| Funds 21:57 - Jul 16 with 6096 views | Hoopsarrr |
Is anyone else curious to know why we're still having to raise funds for new signings? We've sold 3 players for £5mill minimum. With Caulker looking to depart, how much more do we need to raise? We only need 2-3 new faces and given our new policy that wouldn't cost more than what we got for Bowler alone. |  | | |  |
| Funds on 13:02 - Jul 17 with 1670 views | Phildo |
'which will help me form a fuller and thicker squad to help me do what I want to do.'
...an even thicker squad. Are we selling Smith and making Perchy captain? |  | | |
| Funds on 13:09 - Jul 17 with 1647 views | JamesB1979 |
| Funds on 22:37 - Jul 16 by daveB |
not curious at all, if you take the money the club gets from ticket sales it wouldn't even cover the operating costs of putting games on let alone paying the wages of a big squad. The club have been living in fantasy land for a long time replying on rich people to cover the losses, we are in the real world now and need to get on with it. |
Nothing wrong with rich people spending their money to cover our losses. It's not as if our debt is increasing, it's just more money put in by the shareholders. Unfortunately, that now isn't possible due to financial fair play. I'd say we're being constrained by that more than a new found desire to spend within our means. | | | |
| Funds on 13:53 - Jul 17 with 1593 views | Northernr |
| Funds on 13:09 - Jul 17 by JamesB1979 |
Nothing wrong with rich people spending their money to cover our losses. It's not as if our debt is increasing, it's just more money put in by the shareholders. Unfortunately, that now isn't possible due to financial fair play. I'd say we're being constrained by that more than a new found desire to spend within our means. |
It's a bit of both I reckon. If Tony and Ruben wanted to do the whole £100m and ignore FFP thing this season they could do it if - Wolves are basically saying to hell with FFP we'll ignore it and gamble on going up as we did before, as Bournemouth did, as Leicester did.
Problem is if you gamble and miss. Blackburn and Forest tried to do it and missed and look at the states they got themselves into. |  | | |
| Funds on 14:02 - Jul 17 with 1571 views | JamesB1979 |
| Funds on 13:53 - Jul 17 by Northernr |
It's a bit of both I reckon. If Tony and Ruben wanted to do the whole £100m and ignore FFP thing this season they could do it if - Wolves are basically saying to hell with FFP we'll ignore it and gamble on going up as we did before, as Bournemouth did, as Leicester did.
Problem is if you gamble and miss. Blackburn and Forest tried to do it and missed and look at the states they got themselves into. |
True but we're already due a fine/decision due to Harry Redknapp and his ridiculously expensive championship squad. If we just went about it spending over the odds, I think they'd hit us even harder now. I think were using last couple of seasons to show how much we've progressed to adhere to the FFP. | | | |
| Funds on 14:06 - Jul 17 with 1553 views | TacticalR |
| Funds on 10:07 - Jul 17 by LunarJetman |
For every post like yours, moaning about Ollie saying we need to bring someone in, there's another moaning about us not bringing anyone in!
In general, our fan base seem to never be happy, whatever is going on. |
The only solution is to bring somebody in without bringing anybody in. |  |
| |
| Funds on 14:26 - Jul 17 with 1522 views | Northernr |
| Funds on 14:02 - Jul 17 by JamesB1979 |
True but we're already due a fine/decision due to Harry Redknapp and his ridiculously expensive championship squad. If we just went about it spending over the odds, I think they'd hit us even harder now. I think were using last couple of seasons to show how much we've progressed to adhere to the FFP. |
Yeh agree. | | | |
| Funds on 14:38 - Jul 17 with 1491 views | colinallcars |
We've shown we can run the club in a frugal fashion. Just how long can this FFP farce go on ? It would appear Wolves have been emboldened by the league's inaction. |  | | |
| Funds on 14:39 - Jul 17 with 1484 views | Northernr |
| Funds on 14:38 - Jul 17 by colinallcars |
We've shown we can run the club in a frugal fashion. Just how long can this FFP farce go on ? It would appear Wolves have been emboldened by the league's inaction. |
Case has been heard this summer so result is due. whether they'll ever announce it or not I'm not sure. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Funds on 18:36 - Jul 17 with 1418 views | distortR |
| Funds on 14:06 - Jul 17 by TacticalR |
The only solution is to bring somebody in without bringing anybody in. |
ah, doing an odemwingie | | | |
| Funds on 18:41 - Jul 17 with 1404 views | PunteR |
| Funds on 18:36 - Jul 17 by distortR |
ah, doing an odemwingie |
in a dingy |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Funds on 18:44 - Jul 17 with 1398 views | stevec |
| Funds on 14:39 - Jul 17 by Northernr |
Case has been heard this summer so result is due. whether they'll ever announce it or not I'm not sure. |
Am I right in thinking whatever the fine is, it all goes to charity?
I always assumed charitable donations were voluntary, you would think enforced donations via fines was either an immoral act at best or worst, an illegal act.
Be interested to know which charities accept such 'donations'. |  | | |
| Funds on 05:11 - Jul 18 with 1278 views | PlanetHonneywood |
We haven't got a pot to piss in. Only problem is, we have had a skinful and didn't avail ourselves of the facilities before leaving the pub!
The next 12-24 months will be crucial for this club and if I were buying a ST, I'd be doing so on a credit card.
For the third time in 20 years, we've squandered the embarrassment of our riches. Incredible really. QPR should be a case study for MBA students of how not to organise a piss up in a brewery with unlimited ale, thirsty punters and glasses! I thought the last two occasions we bollixed it's up we're the worse times to do so however, I fear I might be proved wrong.
This really is going to be a difficult time. I do worry for us and do we ever need Ollie to measure up. Looking just at the first five games,it could be a challenging start and the middle and end don't look any easier. We've been here before. We've been backs to the wall and somehow, dug deep and got through. I suggest that we all have quick and easy access to the Zamora goal to bolster spirits.
That said......'kin 'ave it Rs!! |  |
| |
| Funds on 07:16 - Jul 18 with 1246 views | Roller |
| Funds on 13:09 - Jul 17 by JamesB1979 |
Nothing wrong with rich people spending their money to cover our losses. It's not as if our debt is increasing, it's just more money put in by the shareholders. Unfortunately, that now isn't possible due to financial fair play. I'd say we're being constrained by that more than a new found desire to spend within our means. |
I'm not sure that is correct.
What they can't do is put the club in debt (over some arbitrary limit). If they want to put more of their money in, not increase their loan account, there are no restrictions on that - with the obvious exclusion of common sense. [Post edited 18 Jul 2017 7:16]
|  | | |
| Funds on 08:19 - Jul 18 with 1204 views | ElHoop |
| Funds on 07:16 - Jul 18 by Roller |
I'm not sure that is correct.
What they can't do is put the club in debt (over some arbitrary limit). If they want to put more of their money in, not increase their loan account, there are no restrictions on that - with the obvious exclusion of common sense. [Post edited 18 Jul 2017 7:16]
|
I think that 'losses' are a problem in the eyes of the FFP rules, regardless of how they are financed. That's the ridiculous thing about the rules. If the club borrows from banks or shareholders to finance losses that's treated the same as issuing shares to cover the losses. Clearly the issuing of shares isn't debt, so who suffers those losses apart from the shareholders? That's my understanding of the rules anyway. |  | | |
| Funds on 09:05 - Jul 18 with 1161 views | Dorse |
| Funds on 18:44 - Jul 17 by stevec |
Am I right in thinking whatever the fine is, it all goes to charity?
I always assumed charitable donations were voluntary, you would think enforced donations via fines was either an immoral act at best or worst, an illegal act.
Be interested to know which charities accept such 'donations'. |
I am a bit of a virtue ethicist and used to agree with that argument, feeling that a charitable donation should be the action of a morally good person rather than that of someone obligated. For example, Darth Vader could put a pound into the 'Save the Ewoks' collection tin once it doesn't make him a good person: he is still the Dark Lord of the Sith.
However, a rabbi challenged my point of view by asking whether or not the person receiving the charity cares whether the money came from someone who's heart was touched by their plight or not. From his perspective, charity is good, whatever the motivation behind it. If not you, who? If not now, when?
I would still prefer to see the club acting as they do with the QPR In The Community Trust but if a fine helps some poor bugger that needs it more than we do then crack on. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Funds on 09:46 - Jul 18 with 1126 views | rsonist |
| Funds on 09:05 - Jul 18 by Dorse |
I am a bit of a virtue ethicist and used to agree with that argument, feeling that a charitable donation should be the action of a morally good person rather than that of someone obligated. For example, Darth Vader could put a pound into the 'Save the Ewoks' collection tin once it doesn't make him a good person: he is still the Dark Lord of the Sith.
However, a rabbi challenged my point of view by asking whether or not the person receiving the charity cares whether the money came from someone who's heart was touched by their plight or not. From his perspective, charity is good, whatever the motivation behind it. If not you, who? If not now, when?
I would still prefer to see the club acting as they do with the QPR In The Community Trust but if a fine helps some poor bugger that needs it more than we do then crack on. |
There's no right or wrong position here but it's an interesting quandry. As a younger man I had a short stint at a charity fundraising organization and the attitude they had was no different to any rapacious Wall Street boiler room. The goodly ends (not that they particularly cared about them...) justified the means, and the means were preying on the most vulnerable with relentless emotional abuse to the limit of the law. What do you say to that? |  | | |
| Funds on 11:26 - Jul 18 with 1060 views | Dorse |
| Funds on 09:46 - Jul 18 by rsonist |
There's no right or wrong position here but it's an interesting quandry. As a younger man I had a short stint at a charity fundraising organization and the attitude they had was no different to any rapacious Wall Street boiler room. The goodly ends (not that they particularly cared about them...) justified the means, and the means were preying on the most vulnerable with relentless emotional abuse to the limit of the law. What do you say to that? |
I say that the ends don't necessarily justify the means. Virtue Ethics concentrates on the character of the person rather than simply the ends. Bullying people is not the action of a 'good' person. The ends may be desirable but could they have achieved them in another way?
Our society is governed by the principle of of hedonic calculus. There is no such thing as a 'good' action - only positive or negative results. For example, if you bully, say, 20 people to give money to save 100 people, your outcome is demonstrably 'good'. The Virtue Ethicist would certainly agree that charity is a good thing, and that the outcome is good but they would question the character of any person that feels bullying is justified.
'Good' actions are carried out within society, not outside of it. For example, if you lived on top of a mountain with no human contact at any point in your whole life, you will never have lied, stolen, murdered, cheated etc. By the same token, you will never have loved, helped, cherished anyone etc. So are you good? Or evil? The actions you describe do not lead to a 'good' society as they devalue the contribution of others: look how passionate you have become as a result!
Charity begins at home: I take this to mean that it should be part of who you are, a facet of your character that has been developed by habituation and conviction. The people receiving it will not care why it is given as their situation precludes that option. However, the giver should.
For what it is worth, we are in agreement about the actions of this fundraising organisation. We may come at it from slightly different perspectives but I wouldn't say we were so different!
I will now resume my relentless assault of nob gags and ill-judged giffery. | |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
