| Charlie just scored at Utd 16:45 - Jan 23 with 13146 views | bosh67 |
7 mins into his debut. |  |
| |  |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 18:49 - Jan 25 with 1169 views | Bushman |
IMHO If the £250m invested in the last 5 years had been spent wisely on the right managers and players (CA accepted) we would be a mid table premiership club like Southampton and we would be buying & hanging onto players of Austin's ability not selling them.
IF... |  |
| I know almost nothing about the Premier League even though I try to catch the big games every now and then at the end of the season. But I will say this, Queens Park Rangers is just a fukking sick ass team name. Just sounds so cool. |
| |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 18:59 - Jan 25 with 1147 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 03:02 - Jan 24 by isawqpratwcity |
Not good enough for me. You're saying that if such an arrangement existed, then the fact that the transaction did not result in a commission is proof that the arrangement existed and that the club wished to avoid such a commission (even if it possibly meant that the club actually earned less).
But that is just a matter of logic about Austin's sale. Much more importantly for me, because I hadn't heard this claim before, did Francis incorporate such a clause? I don't see how that isn't a massive conflict of interest for him, leaving him liable to at least dismissal, if not actual criminal prosecution. |
Just read this now, Isaw,
Francis' contract was more nuanced than that. He got bonuses for increasing the value of players, whether he sold them or not, so there wasn't a conflict of interest in fairness.
Had he had Austin and sold him for £10m he would have got a share of the £6m profit.
Had he had Austin but not sold him, then he and the board would have agreed a value at year end, if they agreed on £10m then he would have got a share of the £6m increase in value so there was no incentive for him to sell our assets.
It rewarded good scouting and good coaching by Francis. |  |
| |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 19:54 - Jan 25 with 1103 views | daveB |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 17:05 - Jan 25 by QPR1882 |
But the club did gamble, and lost. We could easily have sold Austin for the £15M we wanted in the window. Yes i agree clubs were frightened off with the £15m price tag but we could have put him up for £12m with £3m add ons, goals scored etc etc. The club gambled on us going up and Charlie signing an extension to his contract. |
But Austin turned those moves down, we accepted bids of around 12 million from Palace but he rejected them. |  | | |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 21:26 - Jan 25 with 1061 views | QPR1882 |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 19:54 - Jan 25 by daveB |
But Austin turned those moves down, we accepted bids of around 12 million from Palace but he rejected them. |
Palace offered £6m plus players. IF we had Charlie at £12m with add ons the likes of Spurs who showed an inetrest but were put off by the £15m price tag would probably made a bid, who knows ?
Who cares anyway the gambled they lost, it happens |  | | |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 22:45 - Jan 25 with 1021 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Charlie just scored at Utd on 18:59 - Jan 25 by BrianMcCarthy |
Just read this now, Isaw,
Francis' contract was more nuanced than that. He got bonuses for increasing the value of players, whether he sold them or not, so there wasn't a conflict of interest in fairness.
Had he had Austin and sold him for £10m he would have got a share of the £6m profit.
Had he had Austin but not sold him, then he and the board would have agreed a value at year end, if they agreed on £10m then he would have got a share of the £6m increase in value so there was no incentive for him to sell our assets.
It rewarded good scouting and good coaching by Francis. |
Thanks for that, Brian.
Ok, that makes more sense. An increase in player value would have to be a consequence of improved performance, and would also assist the club as a developer of player assets to be sold at a profit.
It is the modern way to reward twice for people being good at their job, and you'd hope that some of that benefit would also go to the large teams who implement and support those roles. I have a strong distrust of commissions from parties other than the employer and also bonus schemes that reward 'performance' that doesn't translate into the core well-being of the company. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.