| Rangers - A difficult club to own 18:39 - May 10 with 9777 views | QPRMUSO |
I know there is a lot of fans out there not particularly complimentary about TF but just remember we are a relatively small club trying to be big. Be thankful there is a board with money who do appear to care and make things good. We have a gate of 18k which to be honest doesn't generate enough to bring in the top players but there is a plan with a new stadium and a new training ground. Relegation is another set back but I am genuinely happy we have a Chairman who at least gives a sh...t! Let's see what the next few months bring. Enjoy the Summer everyone. |  | | |  |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 09:15 - May 20 with 1674 views | Mytch_QPR |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 08:14 - May 20 by vblockranger |
Are you on a wind up? Boswinga? SWP? Samba? Caulker? Mutch? Excellent signings?????? Deary me....you must have been one of the numptys on the pitch on Saturday celebrating relegation and chanting Uncle Bungle's name....? yer thought so. |
In fairness, the poster states 'with hindsight' - he is right in that when a lot of the big name signings were announced they were welcomed positively on the whole. A lot of us who have been going to Rangers for years never thought we would see names like Cisse, Bosingwa, Park, Cesar etc at The Rs. We didn't know they'd de duds - how could TF? |  |
| |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 14:35 - May 20 with 1588 views | headhoops |
Truly running any business let alone a football club is difficult and no fit and proper director wants to fail. I'm certain TF would love to get it right, every time, all of the time, but that's never, ever going to happen. What Fernandes has got to do much better is manage expectations. He needs to stop eulogising on twitter, being a media bitch and making the same mistakes, time and time again.
His sole focus over the next 2 months should be to get us the best possible outcome from the FFP saga and then not brag/lament about it all over the media, especially social. Having chosen Ramsey give him the tools to work with, get on with sorting out the new training facilities but do it all quietly.
Finally stop promising dream managers/new ground/etc, etc and build up the club in the right way. Jim Gregory did it a a by gone era and Burnley have done it more recently - name their chairman?
Message to TF - in fact to Sir Les and CR as well - start under promising and over delivering.
PS. great posts Ingham, you need to post more often. |  |
| |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 15:32 - May 20 with 1576 views | Mvpeter |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 02:46 - May 20 by Ingham |
Vancouver, that's an interesting point, but what do you base it on? We've had people like Fernandes for 25 years - Thompson, Wright, Blackburn - Wright's surrogate, whatever Paladini was, Ecclestone and now Fernandes. Big talk, big spending, big plans for the most part.
Yet even now, QPR remains the same Club it always was.
Small. Last time I looked it was small, despite all the millionaires and billionaires. Still at Loftus Road. Still the same supporters, and still the same size of support.
Nothing of any significance has changed, because the people mentioned above either didn't know how to furnish the Club with the required talent, or never bothered to.
The Supporters are still around. What is the average lifespan at QPR of a chairman post-Gregory? Surely it is the number of supporters we have that keeps the Club in being DESPITE what its Chairmen have done to it (or tried to do to it) over the years (including Gregory). As well as keeping it the size it is (in the positive as well as the negative sense).
This seems to me a similar point to the one made by Deano about 'we'. If the supporters effortlessly survive everything these people can do to QPR, and keep on pouring money in, while Chairmen are soon discredited and on their way, and the Club remains the same size as it always has, with the same lack of success, in what way does that suggest that Chairman are in control, and the Supporters - and their vision - peripheral?
Isn't it the failure of our Chairmen to produce the kind of footballing success the Supporters would welcome and approve of that makes THEM, the 'investors', so instantly dispensable?
The point about 'we' is about belonging, I think. We call it our Club because it is a Club, and a Club of the kind that people belong to, in the sense of identifying with it. That's what keeps the money coming in, that's why the Club profits from us (long after each bunch of chancers has headed for the hills).
Apart from losing money, what power has the Board demonstrated that it has over QPR? The power to sign some of the worst top flight players ever seen? To set at least two records for failure (a longest losing run and a longest away losing run)? To run up total losses of £200 million? To keep the Club permanently fighting relegation?
Was 0-6 at Man City a demonstration of their mastery? Did TF inform the City players that he owned more shares in QPR than they did? Did that work? Can he vote himself a success, or does it have to be earned through know-how, skill and experience? Is going down again an indication of how completely the Club answers to his will?
But football clubs don't work that way. 'Competitiveness' in business is a pallid shadow of what a football competition is. Where your opponent comes to your place and stops you doing ANYTHING you want to do. That isn't business, but it is football. In football, you're not as successful as the Board tells its shareholders it is, but as your record says. That's the killer. Someone else decides whether you're good.
Especially the Supporters.
It is objective, not the subjective fantasy of power that the Board wallows in. Champions League, world class talent and all that. And a new stadium to hold 45,000, 40,000, 35,000, 30,000, none of them seems to know.
In a competition, especially the gladiatorial football kind, where it is sudden death every week, we are only as good as our OPPONENTS' talents, size and spending power. None of which is under Fernandes's control. Just owning shares at QPR buys nothing at our rivals, and it is our rivals we have to overcome.
No, it is the Club's Support - AND the sheer muscle of our opponents - that keeps us the size we are. Oh, and the vastly superior negotiating skills of the Players and their representatives. While the Boardroom people lose tens and hundreds of millions of the Club's money signing nonentities, the Players just get richer and richer at QPR's expense. Surely that is because they have such clueless counterparts to negotiate with, who can never even match wages to performance, still less make a profit at what they do?
So perhaps it is not surprising, given their inability to perform in almost any way at all, that our Chairmen have never changed the size of the Club. That would require talent of a completely different order any of them has possessed (or any other Club has ever possessed, come to that). Clubs can overperform, no doubt about that, but their size doesn't change.
Nobody has ever made a small Club a big one, not since the early days anyway. You do need to know what you're doing, and success in football, unlike business, is rationed. In business, every newsagents can be a success. In football, it only possible for one Club in any competition to win. Even if every individual at every Club is as talented as Messi. In that sense, football is not about talent. The odds are always stacked against a Club, and particularly the smaller ones. And we know that that is so before a ball is kicked, every season without fail. One wins, the rest are losers.
That is why merely cranking up the spending is pointless.
There is never any indication that the people running the Club have grasped this, and they depart, unsuccessful as ever, while we stay and 'welcome' the next crowd, who have no more idea than the last lot, except to come out with the same platitudes, the same meaningless fantasies.
Still, the beauty of the Supporters' position, the real fun, is that we are never to blame, no matter how bad they are. No matter how bad things get at QPR, it is always the Chairman's fault. Even if he is successful, it is our Club (in the sense that we belong to it) and the credit is the Club's (partly, of course, because the money is the Club's). Unlike the Chairman, we do not hamper our own ambitions, through our own lack of ability. Supporters want the best person for the job. Everyone else - players, managers, board members - want the job themselves.
Our way is competitive. Theirs is not. That is why they seem invariably to fail when they do things their way. Try winning, try talent, try real know-how, skill, creativity - as the Supporters would prefer - and they might succeed. But they prefer their pretence of being in control.
The myth that they are spending their own money dies hard. But the accounts make it abundantly clear that the losses are the Club's, not theirs, so the money spent is the Club's. The source of the money the Club borrows from isn't the owner of the money spent any more than the source of an employee's wages or a firm's profits is the owner of the recipient's wages or profits.
What is the reasoning behind losing so much money so pointlessly?
Do we not have a League these days where a small Club like ours can get, say, £60 million a season just for being there? No? Pity. Well, if such a competition ever comes along, we could manage just fine. They might name it the Premier League.
Knowing how to spend £60 million a year is the point. Not easy, but there is no point borrowing £200 million and squandering it if we have no idea how to spend £60 million intelligently, let alone profitably. I am interested to see how Fernandes tackles things from now on. There is always the Champions League and world class talent, of course, as he and Bhatia have said. And surely Mittal has the money.
But that source of power seems closed off to QPR too. Mere spending to bring us the title. Why? Between them they have the money.
But the Club doesn't. And it is the Club's money they are spending.
The Supporters are the mirror of the Club. When it does well, we're pleased. When it doesn't, we're not. That is what supporting the Club means. Putting QPR's interests above those of Fernandes or Mittal or Bhatia or anyone else. They can try displeasing us, try losing as many games as possible, and antagonising us, make as many bad signings as they can, lose unimaginably large sums of money, and proclaim their power over the Club.
But who will believe them? Who will be impressed? Among supporters of other Clubs, they're a laughing stock. I bet THAT intimidates our opponents. |
This is beautiful. Well done sir. | |
| |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 15:56 - May 20 with 1563 views | Mvpeter |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 09:07 - May 20 by THEBUSH |
Those 'numptys' on the pitch outnumber you, so whose the real numpty !!
The few over opinionated fans on this board are thankfully outnumbered by fans at Loftus Road. |
Number of believers is not linked to truth in the slightest. 0%.
Many of those signings were obviously terrible ideas with foresight. And that was without being privy to contract details, scouts reports and medical records.
Apologistic nonsense. | |
| |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 16:48 - May 20 with 1547 views | danehoop |
| Rangers - A difficult club to own on 15:56 - May 20 by Mvpeter |
Number of believers is not linked to truth in the slightest. 0%.
Many of those signings were obviously terrible ideas with foresight. And that was without being privy to contract details, scouts reports and medical records.
Apologistic nonsense. |
Your opinion obviously. And one based on hindsight. Well done. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
