|
|
Post by Hitman34 on Feb 8, 2022 13:58:15 GMT
Dunno how the club wins here Al. I think we are all in agreement that we wouldn't want to club to go back to overspending like we've done in the past. If that's the case then we have to accept that we will live within our means. If the transfer market is too pricey for us in any given window then I'm afraid that's just how it is. those demanding more would be the first to moan about mismanagement if club got in stick again. Not just those on this forum but all those in tears across all the social media platforms More more more Personally could not give a dark who we sign if we are promoted. Much prefer championship football but for the sake of the club, its best to take in as much TV money as possible. The only thing I demand is that uncle bungle stays wherever the hell he is and dont come back on the scene pretending to be everyones mate and making himself out to be Mr qpr. |
|
|
|
Post by stainrodisalegend on Feb 8, 2022 13:58:27 GMT
we’re gambling £160m or whatever Prem is worth these days on someone who is past his best, a donkey and someone we don’t own. As for me having to explain what I meant by Joey Barton money wasn’t he on £65k a week or something near. Would never suggest going back there. Exactly this. What people don't get is that doing nothing is a gamble. Owning a football club is a gamble. No one is forcing these people (Tune) to own this club. And nobody can force them to spend money they don't feel able to spend - either due to FFP or because they personally can't afford it (can't imagine Air Asia is too healthy after three years of Covid)! |
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Feb 8, 2022 13:59:39 GMT
Have to say I much prefer the model of only offering clubs what we can afford and no longer being bent over a barrel. Far better feeling to be doing business on our own terms. It also sends out a positive message out that clubs can no longer hold us to ransom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hitman34 on Feb 8, 2022 14:01:31 GMT
Have to say I much prefer the model of only offering clubs what we can afford and no longer being bent over a barrel. Far better feeling to be doing business on our own terms. It also sends out a positive message out that clubs can no longer hold us to ransom. And more importantly, agents. |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 14:36:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by West Acton on Feb 8, 2022 14:36:19 GMT
As I said earlier in the thread, words like "afford" and "gamble" are arbitrary, variable and subjective. Everyone will have their own definitions and risk-tolerance levels. (This obviously applies to the boards of football clubs too.) Therefore there really is no right or wrong. That's why it causes such debate, as we can see here. It's also completely erroneous to think there's some binary cut off point at which you can no longer "afford" something. It would be more accurate to say there are (often quite wide-ranging) parameters within which something is "affordable" (which again, returns us to one's unique risk-tolerance levels). That's where prudence plays a crucial role, particularly in business. Respectfully I disagree. It isn't at all arbitrary. There is a fixed amount we can spent over a three year period, which is relative to our (very modest) income. That is a brute fact. it is nothing to do with gambling, it is much worse than that. It would be doing something that you know 100% will get you a fine or a points deduction later. With gambling there is a chance of winning. How could we possibly win because even if we were promoted, next time we were relegated (and even the most optimistic fan has to acknowledge that would happen at some point) the EFL fine would be waiting for us. Look at Derby, look at Reading, look at ourselves a few years ago! Its pretty clear the club tried to off-load various players in this latest transfer window (including ones they probably would have preferred to keep in Jordi, and similarly tried with Dom Ball) just to free up enough money in the budget, but we couldn't get rid of enough players (even Hammelinen is still here on his 4 year contract). Mel Morris no doubt had incredibly expensive accountants, all sorts of wheezes have been tried, but the EFL is wise to them now and are not letting anyone off lightly. Staggers me that sensible fans would want the club to go through all that fine all over again, when its taken us about five years to recover from the last one. What is it about what is happening to Derby that our fan base isn't getting? super post |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 14:38:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by West Acton on Feb 8, 2022 14:38:03 GMT
Have to say I much prefer the model of only offering clubs what we can afford and no longer being bent over a barrel. Far better feeling to be doing business on our own terms. It also sends out a positive message out that clubs can no longer hold us to ransom. could not agree more. However this approach is now being twisted into a lack of ambition |
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Feb 8, 2022 16:44:25 GMT
As I said earlier in the thread, words like "afford" and "gamble" are arbitrary, variable and subjective. Everyone will have their own definitions and risk-tolerance levels. (This obviously applies to the boards of football clubs too.) Therefore there really is no right or wrong. That's why it causes such debate, as we can see here. It's also completely erroneous to think there's some binary cut off point at which you can no longer "afford" something. It would be more accurate to say there are (often quite wide-ranging) parameters within which something is "affordable" (which again, returns us to one's unique risk-tolerance levels). That's where prudence plays a crucial role, particularly in business. Respectfully I disagree. It isn't at all arbitrary. There is a fixed amount we can spent over a three year period, which is relative to our (very modest) income. That is a brute fact. And there are good reasons our income is modest: ie lower media rights income, parachute payments done, average attendance. That's the way it will stay for us as a championship club. However there are other models: Norwich for example. re FFP. To do a Derby for example we would have to significantly overspend, not offload and not go up. No one is suggesting a significant overspend. What I'm saying is that there is a middle ground between doing nothing and doing a Derby. And at the moment, we seem relatively content with doing nothing. |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 18:29:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by Bill on Feb 8, 2022 18:29:12 GMT
Respectfully I disagree. It isn't at all arbitrary. There is a fixed amount we can spent over a three year period, which is relative to our (very modest) income. That is a brute fact. And there are good reasons our income is modest: ie lower media rights income, parachute payments done, average attendance. That's the way it will stay for us as a championship club. However there are other models: Norwich for example. re FFP. To do a Derby for example we would have to significantly overspend, not offload and not go up. No one is suggesting a significant overspend. What I'm saying is that there is a middle ground between doing nothing and doing a Derby. And at the moment, we seem relatively content with doing nothing. Great post |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 18:30:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by Bill on Feb 8, 2022 18:30:41 GMT
Have to say I much prefer the model of only offering clubs what we can afford and no longer being bent over a barrel. Far better feeling to be doing business on our own terms. It also sends out a positive message out that clubs can no longer hold us to ransom. could not agree more. However this approach is now being twisted into a lack of ambition Poppycock |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 18:42:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by alanwycombe on Feb 8, 2022 18:42:21 GMT
Also, if we go up it won’t matter. If we don’t go up we’ll sell players. Not much of a gamble really So we gamble, miss out, and then have to sell players and be back near the bottom again. Doesn't sound like a good idea. The way we tried to do it is absolutely the right way. We spent what we could, offered what we could for players we wanted. Rather than spending a lot of money for a plyer we don't really want (look at the clamour for Wells for example). Would I have liked to have seen us buy a Patterson or a Lawrence? Yes, of course. But Patterson refused to play due to not getting enough money and Lawrence is on £32k a year so how do we afford him without messing up a wage structure? Spending money doesn't guarantee success. Look at Sheffield Wed, Stoke, Boro, Derby. All have spent massive amounts and not gone up. Forest, Bristol City have all spent a lot and got no where. At the end of the day, only 3 teams can go up. Bournmouth on paper are better now, but they now need to gel. Spending money doesn't mean we'll come second and it doesn't mean that Bournemouth will either. But, if they don't go up and neither do we, then financially we'll be better off than they are. If we don’t go up we WILL sell players, we have to as the aim is to make the club self sufficient. This idea some fans have that if we miss out this season we’ll just go for it again next is for the birds. |
|
|
|
Post by Shania on Feb 8, 2022 19:21:04 GMT
So we gamble, miss out, and then have to sell players and be back near the bottom again. Doesn't sound like a good idea. The way we tried to do it is absolutely the right way. We spent what we could, offered what we could for players we wanted. Rather than spending a lot of money for a plyer we don't really want (look at the clamour for Wells for example). Would I have liked to have seen us buy a Patterson or a Lawrence? Yes, of course. But Patterson refused to play due to not getting enough money and Lawrence is on £32k a year so how do we afford him without messing up a wage structure? Spending money doesn't guarantee success. Look at Sheffield Wed, Stoke, Boro, Derby. All have spent massive amounts and not gone up. Forest, Bristol City have all spent a lot and got no where. At the end of the day, only 3 teams can go up. Bournmouth on paper are better now, but they now need to gel. Spending money doesn't mean we'll come second and it doesn't mean that Bournemouth will either. But, if they don't go up and neither do we, then financially we'll be better off than they are. If we don’t go up we WILL sell players, we have to as the aim is to make the club self sufficient. This idea some fans have that if we miss out this season we’ll just go for it again next is for the birds. But how many years did it take Leicester and Burnley to be promoted? I presume that was more than two... To my understanding, It was more a long term project, like the one we started with Hoos and Warburton 2 years ago. |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 19:36:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by West Acton on Feb 8, 2022 19:36:22 GMT
So we gamble, miss out, and then have to sell players and be back near the bottom again. Doesn't sound like a good idea. The way we tried to do it is absolutely the right way. We spent what we could, offered what we could for players we wanted. Rather than spending a lot of money for a plyer we don't really want (look at the clamour for Wells for example). Would I have liked to have seen us buy a Patterson or a Lawrence? Yes, of course. But Patterson refused to play due to not getting enough money and Lawrence is on £32k a year so how do we afford him without messing up a wage structure? Spending money doesn't guarantee success. Look at Sheffield Wed, Stoke, Boro, Derby. All have spent massive amounts and not gone up. Forest, Bristol City have all spent a lot and got no where. At the end of the day, only 3 teams can go up. Bournmouth on paper are better now, but they now need to gel. Spending money doesn't mean we'll come second and it doesn't mean that Bournemouth will either. But, if they don't go up and neither do we, then financially we'll be better off than they are. If we don’t go up we WILL sell players, we have to as the aim is to make the club self sufficient. This idea some fans have that if we miss out this season we’ll just go for it again next is for the birds. what is the birds is spending when you can’t afford it that’s suicide but hey ho you’re all for the club operating in a way you would not personally which is hypocritical |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 20:12:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by alanwycombe on Feb 8, 2022 20:12:47 GMT
I did invest in my future when I had the chance - where’s the hypocrisy in that principle?
|
|
|
|
Post by stainrodisalegend on Feb 8, 2022 20:26:54 GMT
Respectfully I disagree. It isn't at all arbitrary. There is a fixed amount we can spent over a three year period, which is relative to our (very modest) income. That is a brute fact. And there are good reasons our income is modest: ie lower media rights income, parachute payments done, average attendance. That's the way it will stay for us as a championship club. However there are other models: Norwich for example. re FFP. To do a Derby for example we would have to significantly overspend, not offload and not go up. No one is suggesting a significant overspend. What I'm saying is that there is a middle ground between doing nothing and doing a Derby. And at the moment, we seem relatively content with doing nothing. But that's just it, there isn't middle ground between getting fined and not getting fined. Warburton was clear we have used up the budget, Hoos said at the fans forum it would need to be loans in Jan. We already invested a lot - relative to our budget in the summer - AND THIS LEFT VIRTUALLY NO MONEY LEFT TO SPEND IN JANUARY. |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 20:31:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by alanwycombe on Feb 8, 2022 20:31:27 GMT
But we chose to spend money on Hendrick. Is he, a seasoned experienced pro, playing for less money than a prem/champ reserve striker not getting a game?
|
|
|
|
Post by stainrodisalegend on Feb 8, 2022 20:40:27 GMT
But we chose to spend money on Hendrick. Is he, a seasoned experienced pro, playing for less money than a prem/champ reserve striker not getting a game? I'm with you there, personally I wouldn't have made Hendrick a priority. But (and there is an element of guesswork here) presumably as he was from Newcastle who are loaded we didn't have to pay a fee or much of his wages for the loan. With Paterson (who I would have much preferred and much more what we needed) we couldn't stretch to it because they wanted 750k transfer fee. And of course we would have had to pay all his wages, and being 30 odd no doubt he would have wanted a three year contract. I know some fans have used this fact to say "its not much money, couldn't we have just gone for it?". But much as it frustrates me too that we didn't get him, to me it just shows how bang tight we were up to how much we could spend. Am sure that is why we were desperately trying to loan out some players to reduce our spend but we weren't able to clear enough of them from our books. We went in with three bids for Paterson by all accounts so it is pretty clear we definitely wanted him - but we couldn't afford him. |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 20:45:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by West Acton on Feb 8, 2022 20:45:47 GMT
I guessing we got good terms on henderick perhaps that edged it. Newcastle rolling in it and possibly want him away so they can concentrate on those who will play plus Ruben is there pulling strings
|
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 20:52:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by alanwycombe on Feb 8, 2022 20:52:29 GMT
Doesn’t matter what terms we got we’re still spending money we apparently haven’t got on a position we didn’t really need and signed so late that we knew no one was leaving to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:14:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Bill on Feb 8, 2022 21:14:16 GMT
Doesn’t matter what terms we got we’re still spending money we apparently haven’t got on a position we didn’t really need and signed so late that we knew no one was leaving to pay for it. Game set and match |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:14:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by West Acton on Feb 8, 2022 21:14:34 GMT
Doesn’t matter what terms we got we’re still spending money we apparently haven’t got on a position we didn’t really need and signed so late that we knew no one was leaving to pay for it. what if he’s costing us zilch? |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:16:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Bill on Feb 8, 2022 21:16:16 GMT
Doesn’t matter what terms we got we’re still spending money we apparently haven’t got on a position we didn’t really need and signed so late that we knew no one was leaving to pay for it. what if he’s costing us zilch? Really you cant be serious |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:16:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by Tarbie on Feb 8, 2022 21:16:58 GMT
I'm pretty sure Hendrick won't be costing us much more than 10 grand a week. As such, probably 250k for the remainder of the season, which is bugger all to get an experienced international in on deadline day.
I was a bit perplexed why we wanted another midfielder but then heard the Manager speak about him. Clearly Hendrick is a player he rates who became available last minute.
This signing allows us to use Amos in more of an attacking midfield role. Nothing wrong with that, Amos looks good there and the deal is a darn sight cheaper than the ones we were looking at for Patterson or Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:18:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by West Acton on Feb 8, 2022 21:18:15 GMT
what if he’s costing us zilch? Really you cant be serious I’ve no idea same as you don’t. Arsenal gave away Auba free who would have predicted that a month ago. Morale to story you neither me know 100% The End 😄 |
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:20:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by West Acton on Feb 8, 2022 21:20:27 GMT
Lawrence was never realistic imo not even sure why we thought could pull that off. Was there actually any truth in it I suspect was paper speculation
|
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:21:10 GMT
via mobile
Bill likes this
Post by alanwycombe on Feb 8, 2022 21:21:10 GMT
I very nearly added ‘unless they’re paying us’ but I thought that would sound silly………..
|
|
|
|
Playoffs
Feb 8, 2022 21:27:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by Tarbie on Feb 8, 2022 21:27:15 GMT
Lawrence was never realistic imo not even sure why we thought could pull that off. Was there actually any truth in it I suspect was paper speculation On 30 odd grand a week and Derby are in no fit state to subsidise any of that. I'm sure we made a cheeky enquiry but quickly backtracked when we were told the numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by acricketer on Feb 8, 2022 21:33:56 GMT
I thought Marshall was quite a sensible decision. Maybe they know what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tarbie on Feb 8, 2022 21:46:19 GMT
My thoughts too Cricks. Get a bit fed up with people sticking the knife in given how good Warburton and the board have been in the transfer market the last few seasons.
There are plenty of things I think we could do better at QPR but I don't have too many complaints about our transfer policy at the moment. We are consistently putting together competitive squads on an absolute shoestring budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shania on Feb 8, 2022 21:58:50 GMT
I still wonder where Marco Ramkilde is? He is a striker and would be a useful player to have in the squad.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparks on Feb 8, 2022 22:05:41 GMT
I still wonder where Marco Ramkilde is? He is a striker and would be a useful player to have in the squad. Not named in the recently announced EFL 24 man squad |
|
