| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 13:10 - Mar 17 with 10726 views | QPRDave |
"The club is also bracing itself from a supporters backlash when they learn the inescapable truth QPR will develop raw talent and sell to help balance books."
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/qpr-slash-playing-bu
Well I don't see how we'll ever sustain a promotion push again running the club along these lines. What with parachute payments even bigger than now.
Now this is QPR that most of us remember so ok fair enough, but don't bullsh*t me with we're ambitious, Jimmy's gonna build a team to get promoted because sell your best players and you have the Richard Thompson era back.
As I say if this is the model, running the club to survive fine, but it's back to being also rans and the only excitement will be relegation battles as it used to be, only we were Prem lge to start off with under Thompson
And what is the point of building a new stadium? |  | | |  |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:19 - Mar 17 with 2380 views | bosh67 |
If it means we are run more like Southampton and Leicester in the future, good. It's worked for them. |  |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:26 - Mar 17 with 2364 views | Northernr |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:19 - Mar 17 by kensalriser |
Slapdash piece with quotes cribbed from elsewhere and employing tabloid style dramatic language. Not serious commentary in any way.
Should think we'll easily have dropped a third off the playing budget at the end of the season compared to a year ago.
Mind you, it wasnt so much the money spent that was the problem, it was how it was spent. |
To be honest if they get rid of Hoilett, Sandro, Fer and Green all permanently I shouldn't think that's far off a third of playing budget gone in one fell swoop without damaging the team at all. |  | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:30 - Mar 17 with 2346 views | superhoopdownunder |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:19 - Mar 17 by kensalriser |
Slapdash piece with quotes cribbed from elsewhere and employing tabloid style dramatic language. Not serious commentary in any way.
Should think we'll easily have dropped a third off the playing budget at the end of the season compared to a year ago.
Mind you, it wasnt so much the money spent that was the problem, it was how it was spent. |
sorry kensalriser down arrow pressed in error |  | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:32 - Mar 17 with 2336 views | PlanetHonneywood |
Nothing we didn't already know and in some cases, shouted at the club to start doing years ago!
I see nothing to worry about here, because frankly, its long been predicted. Indeed, there is plenty to be optimistic about in view of what promising signs we can clearly see before our eyes with the playing side currently.
Sure, there will be a little rockiness, but nothing we cannot handle. |  |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:38 - Mar 17 with 2314 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:32 - Mar 17 by PlanetHonneywood |
Nothing we didn't already know and in some cases, shouted at the club to start doing years ago!
I see nothing to worry about here, because frankly, its long been predicted. Indeed, there is plenty to be optimistic about in view of what promising signs we can clearly see before our eyes with the playing side currently.
Sure, there will be a little rockiness, but nothing we cannot handle. |
Exactly.
"Supporter backlash as club answer their every prayer" |  |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:40 - Mar 17 with 2308 views | BostonR |
Apart from Burnley (at the moment) the Championship is a tight league. We have not had a great season but we are mid-table. Next season the Championship will be the same even with Villa, Norwich and Newcastle coming down.
The preparations being put in place now will give us a solid platform next season. As Clive has pointed out even with the big names in the side the team were utter shite! We seem to have a good back-office team and a solid plan which is good news. |  | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:50 - Mar 17 with 2287 views | daveB |
We got promoted before spending far less than we are now and Brighton may well go up this year spending far less as well. Money doesn't equal promotion, it does help but you can build a very good championship side without paying ridiculous wages. |  | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 16:04 - Mar 17 with 2253 views | adhoc_qpr |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:26 - Mar 17 by Northernr |
To be honest if they get rid of Hoilett, Sandro, Fer and Green all permanently I shouldn't think that's far off a third of playing budget gone in one fell swoop without damaging the team at all. |
That's what i was thinkiing - surely this reduction will happen naturally as we get the last big earners off the books and bring the squad size down like JFH wants.
If this means signing more like Chery, Polter or Hall in the summer rather than say Danny Graham or Seb Larsson on £40K a week from relegated Sunderland that's great news too. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 16:21 - Mar 17 with 2222 views | JonDoeman |
Just renewed my season tickets, so that will help the budget!  |  |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 16:27 - Mar 17 with 2200 views | Northernr |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 16:04 - Mar 17 by adhoc_qpr |
That's what i was thinkiing - surely this reduction will happen naturally as we get the last big earners off the books and bring the squad size down like JFH wants.
If this means signing more like Chery, Polter or Hall in the summer rather than say Danny Graham or Seb Larsson on £40K a week from relegated Sunderland that's great news too. |
Big if though. They're all crap, so we'll probably have to loan out again or subsidise wages. | | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 16:33 - Mar 17 with 2178 views | Dorse |
'QPR Fans Backlash As Frontlash Is Sidelashed. From Above.' |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 16:47 - Mar 17 with 2151 views | AgedR |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 13:38 - Mar 17 by TheBlob |
...or Peterborough. |
This ain't Kansas! (or Peterborough or Coventry). |  |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 18:52 - Mar 17 with 2057 views | joolsyp |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 15:26 - Mar 17 by Northernr |
To be honest if they get rid of Hoilett, Sandro, Fer and Green all permanently I shouldn't think that's far off a third of playing budget gone in one fell swoop without damaging the team at all. |
Lot of talk about getting rid of Hoilett, playing for a new contract etc. I hope that we have an adequate replacement lined up as he is one of the few players we have with genuine pace that puts defences on the back foot. Far far better than Matty "50:50 challenge" Philips at the moment IMO. |  | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 18:56 - Mar 17 with 2047 views | Ingham |
The important thing is to bear in mind that the future has to be achieved, it isn't 'decided' in advance.
If that were the case, we'd have had big money from the City from Chris Wright, instead of incurring a £20 million debt to provide him with his £10 million. We would be in the Champions League as Briatore and Bhatia promised. and debt-free years ago on the same basis as Bhatia implied.
It is the essential difference between all the losers and the handful of winners. The losers know all about the future. It will be just whatever peachy outcome they'd like.
The winners know how hard it will be, and are doing what they can to make it happen.
They used to say those who could, did, and those who couldn't, taught, a slur on the teaching profession I've no doubt.
But in football, it's very near the truth. Those who can, do, and those who can't, tell themselves - every time - that THIS time it will all come together.
We need to learn to judge our capabilities using hindsight. Optimism is meaningless for the purpose. We know which teams and players were good in the past, and EXACTLY how good. We haven't a clue about the value of JFH, new stadiums, or new policies about player recruitment, spending and the like.
That is part of the fun. Finding out! But finding out means not knowing. And that means managing risk as far as that is possible.
Once we know our results and performances, we know how good we are. Before we know that, we know nothing. And if our history is anything to go by, it takes years, if not decades, to find out.
We have no idea how hard it will be, how clever or gifted the people doing the job will prove to be, or how tough our opponents will be, let alone how changes in the game and the economy will affect the Club, and whether anyone who IS good will stay longer than they do here, which is not very long.
We don't know what further nightmares like the Taylor Report and the lifting of wage and freedom of movement restrictions are round the corner. Like the economic crash in the early seventies that left Chelsea with just a part of their vast new stadium built, and their eclipse as a serious candidate for honours in the top flight for 30 years.
These things needn't inhibit us from getting on with what needs to be done. As the people running the Club - and representing it - have generally shown little aptitude for the game, and generally done very little to improve the Club's finances, profile, support and success ratio, we might start at the beginning and ask ourselves whether we know anything AT ALL.
Anything that is seriously convertible into profitability, success or significantly increased long term support, for example. Even the managers who've had some success with us and elsewhere have not met with unbounded joy or admiration (Holloway, Warnock and Redknapp) and have soon been moved on.
As things stand, it may take years to work out where to start. Let alone to gauge whether we are making progress. And that is one of the more alarming possibilities. And more or less a racing certainty if the last two or three decades is anything to go by.
That is one of the more alarming things about the way we do things. Nobody seems to learn the lesson of our own incompetence. That we seem to have so little idea of what needs to be done. Decisions and appointments and signings are made. And then it's back to square one in no time.
And why should it be otherwise. Everyone makes so much money out of crap performances, crap results, crap appointments, crap signings, that we are effectively INVITING them to come here and be crap.
We may imagine that the wages we pay are dictated to the Club by the marketplace, and that we have to sign crap as expensively as possible because even crap is expensive in the modern game.
But if that is so, we should be asking ourselves how many other aspects of the Club's activities are beyond improvement or even modification by the people running or representing the Club? | | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 19:01 - Mar 17 with 2034 views | themodfather |
too many replies already to read em all...but this season was our only chance for years to bounce back up, imo.....on paper the squad was good enough, in reality a shower of non caring,eating up contract wasters, again imo.....
one assumes our debts are huge and we face austerity for a while now....hey ho, the prem dream ( ask pompey, bolton, qpr, leeds etc etc) | | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 19:30 - Mar 17 with 1928 views | danehoop |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 19:01 - Mar 17 by themodfather |
too many replies already to read em all...but this season was our only chance for years to bounce back up, imo.....on paper the squad was good enough, in reality a shower of non caring,eating up contract wasters, again imo.....
one assumes our debts are huge and we face austerity for a while now....hey ho, the prem dream ( ask pompey, bolton, qpr, leeds etc etc) |
Our debts aren't huge though. The terrible owners wrote it off. From that angle we are much more sound than we were last season.
It's probably one of the most important positives so far, aside getting shot of Sandro |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 09:39 - Mar 18 with 1800 views | Brightonhoop |
With Smithies in goal and following a 2-0 and 3-0 wins, seems our front edge is sharpening up nicely too, the loss of Charlie Austin is less severe than expected and his wages off the the books plus £4 Mil inwards for a player out of contract in the summer looks increasingly like good business. |  | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 10:27 - Mar 18 with 1753 views | daveB |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 18:52 - Mar 17 by joolsyp |
Lot of talk about getting rid of Hoilett, playing for a new contract etc. I hope that we have an adequate replacement lined up as he is one of the few players we have with genuine pace that puts defences on the back foot. Far far better than Matty "50:50 challenge" Philips at the moment IMO. |
He's playing better than Phillips at the moment but for me Phillips is a better player | | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 10:38 - Mar 18 with 1735 views | pomanjou |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 19:30 - Mar 17 by danehoop |
Our debts aren't huge though. The terrible owners wrote it off. From that angle we are much more sound than we were last season.
It's probably one of the most important positives so far, aside getting shot of Sandro |
Yeah, those terrible owners  , writing off £150m +/-. That takes balls.
Keeping the playing budget, whatever that exactly means? at 2/3rds seems very generous to me. Not exactly slash and burn is it..........
Go Jimmy. |  |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 10:39 - Mar 18 with 1733 views | adhoc_qpr |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 09:39 - Mar 18 by Brightonhoop |
With Smithies in goal and following a 2-0 and 3-0 wins, seems our front edge is sharpening up nicely too, the loss of Charlie Austin is less severe than expected and his wages off the the books plus £4 Mil inwards for a player out of contract in the summer looks increasingly like good business. |
Especially given that it seems Austin really is/has been struggling with injuries all season! | | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 10:50 - Mar 18 with 1712 views | Brightonhoop |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 10:39 - Mar 18 by adhoc_qpr |
Especially given that it seems Austin really is/has been struggling with injuries all season! |
Chery especially seems to have grown outside Austins shadow too. Win win. | | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 01:03 - Mar 19 with 1587 views | Ingham |
I don't think anyone is saying they wrote the debt off, pom. That is quite a different thing.
If they did, they just lost an asset with a face value of £150 million. But, unless I'm mistaken, that isn't what they're saying. What they've done is converted the debt asset they owned to a share asset they own.
So they're not out of pocket at all.
It is worth bearing in mind that TF told us that the debt was 'stadium related'. It wasn't clear what debt he was talking about, or which stadium, come to that. But a debt of that size could hardly be related to LR. But it could hardly relate to the new ground, could it, which doesn't exist? And which would cost £200 million to build, according to TF's stadium spokesman, Beard.
On that basis, how would £200 million already squandered on non-performing players be related to the new ground, unless the new ground is security for the debt? If the money is gone, wasted on players, where will the £200 million required to build the new ground come from?
If there is no debt, it can't be related to any ground. Even if the debt is converted to equity, there's no debt in that case either.
Of course, it goes without saying that if he HAS swallowed the entire debt himself, just written it off, gone, out of pocket £159 million and nothing to show for it, brilliant! For QPR, anyway.
After all, he ran it up, he was responsible, you're thinking, so why shouldn't he? Why should the Club be burdened with the cost of his mistakes?
CERTAINLY he should get credit for losing his own money instead of QPR's. That is the kind of big spender we need.
On the other hand, if the debt is now in the form of shares, so to speak, a buyer must still come up with the £150 million to buy the shareholders out (if the shares are worth whatever the debt was worth). That will come straight out of the pocket of the buyer, and go straight into the pockets of TF & Co, rather than into the playing squad.
So that's not quite the same thing.
And may mean we're not much better off, unless there is a genuine benefit from not having to report vast losses to the unsympathetic football authorities.
And Bhatia made out the Club was 'debt-free' a few years ago, and, of course, it wasn't. And before that, it was implied that the 'ABC' debt was no more, but only the lender that had changed. It is extraordinary that there is still a charge at companies house that, in effect, represents the £10 million Richard Thompson squeezed out of Chris Wright 20 years ago.
But generally, I like the way you're thinking. That it is admirable that they SHOULD write off at least all the debts which are down to the decisions they've made, to ensure the Club isn't burdened with them at a time when the authorities might penalize QPR. So if the - I think it is called the Amulya debt, the one attached to LR - If that, too, is wiped out, and the Board members truly are taking the hit in their accounts, rather than leaving QPR to struggle on burdened with their losses, they should be encouraged in my view.
Writing off all the losses every year, if they have no idea how to make a profit. And if they don't, for the authorities to penalize THEM instead of QPR. The Club isn't running up losses on TF'S airline's tab. Why should he run up losses on QPR's?
But that goes to the whole question of why they're all so shrewd and hard-nosed and good at making money when they're representing their own interests - apart from QPR - and so incapable of doing so they're supposedly representing the Club's.
It isn't as if all the money goes on successful campaigns, and signing our world class stars. Most of our squads are useless, most of our managers are sacked in very short order.
The Club has never made even a penny of profit over all these years, not as far as I remember. But the present regime back through their predecessors apart from Paladini arrived wealthy, and left wealthy, being at least millionaires, and in at least a couple of cases, billionaires.
Is the debt run up by TF's predecessors now gone too? The total sum must have been closer to £200 million. Even better! [Post edited 19 Mar 2016 1:48]
| | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 03:41 - Mar 19 with 1558 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 01:03 - Mar 19 by Ingham |
I don't think anyone is saying they wrote the debt off, pom. That is quite a different thing.
If they did, they just lost an asset with a face value of £150 million. But, unless I'm mistaken, that isn't what they're saying. What they've done is converted the debt asset they owned to a share asset they own.
So they're not out of pocket at all.
It is worth bearing in mind that TF told us that the debt was 'stadium related'. It wasn't clear what debt he was talking about, or which stadium, come to that. But a debt of that size could hardly be related to LR. But it could hardly relate to the new ground, could it, which doesn't exist? And which would cost £200 million to build, according to TF's stadium spokesman, Beard.
On that basis, how would £200 million already squandered on non-performing players be related to the new ground, unless the new ground is security for the debt? If the money is gone, wasted on players, where will the £200 million required to build the new ground come from?
If there is no debt, it can't be related to any ground. Even if the debt is converted to equity, there's no debt in that case either.
Of course, it goes without saying that if he HAS swallowed the entire debt himself, just written it off, gone, out of pocket £159 million and nothing to show for it, brilliant! For QPR, anyway.
After all, he ran it up, he was responsible, you're thinking, so why shouldn't he? Why should the Club be burdened with the cost of his mistakes?
CERTAINLY he should get credit for losing his own money instead of QPR's. That is the kind of big spender we need.
On the other hand, if the debt is now in the form of shares, so to speak, a buyer must still come up with the £150 million to buy the shareholders out (if the shares are worth whatever the debt was worth). That will come straight out of the pocket of the buyer, and go straight into the pockets of TF & Co, rather than into the playing squad.
So that's not quite the same thing.
And may mean we're not much better off, unless there is a genuine benefit from not having to report vast losses to the unsympathetic football authorities.
And Bhatia made out the Club was 'debt-free' a few years ago, and, of course, it wasn't. And before that, it was implied that the 'ABC' debt was no more, but only the lender that had changed. It is extraordinary that there is still a charge at companies house that, in effect, represents the £10 million Richard Thompson squeezed out of Chris Wright 20 years ago.
But generally, I like the way you're thinking. That it is admirable that they SHOULD write off at least all the debts which are down to the decisions they've made, to ensure the Club isn't burdened with them at a time when the authorities might penalize QPR. So if the - I think it is called the Amulya debt, the one attached to LR - If that, too, is wiped out, and the Board members truly are taking the hit in their accounts, rather than leaving QPR to struggle on burdened with their losses, they should be encouraged in my view.
Writing off all the losses every year, if they have no idea how to make a profit. And if they don't, for the authorities to penalize THEM instead of QPR. The Club isn't running up losses on TF'S airline's tab. Why should he run up losses on QPR's?
But that goes to the whole question of why they're all so shrewd and hard-nosed and good at making money when they're representing their own interests - apart from QPR - and so incapable of doing so they're supposedly representing the Club's.
It isn't as if all the money goes on successful campaigns, and signing our world class stars. Most of our squads are useless, most of our managers are sacked in very short order.
The Club has never made even a penny of profit over all these years, not as far as I remember. But the present regime back through their predecessors apart from Paladini arrived wealthy, and left wealthy, being at least millionaires, and in at least a couple of cases, billionaires.
Is the debt run up by TF's predecessors now gone too? The total sum must have been closer to £200 million. Even better! [Post edited 19 Mar 2016 1:48]
|
Like most things in the real world, the club will sell for roughly what it's worth, not what was spent on it.
Converting debt to shares re-arranges the ownership percentages of the various parties, taking into account who provided the extra money over what each party initially contributed to the purchase.
So, yes, I'm saying you are mistaken. The only way our (admittedly misguided) generous owners can recoup their expenditure is to somehow dramatically increase the market value of the club.
Has that clarified things for you? Or are you just having a blind anti-TF rant? |  |
| |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 09:38 - Mar 19 with 1497 views | terryb |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 19:01 - Mar 17 by themodfather |
too many replies already to read em all...but this season was our only chance for years to bounce back up, imo.....on paper the squad was good enough, in reality a shower of non caring,eating up contract wasters, again imo.....
one assumes our debts are huge and we face austerity for a while now....hey ho, the prem dream ( ask pompey, bolton, qpr, leeds etc etc) |
We can't read the same paper modfather!
On the one I read, the squad was nowhere near good enough for promotion.
Mine included the names of Green, Fer, Sandro, Caulker, Konchesky. All players more likely to relegate you than promote you! | | | |
| Playing budget slashed by a 1/3 on 17:39 - Mar 20 with 1415 views | Ingham |
No. What a Club is worth - or is claimed to be worth - is not the same thing as the price, it is the basis for calculating the price. In practice, it is perfectly possible for all parties to agree a price which is nowhere near what either thinks the Club is worth, depending on any number of factors.
Chris Wright came to believe he had paid more than the Club was worth. That is meaningless if the two amount to the same thing.
To doubt that the Club was worth what he paid makes sense. To doubt that he paid what he paid does not. Once the deal is completed, the price is fixed, done and dusted. But the Club's worth may fluctuate, even for those who imagine its worth exists over and above what various interested parties from time to time believe that worth to be.
And given that, it may very well be that the Club IS worth 'roughly' what has been spent on it. In the event that what was invested corresponded to the value of what it was invested IN.
I know what you're thinking - surely that is hardly possible at QPR. For shame! The money MAY have been wisely spent. It just doesn't seem to be so.
As far as conversion goes, I think it is the effect of conversion on the Club's prospects that is being called into question, not least by supposing that it may not have happened at all (in the event that the debt was written off instead). What the shares are worth may be a matter of opinion, with buyer and seller valuing them differently. Even if what they were worth was the same thing as the price, we have no idea what the price they fetch will be, so that is academic for the time being.
But as far as the percentage of his shareholding is concerned, I'm sure we all understand that if TF has suddenly acquired many more shares than he had before, his percentage shareholding MUST have increased vis a vis his fellow shareholders. Obvious to all. I'd say.
Of course, none of this clears up what he meant when he said the debt was stadium related. Nor what the financial status of the Club might be if it is drawn in to a vast redevelopment programme, the outcome of which, especially long term, is unknown.
Personally, I don't think any of the above qualifies as an 'anti-TF rant', and particularly not where I commend him for writing off the debt (if one or two of the other posters are correct in thinking that this is what he has, in fact, done). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
