| Charlie Austin - a chance? 10:10 - Jan 30 with 7770 views | WestbourneR |
Papers say Southampton want rid.
What's he on there do you reckon? 50K a week?
And if we return all our loans this summer and move on a couple on do you think we could move heaven and earth to bring him in?
[Dons hard hart for the enraged FFP pelters from the realists and better informed]
If there was even a chance... even a measured overspend and fine... I'd say it's worth it. He's 29 so he's not old and he'd fire us into the Prem and possibly even keep us there. He nearly managed it last time and we're a better run club now.
He can play up top on his own, great link man, heart of lion, Rangers legend and goals goals goals.
He's woefully under-rated and we should try and take advantage.
That said surely Burnley will be all over it. Warnock will probably like the look of him too. |  |
| |  |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:48 - Jan 30 with 2441 views | WestbourneR |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:40 - Jan 30 by qprd |
QPR lost 11m in 16, 6m in 17 (and probably something less in 18). These are the total losses on QPR's consolidated financial statements, so i'm probably double counting some losses which don't count towards FFP (i.e., academy, etc). but lets disregard this for the purposes of this hypothetical.
clubs can lose 39m over a 3 year period without breaching FFP. If we assume qpr will lose 6m in 18, that gives us a buffer of a 27m loss for 19/20. obviously it doesn't mean we should go out and lose 27m, because the losses are counted on a rolling three year basis. but it shows that we have more than enough wiggle room to buy players. I don't think signing Charlie Austin on a nominal fee and paying him 50k a week is really going to move the needle much.
as for the messaging from the club: of course the club isn't going to come out and say we have money to spend. its easier for owners to blame FFP regulations for not wanting to spend than to say they're tired of losing millions of pounds a year. just like its easier for Daniel levy to blame a new stadium for not spending money (even though the stadium was financed through alternative means).
finally, even if we conservatively assumed we're paying half of hemed and wells wages, that would have to be comparable to austins wages, no?
again, I'm not saying we should sign Austin. I don't think it fits with the direction the club is going in, and his best years may be past him.
I'm just saying that those who criticized WestbourneR for not understanding the FFP rules... ironically don't understand the FFP rules |
This is what I was getting at... it's just you did it much MUCH better.
With the allowable loses built into FFP it might not be an insane idea now so many of the big earners have moved on. | |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:59 - Jan 30 with 2412 views | PinnerPaul |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:40 - Jan 30 by qprd |
QPR lost 11m in 16, 6m in 17 (and probably something less in 18). These are the total losses on QPR's consolidated financial statements, so i'm probably double counting some losses which don't count towards FFP (i.e., academy, etc). but lets disregard this for the purposes of this hypothetical.
clubs can lose 39m over a 3 year period without breaching FFP. If we assume qpr will lose 6m in 18, that gives us a buffer of a 27m loss for 19/20. obviously it doesn't mean we should go out and lose 27m, because the losses are counted on a rolling three year basis. but it shows that we have more than enough wiggle room to buy players. I don't think signing Charlie Austin on a nominal fee and paying him 50k a week is really going to move the needle much.
as for the messaging from the club: of course the club isn't going to come out and say we have money to spend. its easier for owners to blame FFP regulations for not wanting to spend than to say they're tired of losing millions of pounds a year. just like its easier for Daniel levy to blame a new stadium for not spending money (even though the stadium was financed through alternative means).
finally, even if we conservatively assumed we're paying half of hemed and wells wages, that would have to be comparable to austins wages, no?
again, I'm not saying we should sign Austin. I don't think it fits with the direction the club is going in, and his best years may be past him.
I'm just saying that those who criticized WestbourneR for not understanding the FFP rules... ironically don't understand the FFP rules |
Thanks for clarifying, I thought your post implied that even without the parachute payments we could somehow be in the black and still spend.
Of course we don't know yet what 2018 losses were, but the parachute chunk is surely going to have an impact - despite getting rid of most of the highest earners. |  | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 15:32 - Jan 30 with 2335 views | PlanetHonneywood |
The only Austin we’re signing anytime soon, is Austin Powers! |  |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 15:36 - Jan 30 with 2330 views | terryb |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:40 - Jan 30 by qprd |
QPR lost 11m in 16, 6m in 17 (and probably something less in 18). These are the total losses on QPR's consolidated financial statements, so i'm probably double counting some losses which don't count towards FFP (i.e., academy, etc). but lets disregard this for the purposes of this hypothetical.
clubs can lose 39m over a 3 year period without breaching FFP. If we assume qpr will lose 6m in 18, that gives us a buffer of a 27m loss for 19/20. obviously it doesn't mean we should go out and lose 27m, because the losses are counted on a rolling three year basis. but it shows that we have more than enough wiggle room to buy players. I don't think signing Charlie Austin on a nominal fee and paying him 50k a week is really going to move the needle much.
as for the messaging from the club: of course the club isn't going to come out and say we have money to spend. its easier for owners to blame FFP regulations for not wanting to spend than to say they're tired of losing millions of pounds a year. just like its easier for Daniel levy to blame a new stadium for not spending money (even though the stadium was financed through alternative means).
finally, even if we conservatively assumed we're paying half of hemed and wells wages, that would have to be comparable to austins wages, no?
again, I'm not saying we should sign Austin. I don't think it fits with the direction the club is going in, and his best years may be past him.
I'm just saying that those who criticized WestbourneR for not understanding the FFP rules... ironically don't understand the FFP rules |
This is based on your view that the club's loss for the year 2017/18 has a loss of less than £6 million. May I ask why you think this to be true?
Of course, if this is the case, we would certainly have room to invest in players come the summer.
It won't be too long now before the accounts are published & I hope your correct.
If, however, the noises that have been coming from Hoos are true, we will be losing £16 million income (parachute payment) & a need to keep the losses to below £12 million.
We will soon know whcih is correct! | | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 15:54 - Jan 30 with 2297 views | Harbour |
Loved Charlie when he was here since leaving he has been out injured for long spells FFP aside I am not convinced he is the player he once was. No doubt Villa Boro or one of the other money bag clubs will sign and prove me wrong. | | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 16:00 - Jan 30 with 2282 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:38 - Jan 30 by WestbourneR |
Cheers R from Afar. I needed a bit of back up.
Re Austin vs Wells - I'm amazed this is a debate. Like honestly flabbergasted. It seems, despite his heroics in both divisions for us, he's even under-rated by people at Rangers.
You don't score the goals he's scored for lower table clubs in the Premier League without being a very good player and far more than a fox in the box. He's excellent on the ball and his pace is illusive. The guy was knocking on the door of the England set up.
Not many players can strike and head a ball like Austin and he holds it up play simply and well. He rarely concedes possession.
Show me when Wells has made a dent on the Premier League? He's scored 6 goals for us in the Championship, 1 on 4 and now you're saying he's a BETTER player than Charlie Austin. That's just insane in fact it's just plain wrong.
Don't get me wrong I like Wells and he's a vast improvement on the goons we've had since Austin but he is not where near the striker Charlie is.
Charlie scored 45 goals in 82 games, more than one in two - for QPR. Get a grip mate. |
I am sorry to see this thread which started out as a something fun develop into this with a few negative responses.While it a very unlikely scenario it brings back all those memories of Charlie Austin banging in goals for us and the frenzy of excitement it caused.Its a shame his injuries held him back but he did chose the wrong club in Southampton IMO..
As for the debate about himself and Wells its over before it starts in my humble opinion .Austin is head and shoulders above most strikers that have ever graced Loftus Road since our glory days of the 70s and 80s . | | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 16:14 - Jan 30 with 2244 views | terryb |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:38 - Jan 30 by WestbourneR |
Cheers R from Afar. I needed a bit of back up.
Re Austin vs Wells - I'm amazed this is a debate. Like honestly flabbergasted. It seems, despite his heroics in both divisions for us, he's even under-rated by people at Rangers.
You don't score the goals he's scored for lower table clubs in the Premier League without being a very good player and far more than a fox in the box. He's excellent on the ball and his pace is illusive. The guy was knocking on the door of the England set up.
Not many players can strike and head a ball like Austin and he holds it up play simply and well. He rarely concedes possession.
Show me when Wells has made a dent on the Premier League? He's scored 6 goals for us in the Championship, 1 on 4 and now you're saying he's a BETTER player than Charlie Austin. That's just insane in fact it's just plain wrong.
Don't get me wrong I like Wells and he's a vast improvement on the goons we've had since Austin but he is not where near the striker Charlie is.
Charlie scored 45 goals in 82 games, more than one in two - for QPR. Get a grip mate. |
The records for the two players since the start of the 2016/17 season are:-
Austin - played 61, goals 19, assists 2
Wells - Played 82, goals 17, assists 6
This is an unfair comparision as all of Austin's games were in the Premier & only 10 of Wells were.
Charlie definitely wins on scoring goals (especially in the Premier, where Wells totals 0). He is also far better at defending dead ball situations IMO, due to his superior heading ability.
However, his total for assists would sugest that he does not contribute outside the penalty area as much as Wells does & looks a very low number. Far lower than I would have expected. As is the Wells number!
Of course, I'm wrong to compare the two as they are totally different types of player. I'm just sugesting that the Wells type is a lot more needed by us than the Austin tpye. | | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 16:23 - Jan 30 with 2226 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 12:25 - Jan 30 by WestbourneR |
Despite the disclaimers
[Dons hard hart for the enraged FFP pelters from the realists and better informed]
it happened anyway. As withering and sanctimonious bunch of replies as I might have expected.
I can see every gets pleasure in aping Northern's informed style on FFP like they thought of it.
Excuse me for allowing to dream. It's fun sometimes on a football fans message-board. I must remember to upload spreadsheets in future.
And anyone that thinks Nakhi Wells is better than Charlie Austin is so blind not only can they not see football they also can't read 10 years of goal scoring records. |
Some culture for you slags. Keep dreaming Westy!
'I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams'
WestbourneR |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 16:25 - Jan 30 with 2220 views | DavieQPR |
When we stop paying Wells and Hemed next season it will go someway to compensate for the £9.60m we have lost in parachute payments. WE HAVE NO MONEY AVAILABLE!! |  | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 16:31 - Jan 30 with 2208 views | LunarJetman |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 16:25 - Jan 30 by DavieQPR |
When we stop paying Wells and Hemed next season it will go someway to compensate for the £9.60m we have lost in parachute payments. WE HAVE NO MONEY AVAILABLE!! |
Yeah but we can get Remy back for a few games though surely? |  | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 17:04 - Jan 30 with 2145 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
We've just loaned out Oteh to Walsall, so there is a vacancy.
'Charlie Austin looks like a Hollyoaks Villain' (via Twitter)
 | | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 17:21 - Jan 30 with 2113 views | francisbowles |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:40 - Jan 30 by qprd |
QPR lost 11m in 16, 6m in 17 (and probably something less in 18). These are the total losses on QPR's consolidated financial statements, so i'm probably double counting some losses which don't count towards FFP (i.e., academy, etc). but lets disregard this for the purposes of this hypothetical.
clubs can lose 39m over a 3 year period without breaching FFP. If we assume qpr will lose 6m in 18, that gives us a buffer of a 27m loss for 19/20. obviously it doesn't mean we should go out and lose 27m, because the losses are counted on a rolling three year basis. but it shows that we have more than enough wiggle room to buy players. I don't think signing Charlie Austin on a nominal fee and paying him 50k a week is really going to move the needle much.
as for the messaging from the club: of course the club isn't going to come out and say we have money to spend. its easier for owners to blame FFP regulations for not wanting to spend than to say they're tired of losing millions of pounds a year. just like its easier for Daniel levy to blame a new stadium for not spending money (even though the stadium was financed through alternative means).
finally, even if we conservatively assumed we're paying half of hemed and wells wages, that would have to be comparable to austins wages, no?
again, I'm not saying we should sign Austin. I don't think it fits with the direction the club is going in, and his best years may be past him.
I'm just saying that those who criticized WestbourneR for not understanding the FFP rules... ironically don't understand the FFP rules |
Parachute payments! | | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 17:23 - Jan 30 with 2108 views | Juzzie |
If we were interested in him and him in us, the transfer embargo wouldn't allow us to as I doubt we'd be able to fullfil one element of the embargo requirements let alone all of them.
This means we'd have to wait until the summer by which time he may have gone elsewhere by then.
But yes, I too think his injury prone-ness is just too much of a risk. We signed Andy Johnson and he spent more time on the physio table.
Sadly I think Austin may now be a spent force, certainly in the PL and a Championships club would be taking a big risk. He's not the first nor the last player to have injuries curtail a career before he's even 30. It happens, sadly. |  | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 17:39 - Jan 30 with 2067 views | WestbourneR |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 16:23 - Jan 30 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Some culture for you slags. Keep dreaming Westy!
'I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams'
WestbourneR |
Nice Bazz. Nailed it.
They need to brighten up FFP with stuff like this.
- If a club loses over £33 million in three year period they will incur a fine and transfer embargo
- Poetic fantasy signings will be allowed irrespective of finances | |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 17:45 - Jan 30 with 2053 views | qprd |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 17:21 - Jan 30 by francisbowles |
Parachute payments! |
parachute payments do go away but we've also been slashing our wage bill gradually over the years/not been paying transfer fees, so the reduction in parachute payments is offset (in part) by the reduction in wages | | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 20:31 - Jan 30 with 1911 views | Match82 |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 14:40 - Jan 30 by qprd |
QPR lost 11m in 16, 6m in 17 (and probably something less in 18). These are the total losses on QPR's consolidated financial statements, so i'm probably double counting some losses which don't count towards FFP (i.e., academy, etc). but lets disregard this for the purposes of this hypothetical.
clubs can lose 39m over a 3 year period without breaching FFP. If we assume qpr will lose 6m in 18, that gives us a buffer of a 27m loss for 19/20. obviously it doesn't mean we should go out and lose 27m, because the losses are counted on a rolling three year basis. but it shows that we have more than enough wiggle room to buy players. I don't think signing Charlie Austin on a nominal fee and paying him 50k a week is really going to move the needle much.
as for the messaging from the club: of course the club isn't going to come out and say we have money to spend. its easier for owners to blame FFP regulations for not wanting to spend than to say they're tired of losing millions of pounds a year. just like its easier for Daniel levy to blame a new stadium for not spending money (even though the stadium was financed through alternative means).
finally, even if we conservatively assumed we're paying half of hemed and wells wages, that would have to be comparable to austins wages, no?
again, I'm not saying we should sign Austin. I don't think it fits with the direction the club is going in, and his best years may be past him.
I'm just saying that those who criticized WestbourneR for not understanding the FFP rules... ironically don't understand the FFP rules |
"I don't think signing Charlie Austin on a nominal fee and paying him 50k a week is really going to move the needle much"
50k per week is going to be 2.5m a year. So even a 2 year contract that's going to be 5m plus whatever we paid so yeah that probably does move the needle a fair bit. Not to mention if he is on 50k everyone else is going to want a raise. |  | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 22:12 - Jan 30 with 1798 views | Lblock |
Sorry but Chaz Austin is a pure finisher, probably most effective striker we’ve had since Sir Les IMHO.
I’d love it if he came back here and at 29 he’s a good few years left in him.
The old laughable line of “all he does is score goals” also doesn’t apply here - even if it did this has to be the most positive negative anyone can roll out. Do not forget the sacrificial role he played at Wembley THAT day, once down to 10 men he was virtually an inside left and worked his nuts off.
I’m with Westy here.......dare to dream my son, dare to dream |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 23:34 - Jan 30 with 1710 views | bosh67 |
Would love him back but can we stretch to a tenner a week? |  |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 23:52 - Jan 30 with 1677 views | daveB |
I love Austin and would be great to have him back but we are still under a transfer embargo.
Cardiff should be going in for him but reckon he will join a championship side around the top 6 |  | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 00:18 - Jan 31 with 1648 views | davman |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 17:23 - Jan 30 by Juzzie |
If we were interested in him and him in us, the transfer embargo wouldn't allow us to as I doubt we'd be able to fullfil one element of the embargo requirements let alone all of them.
This means we'd have to wait until the summer by which time he may have gone elsewhere by then.
But yes, I too think his injury prone-ness is just too much of a risk. We signed Andy Johnson and he spent more time on the physio table.
Sadly I think Austin may now be a spent force, certainly in the PL and a Championships club would be taking a big risk. He's not the first nor the last player to have injuries curtail a career before he's even 30. It happens, sadly. |
The second and third paragraphs all day long.
In hindsight, as much as we were all up in arms about it, we got a good deal for Charlie in view of everything. He has spent loads of time on the treatment table. In the three years since he left he has started just 32 league games for saints and 32 off the bench scoring just 16 goals. They would have played around 114 games in that time, so he has been out for a while. Just an average of 5 goals per season...
Face it, we had Charlie at his peak, just like we had Adel at his peak. Shame for both of them that it went downhill since leaving us, but I reckon the money we gave them enabled them to negotiate pretty hefty salaries since leaving, so they won't worry... |  |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 00:39 - Jan 31 with 1616 views | UPPERLOFTNZ |
Charlie Austin - a chance?
None. |  |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 00:41 - Jan 31 with 1613 views | Pommyhoop |
My 1st car was an Allegro
Pretty sh1t car tbh.. |  |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 03:10 - Jan 31 with 1530 views | derbyhoop |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 12:34 - Jan 30 by RBlock |
So you have proposed an absolute non-starter, that has been explained previously that it is an absolute non-starter, and you're now having a moan because everybody has pointed out that it is a non-starter? Sound about right?
Maybe people aren't being withering and sanctimonious. Maybe it was just a stupid suggestion. |
Are you Theresa May? |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 10:16 - Jan 31 with 1345 views | NW10Hoop |
Bloody love Charlie Austin. Stood out like a diamond in dogsh!t when he was here. Don’t know why but I don’t think he’s be as effective this time around. He was on the way up when we had him , I think his best days may be behind him now.
If there was any way of getting Wells and Cameron on permanent deals I’d take that over Charlie.
But yeah, I agree - some seem to take such pleasure tracking finances in football. Football Manager has a lot to answer for |  | | |
| Charlie Austin - a chance? on 13:03 - Jan 31 with 1188 views | simmo |
Apart from anything else, Austin has averaged around 15 appearances a season for the last 4 seasons due mainly to his recurring injury problems. We can't afford to push the boundaries of our wage structure for a marquee player that's unreliable.
That's IF for some reason he leaves the area he's from where his family live to return to London in a lower division for less money, which seems pretty fckin unlikely.
Incredible player for us and in making his way up to where he wants to be (which is where he is) he was a man on a mission. Wells not close to him at this level or above, but he's still the better option for us here and now. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
