jammie82uk Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 QPR have announced losses of just under £10m. So if the above grid is right that davieg posted qpr are due a transfers ban and a fine from the football league if/when they get relegated
MooseBreath Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 They've been promoted so they'll only get a fine. The transfer ban only applies to clubs who don't get promoted. The fine will be small too, as they're only £2m above the permitted losses. The power of parachute payments right there.
Babylon Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 QPR have announced losses of just under £10m. Creative accounting at its finest.
Tommy G Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Expect some kind of i nvestiagtion into those numbers. Are they published audited accounts or just a preliminery set. Wonder who thr auditors are! p.s some people make me laugh about the role of an FD compared to a DofF
shade Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Expect some kind of i nvestiagtion into those numbers. Are they published audited accounts or just a preliminery set. Wonder who thr auditors are! p.s some people make me laugh about the role of an FD compared to a DofF quiet please, i nvestiagtion in progress.
st albans fox Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Creative accounting at its finest. Wow - imagine how big our profits are going to be ? (Assuming we have used the same accountants) Seriously, I suspect they loaded a lot of bad news Into last years accounts when they knew they reflected the previous PL season and wouldn't count against them in the championship.
MooseBreath Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Hopefully our accounts will be out tomorrow then. They were reported on the Tuesday last year as well.
BoyJones Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 In recent years its been around the 4th March, so let's wait to see if Mrs Whelan's confidence that we would be okay is justified or bull.
C-man Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Mercury saying it will be tomorrow and within the 'permitted' £13m loss, presumably extended to take account of youth academy expenditure etc. Good news if true but makes a mockery of the rules.
davieG Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Leicester City set to confirm financial losses were within rules By I_Griffin | Posted: March 02, 2015 Leicester City chairman Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, left, and Vice chairman Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha with the Championship trophy last May Comments (0)Leicester City are expected to confirm on Tuesday that they will not be hit by a huge fine for breaching rules over the amount of financial losses they were allowed to make last season. Reports late last year suggested the club was braced for a fine, which could be as high as £20 million, for over-spending during last year’s Championship title charge. However, the Mercury understands City’s finances for 2013-14, which were made known to football authorities in December last year, are compliant with the Financial Fair Play (FFP) rulings. FFP rules introduced by the Football League stated Championship clubs could make a loss of no more than £8 million in 2013-14 or face a fine or a ban on player transfers. However, it is understood City were effectively allowed to make a £13 million loss in the year to May 2014 and still comply with these rules. This is because the rules do not include costs relating to the youth academy and various one-off payments. The club made losses of £34 million in the 2012-13 season, following what had been a record deficit of £29.7 million the previous year. The increased losses were blamed on a fall in match receipts, sales of merchandise and the value of sponsorship deals. It was revealed in December 2013 the club’s Thai owners, the Srivaddhanaprabha family, had wiped out debts of £103 million after converting them into shares. The only debt owed by City at the end of the 2012-13 season was the £16 million loan used by one of the owners’ companies to buy the stadium in early 2013. Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-City-set-confirm-financial-losses-rules/story-26107291-detail/story.html?#ixzz3TG5pPtCh Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook
MooseBreath Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Mercury saying it will be tomorrow and within the 'permitted' £13m loss, presumably extended to take account of youth academy expenditure etc. Good news if true but makes a mockery of the rules. If we're within the limit then we're within the limit. Don't see how it makes a mockery of the rules. Great work by all concerned and finally puts to bed the "big spending Leicester" tag.
Ross-Kemp Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 QPR's shareholders have effectively written off £60m of debt owed to them.
st albans fox Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 QPR's shareholders have effectively written off £60m of debt owed to them. On the face of it, is that really any different to converting loans to equity? The difference being that our loans related to debt from previous seasons whereas theirs is likely debt from the period to which the accounts relate. The football league will not want an expensive court case. Expect them to 'blink first' and offer Fernandes a fine of a few mill which he will take. (If relegated. If not then I expect he'll continue to stall in lawyer land)
Deucalion Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 Finally some positive news. At least we start next season in a strong position.
sylofox Posted 2 March 2015 Posted 2 March 2015 On the face of it, is that really any different to converting loans to equity? The difference being that our loans related to debt from previous seasons whereas theirs is likely debt from the period to which the accounts relate. The football league will not want an expensive court case. Expect them to 'blink first' and offer Fernandes a fine of a few mill which he will take. (If relegated. If not then I expect he'll continue to stall in lawyer land) Qpr can try what they like they will not win, The FL have the right to refuse there application to re join the league whenever relegated. He can not take that to court as they have the right to refuse anyone they want to for any reason.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.