| Mr Holloway 18:16 - Dec 9 with 43817 views | Jogo |
Thank you for your effort as both player and manager over the years...but will you please now f@ck off. |  | | |  |
| Mr Holloway on 12:42 - Dec 13 with 3249 views | loftinspace |
There are plenty of realistic candidates, but the man who seems divorced from reality is TF.
Sobering thought that the Tango & Cash were more productive for the club when measured by any objective standard. PPM / £s spent ratio under Uncle is catastrophic. But boom and bust is not the answer, as any economist could have told him. You have to find a median.
He needs to invest in management sensibly, and be prepared to offer the incumbent the chance to sort out the shambles without interference. The current squad is capable of mid table with a degree of comfort given a gaffer who picks to strengths,. That has been one of Ollie's manifest failings. |  | | |
| Mr Holloway on 12:56 - Dec 13 with 3226 views | QPR_John |
| Mr Holloway on 09:58 - Dec 13 by Hitch |
The more managers we sack the more we slide. If we go down, we go down together with dignity. IF we sack Ollie I think I will go outside for awhile. Our current predicament is not of his doing, it began when we first sacked Warnock. wish the rest could have been a Bobby Ewing dream-nightmare. |
"Our current predicament is not of his doing,"
Of course it is not but surely he was employed to improve that or at least keep us above water on the pitch. Our current predicament was not Ramsey's fault as it was not JFH's fault but they were sacked. | | | |
| Mr Holloway on 13:25 - Dec 13 with 3173 views | TGRRRSSS |
| Mr Holloway on 08:47 - Dec 13 by TheChef |
You mention Burnley - Lee Hoos used to be Chief Exec there. And I'd like to think some of the success they're enjoying now came from decisions that he made a few years ago.
It didn't happen overnight for them, and it's not going to happen overnight for us either. But despite the limitations of our playing squad, as a club you have to say things are moving in the right direction.
I can't believe the poster above who said we're a shambles on and off the pitch - fine if you want to say that on the playing side, but off the pitch we're doing a huge amount of good work (Grenfell game, Forever Rs, food bank collection, community work). And given all the sh1t that has gone before with various useless owners and chief execs, that makes me proud of QPR as a club - whatever division we're playing in. |
he Off Field community stuff is important, laudable and to be congratulated.
Nonetheless it doesnt mean we're not a shambles off the pitch in terms of running the actual business of the football club itself.
Hows it going regards, training ground, new ground etc.
Thats what people are talking about, and of course the business of results on the pitch.
I still feel we're working our way back from the utter mess of the past few years, and still have some hope but some of the fears I had for Holloway returning are sort of there or thereabouts. [Post edited 13 Dec 2017 13:34]
|  | | |
| Mr Holloway on 13:32 - Dec 13 with 3166 views | R_from_afar |
A quick point: We need to be wary of lambasting Bircham, and Ollie too to a certain extent, for not being good enough coaches, then suggesting ex-players like Hill who have far less - or no - coaching experience. That's a high risk, do or die type of approach which is unlikely to work.
We also need to remember that if we play with wingers - real wingers not wingbacks - we will almost certainly have to have five in midfield, meaning that we either risk having only three at the back or go for the often reviled 4-5-1. Just saying.
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 14:52 - Dec 13 with 3092 views | WestbourneR |
| Mr Holloway on 13:32 - Dec 13 by R_from_afar |
A quick point: We need to be wary of lambasting Bircham, and Ollie too to a certain extent, for not being good enough coaches, then suggesting ex-players like Hill who have far less - or no - coaching experience. That's a high risk, do or die type of approach which is unlikely to work.
We also need to remember that if we play with wingers - real wingers not wingbacks - we will almost certainly have to have five in midfield, meaning that we either risk having only three at the back or go for the often reviled 4-5-1. Just saying.
RFA |
RFA I don't understand or remember 4-2-3-1 being 'reviled' except maybe when we really needed to win at home for promotion vs lowly opposition. Anyone that does revile is a bit odd as one up front is pretty standard these days. I actually think Sylla is a decent fit for that system too. The key is to get the wingers and the 'man in the hole' and the attacking centre mid up to support the striker.
What is for certain for me is that 3 at the back was not working. We don't have specialist wing backs and I can't remember a single game where our make shift the wing backs had a positive influence on the game. I believe Holloway took Millwall down into League One doing the exact same thing. |  |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 16:33 - Dec 13 with 3022 views | BostonR |
| Mr Holloway on 14:52 - Dec 13 by WestbourneR |
RFA I don't understand or remember 4-2-3-1 being 'reviled' except maybe when we really needed to win at home for promotion vs lowly opposition. Anyone that does revile is a bit odd as one up front is pretty standard these days. I actually think Sylla is a decent fit for that system too. The key is to get the wingers and the 'man in the hole' and the attacking centre mid up to support the striker.
What is for certain for me is that 3 at the back was not working. We don't have specialist wing backs and I can't remember a single game where our make shift the wing backs had a positive influence on the game. I believe Holloway took Millwall down into League One doing the exact same thing. |
Great post!
It's the lack of a plan B that is killing us. Holloway failed to act in games when Baptiste was being torn a new one, allows the opposition to get ahead before any changes are made and makes some puzzling team selections.
You hear a lot of the opposition managers commenting on how hard it is to play against Smith, but we rarely play to his strengths. It's obvious that Washington is not cutting it at Championship level, yet he is in almost every week. I get the injuries are causing problems, but we should be picking a team that fits a formation and have subs that can impact any changes to that game plan. Holloway, just leaves it too late! |  | | |
| Mr Holloway on 16:56 - Dec 13 with 2982 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Mr Holloway on 08:47 - Dec 13 by TheChef |
You mention Burnley - Lee Hoos used to be Chief Exec there. And I'd like to think some of the success they're enjoying now came from decisions that he made a few years ago.
It didn't happen overnight for them, and it's not going to happen overnight for us either. But despite the limitations of our playing squad, as a club you have to say things are moving in the right direction.
I can't believe the poster above who said we're a shambles on and off the pitch - fine if you want to say that on the playing side, but off the pitch we're doing a huge amount of good work (Grenfell game, Forever Rs, food bank collection, community work). And given all the sh1t that has gone before with various useless owners and chief execs, that makes me proud of QPR as a club - whatever division we're playing in. |
We're Queens Park Rangers Football Club not Help the Aged, Save the Children or The British Red Cross Society. All the community stuff, whilst worthy, is not our primary objective and frankly papers over the failures of the current administration. QPR are over quarter of a billion quid in debt with an FFP fine looming large and no infrastructure to show for it. The board move from one awful appointment to another with regularity and have assembled a large squad that is short on real quality. It'll take a hell of lot more than food bank collections to convince me that this club is being run well. |  | | |
| Mr Holloway on 17:00 - Dec 13 with 2970 views | Hunterhoop |
| Mr Holloway on 13:32 - Dec 13 by R_from_afar |
A quick point: We need to be wary of lambasting Bircham, and Ollie too to a certain extent, for not being good enough coaches, then suggesting ex-players like Hill who have far less - or no - coaching experience. That's a high risk, do or die type of approach which is unlikely to work.
We also need to remember that if we play with wingers - real wingers not wingbacks - we will almost certainly have to have five in midfield, meaning that we either risk having only three at the back or go for the often reviled 4-5-1. Just saying.
RFA |
Yep. 451 or 4231, whatever you call it, is the way forward.
It enables us to play our best 3 central midfielders, two genuine, attacking wingers, and one of our two forwards who actually look dangerous attacking crosses and have reasonable goals per min records. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mr Holloway on 17:11 - Dec 13 with 2954 views | Hunterhoop |
| Mr Holloway on 16:56 - Dec 13 by Benny_the_Ball |
We're Queens Park Rangers Football Club not Help the Aged, Save the Children or The British Red Cross Society. All the community stuff, whilst worthy, is not our primary objective and frankly papers over the failures of the current administration. QPR are over quarter of a billion quid in debt with an FFP fine looming large and no infrastructure to show for it. The board move from one awful appointment to another with regularity and have assembled a large squad that is short on real quality. It'll take a hell of lot more than food bank collections to convince me that this club is being run well. |
QPR are not a quarter of a billion in debt. That is incorrect. They wrote off £180m as shares. Unless someone pays that to the current owners as shares it's gone. Caput.
We are £20m in debt (to Barclays, I think)
£40-60m FFP,
C. £10m for our financial performance last financial year (accounts due soon so can be confirmed then)
£Xm for this financial year (which we won't have confirmed for 12-15 months)
Ergo, you can see why FFP was such a big f*cking deal, and why avoiding a second FFP fine is crucial, which we'll get in a year, if we don't comply for this season.
That's why we simply can't spend ANY money on signings. It's not because Hoos and Les can't see the bigger picture; it's precisely because can (and most fans aren't). Going down, whilst bad, will have relatively little impact on our EBIT compared to a second FFP fine and/or being held to the original £60m fine. We have to be seen to be complying.
Anyway, how's about we all just support Holloway and the team this Saturday and next? Let's put aside wanting to "be right", and just "be supporters". Collect a couple of wins, and we all have a nice Christmas. As fans, we will have an influence on the results. It is not like going to the cinema to be entertained. | | | |
| Mr Holloway on 17:29 - Dec 13 with 2922 views | PinnerPaul |
| Mr Holloway on 16:56 - Dec 13 by Benny_the_Ball |
We're Queens Park Rangers Football Club not Help the Aged, Save the Children or The British Red Cross Society. All the community stuff, whilst worthy, is not our primary objective and frankly papers over the failures of the current administration. QPR are over quarter of a billion quid in debt with an FFP fine looming large and no infrastructure to show for it. The board move from one awful appointment to another with regularity and have assembled a large squad that is short on real quality. It'll take a hell of lot more than food bank collections to convince me that this club is being run well. |
Yep sod the elderly, sick children and the local community.
As long as we can over pay players to finish 16th in the 2nd tier AND of course that much more important fact, play the correct formation - who cares about helping real life people?  | | | |
| Mr Holloway on 18:01 - Dec 13 with 2880 views | R_from_afar |
| Mr Holloway on 14:52 - Dec 13 by WestbourneR |
RFA I don't understand or remember 4-2-3-1 being 'reviled' except maybe when we really needed to win at home for promotion vs lowly opposition. Anyone that does revile is a bit odd as one up front is pretty standard these days. I actually think Sylla is a decent fit for that system too. The key is to get the wingers and the 'man in the hole' and the attacking centre mid up to support the striker.
What is for certain for me is that 3 at the back was not working. We don't have specialist wing backs and I can't remember a single game where our make shift the wing backs had a positive influence on the game. I believe Holloway took Millwall down into League One doing the exact same thing. |
*I* personally prefer 4-2-3-1. I think it gives good cover and allows three attack-minded players to rove with freedom and swap places, making them hard to mark.
I used the word "reviled" because in general, fans are not keen on it plus I distinctly remember Rs fans railing at Hasselbaink when he went one up top. A cursory web search turned up posts on here complaining about it.
Who knows what the answer is, apart from perhaps that we simply lack quality in many areas. That is something no manager is likely to be able to do much about; we might be able to improve players a bit but I'm not sure we should expect senior players to vastly improve. I feel like that is unlikely in almost any team. Marginal gains perhaps.
In addition, we will struggle to bring in quality via transfers.
So everything in Rangers' garden remains rosy 
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 18:09 - Dec 13 with 2872 views | Gloucs_R |
4231 works when you have an attacking 3 behind the 1...otherwise it turns into a defensive 451 which can bo bloody boring to watch and frustrate fans!! |  |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 18:23 - Dec 13 with 2851 views | PunteR |
| Mr Holloway on 18:09 - Dec 13 by Gloucs_R |
4231 works when you have an attacking 3 behind the 1...otherwise it turns into a defensive 451 which can bo bloody boring to watch and frustrate fans!! |
We have got an attacking 3. Freeman luongo wszolek |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 18:25 - Dec 13 with 2848 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Mr Holloway on 16:56 - Dec 13 by Benny_the_Ball |
We're Queens Park Rangers Football Club not Help the Aged, Save the Children or The British Red Cross Society. All the community stuff, whilst worthy, is not our primary objective and frankly papers over the failures of the current administration. QPR are over quarter of a billion quid in debt with an FFP fine looming large and no infrastructure to show for it. The board move from one awful appointment to another with regularity and have assembled a large squad that is short on real quality. It'll take a hell of lot more than food bank collections to convince me that this club is being run well. |
SOG lives.... |  | | |
| Mr Holloway on 19:58 - Dec 13 with 2783 views | Gloucs_R |
| Mr Holloway on 18:23 - Dec 13 by PunteR |
We have got an attacking 3. Freeman luongo wszolek |
We have......and you and I WOULD pick them.....whether Ollie would is another question!!
Probably end up as:
Washington / Freeman / Mackie knowing Ollie!! | |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 22:54 - Dec 13 with 2703 views | daveB |
When we played 4-2-3-1 under Hasselbaink he was slated for only playing up front in fact most managers bar Warnock have been slated on here for playing 1 up front.
big problem with 4-2-3-1 with the current squad is that we don't have any strikers very good at playing the lone striker role and we don't have many midfield players who would get into the box to play off the striker so it usually turns into the 1 up front being very isolated. |  | | |
| Mr Holloway on 23:20 - Dec 13 with 2680 views | Hooped_Pullie |
| Mr Holloway on 02:03 - Dec 13 by Sharpy36 |
I enjoyed that post HP (Hi by the way, been a long time hope your well) until the Clint hill bit. Not sure if it was this thread or elsewhere that i posted that we should be looking at u21 national teams and reserve team managers around the globe, that have some ambition to step outside their comfort zone and want to move to the next level.
I`m not a fan of this ex players love in we have at QPR, for me it feels to convenient and short sighted, also fan appeasing.
We really do need to look at the long term structure of our club and how we operate in the coming years especially as we have a large fine hanging over us plus a possible transfer embargo.
I would suggest that the club puts in place something that is happening at Southampton where as all players be they first team through to under 15`s are all schooled in the Southampton way of playing and what it means to be a professional footballer on and off the pitch. I understand it`s hard to implement when we as a club seem to be going from one crisis to another almost daily. We at least would`t be waiting for injured players to return or rushing them back to soon to plug gaps as we would have ready made replacements in waiting.
But we can`t do that, can we ? |
Thanks Sharpy, yes, it's been awhile : don't recall if our paths crossed many moons ago in that Bush pub, when I had the pleasure of meeting Ted and a good few others. Not feeling too bad right now, I do crop up occasionally on here, often unnoticed !
As regards the Clint Hill comments, I can understand the caution : my consideration of him though extends a bit beyond the returning hero thing. I see him as a similar character to Neil Harris, who with no prior managerial experience has done very well with very little to work with at the Den. I do though say that there may well be others (most likely with no prior club connection) and that the club should look at them too.
Completely agree with you regarding the Southampton overall strategy : despite the difficulties you correctly cite, though, surely we have to try and get it right along those lines. I'd like to think so.
With regard to the negative stuff elsewhere on this thread regarding the club's community work , a measured response : yes, it doesn't cover a multitude of sins (nor should it), but it is nonetheless rightly a source of pride for those of us who see the club as a local force for good. Notwithstanding the comments on my original post regarding the club's overall strategy, our support for Grenfell families and the high profile we have given to the under-represented in football are absolutely the best things and must continue. No excuses, but credit where due. | | | |
| Mr Holloway on 11:11 - Dec 14 with 2506 views | WestbourneR |
| Mr Holloway on 18:23 - Dec 13 by PunteR |
We have got an attacking 3. Freeman luongo wszolek |
No..
4231
The 4 is the back four
The 2 is Scowen & Luongo
The 3 is two wingers and an AMC / Inside Forward - probably eg. Osayi Samuel (winger) - Freeman (inside forward) - Wzsowek (winger)
1 is the striker.
Not complicated. | |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 11:37 - Dec 14 with 2476 views | daveB |
| Mr Holloway on 11:11 - Dec 14 by WestbourneR |
No..
4231
The 4 is the back four
The 2 is Scowen & Luongo
The 3 is two wingers and an AMC / Inside Forward - probably eg. Osayi Samuel (winger) - Freeman (inside forward) - Wzsowek (winger)
1 is the striker.
Not complicated. |
your right it's not complicated but it's not perfect either. The 1 striker can easily be left isolated in this system and easy for the defence to double up on knowing there are very few players in central midfield that are going to get beyond the striker. Teams can easily stop Freeman if he plays in the hole as they did with Chery by just dropping a midfielder in to block the space. teams find it harder to stop Freeman now as he has freedom to drift out wide and with two forwards occupying defenders that creates more space for him | | | |
| Mr Holloway on 13:45 - Dec 14 with 2374 views | PunteR |
| Mr Holloway on 11:11 - Dec 14 by WestbourneR |
No..
4231
The 4 is the back four
The 2 is Scowen & Luongo
The 3 is two wingers and an AMC / Inside Forward - probably eg. Osayi Samuel (winger) - Freeman (inside forward) - Wzsowek (winger)
1 is the striker.
Not complicated. |
I would put manning or cousins in with Scowen for the 2.
Luongo is more effective further forward imo. Freeman can play on the wing. | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 14:03 - Dec 14 with 2347 views | WestbourneR |
| Mr Holloway on 13:45 - Dec 14 by PunteR |
I would put manning or cousins in with Scowen for the 2.
Luongo is more effective further forward imo. Freeman can play on the wing. |
Really don't think that'd make sense at all sorry.
The 2 are not both DMC - one is a box to box central midfielder - that's Luongo.
Of the 3 of the central player is a very attacking midfielder or even better an inside forward. That's not Luongo in anyway, he's not creative and he doesn't score goals. It is Freeman. Plus Freeman has performed well in central position not out wide.
Plus the three of Scowen, Luongo and Freeman have worked well together in the central positions.
We've got LOADS of wingers to play on the wings, why would we make a selection problem for ourselves by giving a wing position to central player like Freeman?
For the wings you can choose between Wheeler, Osayi Samuel, Wszolek, Manning, Shodipo, Mackie.
Inside Forward / AMC has to be Freeman (with Yenni Ngaboto his potential replacement on the bench) | |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 17:36 - Dec 14 with 2253 views | PunteR |
| Mr Holloway on 14:03 - Dec 14 by WestbourneR |
Really don't think that'd make sense at all sorry.
The 2 are not both DMC - one is a box to box central midfielder - that's Luongo.
Of the 3 of the central player is a very attacking midfielder or even better an inside forward. That's not Luongo in anyway, he's not creative and he doesn't score goals. It is Freeman. Plus Freeman has performed well in central position not out wide.
Plus the three of Scowen, Luongo and Freeman have worked well together in the central positions.
We've got LOADS of wingers to play on the wings, why would we make a selection problem for ourselves by giving a wing position to central player like Freeman?
For the wings you can choose between Wheeler, Osayi Samuel, Wszolek, Manning, Shodipo, Mackie.
Inside Forward / AMC has to be Freeman (with Yenni Ngaboto his potential replacement on the bench) |
Ok.
I dont think its too far fetched to play Freeman on the left wing as he's naturally left footed and has played in that position numerous times in his career. He also has the ability to cut inside.
I actually think luongo is one our most creative players but your right he's more box to box rather than a number 10.
The wingers you mentioned i dont much about Samuel but could be effective on the left. Shodipo looked good there but not getting games(injured?)I thought Wheeler plays on the right same as Wszolek.? Wszolek for me should be one of the first on the team sheet
which sort of rules out Mackie and manning on the right.
But yes agree though if we get a decent left winger(Samual/Shodipo?)then Freeman is the obvious number 10.
I do think Manning could play that tenacious midfielder next to Scowen,with Scowen dropping deeper as he does.
The issues recently is we're not getting the ball wide, i do think putting Freeman out wider will stretch our play a bit more, with either Luongo/Mackie/ Washington playing more centrally.
I'm open to other suggestions though.. | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 12:34 - Dec 16 with 2067 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Mr Holloway on 17:11 - Dec 13 by Hunterhoop |
QPR are not a quarter of a billion in debt. That is incorrect. They wrote off £180m as shares. Unless someone pays that to the current owners as shares it's gone. Caput.
We are £20m in debt (to Barclays, I think)
£40-60m FFP,
C. £10m for our financial performance last financial year (accounts due soon so can be confirmed then)
£Xm for this financial year (which we won't have confirmed for 12-15 months)
Ergo, you can see why FFP was such a big f*cking deal, and why avoiding a second FFP fine is crucial, which we'll get in a year, if we don't comply for this season.
That's why we simply can't spend ANY money on signings. It's not because Hoos and Les can't see the bigger picture; it's precisely because can (and most fans aren't). Going down, whilst bad, will have relatively little impact on our EBIT compared to a second FFP fine and/or being held to the original £60m fine. We have to be seen to be complying.
Anyway, how's about we all just support Holloway and the team this Saturday and next? Let's put aside wanting to "be right", and just "be supporters". Collect a couple of wins, and we all have a nice Christmas. As fans, we will have an influence on the results. It is not like going to the cinema to be entertained. |
If you believe that they wrote off £180m then you 're seriously deluded. This was creative accounting designed to sugar coat the books in an attempt to avoid a hefty FFP fine. The FFP panel didn't buy it when they calculated the fine and neither do I.
In any event the figures are largely irrelevant as even your massaged version paints a horrible picture. The point is no matter how you cut it, the club has been poorly run. Community projects, though noble, doesn't change this fact and, as you pointed out, it is impacting our ability to spend money on signings.
I, for one, recognise the constraints that Holloway is under and will continue to support the team. However being a supporter doesn't mean that one should close their eyes to the problems. I care far too passionately about this club to do that. | | | |
| Mr Holloway on 13:15 - Dec 16 with 2033 views | PunteR |
| Mr Holloway on 17:00 - Dec 13 by Hunterhoop |
Yep. 451 or 4231, whatever you call it, is the way forward.
It enables us to play our best 3 central midfielders, two genuine, attacking wingers, and one of our two forwards who actually look dangerous attacking crosses and have reasonable goals per min records. |
Just out of interest hunter , whats your 3 behind the striker? | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Mr Holloway on 14:28 - Dec 16 with 1991 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Mr Holloway on 12:34 - Dec 16 by Benny_the_Ball |
If you believe that they wrote off £180m then you 're seriously deluded. This was creative accounting designed to sugar coat the books in an attempt to avoid a hefty FFP fine. The FFP panel didn't buy it when they calculated the fine and neither do I.
In any event the figures are largely irrelevant as even your massaged version paints a horrible picture. The point is no matter how you cut it, the club has been poorly run. Community projects, though noble, doesn't change this fact and, as you pointed out, it is impacting our ability to spend money on signings.
I, for one, recognise the constraints that Holloway is under and will continue to support the team. However being a supporter doesn't mean that one should close their eyes to the problems. I care far too passionately about this club to do that. |
When was the last time you were happy with the way things were run out of interest? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
