|
|
Post by Macmoish on Feb 20, 2024 8:12:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 20, 2024 9:46:48 GMT
A few observations:
1) The club has decided to no longer disclose details of player transfers or term remaining on contracts.
2) We still have a bloody lot of staff - I suppose at least it has not increased, but nearly 200.
3) Our wages alone exceed our income.... still a crazy business.
4) The bond for the training ground was made by Ruben's wife £10m - unsecured but paying 6%.
5) I still find it very odd that in an industry that is regulated by a rigid sustainability regime (FFP) that the auditors do not feel required to make comment about how the club is managing within that framework. It is key to the 'going concern' accounting principle as to exceed the regulations bring about penalties that can impact on the future profitability (or increased losses) of the business. It is also the case that that the EFL do not publish or require clubs to communicate how the regulations are being met. I understand that during the current year, it can be sensitive and commercially threatening, but after the year has closed, and explanation / reconciliation between the financial accounts and the FFP submission would be helpful to the fans who are expected to keep paying and attending whilst understanding the limitations that the club is operating under. A simple accounting loss for the year, less deductibles (training ground, academy etc) = FFP loss for the year.
It was a pleasant surprise (and we get so few) that we were able to bring in 4 players (by deferring costs and subsidized loans) and we assume that we will be ok for FFP next year (just about). But here we are with another set of detailed accounts and one of the key issues for fans and they fall silent (as do other clubs).
Rant over!
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 20, 2024 12:51:54 GMT
Various sites quote weekly wages for clubs - including QPR. Below are three links to such sites. 2 are very similar (possibly the same source) and the third is where the barmy Begovic rumours spring from. Cook is our most expensive player, he has been good this season - that contract may well look onerous next season, especially if we are relegated.. However, I have read elsewhere that part of his wage was funded by Forest (Pay-off) for this season, so perhaps that sum is inflated and next season his salary drops. But you can see why the club released Dozzell's wages to Birmingham and several of the out of contract players are near the top of the pile (Willock, Begovic, Dunne, Adomah & Dozzell) and unlikely to be offered similar contracts. Dykes new contract and Chair - both likely to be sold in the Summer IMHO. N.B - one of the sites quotes dollars the other £. salarysport.com/en-us/football/championship/queens-park-rangers/www.soccersouls.com/queens-park-rangers-wages-2023-2024/sillyseason.com/money/salary/queens-park-rangers-players-salaries-126812/ |
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 20, 2024 13:36:14 GMT
And finally.......
Out staff costs are £25m p.a. with a headcount of 189.
One of the above sites lists all our players - it totals 64. It relates to now and not the reported accounting period, so not apples and apples. The site is only players (and is missing a few e.g. the January signings) - whereas the accounts include managers and coaches in their figure.
But for 2022/ 2023 the accounts show that we had 189 staff (N.B. this is likely to be an average throughout the year).
It breaks down as 129 players & managers / coaches, 16 Football support staff. 19 Admin staff, 18 commercial staff and 7 stadium staff. That number was largely unchanged from the previous year, and the cost exceeds our revenue.
The post period note also records:
We signed Smyth, Begovic, Colback, Fox, Richards and Cannon after the accounting period.
We sold Dieng & Dickie
We released Hankalainen, Johansen, Alfa, Balogun, Owens, Shodipo, Masterson & Martin.
The net inflow of the above was £1.775m. That figure feels lower than what was quoted at the time.
£2m for Seny and £700k for Dickie less the £450k for Richards would yield £2.25m.
So the £0.5m difference is presumably made up of paying off Johansen, or perhaps signing-on fees, or over-stating fees /VAT.
Strange business that saw Johansen depart for money we clearly did not have and then be short in midfield through to January.
|
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Feb 20, 2024 15:39:53 GMT
It often anuses me when the fans want to sack the board and get new owners. Another 21M pound loss compared to 24M last year. In the meantime we all want better players and promotion, or survival this year!.
Our ground is big hinderance to us, only 5.7M in gate receipts compared to 8M in TV revenue. We need a 30k stadium in London, and we would fill it (on the weekends). Going to league 1 would be an absolute disaster.
This is not a business, its our football club!!!!!.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitmanrangers on Feb 20, 2024 20:23:32 GMT
From my understanding of the FFP/P&S rules, we must have been very close to the wire of allowable £39m loss over the 3 years. Can't get all the figures from the accounts as not disclosed, but would seem we made a P&S loss of c£42M over the last 3 years when adding back depreciation each year and £2.5M COVID costs (max that you can add back) for year 3. That means the other costs that you can exclude such as youth development, women's football, community trust and donations were over £1M/year to keep below the permitted loss.
Unfortunately, year 3 drops out next year which was our smallest loss, and will be replaced by a large loss for 23/24 season that we won't know until this time next year. However, even if that is half of the latest loss, around £10M (due to lower wages, increased revenue from sponsorship deals, and profit when selling Dieng and Dickie), it would seem very hard to stay within the rules without pushing through some player sales just before 31 May 2024. However the real issue very much depends on the information that you can't get from the accounts. It might be possible to get some of this from the other subsidiary accounts within the QPR group of companies, so will take a look!
|
|
|
|
Post by hitmanrangers on Feb 20, 2024 20:33:12 GMT
And finally....... Out staff costs are £25m p.a. with a headcount of 189. One of the above sites lists all our players - it totals 64. It relates to now and not the reported accounting period, so not apples and apples. The site is only players (and is missing a few e.g. the January signings) - whereas the accounts include managers and coaches in their figure. But for 2022/ 2023 the accounts show that we had 189 staff (N.B. this is likely to be an average throughout the year). It breaks down as 129 players & managers / coaches, 16 Football support staff. 19 Admin staff, 18 commercial staff and 7 stadium staff. That number was largely unchanged from the previous year, and the cost exceeds our revenue. The post period note also records: We signed Smyth, Begovic, Colback, Fox, Richards and Cannon after the accounting period. We sold Dieng & Dickie We released Hankalainen, Johansen, Alfa, Balogun, Owens, Shodipo, Masterson & Martin. The net inflow of the above was £1.775m. That figure feels lower than what was quoted at the time. £2m for Seny and £700k for Dickie less the £450k for Richards would yield £2.25m. So the £0.5m difference is presumably made up of paying off Johansen, or perhaps signing-on fees, or over-stating fees /VAT. Strange business that saw Johansen depart for money we clearly did not have and then be short in midfield through to January. On the post year end player sales, I read that as being cash received given the use of the word "inflow" so could be that some of the money for Dieng was deferred until later, or subject to promotion/other clauses. Either way, how do you see a way of avoiding a breach in a year's time given the size of the latest loss and the smaller loss for 2020/21 dropping out next year??! |
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 21, 2024 9:06:20 GMT
On the post year end player sales, I read that as being cash received given the use of the word "inflow" so could be that some of the money for Dieng was deferred until later, or subject to promotion/other clauses. Either way, how do you see a way of avoiding a breach in a year's time given the size of the latest loss and the smaller loss for 2020/21 dropping out next year??! What are the chances? Well, I think we will just scrape through this year. I base this on the great lengths the club went to juggle the figures in December and January. Lee Hoos focus was always on FFP compliance, and it is frustrating that having got us out of trouble, he allowed us to get so tight once again. But I believe he departed with it sorted for this year. Throughout his term, you can see deals structured around FFP deadlines or ‘contra’ deals. Beale’s exit gave us a surplus, enabling us to sack and pay off Critchley. Then the scrape around for sponsorship to cover the pay off to Ainsworth. The deferring of income into the next FFP year e.g. the Anderson and Frey deals apparently forward loaded + free loanees. The release and timing of exits of key staff – including his own exit. I suspect that it will be nickels and dimes but we will just make the three-year compliance for 23/24. If not, why bother with all the financial sorcery, just exceed and accept the 10 point deduction next season. If we have now failed, then it is a massive miscalculation IMHO. But if your question is how can that be possible? There are some clues in the accounts, but the rules are not communicated, and neither are the subsequent figures for individual clubs. As paying supporters expected to fund and accept the limitations, I feel this is wrong. As I said on this thread, I also think it is wrong from an accounting standpoint that such an important issue does not stand mention in the annual accounts. But we start with the financial losses of 21/22 £24.6m and 22/23 of £20.3m. So, it would appear that we are £6m over before the 3rd year even starts. But various costs are not included in the FFP calculation. The cost of the academy being the most likely biggest element. Capital costs are also outside of the calculation. I am unsure how redundancy. costs are treated, so laying off Ramsay and Ferdinand may be a saving, or maybe an additional cost. I also do not know how interest is treated in the FFP calculation. We are not allowed to know such things. But here is the first major saving in 23/24. We were paying a substantial sum for Harlington and that would be included in FFP. Whereas Heston is capital and would not. So we will have a big reduction (even though it was a £20m expenditure!) for training ground rent in 23/24. Player’s contracts – we have stopped paying transfer fees for players. We spread the cost of transfer fees over the duration of their contract term. To give some context, our squad balance sheet value was £8.4M in 21/22, but down to £2.1m in 22/23. A huge drop. In 23/24 we only added Taylor Richards for £450k (over 3 years). So, our charge in 23/24 is going to be pretty minimal for player registrations and even lower for 24/25 with all the out of contract players. The net inflow on transfers in 23/24 being £1.75m. But this only emphasizes how we have to sell a couple in the Summer for next year’s calculation (Chair and Dykes for £8m?). 22/23 we had 5 expensive loans throughout - not helpful - at least in 24/35 we had two 'freebies ' only for 6 months.. So, if you take the £45m start point for the last two years and deduct allowable costs – perhaps £6.5m p.a. the start point becomes £32m. If you take 22/23 loss of £20m, deduct allowables, sponsorship & savings of £7 m = £13m deduct player sales £2m = £11m deduct training rent £2m = £9m deduct player contracts £2m = £7m 21/23 Loss = £32m Grand Total £39m All pure guesswork on my part - and it frustrates that there is not more to go on. But it is likely that we have juggled by releasing 3 player wages, including the expensive Dozzell, just to make it. If we left ourselves short during January, just to run over, would be pure madness. So keep the faith....for now! |
|
|
|
Post by hitmanrangers on Feb 21, 2024 10:00:15 GMT
On the post year end player sales, I read that as being cash received given the use of the word "inflow" so could be that some of the money for Dieng was deferred until later, or subject to promotion/other clauses. Either way, how do you see a way of avoiding a breach in a year's time given the size of the latest loss and the smaller loss for 2020/21 dropping out next year??! What are the chances? Well, I think we will just scrape through this year. I base this on the great lengths the club went to juggle the figures in December and January. Lee Hoos focus was always on FFP compliance, and it is frustrating that having got us out of trouble, he allowed us to get so tight once again. But I believe he departed with it sorted for this year. Throughout his term, you can see deals structured around FFP deadlines or ‘contra’ deals. Beale’s exit gave us a surplus, enabling us to sack and pay off Critchley. Then the scrape around for sponsorship to cover the pay off to Ainsworth. The deferring of income into the next FFP year e.g. the Anderson and Frey deals apparently forward loaded + free loanees. The release and timing of exits of key staff – including his own exit. I suspect that it will be nickels and dimes but we will just make the three-year compliance for 23/24. If not, why bother with all the financial sorcery, just exceed and accept the 10 point deduction next season. If we have now failed, then it is a massive miscalculation IMHO. But if your question is how can that be possible? There are some clues in the accounts, but the rules are not communicated, and neither are the subsequent figures for individual clubs. As paying supporters expected to fund and accept the limitations, I feel this is wrong. As I said on this thread, I also think it is wrong from an accounting standpoint that such an important issue does not stand mention in the annual accounts. But we start with the financial losses of 21/22 £24.6m and 22/23 of £20.3m. So, it would appear that we are £6m over before the 3rd year even starts. But various costs are not included in the FFP calculation. The cost of the academy being the most likely biggest element. Capital costs are also outside of the calculation. I am unsure how redundancy. costs are treated, so laying off Ramsay and Ferdinand may be a saving, or maybe an additional cost. I also do not know how interest is treated in the FFP calculation. We are not allowed to know such things. But here is the first major saving in 23/24. We were paying a substantial sum for Harlington and that would be included in FFP. Whereas Heston is capital and would not. So we will have a big reduction (even though it was a £20m expenditure!) for training ground rent in 23/24. Player’s contracts – we have stopped paying transfer fees for players. We spread the cost of transfer fees over the duration of their contract term. To give some context, our squad balance sheet value was £8.4M in 21/22, but down to £2.1m in 22/23. A huge drop. In 23/24 we only added Taylor Richards for £450k (over 3 years). So, our charge in 23/24 is going to be pretty minimal for player registrations and even lower for 24/25 with all the out of contract players. The net inflow on transfers in 23/24 being £1.75m. But this only emphasizes how we have to sell a couple in the Summer for next year’s calculation (Chair and Dykes for £8m?). 22/23 we had 5 expensive loans throughout - not helpful - at least in 24/35 we had two 'freebies ' only for 6 months.. So, if you take the £45m start point for the last two years and deduct allowable costs – perhaps £6.5m p.a. the start point becomes £32m. If you take 22/23 loss of £20m, deduct allowables, sponsorship & savings of £7 m = £13m deduct player sales £2m = £11m deduct training rent £2m = £9m deduct player contracts £2m = £7m 21/23 Loss = £32m Grand Total £39m All pure guesswork on my part - and it frustrates that there is not more to go on. But it is likely that we have juggled by releasing 3 player wages, including the expensive Dozzell, just to make it. If we left ourselves short during January, just to run over, would be pure madness. So keep the faith....for now! Thanks Ricky, good point about the amortisation - this will be lower than the £3m from last year, which came down by £0.5m year on year. I don't think we will get the saving on the old training ground since that already looks to be taken into account in 22/23, where rent cost from operating leases was just £40K, down from £0.5m the year before. Also £7m for cost of youth development, community development (where we only appear to have paid £115K to QPR Community in the Trust last year) and women's development could be on the heavy side but the rules are not 100% clear on what costs within those buckets would be excluded - how much does it cost to run a youth/women's team, net of grant funding we must receive? Wages must be pretty low for both teams given youth contracts and the women's team don't play in the top league - maybe they are even part time)? Net of it all though is that we must be sailing very very close. You would hope the Board know what they are doing! Also I understand clubs must submit a forecast P&S calculation during for the season ahead that demonstrates they will not be in breach based on next year's budget (in our case, the 23/24 season) so you would hope that has already been done and possibly verified by auditors. I think that is ultimately what led to one of Reading's points deductions last season - their forecast showed they wouldn't comply with the rules - this then turned into reality but they were penalised earlier. If there was an issue, we would be hearing about it around now I expect! |
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 21, 2024 11:57:58 GMT
Yes, all of it is financial sorcery and conjecture.
The guidelines for FFP state that the allowables for the categories you list are not expected to be more than £500k p.a.
But that must have been liberated at some point or most clubs would be in breach. I just used the allowables as a balancing figure for it to work. Commentators often state that infrastructure costs can be deducted. Answers on a postcard for that one.
The training ground saving is hard to fathom because we were still at Harlington for the duration of the accounts. There is a note that rent is charged to the P&L, and a note about the treatment of operating leases - but I haven't been a bean counter for so long that I can not figure - unless the operating leases are not for Harlington and we just pay rent on an annual basis.
The players contract valuation only emphasises how frustrating the Taylor Richards signing was. Loaned to us for the accounting period (a Lee Hoos deferral) then our only signing for 23/24. Likely to be the only player with a balance sheet value in no time at all - and he never plays - or is even in the squad. The accounts just tell us what we already know that he was an expensive mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Feb 21, 2024 16:19:32 GMT
|
|
