QPR FFP Fine

[angieram]

 

[Spanish]

38 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

I do find it funny that everyone who’s cheated in this way has managed to get promoted. Except 2. One of which being Forest. Even through cheating, they couldn’t manage it. 

think it was incompetence

[Gaspode]

My brother-in-law is a QPR fan - he sent me a link to this:

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/46804/coming-home-to-roost-–-column

A bit long-winded, but worth a read - almost (but not quite) feel sorry for their genuine fans....

[Bessie1]

20 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

My brother-in-law is a QPR fan - he sent me a link to this:

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/46804/coming-home-to-roost-–-column

A bit long-winded, but worth a read - almost (but not quite) feel sorry for their genuine fans....

Really interesting read - it's good to know that their rule-breaking has brought them nothing but misery. Great insights into 'Arry but most of all into Fernandez's ambitions to use QPR as a vehicle to promote globally his airline.

Had to chuckle at the bit about QPR being everyone's second favourite team - that's nonsense. They're disliked or disregarding by fans of other London teams, and nobody north of Watford could give a damn about them.

[Ewe Ram]

I enjoyed reading that. Not much love for Redknapp is there? I hope Mel cools their friendship. Signing 3 goal keepers costing over £150,000 a week?! Sounds like Harry. Also an insight into ‘top’ managers, they interview the club more than the other way around. Stick with Rowett I’d say. Also the big clubs buying up players only to snatch them away from the jaws of other clubs trying to offer them contracts. It’s corrupt but it goes far deeper than a few million quid in fines. 

[ramblur]

Interestingly,the gumps generated an exceptional gain of £17.686m in 15/16,and a quick look at their accounts shows that their write off appears in a line headed 'Other related parties'. This doesn't seem much different to the QPR situation ,but they seem to have passed FFP in that year.

[Wolfie]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

The QPR fine will go to charity. 

Surely the fine ought to go to the club who were wronged the most by their beastly cheating in that season. Who was it again that they beat in the playoff final, and who missed out on Premiership riches as a result?

[ramblur]

21 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Surely the fine ought to go to the club who were wronged the most by their beastly cheating in that season. Who was it again that they beat in the playoff final, and who missed out on Premiership riches as a result?

I suppose you could argue that the team finishing 7th could also feel cheated.If you took QPR out of the equation and pushed this team into the top 6,then anything could have happened in the lottery of the play offs.From what I remember,the original intention was to distribute all FFP fines to the compliant clubs,but this was scuppered by a legal challenge.

Nowadays,with the final year of the FFP cycle being based on projected accounts (in March,I think),there's the possibility of a points deduction in that year taking a club out of automatic promotion/taking it out of the top 6/relegating it,as the case may be. 

[cannable]

32 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Surely the fine ought to go to the club who were wronged the most by their beastly cheating in that season. Who was it again that they beat in the playoff final, and who missed out on Premiership riches as a result?

We’d only blow it in players we don’t need anyway 

[Ramshankered]

3 hours ago, Ewe Ram said:

I enjoyed reading that. Not much love for Redknapp is there? I hope Mel cools their friendship. Signing 3 goal keepers costing over £150,000 a week?! Sounds like Harry. Also an insight into ‘top’ managers, they interview the club more than the other way around. Stick with Rowett I’d say. Also the big clubs buying up players only to snatch them away from the jaws of other clubs trying to offer them contracts. It’s corrupt but it goes far deeper than a few million quid in fines. 

The keepers were signed by Hughes. Not that I wouldn't put it past Redknapp to make equally daft decisions.

[Ewe Ram]

4 hours ago, Ramshankered said:

The keepers were signed by Hughes. Not that I wouldn't put it past Redknapp to make equally daft decisions.

Sorry yes you’re right. 

[Will the Ram]

Harry can’t believe it:

 

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/queens-park-rangers/story/3243704/harry-redknapp-defends-qpr-after-multi-million-pound-ffp-fine

[Woodley Ram]

6 hours ago, Will the Ram said:

Harry can’t believe it:

 

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/queens-park-rangers/story/3243704/harry-redknapp-defends-qpr-after-multi-million-pound-ffp-fine

Unfortunately that seems be a harryism “ that’s not fair, I don’t do anything, not me Gov” 

i do have a soft spot for Mr R but he also makes me laugh ? 

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

Unfortunately that seems be a harryism “ that’s not fair, I don’t do anything, not me Gov” 

i do have a soft spot for Mr R but he also makes me laugh ? 

Lovable rogue; bojo? Mugabe?

[ramblur]

On 10/26/2017 at 12:48, ramblur said:

The amount was £12m,and as it happens it was the previous owners that cancelled the loan.I've revisited the 15/16 accounts and the sequence of events was as follows:-

When Mel took over the club on 1 September 2015,as part of the deal 'the beneficial ownership of the loan passed to North American Derby Partners LP',who then cancelled this loan on 29 June 2016.As NADP were no longer part of the ownership group at the time,this was therefore not a 'related party' transaction,and was effectively the cancellation of external debt,thus saving our bacon in terms of FFP.I apologise for not spotting this at the time,but I remember I was very ill then and didn't give my usual in depth analysis of the accounts.In retrospect,I wish I'd steered clear of it altogether.

Don't know why,but I get bad vibes about this as it all seems a bit contrived,but it seems to have passed FFP. The QPR fine will go to charity. 

Just read the Supporters Charter thread,and it made me realise I'd neglected to do the most important thing,viz sincerely apologise to Mel.Because I didn't read the 15/16 Directors' Report as thoroughly as I should have ,I failed to notice the date of the loan cancellation and had just assumed this had been part of the takeover.As a result of this I stated that we'd cancelled internal debt to generate income,whereas it was the cancellation of external debt.As a result of this I likened our activity to that of QPR,which was obviously not the case.

I don't intend to repeat this in the future.If I can't devote the time to do the job thoroughly,I either won't do it or wait until such time as I'm properly able,and thus avoid making damaging 'accusations'. I feel really bad about this.

As regards the final sentence of my post,you can scrap the 'bad vibes'. The passing of beneficial ownership of the loan to NADP was perfectly legitimate,and they were entitled to do whatever they liked with it when they became 'unrelated parties'.

[G STAR RAM]

11 hours ago, ramblur said:

Just read the Supporters Charter thread,and it made me realise I'd neglected to do the most important thing,viz sincerely apologise to Mel.Because I didn't read the 15/16 Directors' Report as thoroughly as I should have ,I failed to notice the date of the loan cancellation and had just assumed this had been part of the takeover.As a result of this I stated that we'd cancelled internal debt to generate income,whereas it was the cancellation of external debt.As a result of this I likened our activity to that of QPR,which was obviously not the case.

I don't intend to repeat this in the future.If I can't devote the time to do the job thoroughly,I either won't do it or wait until such time as I'm properly able,and thus avoid making damaging 'accusations'. I feel really bad about this.

As regards the final sentence of my post,you can scrap the 'bad vibes'. The passing of beneficial ownership of the loan to NADP was perfectly legitimate,and they were entitled to do whatever they liked with it when they became 'unrelated parties'.

What is the definition of related parties for FFP? 

[ramblur]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

What is the definition of related parties for FFP? 

If you look at the post of @Spanish on the second page,the definition is stated in section 2.2.1 of the rules.I'd love to know where you can see a full copy of the rules,as I've only ever been able to find guidelines.The chap who set up an FFP website,that I've mentioned before,was obviously working on the basis of guidelines as well.If I'd seen this 2.2.1 earlier,I'd never have suggested that QPR might not be breaking FFP rules.

At 29 June 2016,NADP had no interest in the club other than ownership of the loan,and were therefore not a related party (just as the Co-op Bank are owed £3m by us,but they aren't a related party).Both are examples of external debt.

Two things annoy me about my part in this:-

1) When I recently re-read the directors' report, I realised the significance of the date straight away.Being ill last April is no excuse whatsoever,as if I wasn't capable of doing the job properly,I should have kept my beak out.

2) I'd been aware of a similar situation years ago,in the 07/08 accounts,but failed to recall this.In that year we made a profit of £1.758m,and £8.882m of inter company (Gellaw) debt was waived. This waiver didn't impact P/L,but appeared in note 20 ' Reconciliation of movements in shareholders' funds'. The P/L figure was separately identified,as was the debt waiver,as was the 'gain' on the revaluation of PP.

This has been so very poor from me,and my negligence resulted in a comment damaging to the club. 

[needles]

On 29/10/2017 at 12:56, ramblur said:

If you look at the post of @Spanish on the second page,the definition is stated in section 2.2.1 of the rules.I'd love to know where you can see a full copy of the rules,as I've only ever been able to find guidelines.The chap who set up an FFP website,that I've mentioned before,was obviously working on the basis of guidelines as well.If I'd seen this 2.2.1 earlier,I'd never have suggested that QPR might not be breaking FFP rules.

At 29 June 2016,NADP had no interest in the club other than ownership of the loan,and were therefore not a related party (just as the Co-op Bank are owed £3m by us,but they aren't a related party).Both are examples of external debt.

Two things annoy me about my part in this:-

1) When I recently re-read the directors' report, I realised the significance of the date straight away.Being ill last April is no excuse whatsoever,as if I wasn't capable of doing the job properly,I should have kept my beak out.

2) I'd been aware of a similar situation years ago,in the 07/08 accounts,but failed to recall this.In that year we made a profit of £1.758m,and £8.882m of inter company (Gellaw) debt was waived. This waiver didn't impact P/L,but appeared in note 20 ' Reconciliation of movements in shareholders' funds'. The P/L figure was separately identified,as was the debt waiver,as was the 'gain' on the revaluation of PP.

This has been so very poor from me,and my negligence resulted in a comment damaging to the club. 

Don't beat yourself up Ramblur. Can't be easy to pick the bones out of what gets released without full context, and to be frank you can probably count on one hand the number of people on here who properly understand you anyway. Me most assuredly not amongst them.  

Keep up the good work pal.

[ramblur]

On 10/30/2017 at 22:57, needles said:

Don't beat yourself up Ramblur. Can't be easy to pick the bones out of what gets released without full context, and to be frank you can probably count on one hand the number of people on here who properly understand you anyway. Me most assuredly not amongst them.  

Keep up the good work pal.

Thanks mate.Whist I didn't have access to the full FFP rules when I made my QPR comment (and I only ever said might be ok) our 15/16 Directors' Report gave all the information required to work out that internal debt had been effectively converted into external debt,so no excuses there.I'd stress however that the exceptional income arising from the loan cancellation was used to boost our FFP figure.

When I first started posting on the DET all those years ago,when I thought the whole world was against me,I gradually began to realise that some were starting to accept what I was saying as reliable fact.It's the betrayal of that trust that hurts.Still,I console myself with the fact that I got a lot of it right over the years.Early doors in my DET posting,I put up a thread questioning whether (at the time) we had hidden debt,pointing out that both 'other creditors' and 'accruals and deferred income' had both shot up.As I couldn't prove anything,I quickly withdrew the post for the sake of myself and the forum.In later years Glick was to reveal the existence of the 'revolving loan',and that this had been brought out of deferred income and reclassed as debt (a noble move).In 14/15,at the time of the PP loan settlement,£3m was brought out of other creditors and reclassed as debt,so it turns out I'd been right on both counts.

At the other end of the spectrum,I've been saying for a long time that we'd need to make cuts next year,in the absence of promotion this year,and that also proves to be correct.In relation to your last sentence,I may look at 16/17 next April,but won't be churning anything out the day the accounts are released.I intend to check any difficult items several times,over the course of several different days,to make sure there are no more blunders.

Afraid I'll have to go off topic now,as I can't remember where I said I wouldn't be fielding questions on Sevco.I gave the example of a far higher loss (than given in the club's accounts) as something that could be answered in one line,but that the answer could lead to paragraphs.I now worry that this could raise concerns over hidden losses,so here goes:-

The reason for the heavier losses in the consolidated accounts is accounted purely (apart from a small amount) by the immediate write  down of £21.198m of goodwill arising from Mel buying out previous owners,so it's merely a paper transaction.

Some may know that goodwill arises when the purchaser pays more than the agreed net assets of the business,but it doesn't imply a profit for the vendor/s -that's a different calculation.Note 26 in the Sevco 5112 accounts,dealing with acquisition,gives fair NAV of £33.273m, with consideration of £43.049m being paid. At first glance,you'd imagine the goodwill to be £9.776m,but anyone looking at the accounts would notice a further line 'Share for share exchange' of £11.422m,which bumped the goodwill up to £21.198m,and I'll try and explain the reason below. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that NADP exchanged Global shares for Sevco shares,thus retaining an interest in the club -Mel didn't buy out the whole company,as he already owned 20%,and this £11.422m represents his own holding,including aggregate share premium (the aggregate amounts he paid over the nominal value of £1/share).

The Balance Sheet equation can be written as capital -= assets less liabilities (i.e. net assets),so we can substitute a couple of values:-

NAPD equity + Mel's £11.422m =£33.273m,and as with any equation,you can take something over to the other side and change the sign,  So NAPD equity (that which was acquired by Mel for £43.049m) =£33.273 -£11.422m =£21.851m.

Hence the goodwill is £43.049m -£21.851m =£21.198m,the amount that was written off to P/L.

For anyone who wants me to show how the previous owners fared in the deal,I'm afraid I'm not going to do so for 2 reasons:-

1) Both parties did/are doing good work for the club,and whilst they can't help figures getting into the public domain (over a number of years),it's not something that can be just read off somewhere,and it would take someone like me to do it.I doubt either would be too keen on it coming out on the world wide web,and from the previous investors' aspect,they'll no doubt have gone back to their respective parishes and put whatever gloss on the situation they saw fit. I'm not going to come out with anything that might (I don't know) go against anything they may have said.

Now,should anyone come along claiming to know how they fared,ask to know if they can show the following:-

1) The amount they paid for their initial 93% purchase,and where they got the info (it's a 'read off' figure)

2) How much they paid for AP's 7%,eventually,and where they got the info (not a read off,it involves 3 figures and accounting knowledge to make a calculation).

3)Their investments into the club,and where they got the figures.

If they can't do this,then it's pure guesswork.

Finally,if anyone without a good deal of experience has downloaded both Sevco 5112 and Sevco 5113,along with Global Derby,there are some massive paper transactions flying around,and it would be easy to draw false conclusions without knowing the nature of these.All most fans should need to know is that Mel's cash has bought equity in Derby County,and that the only external debt as at 30/6/16 was the £3m Co-op Bank loan.I can tell you that Mel's total investment (including original 20% holding +acquisition +vast amounts of cash invested0 is way over £100m,and rising.

[Phoenix]

It's all very well bashing the likes of 'arry, but surely the guys writing the cheques ought to say 'Hang on a minute'. To me, they're just as much, if not more, culpable as the managers.