| Smithies to Cardiff 20:06 - Jun 25 with 48139 views | Maggsinho |
£4m apparently.
|  | | |  |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 01:03 - Jun 28 with 3308 views | joolsyp |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 18:06 - Jun 27 by eghamranger |
Thought Cho Hyun-Woo (Korea) had a great game in goal.. |
Agreed, thought he was excellent - as did a few thousand watching Scouts ... |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 02:35 - Jun 28 with 3259 views | mylot50years |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 09:10 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
Did it occur to you before setting sail on that rant that perhaps the only reason Smithies signed the contract extension in the first place, the contract extension that meant we're not now losing him for nothing, is because they agreed a relatively low release fee? If indeed said fee exists, which you have no idea on while calling for people to lose their jobs.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Maybe a little early to have a pop at me as there appear to be add-ons in this proposed deal that may make your low release theory rather unlikely. I am now willing to wait and see what may unfold, hopefully you are also and you don't judge this as another so called rant. |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 08:47 - Jun 28 with 3094 views | Northernr |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 02:35 - Jun 28 by mylot50years |
Maybe a little early to have a pop at me as there appear to be add-ons in this proposed deal that may make your low release theory rather unlikely. I am now willing to wait and see what may unfold, hopefully you are also and you don't judge this as another so called rant. |
It was your theory! You said...
"£4mil if true an absolute joke, and whoever was responsible for putting that clause if it's in his latest contract, needs to be relieved of any future contract dealings as they are clearly incompetent in that department. We really need to get our act together as we are becoming an easy target in our transfer dealings, something that is embarrassing to say the least." |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 09:31 - Jun 28 with 3017 views | Tonto |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 16:12 - Jun 27 by bosh67 |
£3m plus Neil's wife's recipe for lemon meringue and use of the swivel chairs at weekends. plus Neil's daughter to be phased in by 2024. |
ahhh but remember the final line to that sketch...
"and some money" !!!!!
(fade to" I like Bouncing" song?) |  |
| |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 09:32 - Jun 28 with 3009 views | terryb |
I know we all think that Smithies will walk into the Cardiff side. And he should!
However, I have read that Cardiff fans seem to think that they are buying their backup 'keeper.
I have no idea if that would be correct, but it would say volumes about other clubs valuation of him. | | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 10:03 - Jun 28 with 2921 views | kingsburyR |
Well BOLLIX to that!!!!! |  |
| Dont know why we bother. .... but we do! |
| |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 10:28 - Jun 28 with 2825 views | BostonR |
Huge loss to the team. One of Ingram and Lumley will have to step up and show what they can do. Selling Smithies does weaken the team whatever way you look at it. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Smithies to Cardiff on 10:50 - Jun 28 with 2788 views | LunarJetman |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 10:28 - Jun 28 by BostonR |
Huge loss to the team. One of Ingram and Lumley will have to step up and show what they can do. Selling Smithies does weaken the team whatever way you look at it. |
Fans are expected to see the 28-year-old - who joins Warnock's set-up with no previous Premier League experience - in a Bluebirds shirt during the pre-season tour of Devon and Cornwall in July.
Preseason tour near the managers home.. Good old Warnock! |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 10:53 - Jun 28 with 2772 views | 1MoreBrightonR |
The only explanation for this is that Cardiff have someone black on their staff and obviously Evil Les has given him mates rates. makes perfect sense. ;) | | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 11:25 - Jun 28 with 2690 views | simmo |
Not been on the forum much and haven’t done all 9 pages here, but my take is that if the mooted £4m is the absolute best we can do for one of our better players (possibly our most outstanding player), than we need to make our best much better. A criminally low fee that makes a mockery of the latter part of our ‘buy low, sell high’ system, a fee that looks particularly poor in the context of the market. If this is the kind of ROI we can expect than what’s the fckin point? He had years left to run on his contract so hidden clauses or whatever aside I really don’t understand why we’d go through with this.
I’m trying to remain confident and not let one lost player / sale suddenly mean the sky is falling, but the seniority/leadership that has been lost from the squad in recent months needs addressing, fast, because when you add the likes of Smithies to a list that includes Chief and Robinson — not to mention the whole management and most of the coaching staff - that’s a big hit for an already shaky defensive unit and brings down the average league appearances for the squad to levels that will not go well in this league.
I back Hoos and Ferdinand to make the right decisions, the former especially when it comes to book balancing, but we need to get some deals done soon to get some context to the one way flow of (mostly senior) players.
Also for the love of god don’t use whatever money we’re getting from this to replace Smithies with Carson or some other fckin dog — decide on Lumley or Ingram as your number 1 and put the money on some defenders. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 11:32 - Jun 28 with 2667 views | Northolt_Rs |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 11:25 - Jun 28 by simmo |
Not been on the forum much and haven’t done all 9 pages here, but my take is that if the mooted £4m is the absolute best we can do for one of our better players (possibly our most outstanding player), than we need to make our best much better. A criminally low fee that makes a mockery of the latter part of our ‘buy low, sell high’ system, a fee that looks particularly poor in the context of the market. If this is the kind of ROI we can expect than what’s the fckin point? He had years left to run on his contract so hidden clauses or whatever aside I really don’t understand why we’d go through with this.
I’m trying to remain confident and not let one lost player / sale suddenly mean the sky is falling, but the seniority/leadership that has been lost from the squad in recent months needs addressing, fast, because when you add the likes of Smithies to a list that includes Chief and Robinson — not to mention the whole management and most of the coaching staff - that’s a big hit for an already shaky defensive unit and brings down the average league appearances for the squad to levels that will not go well in this league.
I back Hoos and Ferdinand to make the right decisions, the former especially when it comes to book balancing, but we need to get some deals done soon to get some context to the one way flow of (mostly senior) players.
Also for the love of god don’t use whatever money we’re getting from this to replace Smithies with Carson or some other fckin dog — decide on Lumley or Ingram as your number 1 and put the money on some defenders. |
We should’ve got the Peterborough bloke who negotiated Washingston’s sale to us to act as our agent selling Smithies to the welsh scum - he would’ve got us £100m 
Stop Press: Sky reporting that it's £3M + £500k if Cardiff stay up and I think Huddersfield have a sell on clause built in.... No wonder the club press release says ‘undisclosed fee’. That is a truly terrible bit of business by our lot. [Post edited 28 Jun 2018 12:38]
|  |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:01 - Jun 28 with 2559 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
I think we need to revaluate our definition of bad business on here.
Signing a 35 year Julio Cesar on a four year deal on £XX,000 per week when we already have Rob Green and then loaning him to Toronto is fcking bad busness.
Selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is great business to me.
Would we like more? Sure.
Usual posters bumming me out. Bad News Bandits. [Post edited 28 Jun 2018 13:02]
|  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:11 - Jun 28 with 2526 views | daveB |
Would have been great to get more money for Smithies but when we have 3 keepers and a decent offer for one f them it makes sense to sell. He's a big loss but would rather sell him than one of the midfielders we have. We can use the money to bring in a few players and help with passing FFP this year.
Looks like it will be a tough season though, that squad on paper much like it did a year ago has relegation written all over it |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:39 - Jun 28 with 2459 views | simmo |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:01 - Jun 28 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I think we need to revaluate our definition of bad business on here.
Signing a 35 year Julio Cesar on a four year deal on £XX,000 per week when we already have Rob Green and then loaning him to Toronto is fcking bad busness.
Selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is great business to me.
Would we like more? Sure.
Usual posters bumming me out. Bad News Bandits. [Post edited 28 Jun 2018 13:02]
|
The theory of selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is exactly right and I advocated the same thing.
But the reality is we sold him for at least half his market value and worth.
Our business model relies on us maximising the potential and profit on our investments. Smithies is in his prime at 28 and has years left to run, he's a more valuable commodity than £3-4m so regardless of the fact we should have sold him, we've set a very low bar for negotiations and this doesn't bode particularly well for other players we might want to sell in the future, many of which will not be as good or have as long to run on their contracts.
It smacks of a panic sell, getting whatever money we can as quickly as we can so we can provide funds for Schteve. | |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:49 - Jun 28 with 2419 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:39 - Jun 28 by simmo |
The theory of selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is exactly right and I advocated the same thing.
But the reality is we sold him for at least half his market value and worth.
Our business model relies on us maximising the potential and profit on our investments. Smithies is in his prime at 28 and has years left to run, he's a more valuable commodity than £3-4m so regardless of the fact we should have sold him, we've set a very low bar for negotiations and this doesn't bode particularly well for other players we might want to sell in the future, many of which will not be as good or have as long to run on their contracts.
It smacks of a panic sell, getting whatever money we can as quickly as we can so we can provide funds for Schteve. |
Yeah sold under our valuation , but BAD business?
Burnley, the leading example of the model we are emulating sold us CA for three packets of crisps or something and are currently chasing the European dream.
Wasn’t really a comment on the sale, more the reaction. [Post edited 28 Jun 2018 15:10]
| | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:51 - Jun 28 with 2414 views | 1MoreBrightonR |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:39 - Jun 28 by simmo |
The theory of selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is exactly right and I advocated the same thing.
But the reality is we sold him for at least half his market value and worth.
Our business model relies on us maximising the potential and profit on our investments. Smithies is in his prime at 28 and has years left to run, he's a more valuable commodity than £3-4m so regardless of the fact we should have sold him, we've set a very low bar for negotiations and this doesn't bode particularly well for other players we might want to sell in the future, many of which will not be as good or have as long to run on their contracts.
It smacks of a panic sell, getting whatever money we can as quickly as we can so we can provide funds for Schteve. |
his market value is only what someone is willing to pay for him, so unless someone offered us ^ million and we took 3-4 million from cardiff, his market value is.....3-4 million. | | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:52 - Jun 28 with 2403 views | daveB |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:39 - Jun 28 by simmo |
The theory of selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is exactly right and I advocated the same thing.
But the reality is we sold him for at least half his market value and worth.
Our business model relies on us maximising the potential and profit on our investments. Smithies is in his prime at 28 and has years left to run, he's a more valuable commodity than £3-4m so regardless of the fact we should have sold him, we've set a very low bar for negotiations and this doesn't bode particularly well for other players we might want to sell in the future, many of which will not be as good or have as long to run on their contracts.
It smacks of a panic sell, getting whatever money we can as quickly as we can so we can provide funds for Schteve. |
If no one else has shown an interest in 2 years perhaps this is his market value. He's a good keeper but looking at it from a non QPR point of view this is a player who has never played for a side in the top half of the championship so he's not going to command a big fee.
Looks like QPR have just about doubled their money on him and have players at the club ready to replace him which is a decent model to have. | | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:55 - Jun 28 with 2402 views | simmo |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:49 - Jun 28 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Yeah sold under our valuation , but BAD business?
Burnley, the leading example of the model we are emulating sold us CA for three packets of crisps or something and are currently chasing the European dream.
Wasn’t really a comment on the sale, more the reaction. [Post edited 28 Jun 2018 15:10]
|
We can't afford not to sell, I appreciate that, but based on our model we can't afford to sell so much under value either.
Austin wasn't under value for Burnley at the time, I think it was about £4m which I would guess was their record sale and probably not far off the most expensive signing of that season in the Championship.
I do agree the reaction is likely OTT, as it always seems to be from QPR (especially on social media). But under selling one of your most valuable assets and weakening your position for future deals is bad business - hence the frustration. | |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 14:06 - Jun 28 with 2377 views | timcocking |
This signing, we may be able to cope with. If Lumley and or Ingram are good enough, we might cover it (although it'll be hard to equal Alex).
But it's a cumulative effect. That's three of our best and most senior players in every way basically given away. It's a very young squad in transition, with a whole new coaching setup. The championship is an unforgiving mistress. I'm not over reacting or panicking just yet, but i'd think anybody in their right mind would have some concerns. |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 14:11 - Jun 28 with 2366 views | Northolt_Rs |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:49 - Jun 28 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Yeah sold under our valuation , but BAD business?
Burnley, the leading example of the model we are emulating sold us CA for three packets of crisps or something and are currently chasing the European dream.
Wasn’t really a comment on the sale, more the reaction. [Post edited 28 Jun 2018 15:10]
|
Sold too cheap is the exact definition of bad business - or one of them anyway... | |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 14:23 - Jun 28 with 2339 views | WrightUp5hit___ |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:01 - Jun 28 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I think we need to revaluate our definition of bad business on here.
Signing a 35 year Julio Cesar on a four year deal on £XX,000 per week when we already have Rob Green and then loaning him to Toronto is fcking bad busness.
Selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is great business to me.
Would we like more? Sure.
Usual posters bumming me out. Bad News Bandits. [Post edited 28 Jun 2018 13:02]
|
Signing a 35 year Julio Cesar on a four year deal on £XXX,000 per week |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 14:35 - Jun 28 with 2310 views | blacky200 |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 14:11 - Jun 28 by Northolt_Rs |
Sold too cheap is the exact definition of bad business - or one of them anyway... |
We do not know the ins and outs of deals. If he has a clause in his contract then there's nothing we can do. If the player wants to leave then realistically there's nothing we can do. Let's face it he is going to (at least) double his salary with this move so who can blame him, plus he is going to a Premier league club where he will be on a bigger stage with more people looking at his performances so can lead to bigger things.
Regardless of what we think a player is worth the reality is that if there is only one club in for him we are stuck with what they offer. Lee Hoos is a fantastic CEO and no mug (his previous record before QPR and record since he has been here speaks for itself). Whatever we got him for him is the maximum we can expect. I don't believe LH would of agreed the sale if the deal was not acceptable to the club. |  | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 14:46 - Jun 28 with 2279 views | nadera78 |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 13:39 - Jun 28 by simmo |
The theory of selling a good player for more than we brought him for and promoting three very promising keepers in the process is exactly right and I advocated the same thing.
But the reality is we sold him for at least half his market value and worth.
Our business model relies on us maximising the potential and profit on our investments. Smithies is in his prime at 28 and has years left to run, he's a more valuable commodity than £3-4m so regardless of the fact we should have sold him, we've set a very low bar for negotiations and this doesn't bode particularly well for other players we might want to sell in the future, many of which will not be as good or have as long to run on their contracts.
It smacks of a panic sell, getting whatever money we can as quickly as we can so we can provide funds for Schteve. |
"But the reality is we sold him for at least half his market value and worth."
You don't seem to understand the phrase "market value". Alex Smithies was available for transfer, every club in the world knew this to be true, and the very best offer for him came from Cardiff City. £3m++ apparently, and we have sold him for that price. That, by definition, is the "market value" for Alex Smithies. Unless you think other clubs have offered £6m and we turned them down? | | | |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 15:34 - Jun 28 with 2232 views | simmo |
| Smithies to Cardiff on 14:46 - Jun 28 by nadera78 |
"But the reality is we sold him for at least half his market value and worth."
You don't seem to understand the phrase "market value". Alex Smithies was available for transfer, every club in the world knew this to be true, and the very best offer for him came from Cardiff City. £3m++ apparently, and we have sold him for that price. That, by definition, is the "market value" for Alex Smithies. Unless you think other clubs have offered £6m and we turned them down? |
Unless you think we couldn't have got more over the course of the market remaining open for another 6 weeks or by negotiating? My understanding is this was the first offer we received, all caveats about clauses being met aside, it smacks of panic selling.
I understand completely what market value means and if clubs refuse to meet his value then he shouldn't be sold. | |
| 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.
