Don't We have an "ABC" Replacement Loan to Pay Off

[QPR Report]

As was asking a year ago....


Don't We have an "ABC" Replacement Loan to Pay Off

In about a year?

Have to check back, but I think it was two years and a year has gone bye...

[QPR Report]

2008 Letter to QPR Shareholders:
"The company is required to repay an existing loan of £10M to ABC on or before the 31/7/08. ABC currently has an option over the Loftus Road Stadium which becomes exercisable if the company fails to repay the loan in full by 31/7/08.

The company requires financing in order to repay the loan. The company has sought to secure this financing from various financial institutions, but has been unable to do so owing to conditions and requirements of those institutions. As a result Amulya has agreed to advance a loan of £10m to the company in order to allow the company to repay the loan by 31/7/08 and thereby avoid the possibility of ABC exercising their option and acquiring the title to the stadium.

However as a condition to advancing the loan, Amulya requires the company to enter into the option. The option is on substantially similar terms to the ABC option. It grants Amulya an option to buy the stadium for £10M which is exercisable in the event the company fails to repay Amulya when the loan is due.

The term of the Amulya loan is two years. The rate is 8.50% compared with ABC's 10 %.Amulya Property Limited is a company that both Briatore and Amit Bhatia are connected with and also happens to share its name with a large Indian Property Company."


Wednesday, August 06, 2008

"New Loan Pushes ABC Out of the Picture"-
Ealing Gazette - New loan pushes ABC out of the picture

QPR have averted the prospect of ABC Corporation acquiring their Loftus Road ground, the club have confirmed.

ABC had the option to take ownership of the stadium if a £10m loan they made to the club’s holding company in 2002 was not repaid in full by the end of last month.

A recent letter to shareholders explained that the debt was paid by securing another £10m loan from a different company, Amulya Property Ltd, who now have a similar option to acquire the stadium in two years’ time if they are not repaid.

The interest rate on the new loan is 8.5% and Amulya has links with both Rangers’ co-owner Flavio Briatore and QPR holdings vice-chairman Amit Bhatia, whose father-in-law Lakshmi Mittal bought a 20% stake in the club last year.

The ABC loan has posed a threat to the club’s future for some time and the interest payments of nearly 11% were a major financial burden.

The loan was arranged so Rangers could come out of administration by making a payment to former owner Chris Wright, who was then a major creditor having made a series of directors’ loans during his tenure.

It also left the club with significant working capital which was used to fund the squad that won promotion from the Second Division two years later.

"The ABC loan has been of great concern to QPR fans, and has been a noose around the neck of this football club for far too long," Briatore told QPR’s website.

"I am delighted that we have now made arrangements to put this saga to an end." Ealing Gazette


August 5, 2008 - BBC - QPR complete payment of £10m loan

Queens Park Rangers have repaid the £10m they owed the ABC Corporation.

The loan was taken out in 2002 to assist the west London club in coming out of administration.

QPR Holdings Limited were required to repay £10m to the Panama-registered corporation on or before the 31 July 2008 deadline.

ABC had an option over the club's Loftus Road ground which could be exercised if the debt had not been met in full.

QPR Holdings Limited chairman Flavio Briatore said: "The ABC loan has been of great concern to QPR fans, and has been a noose around the neck of this club for far too long.

"I am delighted that we have now made arrangements to put this saga to an end.

"Building for the future is what is important to me, and the rest of the QPR board. However, with certain issues it is always necessary to deal with elements from the past, and today we have done this.

"This once again highlights our commitment to this football club, and now I am looking forward to working on the continued growth of Queens Park Rangers, both as a club and as a brand."


QPR Official Site - ABC LOAN REPAID IN FULL

Queens Park Rangers Football Club are delighted to announce the full repayment of our £10 million loan from ABC.
The loan was taken out into 2002 in order to assist the Club in coming out of administration.

QPR Holdings Limited was required to repay the existing loan of £10m to ABC Corporation on or before 31 July 2008.

ABC Corporation had an option over the Loftus Road Stadium, which would become exercisable if QPR Holdings Limited failed to repay the loan in full by 31 July 2008.

This loan was repaid in full today. Therefore, the option that ABC Corporation had over the Loftus Road Stadium no longer exists.
QPR Holdings Limited Chairman Flavio Briatore said: "The ABC loan has been of great concern to QPR fans, and has been a noose around the neck of this Football Club for far too long.
"I am delighted that we have now made arrangements to put this saga to an end.

"Building for the future is what is important to me, and the rest of the QPR Board. However, with certain issues it is always necessary to deal with elements from the past, and today we have done this.

"This once again highlights our commitment to this Football Club, and now I am looking forward to working on the continued growth of Queens Park Rangers, both as a Club and as a brand." QPR


July 28, 2008 "Remembering the ABC Loan"
qprreport.blogspot.com/2008/07/remembering-abc-loan.html

[QPR Report]

Chairman's Report With Accounts - June 2009

"...Subsequent to the year-end, the ABC Corporation loan that attracted an interest rate of 11.76%was repaid and refinanced in July 2008 with a loan fromAmulya Property Limited, a company with which Amit Bhatia and I are connected. The interest rate under the Amulya Loan is 8.5%..."

qprreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/flavio-briatores-chairmans-report-in.html

[ingham]

It is heartwarming to know that the Club is now liable for only £1.7 million over the two years of the Amulya loan.

And especially when we see that even that tiny sum represents a saving of around £600,000 over the previous interest rate.

No, hang on. The Club owes ELEVEN POINT SEVEN MILLION. d***. Of course, that is almost negligible compared to the £600,000 saving in interest.

For a moment there, I found myself thinking that it was strange that so much attention is paid to a 3% saving on the interest rate - and over 2 years - when 8.5% interest IS payable, amounting to £1.7 million.

With £10 million capital on top.

Glad it's all gone now. Mind you, it was all gone several years ago when Paladini pointed out, on the official site, that he and Caliendo had paid off 'all the debt they inherited'.

Now, that was strange, too. Because it can't have been much more than one or two years later that they were effectively bankrupt - as Briatore pointed out - with debts of £25 million - according to the accounts - or £13 million if you believed the Board.

But they could hardly be bankrupt with debts of £13 million as the Ground is supposedly worth £24 million at the very least.

[QPR Report]

I remember trying to persuade on the boards that our "problem" wasn't that we had a debt of 10 million, which everyone kept saying. But that we had a debt of 10 million + each year we were making a loss, so presumably it was getting bigger and bigger...

And the strange thing was that before Paladini arrived (sorry about that Gianni), it looked like our debt was getting managed. Yes we had that 10 million to pay and the million a year in interest. But it looked like things were getting under control

[ingham]

Wonder what you made of this, from Briatore, on the official site.

"we have invested over £34 million in to the Club".

Come again. He lost £6 million of the Club's money in his first season, but that isn't £34 million coming into the Club, it's £6 million going out.

But even if Briatore is pretending that the Club's losses are really gains, is he saying that the Club lost a further £28 million last season? More than Fayed lost on his Premiership 'squad'?

And with losses already at £31 million - Paladini's £25 million plus Briatore's £6 million?

Or could it be one of those curious QPR concoctions achieved by inverting the true meaning of the figures, thinking of a quite different number, doubling it, then saying something else. Average attendance, 20,000. Debt £13 million.

Even if losses doubled last season to £12 million, that's still 'only' £18 million in losses under Briatore, barely more than half the '£34 million' he's claiming.

Unless he's conflating spending, borrowing, losses, and earnings into a Champions League formula by adding in turnover and hoping nobody notices . But people go to jail for that, don't they?

And with £5 million already repaid, £11.7 million still owing, a charge still over the Ground (unless this has been lifted), the risk of losing it still very real, and with the prospect of the loan being renewed over and over again, on almost any terms, merely by the expedient of not paying off the original capital, until the original £20 million is a bargain by comparison.

I'll be interested to see if David Sullivan's debt-free Birmingham is a reality, or just more spin. If, that is to say, the £81 million that Gold and Sullivan charged the new owner for the shares isn't dumped straight onto the Club as debt.

And then there's Arsenal. So well run, so old school tie, so debt-free. If they were £416 million in debt in the summer as the Guardian's list of Premiership debts suggested, and - as my Arsenal friend claims - the American has acquired the requisite number of shares now (I thought he was just short) - that's uncomfortably close to half a billion in no time since the Stadium named after some other business was built.

It is just so difficult to see a correlation between the way the Clubs actually perform, and the supposed potential that the endless and ever-soaring losses imply.

Are things actually getting worse? With more court cases involving directors, more Clubs losing ownership of their assets, more losses, more debt?

If there is so much money coming in, the players are so wonderful they are worth the money they're paid, and the long-term prospects are so lucrative, why aren't they storing up huge reserves of cash?

Arsenal haven't even won the European Cup. Come to that, neither have Chelsea. So what is all this potential? They're terrified to drop out of the top four, because their finances couldn't cope with the loss of revenue, but that's football isn't it?

And if it isn't, and this lot will stay in the top four for the next 35 years, why are all the other clowns losing money hand over fist?

[QPR Report]

Well he bought the club: So that's X millions..

He's got the ABC Loan...That's 11 Million

He's assumed the rest of the debt (less what Caliendo forgave)

We've lost x millions in the past 2 years

But that's "Investment" - He's still got assets: The Club; the ground; the players - That's not lost money


Now it's true there's been a lot of wasted money: BAD Signings. Bad Appointments. Paying off players and coaches. High Wages. But that was his (and his minions choice). If we have Mr. Pellicori at Loftus Road. He didn't just appear. Some brought him to QPR and decided to sign him.

[ingham]

The players aren't assets, though. The authorities put paid to that racket years ago, as it was obvious that the dodgy directors would just revalue them every time they made a massive loss.

Which is every year, of course, as we know.

And have they paid for the shares? Couldn't have been all that much at 1p a share anyway, could it? But if they haven't paid, it cost them nothing. Or X, as you rightly say. And if the deal was that they'd pay for them when the Club won promotion, sounds like the Club will end up paying for them as well.

I still wonder about Fayed subsiding into old age and unmanageable losses. I still wonder why we have so many different 'billionaires'. To absorb Fulham? So the 'Indian Property Company' can sell off the Grounds and help Chelsea with their 'ground' problem in the old Italian way - groundsharing - with FC Briatore?

It may make sense to them, most moneylenders who come here mention the Ground - getting rid of it, rebuilding, sharing, turning it upside down - but they haven't mentioned any particular plan of that kind, and as we might become the first small Club to do a Ramsey-Clough, taking the Second tier, the Premiership, the European Champions League and the World Cup, it is possible no drastic remedy of that kind will be required.

That will be impressive on an average attendance of 20,000, even if a significant proportion of that attendance doesn't actually go. they will, I daresay, if we carry on winning more regularly.

If they can afford it. But then, I wonder how many who can't afford the Championship will be able to afford to come to the boutique when it is a Premiership one.

Will runaway promotion in the New Year alleviate the losses and debt? Or are they looking all the time for a buyer and at least the £81 million the Birmingham boys got from theirs, if not the £650 million United's outgoing shareholders got from .... well, United actually, but that isn't the point. Or is it?

At least it gives us something to talk about. I'm at Hampton and Richmond v Havant and Waterlooville on Saturday, which is something to think about, especially as there appear to be two teams on each side.

[londonranger]

He likes staying in debt.

[grumpyolde]

Ingham,

You seem to have stumbled onto the solution to the current problems in football. Merging all the teams - so simple, but then most of the best ideas are. QPR could merge with Man City and hang on to Raheem Sterling . Also no need to loan players with squads of up to a hundred to choose from. Of course the fans would have huge distances to travel but nobody cares about them anyway. In fact the clubs could make enormous profits organising long treks to the home matches. There would be unlimited numbers of team kits to squeeze even more money out of the supporters. And with double the number billionaires they could spend the clubs assets twice as fast.

Promotion would be so much easier because there were only half the teams - easier still if we had say 12 up and 12 down.

You may think this isn't football as you know it. It's true, but what we've got now isn't football as I knew it. Now we have lots of foreign owners, lots of foreign coaches, lots of foreign players, less and less and less local talent, more money coming into the game than anyone could ever have imagined yet teams in every league going skint.

Do you think when all the money has been sucked out of football they will give us the game back ?


P.S. Which clubs do you think would be good bedfellows for each other.

[londonranger]

A team with an Italian owner.

[ingham]

;D

Re-reading your analysis, grumpyolde, it, once I'd done the laughing, I had difficulty finding anything which wouldn't fit in comfortably with current trends.

The endless redesigning of strips, with stripes or hoops a little wider or narrrower each year, the hideous 'second' and 'third' strips, huge increases in ticket prices for no better reason than their own incompetence, followed by abject circulars begging those £20 ticket buying supporters about whom they care nothing to consider coming along, not to an entire season's football, as they once did, but just to four or five matches.

And as to your idea that Clubs could merge on masse, ponder this.

A press article - a two page spread if I remember rightly in one of the London evening papers of the time - forty years ago - where a certain Club chairman said his ambition was to merge all the London Clubs under himself so there would be one, big, glamorous entity to challenge the likes of Real Madrid in Europe.

Even then, at the tender age of 14 or 15, I thought this was crazy and abhorrent. And later, looking back, it just seemed pathetically naive.

As if the supporters of Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and West Ham would just give up their Clubs overnight to follow some sanitised soapflake of a franchise, just to line the pockets and gratify the ego of a small-time used-car salesman.

Jim Gregory was his name. A man of whom his protege Venables said that he never took account of the supporters, it was as if they didn't exist.

Perhaps that's why Gregory's Greater London FC was nipped in the bud before it could even start by QPR and Brentford supporters, and why further attempts to get the ball rolling were thwarted by Rs supporters (and others) in 1987 and 2001.

In many ways he was a man ahead of his time. The only thing that really worked was the football. He tried mergers, but they didn't work. And even the much improved football never made the Club any bigger. He rebuilt the Ground, and it got smaller and smaller and more and more dated as the programme he started neared completion. He tried novel solutions like the plastic pitch and everyone still plays on grass, including QPR.

So perhaps the answer is the one they all avoid talking about. Love of the game itself, the Club as it is, and if success is to be striven for, talent. But few have talent, and all the gimmicks, initiatives, so-called 'investments' and new stadiums merely serve to disguise its complete absence.

[cpr]

Nov 10, 2009 23:55:53 GMT londonranger said:

A team with an Italian owner.

Wouldn't they be bed goodfellows?

[Macmoish]

Bump a year! So....

[ingham]

Yes, indeed. In football what goes around comes around, just not the once.

Bed goodfellows is good ;D. Even if it almost implies some sort of racket.

Which can't be the case.