Educate me…

[QPROslo]

What puzzles me is how can Millwall, same gates or less than us, in London and yet they are streets above us at moment financially and improved their squad with couple of players who can't have come cheap. Don't think they've sold anyone recently to bring in money. Although I did see somewhere that they have about 40 less staff than us which would obviously help.

Here is a comparison between QPR and Millwall based on last sets of accounts (21/22):

2021/2022
					Millwall		QPR
Matchday revenue					5 786		5 606
Broadcasting rights					9 142		9 185
Commercial income					3 665		6 145
Other income					1 327		1 188
Total revenue (sum of above)					19 920		22 124
Staff costs					-22 316		-29 505
Profit/loss on player registration/amortizan					-1 877		-3 329
Depreciation property, plant, equipment					-854		-1 349
Other/administrative expenses					-6 618		-11 953
Finance costs					-852		-655
Loss					-12 597		-24 667
Number of staff					155		191
Out of which are players, managers, coahes					105		136

Millwall lost £12,6m, we lost £24,7m. That is a huge difference.

As you can see, match day and broadcasting revenue are very similar. We have somewhat higher commercial income (i.e., sponsoring + supporter shop sales), giving us ca £2m higher total revenue.

We have higher salary costs based on higher number of staff and probably higher average player salaries - £7m more than Millwall. We have also larger costs (ca £1.5m) connected to losses and amortization of player contracts. That is transfer fees and sign-on fees that are spread over the duration of the contract period plus any losses when disposing off players before end of contract. You are right that Millwall has ca 40 fewer members of staff (155 vs 191), out of which the difference in number of players counts for 30.

Another reason for the huge deviation is other/administrative costs, which is £5m higher than Millwall. Some of is probably connected to cost of goods for the supporter shop, as we have £2.5m higher commercial income than Millwall. Exactly what the the rest of the deviation of other/administrative costs are is hard to read from the accounts.

But basically, the differences are predominantly down to more salary costs, partly due to higher salaries for top end players (Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Barbet, Wallace) and some higher administrative costs.

[Undecided]

Good job, as always, Olso

[Boo Radley]

Seems the £39m badly needs adjusting for inflation over the past 3 years, must be edging 20%.

realistically the adjusted inflation figure should be nearer £45M over a rolling 3 year period .

Booooooooooo

[knocker]

Here is a comparison between QPR and Millwall based on last sets of accounts (21/22):

2021/2022
					Millwall		QPR
Matchday revenue					5 786		5 606
Broadcasting rights					9 142		9 185
Commercial income					3 665		6 145
Other income					1 327		1 188
Total revenue (sum of above)					19 920		22 124
Staff costs					-22 316		-29 505
Profit/loss on player registration/amortizan					-1 877		-3 329
Depreciation property, plant, equipment					-854		-1 349
Other/administrative expenses					-6 618		-11 953
Finance costs					-852		-655
Loss					-12 597		-24 667
Number of staff					155		191
Out of which are players, managers, coahes					105		136

Millwall lost £12,6m, we lost £24,7m. That is a huge difference.

As you can see, match day and broadcasting revenue are very similar. We have somewhat higher commercial income (i.e., sponsoring + supporter shop sales), giving us ca £2m higher total revenue.

We have higher salary costs based on higher number of staff and probably higher average player salaries - £7m more than Millwall. We have also larger costs (ca £1.5m) connected to losses and amortization of player contracts. That is transfer fees and sign-on fees that are spread over the duration of the contract period plus any losses when disposing off players before end of contract. You are right that Millwall has ca 40 fewer members of staff (155 vs 191), out of which the difference in number of players counts for 30.

Another reason for the huge deviation is other/administrative costs, which is £5m higher than Millwall. Some of is probably connected to cost of goods for the supporter shop, as we have £2.5m higher commercial income than Millwall. Exactly what the the rest of the deviation of other/administrative costs are is hard to read from the accounts.

But basically, the differences are predominantly down to more salary costs, partly due to higher salaries for top end players (Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Barbet, Wallace) and some higher administrative costs.

Thanks for that. Wonder why we need 40 more staff than millwall.

[Dono77]

The sicknotes need 3 or 4 people just to look after them. Then the rest of the squad need to have another set of medical staff. We have about 5 coaches that are involved with our so called development squad which had yet to develop one single first teamer. Great work if you can get it.

Hall, impey, Hyde, Ramsey, furlong all coaching at the club but none one can actually tell you what the outcome of their input has been!!

[Spencer]

Thanks for that. Wonder why we need 40 more staff than millwall.

Exactly - if you check out other clubs in same position, they are bringing in loan players that are hungry and want to play.
Hendricks is a good example , waste of time and money for us and last season Roberts / Richards / always injured . Laird wasn't cheap and then you sing players like Amos JCS FFS who play one game ( if that - out for 6). Sure i've missed a few.
We then sign Richards, who im sure is a good player.. but looks to be another sicknote

We let Materston go , turn Dickie in to s.t player( watch him play for Bristol) Balogun etc... leaving us with Dunne and JCS as the only two centre backs we have.
Dunne gets injured and JCS.....leaving us with no centre backs a week or so to season starts.

Poor old Fox will get slaughtered by the fans and I expect we will have to play Gubbins

So Basically , who ever recruits our staff should be sacked and we have more of them

[SheepRanger]

The sicknotes need 3 or 4 people just to look after them. Then the rest of the squad need to have another set of medical staff. We have about 5 coaches that are involved with our so called development squad which had yet to develop one single first teamer. Great work if you can get it.

Hall, impey, Hyde, Ramsey, furlong all coaching at the club but none one can actually tell you what the outcome of their input has been!!

Talks a good game though.....

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11711/12932209/paul-hall-interview-qpr-coach-on-jamaica-job-and-developing-players-for-pep-guardiola-and-neil-warnock

[Dono77]

Its easy to talk when he's in a cushy job with no pressure. The only coach under pressure is GA. He is only one who can be sacked. All the others have a great life. Putting cones out and know their job is safe.

[Sleeping Giants]

We have 136 players managers or coaches, omg!

[QPROslo]

When we study the accounts and look at number of staff, we might be at risk of drawing some wrong conclusions. One such wrong conclusion is that we are getting in trouble with FFP because we have too many academy coaches and other staff members connected to the academy, and many academy players, leading to high costs.

What we need to be aware of is that all costs for the academy, whether football coaches, speed and fitness coaches, sport nutritionists, physiotherapists, psychologists, teachers to help with school work, kit managers or tea ladies and bus drivers, are exempt from the FFP calculations.

For owners with lots of money to spend, but hindered by FFP restrictions, investing in the academy is a no-brainer. Why: Because none of the costs count towards FFP. But any revenue coming from sale of players developed through the academy, like Eze and potentially Chair, contribute to revenue that is counting for FFP purposes. Hence, skipping an academy is potentially causing serious self harm to the economy of the club.

Our owners have invested in a first class training complex. I think they want to qualify for an Category 1 academy. To be Category 1 requires a lot of staff and a super professional environment. I think the club is doing a lot of things right in that respect. However, being in London, with lots of PL clubs around us, is demanding. If we have a hot young prospect, it is very easy for a PL club to snap him up. However, having top notch facilities, Category 1 status and an amazing environment to thrive in gives us a much better chance to hold on to the most talented players. Knowing that academy costs do not restrict the club financially in any way, but rather the opposite, should encourage us as fans to back these immense investments the owners are undertaking.

I cannot judge whether we have the best academy coaches. Given the fact we have produced very few home grown players, I suspect there are better coaches out there. I think the new facilities will not only make it easier to keep the most talented players, but also to recruit the best coaches. They are not always British. There are fantastic coaches from Portugal, Spain, France and other good footballing nations.

My message is: Do not think an ambitious academy set up is a draw back and something that is a concern from a financial point of view. It is a huge asset.

I hope we get a world class DOF to run our club. The right DOF can have a significant impact on the future development of the club. Many other clubs succeed with their academies and it is no reason QPR cannot start producing lots of young players. I think one of the first things a new DOF will look at is the quality of academy coaches, trying to find out if we have a set of coaches that match the fantastic facilities.

It is difficult to imagine a successful future without it, so we have to get behind this push for a top notch academy.

[Harrow QPR]

In my opinion all of our academy coaches seem to be crap but they fit the criteria for BAME .
What a load of ###### , if a coach or manager is good enough it shouldn't matter what their ethnicity is. Fernandes , Les and his cronies have used our club to push their own agenda.
Glad they've gone now we need the rest of them out and only employ people that are good enough and not based on their ethnicity.

[MINCER]

In short, here is a summary:

1. A club can only lose maximum £39m in a running three years period for FFP purposes. Certain costs are exempt when calculating the FFP loss. That is academy football, women football, and any depreciation on stadium and training facilities

2. QPR lost ca £25m, in 2021/22, the first of the three seasons in the present three years period. That year our income was ca £22m and out costs ca £47m. Most of the costs were linked to salaries. Even though we did not pay a lot for our aquisitions, we had many costly players such as Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Johansen, Wallace, Barbet etc, and we paid significant loan fees and agent fees. While the loss in the public accounts is known, outsiders do not know exactly which amount is exempt from FFP, other than depreciation, which can be read from the account. A fair estimate is £19-20m loss for FFP purposes, based on what we assume the academy and woman football cost.

3. Since we spent ca £19-20m out of £39m in year one of the present three years period, which is around 50%, we had to cut considerably in 2022/23 to avoid a drastic cut in this coming season. But we did not. Yes, we got rid of the some high earners in Austin, Gray, Hendricks, Barbet and Wallace, but we signed many new players, of which some were not cheap: Richards, Roberts, Balogun, Clarke-Salters, Paal, Laird, Iroegbunam, Lowe, Martin. We might have saved a few million, but I estimate our FFP loss was at best £15m. We do not know this amount - we can only assume it, looking at player salaries as listed on Transfer Markt and other sources, and making assumptions. Gate receipt and sponsorship are small in comparison to salaries and changes in the areas have limited effect on total losses. TV receipt can fluctuate a bit, but I do not think the differences between the two seasons were great and it was the same contractual period with the same basic payment from Sky.

4. Ahead of this season, we looked back on spending of upwards to £35m (FFP calculations) during the last two years, meaning there is only a tiny room for further losses if we shall stay inside the £39m threshold. If that is £4m, it means we have to close the gap compared to a estimated loss of £15m last year by cutting costs or sell players. If the figures are correct we need to improve by £11m. So far we have only sold for around £2.75m. We have got rid of 12 outfield players of which Dickie, Balogon, Laird, Iroegbunam, Amos, Johansen, Roberts, Lowe and Martin give us as significant saving, but possibly not enough. If we do not sell more players we are probably breaching FFP. There is still a chance to sell saleable players until end of August and during the January window.

5. However, right now, there is no room to sign new players before we cash in by selling Chair. I think sales of Willock and Field won't be enough to allow significant more spending. It is simply just what we need to comply with FFP.

6. To summarize the case: We have modest income (£22m in the last accounts) and even if we do not buy expensive players, the total salary for 100+ players and staff is a lot, and lead to losses. Because we were reckless with our spending in both 21/22, and 22/23, we are now in a desperate situation. This was clear as day light in February, when the 21/22 accounts were published. Nothing comes as a surprise this summer.

7. Terminating the contract of Johansen probably saves us £6-8k a week and was not a bad decision. It was the signing of Johansen that was a mistake - we could not afford him, simple as that.

8. The gambling in 21/22 was based on an expectation that we had saleable assets that would fill the gap. At that time the owners thought Willock, Chair, Dickie and Dieng were worth £30m+, and were easy to sell. Hence, it did not look like a big gamble at the time. Knowing what we know now, it was irresponsible. The most disappointing thing is that we did not start cost cutting last summer. To sell players we depend on interested club willing to buy them. As there were no interest in Willock, Chair & all last summer, we should not have gone on to sign Roberts, Richards, Balogun etc.

9. Behind all the problems is one simple thing: For clubs like QPR to flourish, we depend on an ability to develop and sell young talent. Over the last 8 years we have just had one successful sale (Eze). That is the core of our problem. If we had sold for £5m every year (with the same costs) the picture would look dramatically different. One way to put it is that the source of our problems isn't high level of costs relative to other clubs in the division. It is low income.

Another question from me again about our FFP accounts QPROslo

You have previously quoted our last two loss figures in the three year FFP cycle, I.e £4.5m when Eze was sold and £24.7m in the most recent figures.

Do you know what the losses were in the previous season to the Eze sale?

[SheepRanger]

Another question from me again about our FFP accounts QPROslo

You have previously quoted our last two loss figures in the three year FFP cycle, I.e £4.5m when Eze was sold and £24.7m in the most recent figures.

Do you know what the losses were in the previous season to the Eze sale?

31/5/20 - £16.4m
31/5/19 - £10.4m

[MINCER]

31/5/20 - £16.4m
31/5/19 - £10.4m

Thanks for that SheepRanger, but unless I’m getting my years mixed up again, I’m still struggling to get my head around comparing loss figures of past years to year 21 when the club went big in the transfer market on Dykes, Bonne, Amos and the Vice man.

I do accept salaries spiralling out of control do generally account for where we now find ourselves.

[SheepRanger]

Thanks for that SheepRanger, but unless I’m getting my years mixed up again, I’m still struggling to get my head around comparing loss figures of past years to year 21 when the club went big in the transfer market on Dykes, Bonne, Amos and the Vice man.

I do accept salaries spiralling out of control do generally account for where we now find ourselves.

The summary pages in the accounts may help if you open up the pdfs

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03197756/filing-history