| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 10:18 - Feb 3 with 1086 views | nadera78 |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 10:10 - Feb 3 by AgedR |
Unless one of us on here has a track record of multi-national business success, like those on our board, I'm not sure we are qualified to conclude that the business plan of this board is naive.
They will treat Rangers like any other venture and will pull out or sell when they can get a return or when there are no prospects for future growth. It seems this time has yet to come. |
Running an airline is not the same as running a football club. There is clear naivety in the way TF and co have gone about owning QPR, and it continues in that interview.
And I suppose, seeing as you haven't played professional football, I guess you won't be commenting on the way our players perform? |  | |  |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 10:24 - Feb 3 with 1081 views | MkPaul |
My god, finally TF has come out and said things are not as assumed and he knows what he is doing with the money as he is an accountant and a businessman and some on here still moan and try and second guess him, and come up with the same old rubbish get a grip on yourselves please
TF seems like a good guy and this interview seems to put most of the stories you all put around and believed as gospel to bed, take a little time to take it all in, smile, admit you were wrong and move onto something else to worry about | | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 11:04 - Feb 3 with 1062 views | SydneyRs |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 10:18 - Feb 3 by nadera78 |
Running an airline is not the same as running a football club. There is clear naivety in the way TF and co have gone about owning QPR, and it continues in that interview.
And I suppose, seeing as you haven't played professional football, I guess you won't be commenting on the way our players perform? |
Most Airlines also run at a loss and are bankrolled anyway, its a national pride thing. | | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 11:05 - Feb 3 with 1059 views | TearsOfaClown |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 07:28 - Feb 3 by mehmetr |
Good to hear that Samba took a 40% wage cut to 60K and Remi is reputedly also on 60 or 70K and they have still been able to reduce the wages bill in aggregate over January.
Interesting that Arry said a few more will be shipped out as a few overseas transfer windows are still open. |
read in the Telegraph that our wage bill is £75,000,000 a year.
nothing to worry about is it? |  | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 11:48 - Feb 3 with 1035 views | BumdaR |
What I think would help put minds at rest is if we knew where these funds were coming from, we know TF has an airline and LM is a steel magnate but what about the other 2 Ruben and A N Other are they supposedly minted too ? We have seen other 'foreign' owned clubs get Into trouble (Birmingham, Malaga) to name but two and we all hope we aren't the next one on the list. That said, even if the worst came to the worst and we plummeted like Luton, Plymouth etc, we'd all still follow our team, after all who wants to go shopping with the missus every week! |  | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 11:51 - Feb 3 with 1025 views | RANGERS4EVER |
Fantastic read . Made me feel a bit better |  |
| |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 12:10 - Feb 3 with 1004 views | TearsOfaClown |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 11:48 - Feb 3 by BumdaR |
What I think would help put minds at rest is if we knew where these funds were coming from, we know TF has an airline and LM is a steel magnate but what about the other 2 Ruben and A N Other are they supposedly minted too ? We have seen other 'foreign' owned clubs get Into trouble (Birmingham, Malaga) to name but two and we all hope we aren't the next one on the list. That said, even if the worst came to the worst and we plummeted like Luton, Plymouth etc, we'd all still follow our team, after all who wants to go shopping with the missus every week! |
"That said, even if the worst came to the worst and we plummeted like Luton, Plymouth etc, we'd all still follow our team, "
Totally with you on that - and a regular team I could recognise. Fed up with so many new faces, don't care how great their agent says they are.
Just don't want the head tennis we did about 7 seasons ago.
And we still have the White Horse and Ocean Billy and Jude and London Calling and the worst seats ever. | | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 12:22 - Feb 3 with 995 views | HollowayRanger |
great read and breathing again 
if he keeps to that we will be fine we also have that ex fa man coming to keep an eye on the books soon as well
and yes if it all went wrong id still go it would be another chapter in the life and possible death of QPR and i want to be there come what may as long as tony and the rest stick by us there will be no alarm bells in my head but if any should leave then  as thats what happened to portsmouth different owners played pass the parcel with it |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 12:43 - Feb 3 with 966 views | Mr_Foxy |
Not to be the lone voice of cynicism here, but I think Uncle Tony is using rather a large dash of spin with the phrase "debt free". QPR are massively in debt to the tune of millions (if not tens of millions) of pounds still as previous year's accounts show, and how the accounts will show this year.
The only difference here is all of that debt is owned to the Tune Group and the other shareholders who have supplied the funding instead of external providers of finance like banks and dodgy overseas companies (I'm looking at you ABC...)
So whilst all this debt is effectively "internal" it does make us "debt free" as long as those shareholders are in place and are happy to continue to provide the funding to keep the club going, but as soon as they sell up, or decide not to continue that funding, the debt effectively becomes "external" and we find that they'd like their money back pretty quickly and at that point the club will end up exactly in the same scenario as Portsmouth. They were "debt free" until the owners sold up and wanted their money back (and of course for Portsmouth that process repeated itself several times with the quick changeover of owners so all of a sudden they owed 2 or 3 owners tens of millions each all at once).
So I'm afraid I'm still in the sceptical camp about where all this reckless spending is going to lead. It might take years to bite us, and hopefully I'm wrong and it will never bite us but anyone who truly believes we are "debt free" are living in cloud cuckoo land. Sorry! |  | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 12:54 - Feb 3 with 946 views | baz_qpr |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 12:43 - Feb 3 by Mr_Foxy |
Not to be the lone voice of cynicism here, but I think Uncle Tony is using rather a large dash of spin with the phrase "debt free". QPR are massively in debt to the tune of millions (if not tens of millions) of pounds still as previous year's accounts show, and how the accounts will show this year.
The only difference here is all of that debt is owned to the Tune Group and the other shareholders who have supplied the funding instead of external providers of finance like banks and dodgy overseas companies (I'm looking at you ABC...)
So whilst all this debt is effectively "internal" it does make us "debt free" as long as those shareholders are in place and are happy to continue to provide the funding to keep the club going, but as soon as they sell up, or decide not to continue that funding, the debt effectively becomes "external" and we find that they'd like their money back pretty quickly and at that point the club will end up exactly in the same scenario as Portsmouth. They were "debt free" until the owners sold up and wanted their money back (and of course for Portsmouth that process repeated itself several times with the quick changeover of owners so all of a sudden they owed 2 or 3 owners tens of millions each all at once).
So I'm afraid I'm still in the sceptical camp about where all this reckless spending is going to lead. It might take years to bite us, and hopefully I'm wrong and it will never bite us but anyone who truly believes we are "debt free" are living in cloud cuckoo land. Sorry! |
I did not know the 11/12 accounts had been published? Do you have a link to them?
Last accounts I was aware off was those under the briatore regime |  | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 13:00 - Feb 3 with 944 views | exiled_dictator |
QPR has been suffering from chronic under investment for years.
The last owner we had who had money & was prepared to spend it was Chris Wright. Messrs Briatore & Ecclestone had/have the money, but never really spent it on the important things in the club; youth, players & training.
Tony Fernandes has come in with a group of fellow investors to stand alongside the Mittal/Bahattia Directors, and so far has been willing to spend.
You can look at other clubs in recent years where under investment has also happened, a new owner comes in and starts splashing the cash buying players that previously they would not have. I can offer Chelsea & Manchester City as two examples, others will be able to add other clubs to that list.
Having spent to much money in such a short space of time is a massive gamble. If it will mean we stay up at the end of the season, then it is money wisely spent. However, even if we do get relegated, we will have started to build a foundation for the future. Yes, we will have player who cost us more to buy than previously, and earn more than we previously paid others, but this is the reality of who we are and where we are. If you look at any of the clubs in the premiership, come the transfer window they have all spent big money on one or two players, and added others at a lesser cost to the squad. I accept not every club bought big this window, but they have done so in the past. There will come a time when we will have a squad that is sufficiently balanced to ensure that transfer windows are not heart of the mouth issues.
Even if we do get relegated, the owners have stated that they will stay on and continue to invest in the club for the future.
One last point, QPR is a brand that is very important for TR & his Asian investors. They are looking to expand an already massive operation that is a class leader. Some may argue that this undervalues us in Tony's eyes, but I think that it will guarantee us continued investment for many years to come. I will be disappointed if we get relegated, but not concerned about the intentions of our owners. |  |
| It's not what you've got; it's where you stick it. | | Poll: | Climate Change |
| |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 13:18 - Feb 3 with 926 views | Mr_Foxy |
Sorry, I'm not aware of them being published yet either! Although if the year end is still 31 May they will be due for filing by the end of this month so we will find out soon! Sorry if I didn't make that clear, I know the 2011 year end accounts were grim! | | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 18:17 - Feb 3 with 838 views | NW5Hoop |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 07:36 - Feb 3 by BerkoRanger |
I have been saying how positive the long term situation at QPR is on many threads on this board since Tony and the consortium took over. No, I am not ITK - I just believe TF is a genuine guy and supporter.
I truly believe that in two or three years time, this will be a really strong and successful football club. |
I'm glad he's given this interview. He needed to. I'm still not sure I'm convinced, but I'm glad he's making the effort to convince those like me who doubt.
However, let's not kid ourselves he is a fan of the club who loves QPR and all its history. He bought QPR because he couldn't buy West Ham or Norwich. | | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 18:34 - Feb 3 with 821 views | AgedR |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 10:18 - Feb 3 by nadera78 |
Running an airline is not the same as running a football club. There is clear naivety in the way TF and co have gone about owning QPR, and it continues in that interview.
And I suppose, seeing as you haven't played professional football, I guess you won't be commenting on the way our players perform? |
Is it? (unless, nadera78 a psuedonymn for Feddy Laker?)
And yes I will comment on the player's performance, and ulimately, this comment will come from the basic ignorance of a semi pro footballer (which I suspect is the basis point of most on the board).
However, the difference is that my judgement of the players is from a position of utter transparance; i.e. I can tell Bowswinger can't be bothered, because I can see it on the pitch; it's self evident.
My judgement of the business plan of millionaires is somewhat less informed. Yes, it is obvious to all that current outgoings seem to be high, but, I'll let you second guess where the point comes at which this is unstaintable.
Better still, why not brand us as the next Portsmouth, without a shred of evidence to back up that claim and as a complete contradiction to not only the the comments, but, the track record of our backers |  |
| |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 19:47 - Feb 3 with 757 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 11:05 - Feb 3 by TearsOfaClown |
read in the Telegraph that our wage bill is £75,000,000 a year.
nothing to worry about is it? |
That's just 'Arri's dog's off shore bonus |  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 20:02 - Feb 3 with 741 views | 0hwestlondon |
I like everything i read in the article, i take his word that all of his backers will stay for the long term, but for me with all the cash sploshing around the prem the word debt should never need to be used. | | | |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 20:15 - Feb 3 with 731 views | karlski |
| Good old Tony - we're not Pompey on 12:43 - Feb 3 by Mr_Foxy |
Not to be the lone voice of cynicism here, but I think Uncle Tony is using rather a large dash of spin with the phrase "debt free". QPR are massively in debt to the tune of millions (if not tens of millions) of pounds still as previous year's accounts show, and how the accounts will show this year.
The only difference here is all of that debt is owned to the Tune Group and the other shareholders who have supplied the funding instead of external providers of finance like banks and dodgy overseas companies (I'm looking at you ABC...)
So whilst all this debt is effectively "internal" it does make us "debt free" as long as those shareholders are in place and are happy to continue to provide the funding to keep the club going, but as soon as they sell up, or decide not to continue that funding, the debt effectively becomes "external" and we find that they'd like their money back pretty quickly and at that point the club will end up exactly in the same scenario as Portsmouth. They were "debt free" until the owners sold up and wanted their money back (and of course for Portsmouth that process repeated itself several times with the quick changeover of owners so all of a sudden they owed 2 or 3 owners tens of millions each all at once).
So I'm afraid I'm still in the sceptical camp about where all this reckless spending is going to lead. It might take years to bite us, and hopefully I'm wrong and it will never bite us but anyone who truly believes we are "debt free" are living in cloud cuckoo land. Sorry! |
Mr Foxy, I appreciate what you're saying and it is indeed possible the club has debt in the manner you describe, ie owed to shareholders.
However it is also entirely possible that it does not. Debt is not always the result of money being invested into a business.
The other side of the coin is equity (ie shares). If the shareholders have invested money and got equity in return, then there is no debt. So when TF etc bought their shares they paid a particular price. If they then wanted to invest more money in the same manner (ie without creating a debt obligation for the club), they could then put more money in for more shares - new shares would be issued to them and proportionally to other shareholders as well to make sure power was not diluted. It is possible that this is what TF means when he says there are no debts.
Yes there still could be a problem if the owners wanted to leave, but they would have to find a buyer or put club in administration, and as many have said on here before, the admin route would be disastrous in terms of publicity for their other businesses. I see no reason to not believe TF when he says they are all in it for the long run.
This is a very reassuring read overall. The pressing concern is simply a footballing one, and we should all get on with supporting the team rather than worrying sick about something that is not a legitimate concern (for our own peace of mind more than anything else!). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
