts today are for last season. 2018/2019 For this season, clubs are required to provide forecasts of their year-end profitability or loss throughout the season. The adjusted 2019/2020 forecast (adjusted for exemptions) is then used to project the likely FFP outcome when added to the 2 previous year's FFP. This is then compared toh the £39m allowable loss over 3 years. Clubs are required to send a revised year-end projection after the January window closes - about now I believe. The previously estimated figures for last season, together with the forecasts for this season has brought the action from the EFL regarding the clubs now facing a Commission hearing. Birmingham failure to adhere to the agreed business plan for January 2019 window, and then the clubs selling their grounds to their owners to keep within the thresholds. Presumably, at some time, there will be scrutiny of Rooney's £90k per week sponsored wage? But who really know anymore!
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Feb 27, 2020 17:50:57 GMT
You will still get people on twitter coating the club for not signing players in the last window.
They're convinced that just because we have rich owners we can and should just go out and buy expensive players.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 27, 2020 19:37:17 GMT
I think that is a very encouraging set of accounts. Using an estimate of £4 million disallowable costs, I calculate that we are £11 million under our FFP ceiling. While that sounds like a lot, it isn't. This season we drop £12 million worth of broadcasting rights revenue which is the difference between our last parachute payment and the solidarity payment which will replace it. If you notionally knock those two off against each other as they pretty much cancel each other out, you then have to look at the loss which is rolling out of our FFP reporting period this season. It is the lowest loss we've had in recent years, "just" £6.5 million. We therefore need to reduce out loss down to that figure. The profit from the sales of Freeman, Furlong, Smith and Luongo should make that possible.
|
|
|
Post by surreychad on Feb 28, 2020 13:12:45 GMT
I think that is a very encouraging set of accounts. Using an estimate of £4 million disallowable costs, I calculate that we are £11 million under our FFP ceiling. While that sounds like a lot, it isn't. This season we drop £12 million worth of broadcasting rights revenue which is the difference between our last parachute payment and the solidarity payment which will replace it. If you notionally knock those two off against each other as they pretty much cancel each other out, you then have to look at the loss which is rolling out of our FFP reporting period this season. It is the lowest loss we've had in recent years, "just" £6.5 million. We therefore need to reduce out loss down to that figure. The profit from the sales of Freeman, Furlong, Smith and Luongo should make that possible. If there is ever a post of the year vote, this one would get my vote
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Feb 28, 2020 15:01:05 GMT
I think that is a very encouraging set of accounts. Using an estimate of £4 million disallowable costs, I calculate that we are £11 million under our FFP ceiling. While that sounds like a lot, it isn't. This season we drop £12 million worth of broadcasting rights revenue which is the difference between our last parachute payment and the solidarity payment which will replace it. If you notionally knock those two off against each other as they pretty much cancel each other out, you then have to look at the loss which is rolling out of our FFP reporting period this season. It is the lowest loss we've had in recent years, "just" £6.5 million. We therefore need to reduce out loss down to that figure. The profit from the sales of Freeman, Furlong, Smith and Luongo should make that possible. If there is ever a post of the year vote, this one would get my vote Far be it for me to heap praise on the man, but if you go on LFW you can read Roller's latest article on FFP on the Rangers accounts thread. Where Clive gets that he is a "grown up" I will never know!
|
|
|
Post by surreychad on Feb 28, 2020 21:18:18 GMT
If there is ever a post of the year vote, this one would get my vote Far be it for me to heap praise on the man, but if you go on LFW you can read Roller's latest article on FFP on the Rangers accounts thread. Where Clive gets that he is a "grown up" I will never know! You are not wrong, that is a superb article to read. It certainly gives us hope for the future, and makes what is happening on the pitch even more remarkable. I wonder if there is an article out there on where other clubs are at?
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 29, 2020 9:28:35 GMT
The training ground cost is an interesting point. Firstly the cash has too come from somewhere - a bond issue is one option, cash from the owners is another, set up a separate company to for the owners to fund and own it - all unclear at the moment. However the cashflow is completely different to the P&L impact. If the club owns the ground it will be a fixed asset and it's cost will taken into the P&L in the form of annual depreciation over a long period - probably 20 years or more. If it is owned by a separate company we would be expected to pay rent ( as we do now) to be able to use the ground. If it is funded through a bond issue we would be expected to pay interest on the bonds and eventually to repay the bonds completely. If we take a bank loan and mortgage teh ground we will have to pay interest and capital repayments. So there will always be a long term P&L cost to the club. Therefore regarding FFP I think the cost will be included but in small annual amounts over a long period of time. There are other options but whatever option is taken we will always have an annual expense for the ground and I believe this is included FFP calculations. The good news though is that we already pay rent for our current training ground so the aim of the finance guys must be to keep the annual cost of the new ground to about the same level as we pay now in rent. I recently discovered that depreciation of fixed assets is outside of the scope of FFP, which makes sense if you think about it. Lee Hoos has spoken about exploring the option of a bond issue on more than one occasion, then again he talks about the club being self-sufficient and that is surely a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Feb 29, 2020 9:49:30 GMT
For those who can't find their way to LFW, this is the table from my article. Hopefully it is self explanatory. Season (all figures in £1000’s) | 2014/15 | 2015/16 | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | Season’s Financial Loss | -45,675 | -10,964 | -6,443 | -22,535 | -10,387 | Estimated Disallowable Costs | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 4,000 | Rolling 3-Year Loss for FFP | | | -51,082 | -27,942 | -27,365 | Season’s Permissible Loss for FFP | -35,000 | -13,000 | -13,000 | -13,000 | -13,000 | Rolling 3-Year Permissible Loss | | | -61,000 | -39,000 | -39,000 | Headroom Beneath FFP Limit | | | 9,918 | 11,058 | 11,635 |
I’ve adopted the £4 million per season disallowable costs estimated by the excellent Swiss Ramble. Secondly, the 2017/18 loss has been adjusted to remove the cost of the FFP fine levied against the club and the payment of the initial instalment of it along with the payment of the EFL’s costs. I’ve not adjusted the 2018/19 figure to remove the latest instalment of the fine as I think there has been some wizardry in the accounts and need to understand that before doing so. There is a difference between cash flow and profit and loss; just because £1.7 million went out the door, it doesn’t mean that is how it will show in the accounts. The loss for 2018/19 will be less than shown.
|
|
|
Post by hitmanrangers on Feb 29, 2020 10:18:04 GMT
Thanks Roller
On the FFP fine/costs, what happened in 2017/18 was that the full expense was recognised in the P&L, discounted because we are paying it over 10 years. So the £20M fine was recognised as a net discounted expense of about £15M in 2017/18 then as we pay the fine each year, we will get an expense each year until we reach £20M (i.e - the difference between £20M and £15M spread over the 10 years). In note 8 to the 2018/19 accounts within finance costs there is £977K in relation to the fine. This is the discounting factor charge for the year so can also be ignored from the above loss of £10,387K. £977K does seem high for 1 year of interest charge but I'm sure QPR Finance know what they are doing!
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 1, 2020 9:01:10 GMT
Thanks Roller On the FFP fine/costs, what happened in 2017/18 was that the full expense was recognised in the P&L, discounted because we are paying it over 10 years. So the £20M fine was recognised as a net discounted expense of about £15M in 2017/18 then as we pay the fine each year, we will get an expense each year until we reach £20M (i.e - the difference between £20M and £15M spread over the 10 years). In note 8 to the 2018/19 accounts within finance costs there is £977K in relation to the fine. This is the discounting factor charge for the year so can also be ignored from the above loss of £10,387K. £977K does seem high for 1 year of interest charge but I'm sure QPR Finance know what they are doing! Thanks Hitman. I had a mate, who happens to work for our auditors, try to explain this to me after the match yesterday and while I think I understood what he said, I'm still proving to be quite resistant to the details. I had assumed that the £977k was the figure to be excluded, but still can't see how the discounting factor charges are going to add up to the £20m. Perhaps after another 8 years it will become apparent!
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Mar 1, 2020 9:08:20 GMT
I recently discovered that depreciation of fixed assets is outside of the scope of FFP, which makes sense if you think about it. Lee Hoos has spoken about exploring the option of a bond issue on more than one occasion, then again he talks about the club being self-sufficient and that is surely a pipe dream. Thanks for clarifying that - certainly news to me and logically makes FFP even more of a mystery. In theory then the owners could put up 100 million, build a super low maintenance stadium and hopefully increase the size of our crowds. The decreased cost of maintenance and match day stewarding would benefit the P&L financially and for FFP, the increased gate money would benefit the P&L financially and for FFP giving us more to spend on players/salaries but the depreciation cost of the stadium would only offset those benefits financially but not count towards FFP. If that is the case it is total nonsense imo and in many ways I could argue that it weakens the EFL's case against the sale and lease back transactions that some clubs have done. I disagree. FFP is supposedly about improving the financial health of football clubs. Surely having the stadium you describe would do that? The EFL do not have a case against the sale and lease back transactions per se - it is allowed in the regulations. Their case with Derby is over their inflated valuation of the ground, their case against Sheffield Wednesday is to do with when the date they claim the transaction took place and possibly also the payment schedule for the sale.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Mar 1, 2020 10:28:08 GMT
I disagree. FFP is supposedly about improving the financial health of football clubs. Surely having the stadium you describe would do that? The EFL do not have a case against the sale and lease back transactions per se - it is allowed in the regulations. Their case with Derby is over their inflated valuation of the ground, their case against Sheffield Wednesday is to do with when the date they claim the transaction took place and possibly also the payment schedule for the sale. My point is that it is illogical for FFP to allow the income generated from buying a new fixed asset (an improved stadium), but to ignore the cost (depreciation) of that asset. In theory an improved stadium should help us increase net income but if the depreciation is higher than the extra income generated, the club would be worse off in real financial terms, but better off in FFP terms. It is this sort of distinction between real world finance and the EFL interpretation of accounts for FFP that is causing some of the issues as the differences in interpretation open potential loopholes that clubs will try to exploit - such as with the sale and lease back deals. Those deals will have been completed through normal legal and professional channels and will have been subject to independent external audit before clubs accounts are signed off. But then the EFL dispute the terms of the deals even though the deals will have probably improved the financial health of the clubs. If the aim is to improve the financial health of football clubs, quite simply it has to be measured on the actual financials of the clubs. The question then becomes, is it fair that one club has used legal financial engineering to improve its financial health while others have not had the same foresight or ability to do so. I may be wide of the mark as I'm not very good with numbers but isn't the issue with that last part more about mitigating unsustainable behaviour and trying to promote long-term financial health? As in, yeah, financially engineering might keep the wolf from the door in the short term, but that's done at the expense of adopting sustainable behaviour and it isn't (as far as I know) something that clubs can just repeat. I'm cynical about FFP but if we take it idealisticly, it is about clubs not risking their existence for short term gain and adopting behaviour that keeps their long term future secure. So they want clubs to be selling players for profits, investing in training/development infrastructure and getting on a more even keel. Selling your ground, what should be a community asset, just enables clubs to (at least temporarily) keep spending beyond their long term means and avoid a fine/points deduction in the short term, while sowing seeds for even more problems in the future. Cos once the stadium sale money is spent, you've still got a situation where a club is spending more on wages and transfers than their year on year income. Or in other words, it goes against the spirit of what we are told FFP is supposed to be about, surely?
|
|
|
Post by Ashdown_Ranger on Mar 4, 2020 14:52:44 GMT
A view on our finances from Football Economy...The club's loss significantly decreased from £38m to £10m, largely due to no repeat of the previous season’s £20m FFP fine, though there was also operational improvement: revenue rose £3m to £35m, profit on player sales was up from zero to £3m, while expenses were cut by £7m. The wage bill was cut by £7m (22%) to £24m, reducing the wages to turnover ratio from 98% to 69% - significantly better than the 195% of the Redknapp era. QPR's £75m wage bill in 2013/14 was the second highest ever in the Championship, only surpassed by Newcastle United £80m in 2016/17. Their wages have been reduced by over two-thirds (£51m) since then. All three revenue streams were higher. Main increase was in broadcasting, which rose £1.8m (9%) to £22.0m, due to slight uplift in parachute payment and FA Cup run. Commercial was up £0.9m (15%) to £7.2m, while gate receipts were £0.5m (10%) higher at £5.4m. The £10m loss was nowhere near the worst reported in the Championship. Very few clubs manage to make money in this extremely competitive division, though largest losses often from promoted clubs – including hefty promotion bonuses. Profit on player sales was only £2.5m, though that was actually better than the prior season’s £137k loss, mainly thanks to Alex Smithies to Cardiff City. In fairness, Championship clubs don’t often make big money from player trading – except those relegated from the top flight. QPR have consistently lost money over the years. Since Tony Fernandes arrived in August 2011, total losses have been £209m – or £269m if we exclude the £60m loan write-off that was questioned by the EFL. To be fair, underlying losses have been smaller in the last four years. In the past QPR had to let players walk out of the door to get them off the wage bill. Player trading will be important for QPR going forward. This was emphasised by Director of Football Les Ferdinand: “The simple fact is every single one of our players is up for sale. That’s where the club is at this moment in time. If we receive the right offer, then they will go.” Following relegation from the Premier League in 2015, QPR revenue has fallen by a hefty £51m from £86m to £35m. The decline has been cushioned by parachute payments, though these have fallen from £31m in 2017 to £17m in 2019 and will stop in 2020. Thanks to those parachute payments, QPR £35m revenue is still in the Championship top 10, though this is only around half as much as those clubs recently relegated from the top flight, e.g. Stoke City £71m and Swansea City £68m. The club benefited from £17m parachute payments, which makes a total of £91m over the last 4 years. However, other clubs received much more, so Stoke City, Swansea City and WBA got £43m, while Hull City, Middlesbrough and Sunderland got £35m; and Aston Villa £16m. Attendance fell slightly from 13,928 to 13,866, but crowds have decreased by around 4,000 (22%) from 17,800 in the Premier League. Ticket prices have been frozen for four seasons in a row. The club has been looking for a new ground for some time [to put it mildly]. CEO Lee Hoos: “This club is not financially sustainable in the long-term while we remain at Loftus Road” (now Kyan Prince Foundation Stadium). Commercial income rose 15% (£0.9m) to £7.2m, comprising sponsorship and advertising £1.9m, commercial income £2.3m, sales of inventories £1.0m and other income £2.0m. This was mid-table in the Championship, but miles behind the likes of Leeds United £22m and Bristol City £16m. QPR are currently 14th in the Championship, at no risk of relegation, but probably unlikely to make the play offs. The saga of a new stadium seems to have been going on for decades, but is surely key with Brentford moving into their new stadium next season and Fulham rebuilding at Craven Cottage. SOURCE: footballeconomyv2.blogspot.com/2020/03/qpr-bring-finances-under-control-but.html
|
|