| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? 17:46 - Sep 4 with 5720 views | WestbourneR |
Now he hasn't signed it seems he's gonna run down his contract and leave on a free - unless I've missed something. There doesn't seem to any suggestion he'll sign an extension.
So it means we're gonna get zero quid for him in a year.
Do you think that's sensible? I genuienly don't know. He will score lots of goals and if that gets us promoted it's worth more than £15 mill... |  |
| |  |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 17:50 - Sep 4 with 4398 views | WeaverQPR |
The middle ground is he goes in Jan for 8/9m |  |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 17:55 - Sep 4 with 4367 views | VancouverHoop |
As a fan, it's a gimme. I'd rather have him for another year than not.
For the club it's more of a gamble, but on balance they've made the right choice I think. If he stays healthy it means about 20 goals, plus bigger crowds. Losing him, especially as he's happy at QPR, would mean negative PR, both among our supporters, and in the wider footballing world. We'd become known as a club that had to sell it's best assets, not just the dead wood. Not a good perception. [Post edited 4 Sep 2015 17:57]
|  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 17:56 - Sep 4 with 4348 views | Blue_Castello |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 17:50 - Sep 4 by WeaverQPR |
The middle ground is he goes in Jan for 8/9m |
Agreed - Also nobody was prepared to pay £15 million so it is a totally hypothetical question.
Keeping Austin for this season gives us a genuine chance of promotion, without him we would very likely have been mid table at best, the owners should be applauded for not giving in and selling him cheaply.
Oh and a massive thanks to Charlie for having the nuts to want to stay and not put in a transfer request as per his interview in the Indy.... | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 18:02 - Sep 4 with 4322 views | dodge_stoke_r |
If he and the rest of the players that we now have perfom to somewhere near where their abilty is then I dont see any reason why we should fear anyone in this league. And if promotion is achieved with all of the rewards that come to the club then to keep him will be the right decision. Forget the loss of £15 million because that is money that we never really had. The true cost to the club is the £4 million that we brought him for. And £4 million for a seasons worth of Premiership money with the possibility of another seasons worth of premiership money will be well worth forfieting any transferthat we could have got now or in January. |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 18:45 - Sep 4 with 4224 views | barbicanranger |
Also, him staying opens other doors:
i) Could he accept a new contract with a lower release clause that works for both say 10m...then he won't go for free but will be freer to move
ii) If we get promoted would he be prepared to stay - therefore giving us a stable squad and no need to go out and find another striker... |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 06:23 - Sep 5 with 3957 views | QPR_ARG |
This is something I keep telling my friends about this.
I think it's a no-brainer as a club we had to keep Charlie. After QPR fell into the situation in which they got relegated and entering the 18-goal striker's final year of contract, if the option was to sell him for 15M, then keeping him and giving yourself a better shot at returning to the Premier League with a man you know will score in double digits, it's the more sensible thing to do.
15M is no money these days. Having a striker of his quality, fully adapted to the club and proven at this division, could cost a lot more than that. The upside in keeping him (and a number of quality players too), is HUGE.
It's the great chance QPR have to go back to where the money and the spotlights are. And this time...DO IT RIGHT! |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 09:14 - Sep 5 with 3835 views | ElHoop |
An interesting question - in accountant's talk how would you value him anyway? He was never worth £15m because either nobody offered it or he didn't want to play for whoever did. Would he ever have gone to a club which offered less than the £15m? I suppose that eventually the price would have got so low that a better club would have gone in and paid the money. I suspect that he never intended to go to an average PL club and was holding out either for a big club now or the big payday that would follow the expiration of his contract next year.
So I don't think that £15m was ever an option - more like £10m I should think from somewhere he actualy wanted to go and we might even get that in January if a big club is desperate enough, or better still two big clubs are desperate and they both want him.
Meanwhile if we are in the top 2 places we might want to keep him and give up the £10m that we might get as we'll get more for going up. So we can possibly get the best of both worlds if we are good enough to be contenders this season and whilst external factors will determine how many options we have and how much he is worth, we're probably not much worse off financially as regards Austin than we were say three months ago.
But ultimately it was probably a choice between £10m and having him for the season in terms of the original question. |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 10:03 - Sep 5 with 3750 views | DANRANGER |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 18:02 - Sep 4 by dodge_stoke_r |
If he and the rest of the players that we now have perfom to somewhere near where their abilty is then I dont see any reason why we should fear anyone in this league. And if promotion is achieved with all of the rewards that come to the club then to keep him will be the right decision. Forget the loss of £15 million because that is money that we never really had. The true cost to the club is the £4 million that we brought him for. And £4 million for a seasons worth of Premiership money with the possibility of another seasons worth of premiership money will be well worth forfieting any transferthat we could have got now or in January. |
The 4m we paid has already been covered by the promotion in his 1st season so it was money well spent (for once). January will be interesting as he can sign pre contract with a foreign club (should it be an option) and you also have premier league clubs needing a boost. Not necessarily relegation material either as he's clearly stated he wants to be established. If we're top 2 we won't sell but it will be harder to resist bids of say 8m knowing we get nothing in summer.
Even if we'd got 15m spending that money on an adequate replacement would have proven extremely difficult. Quality of players for the prices paid has been shocking this summer and that's why scouting and identifying targets early is essential going forward. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 13:55 - Sep 5 with 3594 views | southernR |
Let's also not forget the message that keeping the likes of Austin and Phillips at our club will send out to not only other clubs/agents but also to the existing and future players that want to play for us. | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 13:57 - Sep 5 with 3583 views | Match82 |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 13:55 - Sep 5 by southernR |
Let's also not forget the message that keeping the likes of Austin and Phillips at our club will send out to not only other clubs/agents but also to the existing and future players that want to play for us. |
This. We have developed the wrong kind of reputation in negotiations over the last few years, this is one way of illustrating that clubs can't just get us over a barrel anymore |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 14:11 - Sep 5 with 3560 views | TacticalR |
Very hard to answer.
We might have spent a lot of money on another striker, and not got somebody anything like as reliable. At least with him we have got guaranteed goals. |  |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 20:49 - Sep 5 with 3417 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
I'm going to swerve the usual LFW amateur accountancy but if our debt is in the nine figure range as spouted by the media then £15m and wages isn't much really is it? |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 21:39 - Sep 5 with 3371 views | stumbleandfall |
No one ever offered £15 million. We can only discuss not accepting £12 million. That's the true cost of losing Charlie on a free. [Post edited 5 Sep 2015 21:40]
| | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 23:45 - Sep 5 with 3285 views | CiderwithRsie |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 17:50 - Sep 4 by WeaverQPR |
The middle ground is he goes in Jan for 8/9m |
His value in Jan doesn't necessarily fall at all.
He's worth what someone will pay for him. According to the Indy/Mail article, he's put a further limit on the market (reasonably enough IMO) that it has to be what an "established Prem Club" is willing to pay.
If any such club is staring at possible relegation in January, (and usually someone is) and reckons his goals will save them, then frankly it's a seller's market. Or even better, maybe a club like Arsenal reckons they just need a proven goal poacher to get the into the Champion's League.
Alternatively, if all those clubs either reckon they are all right for strikers or reckon it's best to take the financial hit and rebuild next year then he could be worth nothing. | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 10:09 - Sep 6 with 3156 views | LowerloftLad |
Slap 15mil on him again. We know Newcastle want him but didn't stump up the cash,Newcastle know they have not got a hope in hell of signing on a free as he will want to stay in London that leaves two choices sell if we are off the pace come January or if we go back up offer him a new contract. I will be gutted when he does go but he has certainly earned a big move |  |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 11:05 - Sep 6 with 3088 views | ElHoop |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 20:49 - Sep 5 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I'm going to swerve the usual LFW amateur accountancy but if our debt is in the nine figure range as spouted by the media then £15m and wages isn't much really is it? |
The nine digits are made up of dozens and dozens of poor decisions not just one. £15m or whatever it is would be be one of the larger 'losses' don't you think? | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 14:53 - Sep 6 with 2939 views | QPR_Jim |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 11:05 - Sep 6 by ElHoop |
The nine digits are made up of dozens and dozens of poor decisions not just one. £15m or whatever it is would be be one of the larger 'losses' don't you think? |
I've been reading a book recently that states that scoring goals is less important than a good defence statistically.
It also suggests that football is a weak link game in which the team is only as good as its worst player. Therefore there is limited benefit of adding a superstar in one position if your weak link remains the same. You'd be better off replacing the weak player.
Having read those facts backed up with statistics and examples I feel inclined to say it's a bit of a gamble and that we could have used a fraction of that money to improve the defence, and give us statistically a better chance of promotion.
However I think our lack of cover for Austin makes that rational irrelevant as his departure would in all likelihood mean polter would play and become our weak link.
So everything considered I'm glad he stayed, as I am Phillips and Green. I hope the gamble pays off and we win promotion and continue the re-build in the top flight with the obvious advantage of the cash that brings to reduce our debt. |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 15:18 - Sep 6 with 2917 views | daveB |
Well forgetting the fee we wanted over his 3 years he'll have cost the club about 9/10 million in transfer fee and wages I'd guess, thats a very rough guess.
In that tie we've had one promotion basically down to him that got the club 120 million and if he helps us to another one then going on a free hasn't hurt us at all, he's already paid for himself. |  | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 15:22 - Sep 6 with 2913 views | DylanP |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 14:53 - Sep 6 by QPR_Jim |
I've been reading a book recently that states that scoring goals is less important than a good defence statistically.
It also suggests that football is a weak link game in which the team is only as good as its worst player. Therefore there is limited benefit of adding a superstar in one position if your weak link remains the same. You'd be better off replacing the weak player.
Having read those facts backed up with statistics and examples I feel inclined to say it's a bit of a gamble and that we could have used a fraction of that money to improve the defence, and give us statistically a better chance of promotion.
However I think our lack of cover for Austin makes that rational irrelevant as his departure would in all likelihood mean polter would play and become our weak link.
So everything considered I'm glad he stayed, as I am Phillips and Green. I hope the gamble pays off and we win promotion and continue the re-build in the top flight with the obvious advantage of the cash that brings to reduce our debt. |
I would build on that a little by saying, I hope that the gamble pays off and we win promotion and continue our sensible hiring policies that allow us to use the Premiership riches to pay off our debts and secure the future of the club |  |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 15:51 - Sep 6 with 2871 views | TacticalR |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 14:53 - Sep 6 by QPR_Jim |
I've been reading a book recently that states that scoring goals is less important than a good defence statistically.
It also suggests that football is a weak link game in which the team is only as good as its worst player. Therefore there is limited benefit of adding a superstar in one position if your weak link remains the same. You'd be better off replacing the weak player.
Having read those facts backed up with statistics and examples I feel inclined to say it's a bit of a gamble and that we could have used a fraction of that money to improve the defence, and give us statistically a better chance of promotion.
However I think our lack of cover for Austin makes that rational irrelevant as his departure would in all likelihood mean polter would play and become our weak link.
So everything considered I'm glad he stayed, as I am Phillips and Green. I hope the gamble pays off and we win promotion and continue the re-build in the top flight with the obvious advantage of the cash that brings to reduce our debt. |
I remember reading somewhere that the 'weak link' theory was a big part of moneyball. People lost sight of that because they thought moneyball was all about turning frogs into princes, and then selling off the princes, Southampton-style. I believe in the moneyball theory it was better to sell off your worst player than to try to replace the better players with even better players. [Post edited 6 Sep 2015 18:01]
| |
| |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 18:08 - Sep 6 with 2784 views | QPR_Jim |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 15:51 - Sep 6 by TacticalR |
I remember reading somewhere that the 'weak link' theory was a big part of moneyball. People lost sight of that because they thought moneyball was all about turning frogs into princes, and then selling off the princes, Southampton-style. I believe in the moneyball theory it was better to sell off your worst player than to try to replace the better players with even better players. [Post edited 6 Sep 2015 18:01]
|
That's essentially the theory, although as we know the weak links aren't easy to flog. The book I read, the numbers game, laid out some ways of dealing with weak links including coaching and adapting tactically before ultimately looking to sell if the case is hopeless.
Another point they raise in the book is the idea that performance levels tend to drop after moving clubs for various reasons. So even a decent replacement for Austin may not be firing on all cylinders immediately.
It discusses the idea of "lift outs", which some large companies do when recruiting. It essentially means taking more than one player from a club so there are familiar faces at training and on the pitch in order to reduce the settling in period. I wonder whether the club were in mind of this when buying the lads from Swindon and Watford, it may just help them hit the ground running. | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 23:07 - Sep 6 with 2697 views | Ingham |
Very interesting, QPR Jim. I think there's something in that. Not sure if this quite follows from what you're saying, but I've wondered why we did so badly last season if we had such a great goalscorer. If he had scored more goals, maybe we would have survived.
The obvious answers to that are, first, that he did remarkably well to score as many goals as he did in a side as bad as we were last year. And second, that in any case, he did do HIS bit, and if the others had done theirs - stepped up to the plate in the way he did, as it were - we'd have been all right.
Is there an inconsistency there? Seems okay, as far as it goes, I suppose. But ARE we justified in assuming that the fact that the others didn't do any better REALLY mattered, but the fact that Austin didn't do any better just DIDN'T matter?
Idly perhaps, I wondered if that might be why no-one had our arm off at £15 million. Why not, if he did so well in a struggling side? Surely there are plenty of sides in the top flight who didn't do as well as they would have liked, and who have bucketfuls of money to spend? Is it only tightening up the defence, from one point of view, or disposing of the 'weak link', from another, that REALLY makes a difference?
If that is so, why are we so keen to keep him if others aren't anywhere near as keen to get him away from us? Price, maybe. But saying they might snap him up at a lower price IS tantamount to saying he isn't worth all THAT much, isn't it?
If the top flight Clubs aren't interested at our price, is it because there are plenty of strikers about of the same standard? If the argument is that they're biding their time to see whether he lives up to the promise of last season, that seems to bear out a view that he hasn't, in fact, done enough to create a feeding frenzy for his talents.
I'm not sure. He did well for an Rs player, and in a weak side. But we were poor, so, again, it might be said that it wasn't all THAT hard to shine in last season's outfit. Then again, the others didn't manage it, and he was clearly one of the better players, if not the best.
So many people have offered suggestions about why it didn't happen - whether it was him, the Club, the price, the year remaining on his contract, the prospect that he could slip away anyway in the next transfer window, the chance of a far more lucrative new deal, leaving on a free at the end of the season, and other points I can't recall, that it invited a mosaic of speculation.
Which the theory you've passed on has added to, of course. We may be wiser in a few months, or a year, and prospects have a way of changing - or fading - at QPR, and in football generally, so the outcome might still leave us guessing.
If a giant snaps him up fairly soon, and he's hammering in 20-25 goals a season that pushes them towards the title, or even just qualification for the Champions League, for those who conspicuously haven't managed it, then we may know. But if that turns out to be the case, we might wonder why they bothered to wait at all? A year of heavy goalscoring in THIS league might raise his profile, but it isn't the same as scoring more in the top flight.
Interested to see how it turns out.
But a really good post for us to be going on with in the meantime, mate! | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 01:21 - Sep 7 with 2634 views | QPR_Jim |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 23:07 - Sep 6 by Ingham |
Very interesting, QPR Jim. I think there's something in that. Not sure if this quite follows from what you're saying, but I've wondered why we did so badly last season if we had such a great goalscorer. If he had scored more goals, maybe we would have survived.
The obvious answers to that are, first, that he did remarkably well to score as many goals as he did in a side as bad as we were last year. And second, that in any case, he did do HIS bit, and if the others had done theirs - stepped up to the plate in the way he did, as it were - we'd have been all right.
Is there an inconsistency there? Seems okay, as far as it goes, I suppose. But ARE we justified in assuming that the fact that the others didn't do any better REALLY mattered, but the fact that Austin didn't do any better just DIDN'T matter?
Idly perhaps, I wondered if that might be why no-one had our arm off at £15 million. Why not, if he did so well in a struggling side? Surely there are plenty of sides in the top flight who didn't do as well as they would have liked, and who have bucketfuls of money to spend? Is it only tightening up the defence, from one point of view, or disposing of the 'weak link', from another, that REALLY makes a difference?
If that is so, why are we so keen to keep him if others aren't anywhere near as keen to get him away from us? Price, maybe. But saying they might snap him up at a lower price IS tantamount to saying he isn't worth all THAT much, isn't it?
If the top flight Clubs aren't interested at our price, is it because there are plenty of strikers about of the same standard? If the argument is that they're biding their time to see whether he lives up to the promise of last season, that seems to bear out a view that he hasn't, in fact, done enough to create a feeding frenzy for his talents.
I'm not sure. He did well for an Rs player, and in a weak side. But we were poor, so, again, it might be said that it wasn't all THAT hard to shine in last season's outfit. Then again, the others didn't manage it, and he was clearly one of the better players, if not the best.
So many people have offered suggestions about why it didn't happen - whether it was him, the Club, the price, the year remaining on his contract, the prospect that he could slip away anyway in the next transfer window, the chance of a far more lucrative new deal, leaving on a free at the end of the season, and other points I can't recall, that it invited a mosaic of speculation.
Which the theory you've passed on has added to, of course. We may be wiser in a few months, or a year, and prospects have a way of changing - or fading - at QPR, and in football generally, so the outcome might still leave us guessing.
If a giant snaps him up fairly soon, and he's hammering in 20-25 goals a season that pushes them towards the title, or even just qualification for the Champions League, for those who conspicuously haven't managed it, then we may know. But if that turns out to be the case, we might wonder why they bothered to wait at all? A year of heavy goalscoring in THIS league might raise his profile, but it isn't the same as scoring more in the top flight.
Interested to see how it turns out.
But a really good post for us to be going on with in the meantime, mate! |
I agree, Austin did his bit we couldn't have asked for more from him. As a team we finished bottom with more goals than the 5 teams above us but conceded the most goals by 10 more than the next worst team. So it seems clear our problem was defence. An extra goal or two may have garnered an extra point or maybe two, maybe even none if we we're 4-0 down when scored but a clean sheet would have got us 1 point guaranteed and a good chance to get 3.
Why nobody else was willing to buy him I'm not sure, as you state the price tag could be a possibility. The club's looking to strengthen their forwards may feel that he doesn't add to what they have in attacking options already. They might prefer a tall battering ram or a striker with pace to stretch defences to add to their options. It seems to have been suggested there are doubts about his hold up play and his ability to influence the game as a lone striker. This may have cumulated in other players being preferred leaving the Leicester offer which was rejected as they didn't meet the asking price and the Norwich move Austin is reported to have turned down.
If that is the case I think Austin has been very wise in staying and we're lucky to still have him. Hopefully the reinforcements to the defence will do the trick and allow Austin to lead us to promotion. | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 07:19 - Sep 7 with 2563 views | ElHoop |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 14:53 - Sep 6 by QPR_Jim |
I've been reading a book recently that states that scoring goals is less important than a good defence statistically.
It also suggests that football is a weak link game in which the team is only as good as its worst player. Therefore there is limited benefit of adding a superstar in one position if your weak link remains the same. You'd be better off replacing the weak player.
Having read those facts backed up with statistics and examples I feel inclined to say it's a bit of a gamble and that we could have used a fraction of that money to improve the defence, and give us statistically a better chance of promotion.
However I think our lack of cover for Austin makes that rational irrelevant as his departure would in all likelihood mean polter would play and become our weak link.
So everything considered I'm glad he stayed, as I am Phillips and Green. I hope the gamble pays off and we win promotion and continue the re-build in the top flight with the obvious advantage of the cash that brings to reduce our debt. |
I was thinking about that, but surely it's more multi-dimensional than just a question of the weakest player?
Forget QPR for a moment and take the England cricket team. They have improved this year without changing many players and certainly the weak links remain, but overall performance has improved. They changed the coach and they say that the new coach or the new 'director of cricket' made the captain more positive and it was this that caused the improvement, not removing a specific weak link in the line up.
Going back to QPR, I think that you have to widen the range of possible 'weak links' to the coaches, the director of football, the scouting, the negotiating of contracts and so forth. Added to the playing staff, any of these factors could be the weakest link. In fact it is difficult to see how an individual player could be the weakest link in our set up without a whole load of other things having been vastly improved. | | | |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 09:52 - Sep 7 with 2489 views | QPR_Jim |
| What's better - £15 million or Austin for one season? on 07:19 - Sep 7 by ElHoop |
I was thinking about that, but surely it's more multi-dimensional than just a question of the weakest player?
Forget QPR for a moment and take the England cricket team. They have improved this year without changing many players and certainly the weak links remain, but overall performance has improved. They changed the coach and they say that the new coach or the new 'director of cricket' made the captain more positive and it was this that caused the improvement, not removing a specific weak link in the line up.
Going back to QPR, I think that you have to widen the range of possible 'weak links' to the coaches, the director of football, the scouting, the negotiating of contracts and so forth. Added to the playing staff, any of these factors could be the weakest link. In fact it is difficult to see how an individual player could be the weakest link in our set up without a whole load of other things having been vastly improved. |
You're right, the weak links on the pitch can be improved by coaching or shielded through tactics, so there is stuff that can be done to improve the team without replacing the weak player. If the coach doesn't identify the weak areas and resolve them then perhaps he is the weak link as you suggest. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
