|
QPR
fans, some of whom had travelled hundreds of miles, were
represented through almost every current association possible,
from the Supporters Trust to the LSA, from websites to
fanzines.
Before you
read on it must be made clear that “Rebuild QPR” is not a
supporters’ club. It is not against the current board of
directors, nor is it in favour of them. It is a way of
bringing together as much of the QPR fanbase as possible to
share ideas and information and agree on a unified and
positive approach to helping the club survive and succeed.
The original idea of the meeting was for a representative
group of fans to discuss and debate the merits of the Rebuild
QPR document. Whilst the first order of business has to be
finding a way to help deal with the club’s current financial
problems, in particular the ABC loan, as the discussions
progressed it became clear that the original document had been
the catalyst for something that may well last long past the
immediate issues it raised.
The minutes that follow detail what hopefully will be the
first steps towards all QPR fans working together to secure
our club’s future.
STATEMENT OF INTENT
This is an alliance of representatives of the main groups and
organisations run by and for QPR supporters.
It provides a vehicle though which these representatives can
work closely together on a common goal whilst retaining the
separate identity and remits of the different groups.
The aim of this working party is help pool the ideas, skills
and resources of the fan-base in order to help protect and
preserve our Club and its financial assets for future
generations.
We will work towards this aim by:
• Obtaining and sharing information relevant to the club's
financial status in order to responsibly disseminate this
information to the fan base.
• Encouraging QPR's Board to work with supporters in
partnership based a respect for our status as stakeholders.
• Building links with other stakeholders, financial
institutions, organisations and individuals that can play a
positive role in the Club's future.
• Considering the feasibility of a long term strategic fund
raising initiative such as (but not limited to) those
discussed in the 'Rebuild QPR'document.
• Promoting the concept of a united fan base based on a mutual
respect for the differing views and stances that exist within
our community.
MINUTES FROM MEETING 18/11/2006
Venue: Ealing Town Hall - Committee Room 2
Start time 12.50pm
Attendees
Stephen Dedridge, Tracy Stent and Justin Cottage ~ QPR 1st
Bill Cox ~ LSA
Mark Dunbar ~ LSA and Official site messageboard
Paul Downs and Bev ~ Official Supporters Club
Dave Thomas and Dave Anderson ~ A Kick up the R's fanzine
Clive Whittingham ~ QPR Rivals.net website
Ron Norris and Paul Varcoe ~ QPR.net website
Julia Hill and Jonathan Bullock ~ Boardroom Blues website
Apologies
Vic Stephenson and Spencer Schwartz ~ Friends of QPR
Dave Barton ~ Queensparkrangersfc.com website
Ben Humphrey ~ QPR.org website
Introductions
Those in attendance made introductions and Stephen Dedridge
explained that whilst he would be chairing the meeting, Justin
would be doing a fair bit of the talking through the issues
within the agenda and that Tracy would be taking the minutes.
He went on to explain also that some information of relevance
from the club meeting that Trust reps attended on Thursday
evening would be imparted in relation to finances along with
any recent information gleaned on any ground issues, before
moving on to discuss the items further down such as a
supporters' voice, and where do we go from here.
Background to meeting
Justin then went on to give an explanation as to how the
Rebuild document came to be developed, saying that fans have
been talking about it for a while now, especially with it
appearing that the club are not in any position to do anything
about it. He said how a couple or so years ago he proposed a
bond scheme that was sent to Bill Power (who at that time was
the football club chairman) but that he didn't hear back from
him.
Then at the QPR 1st AGM held in April of this year, the issue
of the
supporters looking at ways of servicing the debt / raising
money and with
Gianni Paladini being present at this meeting, he was asked
about fans
buying the ground to which he gave an affirmative response.
This was put out to the public via the internet and QPR 1st
then received a number of ideas from supporters, including one
from Richard Kemp who
suggested a debenture / bond type of scheme which could
encompass fans buying bricks as their piece of QPR, hence the
Rebuild name coming into fruition.
In June an initial meeting was held to share ideas and
suggestions as to how to get this proposed venture going, and
it was agreed that it was imperative that for it to succeed
the project would require the support, endorsement, and help
of all areas within the QPR fanbase, with action points being
proposed at the end which included for himself to put together
a draft document to contain all the various ideas and
suggestions that had been forwarded from supporters at that
time.
Then he explained that another meeting took place in August at
which Ross Jones attended to help with any information in
relation to how such a venture could work with football
boards.
Following this, the discussion document was released to the
public domain on the internet to ask for feedback and after
reading this document, one
supporter, Stuart Hearn, suggested the idea of reps from the
various groups and QPR website owners meet up to have a
discussion in relation to the whole situation / proposed
venture.
Hence how everyone came to find themselves sitting around the
table.
The Club's current and projected financial situation and
the ABC loan
Justin and Stephen then went on to talk about the club meeting
that took place between Trust reps and Gianni Paladini and
Harold Winton on Thursday evening, saying that minutes of the
meeting would be available on the Trust website in due course
once they have been checked and okayed for accuracy's sake,
but that some of the financial questions asked were relevant
to today's discussions, and went on to give such specific
information. They also said that the new club/company
financial officer, Akin Yilmaz, was in attendance on Thursday
evening.
a) Directors loans
Justin said that the information within the Rebuild document
indicates that the company is currently in debt to the tune of
around £16m / £17m. This was worked out from the information
imparted within the most recently available company accounts.
He said that they were informed on Thursday that:
- The year-end accounts for May 2006 were about to be signed
off; that
unsecured loans at today's date amounted to £3.6m; and that
the Val Ehmer loan is still outstanding.
- The terms and conditions on the loans are unsecured and
convertible (for shares).
- Interest on the loans is accruing, though Antonio Caliendo
currently has
no interest on his loans. If the accounts balance and there is
money there at the end of the term then any interest would be
incurred / taken out. If not then the loans would instead be
converted into shares with the board being confident of a
successful EGM share capital resolution, in that some of the
other shareholders with bigger holdings such as Anaid
holdings, Gerry Francis, etc, would vote with the board at any
such resolution to increase share issues.
- There are different terms on the Val Ehmer loan in
comparison with Antonio Caliendo's, with the Val Ehmer loan
being on slightly worse terms than Antonio Caliendo's, but
with Val Ehmer being able to claim around 700,000 shares at
the end of the loan term, (should there not be any money
available to pay him back at that stage) otherwise he would
need to pursue the money by other means.
- There is a long-term agreement with the Inland Revenue for a
sum of around £1.4m thus enabling this to be paid off in
stages.
Justin estimated that there is therefore around £16m of debt
currently (this includes the ABC £10m) though this does not
include small time creditors.
Jonathan asked him about possible other loans amounting to £3m
and Justin said he thinks they were taken out from last year;
that they are 5 year loans; and repayable or convertible at
the end of the fifth year. It was estimated the term end for
such loans would be in 2010. Any loans taken out this year
would have a term date in 2011.
b) Club Business Plan
Justin informed that the meeting had given those in attendance
on Thursday evening a general impression (not factual) that
the installation of Deloitte and Touche is part of a business
plan. Deloitte and Touche were asked by Antonio Caliendo and
Franco Zanotti to come in to look at ways of perhaps raising
funds, restructuring, and planning for the future. They are
not coming in for the ABC issue, though Justin explained that
if they can look at ways of helping to stem losses and bring
in extra financing then it might well lead to other
institutions becoming more friendly towards us in respect of
considering taking over the loan themselves.
GP implied that the installation of Deloitte and Touche would
cost the
club less than £3,000 a month, that the consultation may be
low and also
indicated that bringing this company in is cheaper than having
a chief
operating officer.
c) ABC Loan
Justin and Stephen said that at the meeting they asked if the
terms and
conditions of the ABC loan could be shown to them and that
they were turned down on this request, going on to say that
things then became a little confused with no answers really
being gleaned about the ABC loan, though GP did state that if
he had £10m today ABC would take that and go.
Due to the amount of confusion going on, neither Franco
Zanotti (in relation to him/his family taking over the loan)
nor the issue of late penalties on the loan were raised.
A Swiss lawyer/financier is the club contact for ABC (not Ray
Hocking).
The club has spoken to twenty different institutions about
them being asked to take over the loan.
d) Outstanding Creditors and Future Losses
When asked about owing money to the Inland Revenue, this was
not denied.
The issue of late accounts filings was raised, GP relies on
accountants to
sort these matters out and it was mentioned how there are
actual club
accounts for year end 2003 (QPR and athletic football club
ones) that have not been filed. The new financial officer is
to look at this and Justin said they were informed that the
05/06 holdings accounts should be filed and fully audited for
February (07).
When asked about future losses Justin said that they were
informed that the directors would continue with convertible
loans. Whichever directors/the names were not mentioned.
The Danny Shittu deal was spoken about. The final breakdown of
the deal
could amount to £3million+ (based on sell-on clause and if
Watford stay up), but that in days of the Bosman ruling, the
club can only count on seeing £2.1million based on up front
and instalment payments plus 50 appearances.
Of the £2.1m the club will bank approx £925k. Of other clauses
and sell-on the club will bank approx. 53.4% or any moneys
received after the Football League, Charlton Athletic and the
Wintons.
e) Questions/Issues arising from any of the above
Stephen then asked if anyone had anything they would like to
ask or raise on what had been mentioned so far, also asking
what kind of questions do we, the supporters, need to pursue
with the club?
Bill asked does the club have budgets and Justin replied that
it appears
that the club has gone over budget (players), that whilst some
managers have a pot of money to start with and that when the
pot has run out that is it basically, it would appear that
whereas we do have a budget, it is a bit of a weakness in that
we do seem a little too quick to splash the cash. He also
suggested that with the installation of Deloitte and Touche,
it might well mean that a structure is going to be put into
place by them in relation to this issue.
The matter of the ABC loan terms and conditions was then
raised, with Dave (Anderson) expressing worries about the fans
not being advised/informed with this information and it was
agreed that in order for the supporters to progress and take
such a fundraising venture forward, knowing the terms and
conditions of the loan is top of the list and it was agreed
for a letter to be sent to the club asking them as a gesture
of goodwill in response to what the supporters are aiming to
do, is for their agreement to divulge this information so as
those heading any potential working party would know what they
might well be faced with.
Jonathan raised an issue about Moorbound, and there was also a
question
asked if any party/s has any shares in any of our players that
are likely to
be sold?
It was agreed for these questions to be sent to the club.
A question was also asked about the new accountant chap and
Justin said they had gained the impression that Akin has just
been brought in to do the accounts, that he is not a high
financier, and that Chris Pennington has gone to work for
Antonio Caliendo.
f) Survey Feedback
Tracy then briefly talked through the feedback that had been
gained from the pilot internet survey that had been put out.
She explained that there had been 53 completed questionnaires
returned and Dave (Thomas) asked about the demographics of the
responses and Stephen explained that it really had been done
for information purposes in order to give the meeting a quick
bit of feedback based on any responses. It was agreed that
based on just 53 responses the survey results could not be
classed as representative of the fanbase and that if further
feedback is to be gleaned that it would need to go out to as
much as our fanbase as possible. For information purposes as
an initial piece of interest it was agreed it was an
informative tool, and Julia said it would have been good if
there'd been hundreds of responses.
Paul (Varcoe) asked about what would be done with this
information and
Stephen said that it would be a shame for an initial piece of
work to not be reported back and that therefore it would be
posted onto the Supporters Trust website, along with a
disclaimer saying that it is only based on a very small
response number, and that this had been done by QPR 1st as an
experiment.
g) The Ground
Justin explained that the Trust had made contact with the
council and asked them some questions in relation to ground
queries and any planning
applications. A response was received by Mark Aplin, who is an
employee on the planning department part of Hammersmith and
Fulham council. His email can be viewed at the end of these
minutes for interest.
Bill expressed some concerns he has, especially with the new
administration that has recently taken over the running of the
council, and Justin said that the UDP (Unitary Development
Plan) policies in place are being replaced by policies called
LDF (Local Development Framework). These will actually hold
more water than the current UDP policies, as they will be a
legal requirement that will be voted on and put together by
stakeholders within the borough. He said that the Trust fully
intends to be involved next May in the consultation stage of
something called 'Preferred Options' which is to involve
consultation over the next two years.
It was explained that this could be good news because if the
property/ground were to be land-banked in any sale a UDP as it
currently stands means little, however the statutory part of
an LDF would have more meat to it.
There was a discussion about the council need for open space
and the
possibility of them opening a small park on part of any such
land and then
agreeing for the rest to be used for housing (this was in
relation to the
Loftus Road site).
The planning department confirmed there were no current
planning
applications on the ground.
The issue of relocation was mentioned and Tracy informed that
she'd had a conversation with Brian Rowe earlier on that day
to ask him if he had any information regarding this issue that
might be useful for those attending the meeting to be aware
of. He said that the feasibility study had been finished and
that he was waiting to hear back from the party that would be
preparing the final findings from it. He also said that there
could be the possibility of a new stadium within the London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, but that this possibility
was at a very early stage, but that this could be something to
look towards for the future.
h) Supporters Voice and Where do we go from here?
The meeting then moved on from what we know to the theme of
what is/is not feasible in the discussion document? Bill
commented that he had not read it and there were also one or
two others in the room that said they also had not had time to
read it and Stephen said that the whole idea of it is for it
to be a long-term solution and that if such a venture were to
take off then it would require high finance. It was mentioned
also how so far only the internet based supporters had been
targeted and that whatever is shaped for the future would need
to get out to the wider fanbase, not only to get the majority
backing, but also to encourage others to get involved with the
skills required.
Dave Thomas reiterated the point of the need to have basic
understanding about what is going on and how the importance of
openness must never be underestimated.
He then went on to raise the point that everyone must be
satisfied that they are happy and satisfied about working
together and a discussion then took place about the need of
inclusion for everyone. It was explained by Tracy that there
were extenuating circumstances as to why there was no
representation from the Friends of QPR group and that there
were workreasons as regards to why the other two supporters
could not make the meeting.
The subject of the arranging of future meetings was raised and
it was
suggested by Dave Anderson that perhaps a meet up by those in
any
discussions could meet up after home games?
Stephen spoke about the need of building trust between the
supporters and there was agreement with this.
Justin then began to talk through the document a little,
saying that the
idea is to raise a significant amount of money. Or secure the
ground. Or
even look at ways of refinancing the ABC loan; perhaps even by
starting off by finding out if there were anything illegal in
it, thus giving some
leverage somewhere. He said that Derby County, who were
recently able to get out of their loan agreement with ABC,
have been very closed mouthed about it, though the Co-op bank
were able to do the negotiations on behalf of the consortium
that took over Derby.
He spoke about possible objectives and talked a bit about
CIC's (community interest companies), which are regulated, and
have their assets locked for specific purpose, which could be
a vehicle for supporters to look at for some kind of ground
securing purpose.
The question was then posed where does everyone go from here?
It was
suggested that the first thing is to report back on meetings
held by any
reps about any discussions that take place and that it might
be a good idea for those in agreement in the room to continue
with discussions as an interim group until a proper working
party can be established, to include people with relevant
skills and expertise in various fields to enable any venture
to progress further.
Stephen suggested that as a starting point minutes from the
meeting be
published once agreed on and for action points to be taken
away to be worked on.
There was an agreement that positives to be taken away is that
the meeting and discussions had brought about actions and the
commitment to talk from all levels of the various supporter
groups and QPR supporters website information channels. It was
also agreed that another positive is the commitment to look
towards bringing in the skills required to further any
potential supporters' project. And there was also the
agreement on the important point that each group involved must
be able to carry on with their own remit outside of any
Rebuild discussions.
Mark of the LSA, Paul and Bev from the supporters club, and
those from the Trust were all keen on this point being
reiterated and fed back to their relevant organisations.
Justin continued with talking through some of the document,
raising the
possibility of the ground being held in trust, speaking of
possible benefits
in that it would give the fanbase something to say "we're part
of it".
Ground purchase as a possibility was mentioned which could be
done by
offering bits via equity purchase.
The question was then asked if anyone in the room felt that
they personally could not/would not deal with the club
chairman/and or/board and there was a discussion about how
there are some supporters that feel very strongly about not
dealing/doing business with the chairman and the importance of
appreciating such opinions, and indeed how those opinions can
be included within any scheme in order to help it appeal to
most, whatever their thoughts or opinions.
Julia said that to her, any scheme would need to be
watertight, with any
funds going into a ring fenced vehicle, to ensure not one
penny goes to
anything or anyone bar the specific purpose.
Bill asked a question about when would it be the right time to
ask others to be involved if there was awareness of other
people with skills that could help to take any venture
forward, and Stephen said that basically if anyone knows of
anyone with any skill they feel of relevance that would be
able to advise/take things forward (such as legal, financial,
commercial, marketing issues etc), then to start the process
of approaching such people now. DT stressed the importance of
the need for a framework to be in place in order to encourage
people with the skills to come forward.
With time now pressing on the main action points were:
- Set up an internet/email group in order to allow further
discussions to go ahead
- Minutes from the meeting to be typed up and then sent to
those in
attendance for approval (just to check on things like figures
to ensure no
misinformation is given out) before being released
- Write to the club asking them if we can see the terms and
conditions of the ABC loan
- Ask the club a few other questions that arose from the
discussions
Meeting finished at 5.20pm.
Appendix 1:
Email received by Justin Cottage from Mark Alpin from the
planning department part of Hammersmith and Fulham council
Dear Mr Cottage,
In response to your queries:
1. A number of UDP policies apply. It is a Community Service
use the council would like to see normally retained (chapter
8) and there is a specific policy for Professional Football
Grounds (CS3) seeking continuation of football or similar
uses. Moreover it is designated in the UDP and its Proposals
Map as an Open Sporting Facility (UDP Appendix 4.7) and is
therefore protected by EN22 (chapter 4 of the UDP). In this
policy, development is not permitted without preserving open
character and its sporting function. The UDP and interactive
Proposals Map is available on our website.
2. I have not found any recent planning applications
concerning the site. Searches for these can be done from
LBHF's homepage. (I am including Catherine Smyth, whose team
would have received any application, in this email).
3. I did not find any permissions of note that would appear
still applicable.
4. The
council always welcomes input from stakeholders in the borough
in planning for the future of LBHF. We have produced a
Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in Planning to set
out how you can get involved. The SCI can be seen on the Local
Development Framework (LDF) pages of the planning site of
www.lbhf.gov.uk. The LDF will eventually include policies
replacing the UDP. We have undertaken preliminary consultation
on issues facing the borough (seen on the 'Issues and Options'
link of the LDF page) to produce the new plan, and expect to
go out for consultation on the crucial stage of Preferred
Options in about May next year. Please check the LDF website
for further news of Preferred Options, it will also be
advertised in local newspapers and the council magazine. I
would strongly advise your organisation to get involved in
this, as this will determine the future statutory plan for the
borough.
Use the "Local Plan" link on the left hand side of the
Planning page on lbhf.gov.uk to access both UDP and LDF
details. I hope this helps, if you have any further queries
please email me again or call on 0208 753 3384.
Yours sincerely,
-Mark.
|
