| Ownership of QPR 18:30 - Nov 9 with 9878 views | TopCat34 |
I know they "keep us running", but I'm afraid incompetence of this level shouldn't be tolerated especially when ST holders are paying 700+ for the privilege.
There's one long running theme of massive underachievement at QPR in recent years and it's he owners we have. They need to go. They are not fit for purpose and they cannot be trusted to put people in place. If Nourry is sacked is the direction ever going to improve? They've had 10 years to learn how to do it. You think by now you'd have learned something.
I think sacking Marti would be a death knell for this ownership. You can't keep papering over failure. |  | | |  |
| Ownership of QPR on 18:54 - Nov 20 with 2466 views | GaryBannister86 |
| Ownership of QPR on 18:49 - Nov 20 by daveB |
I'm not for a second saying Wright was any good he was a disaster but we neded that investment when we were on the up
All we did every year was weaken the team and it came back to bite us in the end
Thompson was the right owner at the wrong tine, he comes in after Flavio I actually think he'd have done well
Blackburn of course spent a lot but on players we could have got, likes of Sherwood, Ripley and Tim Flowers were all gettable if we wanted to do it. Andy Cole when he was at Bristol City was another we could have taken a chance on
It wasn't the Premier League we see today or even the one of the 2000's, the opportunity was there for us and we didn't go for it. Was never going to take fortunes to do it, we were so close to a very good side just needed some depth to the squad and a bit more quality in midfield alongside Wilkins |
Ah yes getting back to the football - one quality midfielder alongside Super Ray in his pomp and I am convinced we would have won something. Holloway was dreadful, whatever the misty-eyed romantics say, and Barker was OK but nowhere near top class. Imagine another good midfielder in there........argh. |  | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 19:50 - Nov 20 with 2326 views | TK1 |
| Ownership of QPR on 18:49 - Nov 20 by daveB |
I'm not for a second saying Wright was any good he was a disaster but we neded that investment when we were on the up
All we did every year was weaken the team and it came back to bite us in the end
Thompson was the right owner at the wrong tine, he comes in after Flavio I actually think he'd have done well
Blackburn of course spent a lot but on players we could have got, likes of Sherwood, Ripley and Tim Flowers were all gettable if we wanted to do it. Andy Cole when he was at Bristol City was another we could have taken a chance on
It wasn't the Premier League we see today or even the one of the 2000's, the opportunity was there for us and we didn't go for it. Was never going to take fortunes to do it, we were so close to a very good side just needed some depth to the squad and a bit more quality in midfield alongside Wilkins |
But Wilkins was given the Les money and bought those two midfielders needed: they just happened to be Osborn and Zelic. They still cost £2.5 million! He also spent 1.25 million on Hateley, of course.
He spent £5 million quid that summer and they were all duds. Ironic that the one year we spent significant money we were relegated.Wilkins was a good man, great captain, one of my favourite players, may have been a good coach, but he shouldn't have been given that money with the ownership in flux.
It was less about investment and money, it was always about the people doing the recruitment. Same as now, really.
Re Cole: obviously, with hindsight, you'd spend £500k on Andy Cole in 1992 if you could go back in time. But he'd played one game for Arsenal. Went down a division to get games at Bristol C, played for six months, scored loads and Newcastle bought him. I listened to a podcast with him and he said he had other offers but knew someone at Brizzle and was guaranteed games. QPR came fifth that season with Les Ferdinand, Bradley Allen (who had a great season), Gary Penrice, Dennis Bailey, even Garry Thompson. Devon White too! 20 year-old Andy Cole may not have got those games he needed had he joined, and probably wouldn't have signed for that reason...
Ifs, buts and maybes.
Enjoyable debate, everyone. Totally kiboshed my work deadline. |  | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 22:59 - Nov 20 with 2157 views | daveB |
| Ownership of QPR on 19:50 - Nov 20 by TK1 |
But Wilkins was given the Les money and bought those two midfielders needed: they just happened to be Osborn and Zelic. They still cost £2.5 million! He also spent 1.25 million on Hateley, of course.
He spent £5 million quid that summer and they were all duds. Ironic that the one year we spent significant money we were relegated.Wilkins was a good man, great captain, one of my favourite players, may have been a good coach, but he shouldn't have been given that money with the ownership in flux.
It was less about investment and money, it was always about the people doing the recruitment. Same as now, really.
Re Cole: obviously, with hindsight, you'd spend £500k on Andy Cole in 1992 if you could go back in time. But he'd played one game for Arsenal. Went down a division to get games at Bristol C, played for six months, scored loads and Newcastle bought him. I listened to a podcast with him and he said he had other offers but knew someone at Brizzle and was guaranteed games. QPR came fifth that season with Les Ferdinand, Bradley Allen (who had a great season), Gary Penrice, Dennis Bailey, even Garry Thompson. Devon White too! 20 year-old Andy Cole may not have got those games he needed had he joined, and probably wouldn't have signed for that reason...
Ifs, buts and maybes.
Enjoyable debate, everyone. Totally kiboshed my work deadline. |
all of this is with hindsight of course but when we did spend the money it was just money we had brought in, they never pushed the boat out when it was needed.
By the time we spent on those players the team had already been broken up. We'd lost Peacock, Wilson, Ferdinand, Sinton etc and Wilkins was pretty much done as a player and didn't play much that season, Mcdonald was injured as was Bradley Allen for a lot of that season
The signings we made were crap and we know all too well from the last 10 years it doesn't matter how much you spend its how well you spend it
I do agree it was all about the people making the signings and look if we had spent and got those players it could have still gone wrong, we tend to find a way to mess it up but it will always feel a missed opportunity to me
Just imagine if after 1992/93 we sign a good goalkeeper, a midfield partner for Wilkins and a back up for Les. It just could have been so much better and then the loss of Les wouldn't have been the final straw.
I've gone back and forward on those protests over the years, i was part of it stood outside shouting we want thompson out, when it went tits up under Wright I thought I was wrong to do that and now 30 years on I think the fans were right to do it as thats how we felt at the time, we could all sense we were close to doing something and it felt like we were being asset stripped.
Ultimately though Thompson left a year or so after the protests had died down after we'd been relegated. |  | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 23:18 - Nov 20 with 2127 views | PunteR |
| Ownership of QPR on 10:39 - Nov 10 by Ned_Kennedys |
So if we ‘hound out’ the owners who is going to take over a business that loses huge money every month?
If the owners decide to walk away what does that mean to QPR?
And the suggestion that a new owner would somehow work out a way to turn a profit on QPR is fanciful as well: how many clubs actually make money?
Clearly there are major issues with the recruitment in the summer but if instead of Madsen and Celar we’d bought a 15 goal a season centre forward and instead of loaning Ashby we’d gone for Hayden then things would be different now and we’d all be bemoaning our terrible luck with injuries as the main reason for our bad start to the season. Not sure how the owners can be blamed above Nourry, Belk and Cifuentes for the poor quality of the signings. [Post edited 10 Nov 12:59]
|
Sorry but these owners are shit. Look at our stats. F**k em off. Its our club .
I'll still be supporting and going to games whatever league we're in and if we just stop existing, well that's what it will be.
I hate it that we've become so dependant on these clowns like a bunch of crackheads needing some gammy legged pimp to look after them.
Ive tried to be patient, pragmatic etc, mainly for the purpose of balance in these discussions on LFW but in reality i'm sick of them all.
Dont get me wrong, i love QPR, our fans, Loftus road, our badge ,colours and everything we've all grown up with about QPR. But i'm sick of these Malaysian owners, the multi billionaire Mittal's and whoever else is sitting in that boardroom smoking cigars absolutely clueless.
Yeh Nourry has to go, of course.
I called out Tony Fernandes early doors and got absolute pelters on here. Sadly its always been about the money, and the "what would we do without them" attitude that has nullified us as fans to do anything about it.
Embarrassing really, but thats modern football. Most clubs these days have a shameful look the other way response to the dodgy money that circulates the game, so its sadly no surprise we would rather have some sugar daddy looking after us, rather then except our reality.
These owners don't loose any sleep about the amount of money they pump into our club btw. We're just another expense to off set their humungous tax bill.
This post is a rant. I might feel different tomorrow, but tonight Matthew , im gonna be Punty McPunt face talking cobblers on a QPR message board. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 23:34 - Nov 20 with 2084 views | PeterHucker |
| Ownership of QPR on 22:59 - Nov 20 by daveB |
all of this is with hindsight of course but when we did spend the money it was just money we had brought in, they never pushed the boat out when it was needed.
By the time we spent on those players the team had already been broken up. We'd lost Peacock, Wilson, Ferdinand, Sinton etc and Wilkins was pretty much done as a player and didn't play much that season, Mcdonald was injured as was Bradley Allen for a lot of that season
The signings we made were crap and we know all too well from the last 10 years it doesn't matter how much you spend its how well you spend it
I do agree it was all about the people making the signings and look if we had spent and got those players it could have still gone wrong, we tend to find a way to mess it up but it will always feel a missed opportunity to me
Just imagine if after 1992/93 we sign a good goalkeeper, a midfield partner for Wilkins and a back up for Les. It just could have been so much better and then the loss of Les wouldn't have been the final straw.
I've gone back and forward on those protests over the years, i was part of it stood outside shouting we want thompson out, when it went tits up under Wright I thought I was wrong to do that and now 30 years on I think the fans were right to do it as thats how we felt at the time, we could all sense we were close to doing something and it felt like we were being asset stripped.
Ultimately though Thompson left a year or so after the protests had died down after we'd been relegated. |
I was there protesting against Thompson too, but when you look at how badly the owners have run the club since 2011 it makes you realise how the system, as much as it frustrated us, was actually working back then.
As mentioned earlier in the thread Sinton, Parker, Ferdinand, Sinclair, Peacock, Impey all bought from clubs in the divisions below. All sold on for a handsome profit. Some of which went into balancing the books and some of which was re-invested in more players from the lower divisions.
Impey, Ferdinand, Peacock would hardly have been on anyone's radar before joining us so there must have been something going right with our recruitment back then.
The big problem was that when it went wrong (spending the Les Ferdinand money) it went REALLY wrong & we were relegated.
But I still think we were really unlucky with some of those signings. They could have worked out.
Simon Osborn a very decent midfielder, as is proven by how well he did at his next club Wolves.
As for Ned Zelic, anyone remember the midweek home defeat to Wimbledon when he came on as a sub? We lost the game comfortably but that wasn't much to do with Zelic. He looked more than capable in that match.
He had a fairly good career in Germany both before and after his short spell with us.
Is it Thompson's fault he couldn't settle? Is it Ray's fault? The other players? (there have been persistent stories of them not making him very welcome) Zelic himself's fault? Who knows but, like Osborn, I think it unlucky rather than a terrible signing.
I won't try to defend the signing of Hateley though. He was a very good target man in his Pompey / Milan days. But a past it old crock by the time we got him. That one really was a terrible signing but I'd wager that signing was more like Super Ray's decision than the owners.
Look what happened when the next owner Chris Wright took over. Took his eye off the ball in terms of keeping the books balanced & then left us in administration while he ran away with the training ground!
Thompson quite right to identify in that interview that his PR and his communication with the fans was well below the standard required but in terms of keeping the club running without making massive losses then he did a competent job.
Fast forward to November 2024 and we are losing more money every month than mid-90s QPR lost in a year.
And what are we getting in return for that? Not a club that's holding its own in the Premier League, that's for sure. We are a million miles from that. [Post edited 20 Nov 23:36]
|  | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 23:55 - Nov 20 with 2055 views | connell10 |
| Ownership of QPR on 23:34 - Nov 20 by PeterHucker |
I was there protesting against Thompson too, but when you look at how badly the owners have run the club since 2011 it makes you realise how the system, as much as it frustrated us, was actually working back then.
As mentioned earlier in the thread Sinton, Parker, Ferdinand, Sinclair, Peacock, Impey all bought from clubs in the divisions below. All sold on for a handsome profit. Some of which went into balancing the books and some of which was re-invested in more players from the lower divisions.
Impey, Ferdinand, Peacock would hardly have been on anyone's radar before joining us so there must have been something going right with our recruitment back then.
The big problem was that when it went wrong (spending the Les Ferdinand money) it went REALLY wrong & we were relegated.
But I still think we were really unlucky with some of those signings. They could have worked out.
Simon Osborn a very decent midfielder, as is proven by how well he did at his next club Wolves.
As for Ned Zelic, anyone remember the midweek home defeat to Wimbledon when he came on as a sub? We lost the game comfortably but that wasn't much to do with Zelic. He looked more than capable in that match.
He had a fairly good career in Germany both before and after his short spell with us.
Is it Thompson's fault he couldn't settle? Is it Ray's fault? The other players? (there have been persistent stories of them not making him very welcome) Zelic himself's fault? Who knows but, like Osborn, I think it unlucky rather than a terrible signing.
I won't try to defend the signing of Hateley though. He was a very good target man in his Pompey / Milan days. But a past it old crock by the time we got him. That one really was a terrible signing but I'd wager that signing was more like Super Ray's decision than the owners.
Look what happened when the next owner Chris Wright took over. Took his eye off the ball in terms of keeping the books balanced & then left us in administration while he ran away with the training ground!
Thompson quite right to identify in that interview that his PR and his communication with the fans was well below the standard required but in terms of keeping the club running without making massive losses then he did a competent job.
Fast forward to November 2024 and we are losing more money every month than mid-90s QPR lost in a year.
And what are we getting in return for that? Not a club that's holding its own in the Premier League, that's for sure. We are a million miles from that. [Post edited 20 Nov 23:36]
|
Thompson was bloody awful , I love how things are always made to look better through the prism of years. |  |
| AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!! | | Poll: | best number 10 ever? |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 08:02 - Nov 21 with 1868 views | daveB |
| Ownership of QPR on 23:34 - Nov 20 by PeterHucker |
I was there protesting against Thompson too, but when you look at how badly the owners have run the club since 2011 it makes you realise how the system, as much as it frustrated us, was actually working back then.
As mentioned earlier in the thread Sinton, Parker, Ferdinand, Sinclair, Peacock, Impey all bought from clubs in the divisions below. All sold on for a handsome profit. Some of which went into balancing the books and some of which was re-invested in more players from the lower divisions.
Impey, Ferdinand, Peacock would hardly have been on anyone's radar before joining us so there must have been something going right with our recruitment back then.
The big problem was that when it went wrong (spending the Les Ferdinand money) it went REALLY wrong & we were relegated.
But I still think we were really unlucky with some of those signings. They could have worked out.
Simon Osborn a very decent midfielder, as is proven by how well he did at his next club Wolves.
As for Ned Zelic, anyone remember the midweek home defeat to Wimbledon when he came on as a sub? We lost the game comfortably but that wasn't much to do with Zelic. He looked more than capable in that match.
He had a fairly good career in Germany both before and after his short spell with us.
Is it Thompson's fault he couldn't settle? Is it Ray's fault? The other players? (there have been persistent stories of them not making him very welcome) Zelic himself's fault? Who knows but, like Osborn, I think it unlucky rather than a terrible signing.
I won't try to defend the signing of Hateley though. He was a very good target man in his Pompey / Milan days. But a past it old crock by the time we got him. That one really was a terrible signing but I'd wager that signing was more like Super Ray's decision than the owners.
Look what happened when the next owner Chris Wright took over. Took his eye off the ball in terms of keeping the books balanced & then left us in administration while he ran away with the training ground!
Thompson quite right to identify in that interview that his PR and his communication with the fans was well below the standard required but in terms of keeping the club running without making massive losses then he did a competent job.
Fast forward to November 2024 and we are losing more money every month than mid-90s QPR lost in a year.
And what are we getting in return for that? Not a club that's holding its own in the Premier League, that's for sure. We are a million miles from that. [Post edited 20 Nov 23:36]
|
even under Wright they did spend quite well at first, Spencer was brilliant and Peacock very good but they appointed the wrong manager time and time again and what should have been a 100 point championship winning squad finished mid table. | | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 13:02 - Nov 21 with 1691 views | davman |
| Ownership of QPR on 16:06 - Nov 20 by TK1 |
"It could and should have been a lot better": mate, other than one season in 1975/76, it's never been as good before or since, and it will never be as good again. But somehow it still wasn't good enough for you. That's tragic. That was my favourite QPR era.
Who did you want to invest? It wasn't the fans, was it? Because we couldn't fill a 19k ground. We had to sell players to invest.
Other than Marcus Gayle, QPR would not have been in with the remotest shot of signing Walker, Townsend, G Peacock or Beardsley then because they were joining much bigger clubs. It's also why players needed to be sold: generally, players want to play for the biggest clubs. It's why Peacock, Ferdinand, Sinton etc left too. They asked to play for a bigger clubs. I mean, you say we could've convinced Peter Beardsley to chose QPR over Newcastle?!
Anyway, well done everyone. We chased out Richard Thompson, got in Chris Wright who showed "some ambition", invested money neither we nor he had and broke the club, probably for good.
(All this is just to say, history should always teach us to be careful what we wish for). |
Cannot believe this post had any down vote at all. It is spot on. Yes, we were close to greatness, but why should the owners have ploughed more money into us at that point? Not like the riches on offer today were there for them back then
They balanced the books.
Boring, but we stayed at that level for 14 years and my god we were respected and liked throughout.
I'd still settle for owners balancing the books like that. If only this were the same club. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ownership of QPR on 13:08 - Nov 21 with 1678 views | daveB |
| Ownership of QPR on 13:02 - Nov 21 by davman |
Cannot believe this post had any down vote at all. It is spot on. Yes, we were close to greatness, but why should the owners have ploughed more money into us at that point? Not like the riches on offer today were there for them back then
They balanced the books.
Boring, but we stayed at that level for 14 years and my god we were respected and liked throughout.
I'd still settle for owners balancing the books like that. If only this were the same club. |
Long term though balancing the books was the wrong thing to do which I know sounds mad but within a few years we were in division two and in administration so selling those players never really benefited us that much.
We were on the brink of the game going mad. I'm not saying they should have put the club at risk but a few additions around then rather than selling every year and we could have achieved so much more and set the club up for the next 20 years
Honestly if Quantum Leap was real and I was Sam Beckett I would be begging to leap into Richard Thompson in 1991 and run QPR for a few years with the knowledge of what happened. And when I'd done that and QPR were sorted I'd start leaping to fulfil the pervy fantasies. Sorry that went in a bizarre direction, it's been a long week | | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 14:11 - Nov 21 with 1582 views | GaryHaddock |
| Ownership of QPR on 13:08 - Nov 21 by daveB |
Long term though balancing the books was the wrong thing to do which I know sounds mad but within a few years we were in division two and in administration so selling those players never really benefited us that much.
We were on the brink of the game going mad. I'm not saying they should have put the club at risk but a few additions around then rather than selling every year and we could have achieved so much more and set the club up for the next 20 years
Honestly if Quantum Leap was real and I was Sam Beckett I would be begging to leap into Richard Thompson in 1991 and run QPR for a few years with the knowledge of what happened. And when I'd done that and QPR were sorted I'd start leaping to fulfil the pervy fantasies. Sorry that went in a bizarre direction, it's been a long week |
Can’t let that last bit go.
Give us an example! |  | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 14:27 - Nov 21 with 1545 views | stantheman10 |
| Ownership of QPR on 10:54 - Nov 10 by Wegerles_Stairs |
They've been consistently useless for 13 long years.
They've taken us from the Premier League to the brink of League 1.
They've allowed us to be overtaken by multiple teams, including Brentford, Bournemouth and Fulham.
They clearly have neither the desire nor acumen to run the club properly and therefore delegate responsibility to people who lack the necessary experience and knowledge.
At what point do you suggest we have had enough of them? 2037? [Post edited 10 Nov 10:55]
|
I'm looking forward to you coming up with a name for this billionaire QPR supporter who is going to come and take us over.
Cloud cuckoo land | | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 14:49 - Nov 21 with 1499 views | TK1 |
| Ownership of QPR on 13:08 - Nov 21 by daveB |
Long term though balancing the books was the wrong thing to do which I know sounds mad but within a few years we were in division two and in administration so selling those players never really benefited us that much.
We were on the brink of the game going mad. I'm not saying they should have put the club at risk but a few additions around then rather than selling every year and we could have achieved so much more and set the club up for the next 20 years
Honestly if Quantum Leap was real and I was Sam Beckett I would be begging to leap into Richard Thompson in 1991 and run QPR for a few years with the knowledge of what happened. And when I'd done that and QPR were sorted I'd start leaping to fulfil the pervy fantasies. Sorry that went in a bizarre direction, it's been a long week |
Dave, come on.
We were in administration and Division 2 because Chris Wright did exactly you're saying you wish Richard Thompson did. He spent money on players we couldn't afford, then we couldn't sell (because they weren't worth what we had paid), signed every remotely promising youth player on long contracts, threw good money (ours, not his) repeatedly after bad, etc etc. He put the club at risk. that's why we missed boom time! Fulham did OK coming up while we imploded under Wright. RT oversaw consecutive top twelve finishes with a bottom three attendance. Not perfect, but prudent and successful. They were the QPR glory years, not a missed opportunity.
The only chance for QPR since the late 70s has been to do what Thompson did, what Gregory did: buy wisely, sell when at their peak (and fans demand you don't), then reinvest. You have to be good at it and we were, for decades: C Allen, Fenwick, Sinton, Ferdinand, Peacock etc.
If you buy Darren Peacock for £200k and sell him four years later for £2.75 million you are not asset stripping any more than selling Eze for £20 million is. It's economic management of an otherwise loss-making business. We should have been celebrating rather than sitting in. It's the only way for QPR, then, now, always. We tried a sugar daddy and it nearly broke us again.
We should remember the facts of our history and choose protests wisely (FPR, Winkleman: both vital). Because history suggests that whatever comes after Ruben Gnanalingam is likely to be considerably less benevolent. | | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 15:02 - Nov 21 with 1459 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Ownership of QPR on 14:49 - Nov 21 by TK1 |
Dave, come on.
We were in administration and Division 2 because Chris Wright did exactly you're saying you wish Richard Thompson did. He spent money on players we couldn't afford, then we couldn't sell (because they weren't worth what we had paid), signed every remotely promising youth player on long contracts, threw good money (ours, not his) repeatedly after bad, etc etc. He put the club at risk. that's why we missed boom time! Fulham did OK coming up while we imploded under Wright. RT oversaw consecutive top twelve finishes with a bottom three attendance. Not perfect, but prudent and successful. They were the QPR glory years, not a missed opportunity.
The only chance for QPR since the late 70s has been to do what Thompson did, what Gregory did: buy wisely, sell when at their peak (and fans demand you don't), then reinvest. You have to be good at it and we were, for decades: C Allen, Fenwick, Sinton, Ferdinand, Peacock etc.
If you buy Darren Peacock for £200k and sell him four years later for £2.75 million you are not asset stripping any more than selling Eze for £20 million is. It's economic management of an otherwise loss-making business. We should have been celebrating rather than sitting in. It's the only way for QPR, then, now, always. We tried a sugar daddy and it nearly broke us again.
We should remember the facts of our history and choose protests wisely (FPR, Winkleman: both vital). Because history suggests that whatever comes after Ruben Gnanalingam is likely to be considerably less benevolent. |
Well, the reality is: when we have done it that way, and done it professionally and competently, we've arguably enjoyed our more successful times and, more particularly, our less embarrassing periods.
Simple fact is: we've been run and have employed too many crooks, clowns and charlatans for decades now, and the culture of incompetence is deeply ingrained as a result. It's hard to see a positive way forward with the current circus in charge and as I have repeatedly said, in the absence of a competent sugar daddy walking through the door, then it'll likely have to be killed before it can be reborn again. |  |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 15:15 - Nov 21 with 1443 views | CamberleyR |
| Ownership of QPR on 18:27 - Nov 12 by Benny_the_Ball |
Because their valuation is too high.
To make the club an attractive proposition Ruben has to first accept that it is numerous owner mistakes that have resulted in the club bleeding money. No one else is to blame for the ridiculous over-spending in the PL and subsequent FFP fine that this attracted. We're still paying for this excess today. Once the owners understand and accept this, lower the valuation to take into account the operating losses any potential buyer would inherit. [Post edited 20 Nov 19:41]
|
As I understand it the FFP fine relates back to Redknapp giving us a wage bill of £75m and wages to turnover of 195% enabling us just to finish fourth in the play-off final season and not the subsequent splurge on wasters like Caulker & Sandro the following season. |  |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 18:19 - Nov 21 with 1303 views | daveB |
| Ownership of QPR on 14:49 - Nov 21 by TK1 |
Dave, come on.
We were in administration and Division 2 because Chris Wright did exactly you're saying you wish Richard Thompson did. He spent money on players we couldn't afford, then we couldn't sell (because they weren't worth what we had paid), signed every remotely promising youth player on long contracts, threw good money (ours, not his) repeatedly after bad, etc etc. He put the club at risk. that's why we missed boom time! Fulham did OK coming up while we imploded under Wright. RT oversaw consecutive top twelve finishes with a bottom three attendance. Not perfect, but prudent and successful. They were the QPR glory years, not a missed opportunity.
The only chance for QPR since the late 70s has been to do what Thompson did, what Gregory did: buy wisely, sell when at their peak (and fans demand you don't), then reinvest. You have to be good at it and we were, for decades: C Allen, Fenwick, Sinton, Ferdinand, Peacock etc.
If you buy Darren Peacock for £200k and sell him four years later for £2.75 million you are not asset stripping any more than selling Eze for £20 million is. It's economic management of an otherwise loss-making business. We should have been celebrating rather than sitting in. It's the only way for QPR, then, now, always. We tried a sugar daddy and it nearly broke us again.
We should remember the facts of our history and choose protests wisely (FPR, Winkleman: both vital). Because history suggests that whatever comes after Ruben Gnanalingam is likely to be considerably less benevolent. |
Wright did it in the Championship rather than when we had a brilliant team to build on , thats the major difference.
They were the glory years but they could have lasted a lot longer and been a lot better. | | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 18:57 - Nov 21 with 1239 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Ownership of QPR on 15:15 - Nov 21 by CamberleyR |
As I understand it the FFP fine relates back to Redknapp giving us a wage bill of £75m and wages to turnover of 195% enabling us just to finish fourth in the play-off final season and not the subsequent splurge on wasters like Caulker & Sandro the following season. |
Not quite. As tempting as it is to lay all of the blame on Harry, the acute rise in wage bill started with his predecessors in the Premier League.
The grotesque spending started in 2011-12 with Neil Warnock bringing in Jay Bothroyd, Kieron Dyer, Danny Gabbidon, DJ Campbell, Joey Barton, Luke Young, Armand Traore, SWP and Anton Ferdinand. Mark Hughes replaced Warnock mid-season and added Nedum Onuoha, Djibril Cisse and Bobby Zamora in the January transfer window. We stayed up by the skin of our teeth.
Despite flirting with relegation, QPR doubled down for 2012-13 season. Hughes added the likes of Ryan Nelson, Andy Johnson, Robert Green, Samba Diakite, Park Ji-Sung, Junior Hoilett, Jose Bosingwa, Julio Cesar, Esteban Granero and Stephane Mbia to the squad.
Despite the additions, QPR suffered a shocking start to the season and Hughes was duly replaced by Redknapp in November 2012. Harry began his spending by adding Ben Haim, Loic Remy, Christopher Samba, and Jermaine Jenas in the January transfer window.
The problem was QPR were relegated to the Championship in 2013 with a clutch of players on huge long-term contracts. Whilst we did manage to get rid of a few, many were either released by mutual consent (which involves a pay-off) or loaned out (with QPR still paying the lion's share of wages). To compound matters, for the 2013-14 campaign Harry added the likes of Danny Simpson, Richard Dunne, Karl Henry, Charlie Austin, Gary O'Neil, Matt Phillips, Aaron Hughes and Yossi Benayoun to the ranks as well as loaning in Benoit Assou-Ekotto, Tom Carroll, Niko Kranjcar, Kevin Doyle and Ravel Morrison. As you say we scraped promotion to the PL via the play-offs only to be relegated once again with significant wage bill still in place.
Now, managers don't set budgets. They spend what they're given. The arrival of Fernandes and Ruben signalled a change in strategy. They were the ones who sanctioned all of the above spending and therefore they are the ones who are responsible for the financial mess which ensued and the position we now find ourselves in. [Post edited 21 Nov 19:04]
|  | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 20:47 - Nov 21 with 1141 views | davman |
| Ownership of QPR on 17:24 - Nov 20 by BrianMcCarthy |
I was one of the organisers of the anti-Thompson protests, TK. There may have been a group called P.O.R.T. but they certainly weren't in charge. In fact, I don't even remember them. It was the LSA and Dave Thomas who led the way.
The concern with Thompson was not just, as Gary says, that he was failing to invest but that he was actively asset-stripping the club and making way to recover his money and depart himself, leaving us with a weakened team and club. Rightly or wrongly, there were concerns about the long-term future of the club, not just the short-term league position.
I was in favour of the protests at the time because it's what (most of) the fans wanted. Looking back, I've often said on here that I'm no longer so sure, but we have no way of knowing what would have happened had Thompson been allowed to continue unopposed. |
Brian, agree with you most of the time, but not on this one. Where is your evidence that Thompson was "asset stripping"?
Selling a high value asset to balance the books and then replacing with a well scouted lower league replacement is as far away from asset stripping you can get.
I am 100% behind the theory that team was on the verge of greatness, but even if he had pushed the boat out and succeeded; it'd have been for no more than one season. When the money rolled in, the much bigger clubs got the impetus they needed to blow upstarts away and we would have been a casualty anyway.
Yes, we might have had a season for two, but the demise was inevitable unless Thompson's correct model of sell one asset every season and invest well in replacements would have carried on.
Of course for me the biggest travesty was that period genuinely saw us overtake that blue lot from SW London and even though their crowds were around 15,000 in the mid eighties, they were far better placed to be taken to the next level than we were.
That hurt, still hurts but not quite so much as falling behind the other two local small clubs and Palace.
Dress it up all you want, but it has NEVER been as good as it was under Thompson and probably never will be. | |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 21:35 - Nov 21 with 1023 views | daveB |
| Ownership of QPR on 20:47 - Nov 21 by davman |
Brian, agree with you most of the time, but not on this one. Where is your evidence that Thompson was "asset stripping"?
Selling a high value asset to balance the books and then replacing with a well scouted lower league replacement is as far away from asset stripping you can get.
I am 100% behind the theory that team was on the verge of greatness, but even if he had pushed the boat out and succeeded; it'd have been for no more than one season. When the money rolled in, the much bigger clubs got the impetus they needed to blow upstarts away and we would have been a casualty anyway.
Yes, we might have had a season for two, but the demise was inevitable unless Thompson's correct model of sell one asset every season and invest well in replacements would have carried on.
Of course for me the biggest travesty was that period genuinely saw us overtake that blue lot from SW London and even though their crowds were around 15,000 in the mid eighties, they were far better placed to be taken to the next level than we were.
That hurt, still hurts but not quite so much as falling behind the other two local small clubs and Palace.
Dress it up all you want, but it has NEVER been as good as it was under Thompson and probably never will be. |
I'd argue we did better under Jim Gregory winning a cup, finishing second, getting to a few cup finals, european football and top 5 finishes
Those good times in the 90s were not because of Thompson at all
I just don't buy the demise was inevitable,Fulham have spent most of the last 20 years in the top flight showing it was very possible to stay at that level | | | |
| Ownership of QPR on 21:46 - Nov 21 with 973 views | Lblock |
| Ownership of QPR on 23:18 - Nov 20 by PunteR |
Sorry but these owners are shit. Look at our stats. F**k em off. Its our club .
I'll still be supporting and going to games whatever league we're in and if we just stop existing, well that's what it will be.
I hate it that we've become so dependant on these clowns like a bunch of crackheads needing some gammy legged pimp to look after them.
Ive tried to be patient, pragmatic etc, mainly for the purpose of balance in these discussions on LFW but in reality i'm sick of them all.
Dont get me wrong, i love QPR, our fans, Loftus road, our badge ,colours and everything we've all grown up with about QPR. But i'm sick of these Malaysian owners, the multi billionaire Mittal's and whoever else is sitting in that boardroom smoking cigars absolutely clueless.
Yeh Nourry has to go, of course.
I called out Tony Fernandes early doors and got absolute pelters on here. Sadly its always been about the money, and the "what would we do without them" attitude that has nullified us as fans to do anything about it.
Embarrassing really, but thats modern football. Most clubs these days have a shameful look the other way response to the dodgy money that circulates the game, so its sadly no surprise we would rather have some sugar daddy looking after us, rather then except our reality.
These owners don't loose any sleep about the amount of money they pump into our club btw. We're just another expense to off set their humungous tax bill.
This post is a rant. I might feel different tomorrow, but tonight Matthew , im gonna be Punty McPunt face talking cobblers on a QPR message board. |
My church doors are open................... |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 21:54 - Nov 21 with 955 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Ownership of QPR on 20:47 - Nov 21 by davman |
Brian, agree with you most of the time, but not on this one. Where is your evidence that Thompson was "asset stripping"?
Selling a high value asset to balance the books and then replacing with a well scouted lower league replacement is as far away from asset stripping you can get.
I am 100% behind the theory that team was on the verge of greatness, but even if he had pushed the boat out and succeeded; it'd have been for no more than one season. When the money rolled in, the much bigger clubs got the impetus they needed to blow upstarts away and we would have been a casualty anyway.
Yes, we might have had a season for two, but the demise was inevitable unless Thompson's correct model of sell one asset every season and invest well in replacements would have carried on.
Of course for me the biggest travesty was that period genuinely saw us overtake that blue lot from SW London and even though their crowds were around 15,000 in the mid eighties, they were far better placed to be taken to the next level than we were.
That hurt, still hurts but not quite so much as falling behind the other two local small clubs and Palace.
Dress it up all you want, but it has NEVER been as good as it was under Thompson and probably never will be. |
"Where is your evidence that Thompson was "asset stripping"?"
There's no way of knowing whether he was asset-stripping or not, Dav, I agree. Same as there's no way of knowing whether we were losing money, as Thompson claims. In my post I said that there were concerns that he was asset-stripping, I was careful not to state it as a fact. I also stated later that Thompson is entitled to his version of events.
As fans we are all, of course, also entitled to our own views, and I appreciate that it can be seen from many angles and in many different lights. My view is that Thompson took one of the best run clubs in England, one that consistently made a profit, one that had a superb scouting system going back to the 60's, one that had a superb youth set-up going back to the 60's, one that had superb managers and coaching going back to the 60's, and in a few short years blew it all apart in a spectacular and catastrophic fashion.
And, I agree, it may never be as good again.
edit - grammar check.
[Post edited 21 Nov 22:12]
|  |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 22:33 - Nov 21 with 857 views | PunteR |
So, are we getting rid of these owners or not..? | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Ownership of QPR on 22:38 - Nov 21 with 839 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Ownership of QPR on 22:33 - Nov 21 by PunteR |
So, are we getting rid of these owners or not..? |
Can we just decide what do to do about Thompson first? ;) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
