By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 20:01 - Jun 19 by Esox_Lucius
One of the things FFP looks at is a fair market price for sponsorship deals. Man City & PSG were the first to be investigated for that.
Yep, but selling your ground to yourself for well over the asking price is OK judging by Derby's creative accounting, so I think he's on to something there. Get the owners to pay £100m for their Executive Box this season - BOOM!
I’m aware infrastructure investment is ring fenced / exempt from FFP considerations but....::
I do wonder just who is finding these greater crested nests etc at Warren Farm. I’m not convinced the club want to invest in a c£30mill scheme with Unknown’s and possible first round her sanctions hanging over them. Such a shame that three of the biggest opportunities in my lifetime in terms of club finances have been well and truly ballsed up. 1. Thompson not investing just before hideous riches were bestowed on the game at the top table. 2. Bungle getting the club instead of Mittal's and then going on an endless supermarket sweep and being left pantless 3. The return to the Prem via the play offs being met with another round of crazy spending
Didn’t realise just what a watershed season this one could be. Bring it!
Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal
Great work and thanks for putting the time and effort in Simon. I only hope that the facebook mob and twiterrati get to see and absorb the information before launching into their next attacks.
Oh hold on i see them demanding we sign Austin for 4M, Doh!
2
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 06:46 - Jun 20 with 5620 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 00:40 - Jun 20 by LythamR
Great work and thanks for putting the time and effort in Simon. I only hope that the facebook mob and twiterrati get to see and absorb the information before launching into their next attacks.
Oh hold on i see them demanding we sign Austin for 4M, Doh!
To play alongside Crouch.
The grass is always greener.
1
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 10:47 - Jun 20 with 5324 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 20:01 - Jun 19 by Esox_Lucius
One of the things FFP looks at is a fair market price for sponsorship deals. Man City & PSG were the first to be investigated for that.
Is that the UEFA FFP rather than the FL FFP? I assume they have probably got a similar clause but has anyone tested the FL, they seem happy with clubs selling grounds to get around FFP, so maybe they're easier to bypass?
0
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 16:29 - Jun 20 with 4936 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 10:47 - Jun 20 by QPR_Jim
Is that the UEFA FFP rather than the FL FFP? I assume they have probably got a similar clause but has anyone tested the FL, they seem happy with clubs selling grounds to get around FFP, so maybe they're easier to bypass?
it's a general accounting rule, so applies to all ffp.
it deals with related party transactions (ie where a company or individuals associated with the owners buys or sells stuff to the company). in the accounts, everything should be recorded at fair value. so even if air asia did pay £20bn for a box, the amount recorded in the books is revalued to say £5k, even though we received much more actual cash.
the aim is to stop accounts being made to look better than they are to trick investors into buying the company.
don't ask me about derby... i think i heard that the issue was that the ground was valued well below its market value in the books and so the sale at great profit got around the related party transactions by being at around market value.
0
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 19:15 - Jun 20 with 4760 views
I looked into Derby selling their stadium and it seems to be almost encouraged by the rules:
h) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets The profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets (including, but not limited to, a club’s stadium and training facilities) in a reporting period must be excluded from the break-even result with the following two exceptions:
i) If a tangible fixed asset other than a stadium or training facilities is not being replaced, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement can be taken into account as a relevant income up to:
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the historical cost of the asset which was recognised as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity;
ii) If a club demonstrates that it is replacing a sold fixed asset, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement can be taken into account as a relevant income up to: ï‚·
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the full cost of the replacement asset which is recognised, or to be recognised, as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity; ï‚·
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the present value of 50 years’ minimum lease payments in respect of the replacement asset to be used by the club under a lease/rental arrangement.
They sold their stadium for around £80 million and are leasing it back at around £1 million per season. That would mean that the 50 year lease back cost which needs to be applied would be about £50 million but can be discounted by about £10 million (you'll need a proper account to explain that), which means that they show a profit from selling it of £39.9 million which enabled them to show an overall profit of £14.6m as opposed to their loss in 2016/17 of £7.9m.
0
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 22:48 - Jun 20 with 4605 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 19:15 - Jun 20 by Roller
I looked into Derby selling their stadium and it seems to be almost encouraged by the rules:
h) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets The profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets (including, but not limited to, a club’s stadium and training facilities) in a reporting period must be excluded from the break-even result with the following two exceptions:
i) If a tangible fixed asset other than a stadium or training facilities is not being replaced, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement can be taken into account as a relevant income up to:
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the historical cost of the asset which was recognised as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity;
ii) If a club demonstrates that it is replacing a sold fixed asset, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement can be taken into account as a relevant income up to: ï‚·
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the full cost of the replacement asset which is recognised, or to be recognised, as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity; ï‚·
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the present value of 50 years’ minimum lease payments in respect of the replacement asset to be used by the club under a lease/rental arrangement.
They sold their stadium for around £80 million and are leasing it back at around £1 million per season. That would mean that the 50 year lease back cost which needs to be applied would be about £50 million but can be discounted by about £10 million (you'll need a proper account to explain that), which means that they show a profit from selling it of £39.9 million which enabled them to show an overall profit of £14.6m as opposed to their loss in 2016/17 of £7.9m.
Villa and Sheff Wed have apparently done similar with less publicity,
0
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 05:05 - Jun 21 with 4473 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 05:44 - Jun 21 by superhoopdownunder
Based on this I have a couple of questions
How much is Loftus Road valued at in our books? What would it really be worth?
If the numbers add up - why don't we do what Derby and others (Villa and Sheff Wed) have done?
Perhaps because the owners don't want to?
I think they feel they have "invested" more than enough cash into Queens Park Rangers.
I may be wrong, but I think that money from a sale would have to be transferred to the club's bank account rather than it just being a transaction on paper. Simon or others may know if this is the case?
[Post edited 21 Jun 2019 6:56]
0
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 06:54 - Jun 21 with 4437 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 05:44 - Jun 21 by superhoopdownunder
Based on this I have a couple of questions
How much is Loftus Road valued at in our books? What would it really be worth?
If the numbers add up - why don't we do what Derby and others (Villa and Sheff Wed) have done?
the last set of accounts valued all the land and buildings held (not clear whether this includes warren farm and/or harlesden etc) as £17.136m. no idea what the current market value of loftus road would be - i think the old bbc tv centre went for about £200m a few years back, so possibly a bit more than £17m.
i don't think the cash would need to be paid all at once... it's quite common for large sums to be paid in installments over a number of years (this is usually what happens with transfer fees for example). the sale would need to be supported by a legally enforced contract that genuinely transfers ownership.
by the way... i think it would be a terrible idea to go down this road.
1
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 10:48 - Jun 21 with 4214 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 10:48 - Jun 21 by JAPRANGERS
I found the article interesting but difficult for me brain to understand.
No your not stupid and at least you make the effort to read and try and grasp the situation. You probably need to be a fully qualified accountant to understand all of it! The club has made efforts to try and educate us all too, with Lee Hoos's video briefs.
The twiterati etc don't even bother to try and keep up.
1
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 11:48 - Jun 21 with 4138 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 10:01 - Jun 21 by klonk
the last set of accounts valued all the land and buildings held (not clear whether this includes warren farm and/or harlesden etc) as £17.136m. no idea what the current market value of loftus road would be - i think the old bbc tv centre went for about £200m a few years back, so possibly a bit more than £17m.
i don't think the cash would need to be paid all at once... it's quite common for large sums to be paid in installments over a number of years (this is usually what happens with transfer fees for example). the sale would need to be supported by a legally enforced contract that genuinely transfers ownership.
by the way... i think it would be a terrible idea to go down this road.
The value of LR very much depends on what will be built there. I would find it hard to believe that we would actually sell that land to anyone. I think the Board will create a development vehicle and re-develop the site (probably high-end residential) and take the best yield they can on the development. I am not a planning officer but I could envisage two high-end residential blocks with other associated facilities that could well give a return in excess of £50M.
0
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 12:21 - Jun 21 with 4081 views
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 19:15 - Jun 20 by Roller
I looked into Derby selling their stadium and it seems to be almost encouraged by the rules:
h) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets The profit on disposal of tangible fixed assets (including, but not limited to, a club’s stadium and training facilities) in a reporting period must be excluded from the break-even result with the following two exceptions:
i) If a tangible fixed asset other than a stadium or training facilities is not being replaced, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement can be taken into account as a relevant income up to:
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the historical cost of the asset which was recognised as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity;
ii) If a club demonstrates that it is replacing a sold fixed asset, then the profit on disposal recognised in the income statement can be taken into account as a relevant income up to: ï‚·
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the full cost of the replacement asset which is recognised, or to be recognised, as a tangible fixed asset in the financial statements of the reporting entity; ï‚·
the difference between the proceeds on disposal and the present value of 50 years’ minimum lease payments in respect of the replacement asset to be used by the club under a lease/rental arrangement.
They sold their stadium for around £80 million and are leasing it back at around £1 million per season. That would mean that the 50 year lease back cost which needs to be applied would be about £50 million but can be discounted by about £10 million (you'll need a proper account to explain that), which means that they show a profit from selling it of £39.9 million which enabled them to show an overall profit of £14.6m as opposed to their loss in 2016/17 of £7.9m.
Still more than a little bent and suspect.
Taking a stadium out of the club's ownership and saddling them with £1m per year in its place cannot be "sustaining" the club's existence; quite the opposite.
The Spygate farce that Leeds were sanctioned for transgressed the "gentlemanly" conduct rules the EFL apparently hold so dear. To my mind, this is also a pee take that is not very "gentlemanly" to the rules or to other clubs...
I hope that Derby get the book thrown at them on a technicality, but I won't hold my breath...
Tough battle ahead in ongoing war with FFP - Column on 11:48 - Jun 21 by BostonR
The value of LR very much depends on what will be built there. I would find it hard to believe that we would actually sell that land to anyone. I think the Board will create a development vehicle and re-develop the site (probably high-end residential) and take the best yield they can on the development. I am not a planning officer but I could envisage two high-end residential blocks with other associated facilities that could well give a return in excess of £50M.
I am not an expert, but the way they squeeze buildings in to spaces and the price property in West London could achieve, would lead me to believe that there's more money in that sitwe than £50m...
I found the article interesting but difficult for me brain to understand. 
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.