Author Message

INDEPENDENT Rs | The Board Room : New £27m loan for QPR

Post new topic  Reply to topic

PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:31 pm Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:57 amPosts: 471
Very interesting indeed, English at the bottom...

http://www.fotballsonen.com/qpr-med-nytt-banklan/



_________________
04/01/92 The Dell - First QPR game I ever attended. In love ever since. @RuislipR
Offline Profile
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:40 pm Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:10 pmPosts: 10788Location: W12 now South Harrow
Good spot Steve...hummmnn another loan, yes, very interesting.


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:42 pm Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:57 amPosts: 471
From the club - rapid rebuttal unit in full swing!

Please see below comment from a club spokesperson regarding the new £27m loan …

'As an extension of our relationship with Barclays and following an initial loan last year, which has now been repaid in full, the club has agreed a second loan. As with the previous loan, this demonstrates the clear backing banks want to give our shareholders and the future long-term plans for the club. The loan is personally guaranteed in full by the club's shareholders, who remain wholly committed to the club's short, medium & long-term objectives'



_________________
04/01/92 The Dell - First QPR game I ever attended. In love ever since. @RuislipR
Offline Profile
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:26 am Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:23 pmPosts: 3518Location: Running down the Uxbridge Road...
The really frightening part of that article is " total debt of £180.7 MILLION."



_________________
Like & share this, or a unicorn dies
Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:01 pm Reply with quote
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:07 pmPosts: 769
What is even scarier is that Fernandes reckons the £180 million is 'stadium related'.

He can't mean Loftus Road, so he must mean the new Ground. But how can £180 million spent on players be 'stadium related'? It can't be secured against the new Ground, because a non-existent asset isn't security for anything.

On the other hand, Fernandes HAS now run up total losses close to the £200 million cost of the new stadium, according to the accounts.

That is interesting.

And the debt will be even more assuming that losses this season will be at least what they were with a far less expensive squad when we went up with Warnock.

So maybe 'stadium related' means they are playing the same game as the Olympics organisation played with the Olympic Stadium. Getting the taxpayer committed, pushing up the price astronomically once the public money couldn't be pulled out, then announcing that it was useless after all, and would need a ...

... football club. Surprise, surprise.

To make it viable. And, of course, a very expensive remodelling at the taxpayer's expense.

Telling the West Ham supporters that they would have to leave Upton Park because of the huge losses run up on West Ham's account by the losers who were running the Club.

Strange that Fernandes fancied that one too, isn't it? Or is it?

Now he can tell the supporters at QPR the Club is a basket case - looks at all the money I have lost in QPR's accounts - while, in the same breath, telling us - and the taxpayer? - that a football club is the only way they will get their money back.

Not from the people responsible. But from the football club.

So QPR will move into the new Ground, which it will have to pay for, but from which it will earn nothing. Because the government and the mayor must appease the taxpayers who would otherwise have to foot the bill.

Well, yes, that fits with what Fernandes is telling us. And it would explain how THESE losses can be 'stadium related', but end up in QPR's accounts, not Tune's, or Mittal's, or Fernandes's, or whoever will actually own and benefit from the new Ground.

That DOES make sense.

Curiously, the debt is also described as being secured against the parachute payments.

But hasn't he lost almost the ENTIRE parachute payments money already?

With this season's loss, assuming it is at least the £23 million lost in the Warnock promotion season. And the extra £27 million debt just announced.

That's £50 million, and parachute payments are only £60 million over four seasons.

He must have lost almost £200 million HIMSELF. That's more than six times the entire debt run up between 1987 and 2012 - a quarter of a century.

To provide QPR, not with the Premiership title, but with the worst top flight squad the Club has ever had. One that isn't even positioned to win automatic promotion from the second tier with 7 matches left.


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:49 pm Reply with quote
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:04 amPosts: 57
We will have to try that one ourselves all of us, go down your bank, ask to see the manager, then ask him to lend you a few million, of course he will think one to many Jamaican woodbines have been consumed, then he will ask how on gods earth you plan to pay it back, when you say i have an asset that doesn't exist let me know what his reply was :)


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:47 am Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:26 amPosts: 2330Location: Walkden Manchester
I still reckon we should have gone to Wonga to fund our coffers...straight talking money no questions asked...and we can keep on rolling over the debt for ever more :wink:

On a serious note ANY DEBT is OK as long as you can service it....but its not easy to see how QPR FC can manage theirs.

The mind boggles.



_________________
R's Loyalist....Three Horseshoes on my shirt
Offline Profile
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:45 pm Reply with quote
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 10:44 amPosts: 262
Is there any update on the £180 million?
That's more than Charlie Austin is worth.


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:24 am Reply with quote
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:20 amPosts: 322
The rates at Wonga look very reasonable...............................................Fact: borrowing £100 at Wonga’s APR costs more than the US national debt (over $14 trillion) after 7 years!


Borrow £100 and make no repayments
After 1 year Owe £4,200
After 2 years Owe £180,000
After 3 years Owe £7,500,000 (£7 million)
After 4 years Owe £315,000,000 (£315 million)
After 5 years Owe £13,000,000,000 (£13 billion)
After 6 years Owe £557,000,000,000 (£557 billion)
After 7 years Owe £23,500,000,000,000 (£23.5 trillion).......... :shock:
Where do we sign up ? :lol:
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:55 am Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:23 pmPosts: 3518Location: Running down the Uxbridge Road...
Walshy son...don't bother applying for Philip Beard's old job :wink:



_________________
Like & share this, or a unicorn dies
Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:13 am Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:26 amPosts: 2330Location: Walkden Manchester
Walshy.... Steve

Hmm. Shall we reconsider fresh terms with ABC?



_________________
R's Loyalist....Three Horseshoes on my shirt
Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:47 pm Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:52 pmPosts: 10956Location: North London
I really do not get it and i know i am thick but we get loans Directors write off debts which i think must then become loans.
Then you see our debt at that figure of 180m you kind of worry



_________________
"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow."

In these trembling hands my faith
Offline Profile
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:00 pm Reply with quote
User avatarJoined: Tue May 20, 2014 1:21 pmPosts: 149
I dunno Finney, its gone past a worrying stage. I mean if I owe the bank 50k its my problem. If I owe them 5M then its their problem!


Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:49 pm Reply with quote
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:07 pmPosts: 769
The impression is often given that football club debts don't really matter, but if that is so, why didn't we go on spending at the rate that took losses up to £200 million or so? And keep on doing it until we hit on the right combination of manager and players?

Far from doing anything of the kind, we're talked of now - especially by our own supporters - as if we're not a big spending club at all. Our signings certainly don't match the big talk from Bhatia who spoke of us in terms of 'the Champions League' and Fernandes's comment about 'world class talent'.

The kind of player we're signing hardly amounts to world class talent, or that we're on our way to the Champions League. But if it didn't matter, the Club wouldn't have the debt in the first place. If losses on that scale really don't matter, why hasn't Fernandes taken them on, especially as he is the person responsible for them?

The Premiership brings in so much money these days that we might be forgiven for thinking that a Club's finances would improve as a result. But if you don't know what you're doing, the scale of the potential disaster - and resulting losses - is simply that much greater.

As far as I can see, the string of disastrous decisions arose because they started with completely false assumptions.

That QPR is too small, too unsuccessful, too underfinanced. It is not. That is not a shortcoming. It is what the Club is, BECAUSE of people like the present Board. Who seem incapable of living in the real world, and taking the Club as the Club it is, of the size it is, with the finances and support it has.

And STARTING FROM THERE. Not by making endless meaningless announcements about imaginary grounds, imaginary support, spending money the Club hasn't yet earned on players who never got close to earning what they were paid.

But by learning the game. And FINDING OUT how 'easy' it is to increase the Club's support and consequent finances by improving performances and results on and off the pitch.

Not by deciding in advance how big we'll be, how much money we'll spend, that we'll be world class and in the champions league, but letting our talent - our REAL talent, or the lack of it - do the talking by spending whatever money the Club actually has, on players who are actually worth what they're paid.

If the Club is small, short of money and resources, surely that is the MEASURE of the TALENT of the people RUNNING THE CLUB down the ages, i.e. that THEY are where the Club's problems lie.

Not the other way around. QPR hasn't lost the Chairman's money, he lost QPR's, that is why we're in debt. And QPR didn't make bad decisions concerning his business and activities. He and his predecessors made bad decisions concerning QPR's.

QPR isn't the problem.

THEY are.


Last edited by Ingham1 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline Profile
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:49 pm Reply with quote
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:07 pmPosts: 769
:D


Last edited by Ingham1 on Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline Profile

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:

All times are UTC [ DST ]
Page 1 of 2
18 posts
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Search for:
Post new topic  Reply to topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum