| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week 12:30 - Sep 10 with 8117 views | E15Hoop |
Couldn't see an existing thread on this. Apologies if I've just missed it, as work has been extremely full on recently, hence my lengthy absence from here apart from the occasional pop-in.
This is WELL worth a listen, as I think listening to the Chief always is anyway.
A lot of it we know already to be fair, but there are some interesting new revelations which I'm not going to spoil by going into detail on here. What I would say, though, is you should definitely listen right to the end, as he makes specific reference as to why we haven't seen him inducted into the Forever R's Club yet. Given the amount of games he played for the club and the fact that he was basically the only constant through 6 1/2 years of complete chaos and madness on an epic scale, I've long felt this was a ridiculous oversight. There is a ray of hope shone on this injustice by him at the end of the podcast to be fair.
On a technical note, you might find that your web browser won't allow you to get to the West12media website because of one of those dodgy certicifcate notices (hence why I haven't posted the link here), so you might have to manually override that. |  | | |  |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:37 - Sep 12 with 1109 views | TK1 |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:15 - Sep 12 by DejR_vu |
Brian, people / organisations are in breach of contract all the time. It may be legally enforceable but that doesn’t stop one party refusing to honour the contract, leaving the other to take legal action. As I said previously, if I was advising someone in that situation that advice wouldn’t necessarily be pursue them because of the wider implications in doing so. If it transpires there’s an acceptable external offer on the table, why lock horns on something not worth fighting for? |
Professional football clubs honour contracts. If QPR were routinely agreeing contracts which included extension agreements that they then didn't honour, nobody would sign a contract that included an extension agreement with QPR. They've subsequently honoured several contract extensions in good faith, with the likes of Eze, Chair and Willock - and if they didn't have to honour contracts then why were QPR forced to the honour the contract agreement with Taylor Richards who the new management neither want nor can afford? In professional football, a contract is a contract - or you agree a settlement. | | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:52 - Sep 12 with 1044 views | daveB |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 13:01 - Sep 12 by Antti_Heinola |
I think the fact we signed Leistner on very hefty terms blows that summer blows this out the water, Dave, sorry. Fine if they wanted Leistner to replace him, but you can't say they couldn't afford it when they made that signing first. That's a decision they made.
I suspect the club went to him saying they couldn't afford it, hoping he'd take a free transfer, but he said he'd negotiate, and so they had to offer something silly instead. |
The contract he says they offered him was 2-5 grand a week basic and 3 times that per appearance so guessing around 18k a week which he couldn't possibly accept, I don't blame him to be honest but that is surely up there with our top earner at the time.
Was Leistner on significantly more than that? Genuine question as I have no idea.
I do agree that the club probably wanted to move him on but whether they say it's due to money, or they don't rate the player or something else none of them are going to be nice to hear for the player and the player won't be happy |  | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 16:03 - Sep 12 with 1007 views | PhilmyRs |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:52 - Sep 12 by daveB |
The contract he says they offered him was 2-5 grand a week basic and 3 times that per appearance so guessing around 18k a week which he couldn't possibly accept, I don't blame him to be honest but that is surely up there with our top earner at the time.
Was Leistner on significantly more than that? Genuine question as I have no idea.
I do agree that the club probably wanted to move him on but whether they say it's due to money, or they don't rate the player or something else none of them are going to be nice to hear for the player and the player won't be happy |
I reckon Leinster was on similar money but no way would it have been as heavily appearance based as the offer put to Ned. I think it was right that we didn't renew Nedum's contract because of financial considerations. But Ned is right that any contract negotiation, it's always the player that comes across poorly. The club portray the image of having 'offered him something, but the player wanted to move on', when the reality for Ned is it was a poor offer (deliberately so, to force the move) so he decided to leave. | | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 16:19 - Sep 12 with 974 views | daveB |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 16:03 - Sep 12 by PhilmyRs |
I reckon Leinster was on similar money but no way would it have been as heavily appearance based as the offer put to Ned. I think it was right that we didn't renew Nedum's contract because of financial considerations. But Ned is right that any contract negotiation, it's always the player that comes across poorly. The club portray the image of having 'offered him something, but the player wanted to move on', when the reality for Ned is it was a poor offer (deliberately so, to force the move) so he decided to leave. |
you have to assume the contract Nedum was expecting would have been a lot more than 18k a week for him to see it as an insult
I don't think he was wrong to turn it down, It was a big pay cut for him and a big gamble as if he gets an injury or is dropped his pay is very low compared to what he was on and as others have said no way did QPR think he was going to sign it which is why they offered him the deal structured in that way | | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 16:57 - Sep 12 with 915 views | DejR_vu |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 15:37 - Sep 12 by TK1 |
Professional football clubs honour contracts. If QPR were routinely agreeing contracts which included extension agreements that they then didn't honour, nobody would sign a contract that included an extension agreement with QPR. They've subsequently honoured several contract extensions in good faith, with the likes of Eze, Chair and Willock - and if they didn't have to honour contracts then why were QPR forced to the honour the contract agreement with Taylor Richards who the new management neither want nor can afford? In professional football, a contract is a contract - or you agree a settlement. |
"If QPR were routinely agreeing contracts which included extension agreements that they then didn't honour, nobody would sign a contract that included an extension agreement with QPR."
No-one's suggesting they routinely do it
"They've subsequently honoured several contract extensions in good faith, with the likes of Eze, Chair and Willock"
They are all players that the club would see as assets. The point he was making was that he was offered something that it was obvious he could not accept as a way of pushing him out
"...if they didn't have to honour contracts then why were QPR forced to the honour the contract agreement with Taylor Richards who the new management neither want nor can afford?"
I suspect the club would be far more concerned about Brighton's reaction than Ned's
"In professional football, a contract is a contract - or you agree a settlement."
Ned said quite clearly, he had a trigger in his contract, it was triggered, the club said they couldn't afford it. Are you saying he lied? | |
| |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 17:33 - Sep 12 with 840 views | charmr |
I think he is just reiterating how the club did their business was all a bit car salesman at times.
Buy a car or too many cars, not necessarily all good cars, over pay, sell at a loss, use finance packages to re cooperate losses. Get the cars with big outlays off the lot and buy smaller and cheaper brands. Promise to sell the car to you to find it’s gone on your return and try to sell you another one.
The thing that rung true and all of us know it was how no money was invested in facilities for anything long term and also the fing tweeting by Fernandes.
Running a football club is a different prospect then running a business and we were another club someone had to use to learn that. | | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 17:42 - Sep 12 with 826 views | baz_qpr |
How I read it,
He had an OTT £60k a week contract from Year one Tony/Hughes madness
Last year of it he negotiated with the club to turn it into £20k a week for extra 3 years which gave him extra security (unlikely to have got a contract of that size elsewhere) we were being relegated FFP and all that
At the end of this contract the best they could offer was a £5k a week basic (I know someone from the club around that time and that was roughly the ceiling) but with a £12-£15k appearance feet give him something near what he had. He took it as he would not get played if FFP was tight and was earning that kind of money (basic) at City as youngster.
Club should have just told him they could not afford him and they should have parted amicably.
Club uses appearance bonuses to bump up wages and manage FFP thresholds (which explains those strange absences from time to time)
Really good listen overall, even Finney shuts up and lets him speak |  | | |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 17:56 - Sep 12 with 794 views | Antti_Heinola |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 16:19 - Sep 12 by daveB |
you have to assume the contract Nedum was expecting would have been a lot more than 18k a week for him to see it as an insult
I don't think he was wrong to turn it down, It was a big pay cut for him and a big gamble as if he gets an injury or is dropped his pay is very low compared to what he was on and as others have said no way did QPR think he was going to sign it which is why they offered him the deal structured in that way |
No you don't have to assume that. Because what the club was saying was: we'll pay you a little bit, but we're not going to pick you. That was the point.
Bear in kind Ned also said on the pod that he accepted less money before but with a 3 year contract rather than a 2 year deal. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 19:47 - Sep 12 with 671 views | TK1 |
| The Chief on Open All R's Last Week on 16:57 - Sep 12 by DejR_vu |
"If QPR were routinely agreeing contracts which included extension agreements that they then didn't honour, nobody would sign a contract that included an extension agreement with QPR."
No-one's suggesting they routinely do it
"They've subsequently honoured several contract extensions in good faith, with the likes of Eze, Chair and Willock"
They are all players that the club would see as assets. The point he was making was that he was offered something that it was obvious he could not accept as a way of pushing him out
"...if they didn't have to honour contracts then why were QPR forced to the honour the contract agreement with Taylor Richards who the new management neither want nor can afford?"
I suspect the club would be far more concerned about Brighton's reaction than Ned's
"In professional football, a contract is a contract - or you agree a settlement."
Ned said quite clearly, he had a trigger in his contract, it was triggered, the club said they couldn't afford it. Are you saying he lied? |
You: "No-one's suggesting they routinely do it"
Also you: "Brian, people / organisations are in breach of contract all the time."
That's what I was replying to. But, look, it doesn't matter. I don't particularly think Lee Hoos is great, find his 'no can-do' and weary attitude really annoying. But I'd like to know his side on this particular story.
I like Nedum as a personality and he was a reliable player for us. But he was incredibly well-paid for that work, and only came for the money. And that final contract sounds like decent money for a mid-table Championship club to be paying a guy at the end of his career who instead went to...Utah. Maybe the club saw something in him that needed that incentive to play full-bore at that stage of his career? Perhaps a question for the former DOF.
The Redknapp stuff was revolting, of course. Disgusting man. But again, the whole club was revolting then. Who else was offering Nedum Onuhua 60k a week in the first place? As for the C Club stuff: give over. Are we meant to feel sympathy that players who have their own lounge can't go into a lounge with corporate ticket holders? So many good reasons not to let them - and with the number of wrong 'uns on the playing staff then, probably wise to keep them away. He may have been the captain and outraged he couldn't go into C Club. I've been a season ticket holder for decades but can't get a pint at half time unless I miss the last 15 minutes of the half. It's Loftus Road. Everything's restricted.
I just don't have too much sympathy for anyone signed or employed by the club after TF took over as everyone did extremely well out of QPR, Nedum included, everyone except for the fans who are the only people who can legitimately complain about the whole affair. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
