Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

QPR accounts for 2012/13 season

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Hello, I have just signed up to post because several of you have been asking for an expert to make sense of these figures. While I am no expert as such, I have just completed a degree in Sports finance and can hopefully clear some things up.

    First, here are the key figures from today's results. It's important to remember that these are figures for the 12/13 season, in other words our most recent season in the Premiership.

    - Confirmed losses of £65.4 million
    - Net debt has virtually doubled from £91.4m to £177.1m
    - Turnover dropped from £64m to £60.6m
    - Ticketing revenue was down from £8.4m to £8.3m
    - Wages and social security costs soared from £58.5m to £78m

    Anyone can see how these figures are unsustainable. A decrease in revenue coupled with an increase in costs will only ever lead to a loss. More worryingly, this season in the Championship, ticketing revenue and TV money, as well as sponsorship and corporate income, will all have decreased further from those figures mentioned above. Last season, QPR earned £40 million through Premiership TV rights. This season in the championship that figure will have dropped by £38million to just over £2million. In terms of parachute payments, QPR received £23m in the first year (this year) and will receive £18m in the second and £9m in years three and four. You can see how this year, the parachute payment (£23m) does not make up for the loss of TV revenue (£-38m) alone.

    Many of you here are posting that the debt does not matter or is insignificant. As you say, the majority of the debt is interest free and is owed to the owner. There would be a huge problem (worse than with Portsmouth) if TF decided to leave, but that is extremely unlikely - it would be an extremely unwise financial move by the owner and there are no realistic motives for him wanting to do so. If the owner does leave, however, the chances of finding a buyer are, without wanting to sound pessimistic, pretty much nil.

    The League has got tougher on finance and with the introduction of FFP, QPR's prospects (pending possible legal action) do not look good. While 2012/13 seasons finance's do not count towards it, this seasons does. Many of you are suggesting that TF could simply right off the debt - I'm afraid it does not work like this. There is now no legal way for an owner to write off a loss in terms of FFP - the league will simply look at the balance sheet itself. He can make a contribution to try and limit the losses, but this itself is capped at around £2million.

    In terms of punishment, if promotion is achieved, QPR can expect a heavy fine. Klonk is right - losses up to £18m are a max of £6.7m and then it's £ for £. If this years losses were to be repeated, QPR should expect a fine of around £54million. Many predict the 2013/14 losses will actually be nearer the £30million mark. If this happens, expect a fine of around £19million. Obviously, a loss of £30m plus a fine of around £20m will still lead to a net loss of around £50 million for the season, causing net debt to further increase.

    If promotion is not achieved, and a similar level of losses to this year are announced, QPR can realistically expect a transfer embargo lasting more than one whole season, and more likely for 4 windows, depending on how long losses are sustained

    Hope this helps!
    Last edited by qprboy93; 06-03-2014, 05:25 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Cheers 93

      Im not worried by FFP as it won t happen there is already suggestions us and other championship clubs are ready to group together and challenge as are the 76 major clubs in European football who UEFA recently announced.

      What I cannot get my head around is how Ticket revenue and Turnover dropped from being in the prem surely it should go up with bigger crowds etc

      Comment


      • #78
        Don't worry guys, Harry is in charge.

        Comment


        • #79
          I'd be rather worried about FFP myself. They might tweak them, but the majority of clubs have been cutting their cloth in preparation for this. One way or another, stricter financial rules will come into force.

          Comment


          • #80
            I wonder if money laundering is involved somewhere?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by ollyhoops View Post
              I wonder if money laundering is involved somewhere?
              why would it?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by BushLover View Post
                Don't worry guys, Harry is in charge.
                Give it a focking rest will ya.
                SIR LESLIE FERDINAND!!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Greengrass View Post
                  So a sponsor can give money to a club and that can balance the books, but an owner can't balance the books with a donation? Is that what you're saying?
                  yes... essentially the sponsor is buying a service (advertising, association with a brand etc), so this is operating income associated with day-to-day club activities, so it can be offset against the costs of operating to show profit and loss. profit/loss on the operating statement shows how well income and costs compare - not how much money a company has.

                  just donating cash (or injecting stakeholder capital) is nothing to do with how well the club is run (although it tends to indicate that a company is spending more money than it can raise via banks etc).

                  it is possible to dress up some stakeholder capital injections as 'sponsorship'... but the accounts need to be signed off by an independent auditor as giving a 'true and fair view' of what is going on. if sponsorship income from a company owned by a board member suddenly soared from £5m to, say, £55m, no auditor would sign that off because the amount involved could not reasonably be argued to be a credible figure for sponsoring an english championship club (unlike us, man city can argue that this level of income would be appropriate given the global branding and visibility of premier league and champions league).

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by qprboy93 View Post
                    Hello, I have just signed up to post because several of you have been asking for an expert to make sense of these figures. While I am no expert as such, I have just completed a degree in Sports finance and can hopefully clear some things up.

                    First, here are the key figures from today's results. It's important to remember that these are figures for the 12/13 season, in other words our most recent season in the Premiership.

                    - Confirmed losses of £65.4 million
                    - Net debt has virtually doubled from £91.4m to £177.1m
                    - Turnover dropped from £64m to £60.6m
                    - Ticketing revenue was down from £8.4m to £8.3m
                    - Wages and social security costs soared from £58.5m to £78m

                    Anyone can see how these figures are unsustainable. A decrease in revenue coupled with an increase in costs will only ever lead to a loss. More worryingly, this season in the Championship, ticketing revenue and TV money, as well as sponsorship and corporate income, will all have decreased further from those figures mentioned above. Last season, QPR earned £40 million through Premiership TV rights. This season in the championship that figure will have dropped by £38million to just over £2million. In terms of parachute payments, QPR received £23m in the first year (this year) and will receive £18m in the second and £9m in years three and four. You can see how this year, the parachute payment (£23m) does not make up for the loss of TV revenue (£-38m) alone.

                    Many of you here are posting that the debt does not matter or is insignificant. As you say, the majority of the debt is interest free and is owed to the owner. There would be a huge problem (worse than with Portsmouth) if TF decided to leave, but that is extremely unlikely - it would be an extremely unwise financial move by the owner and there are no realistic motives for him wanting to do so. If the owner does leave, however, the chances of finding a buyer are, without wanting to sound pessimistic, pretty much nil.

                    The League has got tougher on finance and with the introduction of FFP, QPR's prospects (pending possible legal action) do not look good. While 2012/13 seasons finance's do not count towards it, this seasons does. Many of you are suggesting that TF could simply right off the debt - I'm afraid it does not work like this. There is now no legal way for an owner to write off a loss in terms of FFP - the league will simply look at the balance sheet itself. He can make a contribution to try and limit the losses, but this itself is capped at around £2million.

                    In terms of punishment, if promotion is achieved, QPR can expect a heavy fine. Klonk is right - losses up to £18m are a max of £6.7m and then it's £ for £. If this years losses were to be repeated, QPR should expect a fine of around £54million. Many predict the 2013/14 losses will actually be nearer the £30million mark. If this happens, expect a fine of around £19million. Obviously, a loss of £30m plus a fine of around £20m will still lead to a net loss of around £50 million for the season, causing net debt to further increase.

                    If promotion is not achieved, and a similar level of losses to this year are announced, QPR can realistically expect a transfer embargo lasting more than one whole season, and more likely for 4 windows, depending on how long losses are sustained

                    Hope this helps!
                    Great post laaaaadddd!!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      There's no conspiracy theory here.

                      Harry spunked a load of money on rubbish players on top whack wages and Fernandes allowed it because he was naive

                      Every club he's managed (apart from Spurs) has gone into administration or faced bankruptcy after he's left (albeit not always his fault).
                      I should probably write something insightful here

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        simple.

                        sell austin £6mil, remy £16mil, tarrabt£4mil, simpson £2.mil, hoillet £3.mil, philips 5mil thats 36 mil saved.

                        and let harry sign more of his old has beens then we are sorted. ahhhhhhh i see tony's plan now!
                        nsa/cia spy on this..............┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by SuperHoopNik View Post
                          We're spending more on wages than Borussia Dortmund..
                          WTF - you must be joking?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            am still in shock about this.

                            Tony fernandes, caterham cars, shyte! qpr, £177mil debt. call yourself a bussniess man? your a farking failure!

                            thankyou for farking up our club.

                            all tthats left to do is flog our home and pocket the money, build a new stadium and charge the club rent.

                            F U CK YOU FERNANDES!
                            nsa/cia spy on this..............┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Hitman34 View Post
                              am still in shock about this.

                              Tony fernandes, caterham cars, shyte! qpr, £177mil debt. call yourself a bussniess man? your a farking failure!

                              thankyou for farking up our club.

                              all tthats left to do is flog our home and pocket the money, build a new stadium and charge the club rent.

                              F U CK YOU FERNANDES!
                              I somehow sense you have a slightly negative attitude towards TF.
                              What can I say to change your opinion of him for the better?
                              What if he used to consult the IMF, surely that would deserve respect?
                              Banning people is no longer my hobby,
                              but take a look at my photo blog:

                              http://kirillqpr.blogspot.com/

                              How and why did I start supporting QPR in Estonia:
                              http://www.wearetherangersboys.com/forum/blog.php?b=852

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                This could/will take years to recover

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X