Accounts

[vespa]

proper scarey reading ,all us realists knew the garden was far from rosy ,but hopefully not that bad

[klonk]

So i take it even with that 60 mil write off of debt, we are still worse off compared to the previous year.

200 mil for our little club is farking shocking.........

tony, best chairman in the league, wouldnt swap him with anyone else, one of us, rightsort etc etc...

a bumbling tw at is what he is.

ach... it's all a question of risk.

honestly hits... we're about the same after the write-off. as well as taking a hit, the board have taken a gamble... but unless the can find anyone else daft enough to pick up their gamble and roll with it, then they are stuck with it. in all honesty, most entrepreneurs can't deal with the bad publicity of sending a club into bankruptcy and, i reckon, our current owners are less likely to do that than previous owners would be.

things genuinely appear to be being put in order. that is a good thing regardless of the reasons behind that (it can be that lesson have been learnt... but it can be that they are cutting losses, for ow, i'll be generous and believe the 'lessons learnt' narrative.

[dsqpr]

Yes, very scary reading indeed. We are living so far beyond our means it is ridiculous.

Items that jumped out at me:

"Ticketing Revenue": £5.6m (£8.3m in 2013)
"Broadcasting Rights": £28.1m (£42.7m in 2013)
"Sponsorship & Advertising": £1.1m (£5.1m in 2013)
"Commercial Income": £3.4m (£3.6m in 2013)

"Total Payroll Costs": £75.4m (£78.0m in 2013)

"Operating Loss": £65.3m (£65.7m in 2013)

Essentially, we are spending £75.4m on payroll (our main expense) and losing around £65m per year. Which means to me that we can afford only a £10m payroll, which would not keep us in the Premier League!

I'm sure the Board have a plan to substantially increase revenue to make the whole thing work but £65m per year is quite a hit. I suspect that number will be better for the accounts to May 2015 but I have to wonder how long our owners can continue to fund such massive losses.

[QPR Richard]

There's several areas that should improve. Ticketing revenue, broadcasting rights, and sponsorship should add another £22m as in 2013.

This is a reason why a new stadium is a must and why we need to stay in the prem. Commercial income is an area that needs improving, along with ticketing income and sponsorship. There's also more money in the new TV deal.

I suppose the board are looking at ways to improve revenue streams and the new stadium is key to the future of the club. To those who oppose the the new stadium, consider how revenue can be increased hugely with bigger commercial deals, bigger gate receipts, which also bring bigger sponsorship deals. The board are probably taking a short term hit knowing the new stadium will bring in more money in the long term.

[Stanley]

astonishingly, the club had 112 employees described as 'players, managers, coaches and support staff' (to be clear... that's playing staff, not admin staff, not commercial and marketing staff, not ground staff)

I suspect that is explained by the coaching staff at all levels being considerably increased over the last 2 years. This list never used to be so long, particularly academy staff: http://www.qpr.co.uk/club/

[davidla80]

There's several areas that should improve. Ticketing revenue, broadcasting rights, and sponsorship should add another £22m as in 2013.

This is a reason why a new stadium is a must and why we need to stay in the prem. Commercial income is an area that needs improving, along with ticketing income and sponsorship. There's also more money in the new TV deal.

I suppose the board are looking at ways to improve revenue streams and the new stadium is key to the future of the club. To those who oppose the the new stadium, consider how revenue can be increased hugely with bigger commercial deals, bigger gate receipts, which also bring bigger sponsorship deals. The board are probably taking a short term hit knowing the new stadium will bring in more money in the long term.

So if we can't build a new stadium at OOC and don't find an alternative then things will look very nasty indeed.

[QPR Richard]

So if we can't build a new stadium at OOC and don't find an alternative then things will look very nasty indeed.

The current revenue streams look bad and unlikely to sustain us in the prem. Things will become a lot worse if, as some fans hope, we play regularly in the champs.

[vblockranger]

TF surely cant sustain us if we are losing £70million each year..something has to change. Dont forget 3 out of the last 4 season we have been in the prem so had prem money to go against the loss and it still looks bad every year.

[West London is Rss]

Ive exhausted my opinions and thinking on accounts, debt etc.

You could sit here and type all day about it but the reality is you just have to trust the owners.

[Kirill]

The current revenue streams look bad and unlikely to sustain us in the prem.

They don't look bad by themselves - only when compared to our expenditure. The desperate and inept clinging to the PL status has been our undoing. The owners decided to try and stay in the PL at all costs, and that has not worked out well. Imagine if they took a very different route: did not invest much in new players/wages in the first season in the PL after promotion under Warnock. Made sure that the revenue exceeded the expenditure, so that even if we got relegated, we would have been entirely debt-free and still plenty money left in the bank to do well in the Championship, maybe get promoted again, in any case take it slow, do not squander. QPR would have been infinitely better off now. But some businessmen only know how to spend, and not save. Unfortunately, we have been cursed with exactly that wrong kind of businessmen owners and we are paying a price that gets heavier by the year.

[vblockranger]

They don't look bad by themselves - only when compared to our expenditure. The desperate and inept clinging to the PL status has been our undoing. The owners decided to try and stay in the PL at all costs, and that has not worked out well. Imagine if they took a very different route: did not invest much in new players/wages in the first season in the PL after promotion under Warnock. Made sure that the revenue exceeded the expenditure, so that even if we got relegated, we would have been entirely debt-free and still plenty money left in the bank to do well in the Championship, maybe get promoted again, in any case take it slow, do not squander. QPR would have been infinitely better off now. But some businessmen only know how to spend, and not save. Unfortunately, we have been cursed with exactly that wrong kind of businessmen owners and we are paying a price that gets heavier by the year.

Spot on post Kirill. They have tried to run before they could walk from day one. Get the basics right, get the infrastructure in place then push on. Not try and do a Manchester City on the cheap and then when it goes wrong keep on gambling and losing the gamble over and over again.

[Kirill]

...but the reality is you just have to trust the owners.

I trust them as much as you'd trust a parent who gambles away the family income while blabbering about moving to a bigger and better flat.

[Shepherds Mush]

The current revenue streams look bad and unlikely to sustain us in the prem. Things will become a lot worse if, as some fans hope, we play regularly in the champs.

Not really if the business experts at the club could substantially cut our £75m (!) payroll....

[Kirill]

Not really if the business experts at the club could substantially cut our £75m (!) payroll....

With the benefit of hindsight, we did have such business experts at the club a few years ago and they were quite effective, too. Oh how we cringed at the discussion of executive flower bouqet cost reduction in the 4 Year Plan, but if you think about it now...

[West London is Rss]

I trust them as much as you'd trust a parent who gambles away the family income while blabbering about moving to a bigger and better flat.

OK, don't trust them then? Not sure what positivity you will gain from that though?