| TF tweeting about limits? 17:23 - Jan 7 with 21884 views | Brightonhoop |
Haven't seen it, not on twitter but heard TF's pissed off too....anyone seen it? Or is it bollx. |  | | |  |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:02 - Jan 8 with 3167 views | R_from_afar |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 18:24 - Jan 7 by kysersosaqpr |
About time all at club hierarchy had a reality check. Don't buy this January, get rid of hangers on to desperate premier survivor hangers-on, do best to stay up, keep those that do perform and bring in younger, hungrier players willing to fight in summer - forget January apart from selling the dross. |
I agree 100% but we have already started the process of (expensive) hangers-on with younger, hungrier players...
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." |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:05 - Jan 8 with 3157 views | R_from_afar |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 20:05 - Jan 7 by qprphil |
Only fools take any notice of message boards, Twitter, Facebook, etc. I think the man is hurting big time, and wondering just what he has done to deserve what has happened over the last few years. He obviously knows very little about football, and has relied on those around him to make decisions, rightly or wrongly. On others advice he has bought this player, that player, sacked this manager, that manager. Sold this player etc. Now Air Asia in problems, he must be in a bad place at the moment. Personally I thought it was great when he came in, more or less saved us. Things have not gone well lately agreed, he had good intentions, and maybe he still has. There maybe not another knight in shining armour out there to take over, or plough in what he and his fellow directors have done, so be careful what you wish for. |
You are this week's star baker. Hats off to you, sir or madam! You nailed it.
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." |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:17 - Jan 8 with 3101 views | Discodroids |
A new brand of nobbys nuts down the springbok should Quell the revolt among us peasants Tony.
you could Get that bird of exotic origins next to you at the hull game to pick up said nuts with her lady garden off the bar, and i'll devote myself to you even if you sanction the signing of Kevin Nolan and extend Traores and Goberns contracts till 2026. |  |
| ".... You are the... Duke of New York... You're A-Number One!".
|
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:25 - Jan 8 with 3076 views | CroydonCaptJack |
I still believe he is reasonably well-intentioned and does not deserve the personal abuse he gets.
That does not sit well with me or reflect well on the QPR fans as a whole. |  | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:36 - Jan 8 with 3058 views | Jamie |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 09:52 - Jan 8 by Northernr |
That's absolutely right, but an unsuccessful QPR doesn't help him achieve that because the worse we get, the less justification there is for us needing to be part of that development. Lower Championship/League One QPR (which is where it feels like we're heading) can exist quite nicely where it is now, it doesn't need to be sharing the 40,000 seat Air Asia arena with Justin Bieber. |
In fairness, OOC has long since ceased being so much as a pipe dream.
With the situation regarding their loans against the AA share price, they'll surely be desperate to get out now ASAP with as small a loss as possible and focus on shoring up their core business. |  | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:53 - Jan 8 with 3000 views | Mvpeter |
Naive isn't really a defence is it while stomps around arrogantly proclaiming that the latest plan is a masterpiece and deriding any criticism as uninformed hogwash. We're a very arrogantly run club. | |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 14:32 - Jan 8 with 2962 views | danehoop |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:53 - Jan 8 by Mvpeter |
Naive isn't really a defence is it while stomps around arrogantly proclaiming that the latest plan is a masterpiece and deriding any criticism as uninformed hogwash. We're a very arrogantly run club. |
Sorry, thought we were talking about TF, rather than yourself. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 14:38 - Jan 8 with 2949 views | adhoc_qpr |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:36 - Jan 8 by Jamie |
In fairness, OOC has long since ceased being so much as a pipe dream.
With the situation regarding their loans against the AA share price, they'll surely be desperate to get out now ASAP with as small a loss as possible and focus on shoring up their core business. |
Agree that the new stadium and new training ground are simply not going to happen - i think they want OOC but won't get it and the training ground is just hot air to placate the fan base..
It's going to be fascinating to see the truth behind the debt write off, FFP fines, potential transfer embargos etc and how that's pans out this summer though. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| TF tweeting about limits? on 14:55 - Jan 8 with 2910 views | whittocksRs |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 14:38 - Jan 8 by adhoc_qpr |
Agree that the new stadium and new training ground are simply not going to happen - i think they want OOC but won't get it and the training ground is just hot air to placate the fan base..
It's going to be fascinating to see the truth behind the debt write off, FFP fines, potential transfer embargos etc and how that's pans out this summer though. |
I'm convinced TF is losing control of his finances — too many gambles in the UK and Asia, press statement criticising unfair practices against AirAsia, debt restructurings that banks aren't keen on, financial sorcery to stave off problems; all are signs you often see when an empire's in the process of crumbling. | | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 14:59 - Jan 8 with 2896 views | Juzzie |
I think he really needs to stay off Twitter etc as it seems he's desperate for approval on there when, as qprphil has said, you should really not be 'reaching out' (sic [in both senses]) to social media for this.
Social media is a place where you're more likely to be shot down rather than lauded.
Limits? He started it by making that Instagram comment ( https://instagram.com/p/83B_1KzLct/ ) then a few months later said said fans should be 'managing expectations'.
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/forum/157669/page:1#.Vo_
He's the one who set the level of expectations by saying "going up is the world for me". He might say it's taken out of context but that is why you have to be so careful what you say especially on platforms where only a certain amount of characters can be used.
As Clive and others have said, I really do thinks he cares and whats us to be a success, even if there are other advantages to that, but he really needs to act like a 51 year old businessman rather than a teen girl. Let others look after the social media side of the business.
[Post edited 8 Jan 2016 16:15]
|  | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 15:06 - Jan 8 with 2868 views | EastR |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 14:55 - Jan 8 by whittocksRs |
I'm convinced TF is losing control of his finances — too many gambles in the UK and Asia, press statement criticising unfair practices against AirAsia, debt restructurings that banks aren't keen on, financial sorcery to stave off problems; all are signs you often see when an empire's in the process of crumbling. |
and this is the one sign we'll be seeing before long..
'For Sale' [Post edited 8 Jan 2016 15:15]
| |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 15:38 - Jan 8 with 2811 views | qprphil |
Its pretty obvious to most that OOC was a big part in TFs plans, after all he is supposedly a business man, that looks blown out of the water at the minute. We will see in the next 4-5 months what the intention will be for the club. As some of you may know this has been my club from 1954 - 1984, since the age of 5. I now follow Ebbsfleet United my local club, we nearly went bust 4 years ago, right at the last moment we got taken over by a Kuwaiti chap, we are the so called Man City of our league, and are looking for promotion to the Conference then into league two. His game plan, not just to buy us. II don't know if you have heard of the new Disney Park which they are trying to get off the ground, well he is behind that, we are just a front to make him look good in the community, do we care, no. New stand being built at the end of the season, then all done over the next five years. We have an Academy now with our own training ground, one of our academy players on the verge of signing for Spurs,( Shilow Tracey ) probably the best playing surface up to league one. This man has serious money, and is going about it in the right way, unlike TF. If and when this man walks away, there will be no debts left what so ever. Due to ill health I can no longer get to Rangers games now, and am just an armchair fan, but all this going on still bothers me, its still my team.!!!! I know its about another team, but showing the comparison. | | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 15:58 - Jan 8 with 2780 views | NewYorkRanger |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 18:21 - Jan 7 by Jamie |
Quite scary that despite apparently being loadsamoney, he still hasn't managed to find someone with even a btec in PR to run his Twitter account. |
BTec! Showing your age there Jamie :)
I agree though - it is amazing that someone of his alleged intelligence feels the need to put this stuff out on Twitter |  |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 16:55 - Jan 8 with 2694 views | Mvpeter |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 14:32 - Jan 8 by danehoop |
Sorry, thought we were talking about TF, rather than yourself. |
How very witty. Shame it didn't make any sense. | |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 03:01 - Jan 9 with 2532 views | Ingham |
I'm interested to see how this turns out one or two Chairmen on, since what this regime has said - 'debt-free', Champions League, world class talent and all that - never materialised.
Especially about the debt. I'd love to think that he has now accepted that the losses are his responsibility, and he has simply written them off. In other words, he has lost £200 million of his own money. Or whatever the figure is.
There was a debate on the topic on this site when it was first said that he had 'written it off'. The discussions were very interesting, seemed well-informed, though complex, but ultimately inconclusive, since no-one was sure what was behind the claims, bearing in mind that Bhatia was suggesting the Club was effectively 'debt-free' a few years before, and that was clearly not true, especially if poor old Tone was obliged to write off the debt Bhatia implied didn't exist ... all over again.
But as far as I recall the story was not that the losses were written off. They were converted to equity. The Lender owned the debt. Now he owns it in the form of equity.
TF did say the debt was 'stadium-related'. But what he meant by that isn't recorded. Beard said the stadium would cost £200 million. But I can't see how £200 million already lost could be conjured up from the dead to spend on a new stadium, or even secured against the stadium as debt, especially as Beard said the stadium wouldn't belong to QPR.
There might be a benefit from having no debt on the Club's books. I'll be interested to see what the situation is in this year's accounts. And subsequently. But it remains the case that an incoming owner can load the cost of buying the Club back onto QPR. Leaving us, say, £300 million in debt.
We might say 'who would pay that much?' But TF, who said he paid Ecclestone £35 million for Club, effectively QUADRUPLED the Club's debt, if my calculations are roughly right, i.e. that it was £33 million under Paladini, and Ecclestone added another £22 million mostly spent on promotion under Warnock.
Fayed said he wrote Fulham's debt off, but Fulham threads on the subject were less than transparent, giving the impression that the Club's accounting was hard to decode. And it is easy to give the impression that a DEBT has been paid off when it is merely the case that a previous LENDER has, while the debt remains round the Club's neck. Such was the case with Bhatia's general statement, and, previously, more specifically, the ABC loan.
One thing I wonder about, though.
If, for one reason or another, the debt is no longer a problem for QPR - where are our big ambitions? The general impression on QPR boards is that we're no longer big spending charlies with big ideas.
Why?
If we're debt-free, we're vastly better-off than most Clubs. We can even borrow sizeable sums - not £200 million, but a few tens of millions (it would still be less than the debt Paladini left the Club with) - to make decent signings, knowing there is £60 million a year in the Premiership for a Club which is realistic - especially if it is already, DEBT-FREE, not hundreds of millions in the red.
Even if TF is fed up and really HAS lost the £200 million himself, what is there to put OFF a Buyer? People say 'who would touch us?' but I would think almost anyone, if the Club really IS debt-free? BY which I mean that TF wouldn't simply tack £200 million onto the sale price to get the 'debt' repaid one way or the other. It would be pointless saying the debt was written off if TF expected £300 million for his shares and no Buyer would pay it. The equity would be a bigger liability than the debt it was converted from.
Anyway, if the debt really is gone - and it isn't just smoke and mirrors - we can afford to bide our time, and build a squad that will pay handsome Premiership dividends. While others wrestle with THEIR losses and debts.
But we're not talking like that. Like a Club free of problems. We still talk as if the Club is burdened with vast liabilities, financial worries, so we can't even sign half-decent players at THIS level.
Even though TF genuinely writing off the debt must mean the opposite. With no debt, there is nothing to hold us back at all. We should be soaring.
But we're not. We sound desperate. [Post edited 9 Jan 2016 3:34]
| | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 05:56 - Jan 9 with 2492 views | BerkoRanger |
Good to see you on here, Ingham, and a very sensible, interesting post. For me, TF is STILL a knight in shinig armour as I remember the days of the bucket collections! | | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 07:18 - Jan 9 with 2472 views | distortR |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 20:05 - Jan 7 by qprphil |
Only fools take any notice of message boards, Twitter, Facebook, etc. I think the man is hurting big time, and wondering just what he has done to deserve what has happened over the last few years. He obviously knows very little about football, and has relied on those around him to make decisions, rightly or wrongly. On others advice he has bought this player, that player, sacked this manager, that manager. Sold this player etc. Now Air Asia in problems, he must be in a bad place at the moment. Personally I thought it was great when he came in, more or less saved us. Things have not gone well lately agreed, he had good intentions, and maybe he still has. There maybe not another knight in shining armour out there to take over, or plough in what he and his fellow directors have done, so be careful what you wish for. |
Gave this a nay when I wanted to say, yay. Small brain, big thumbs, which brings us full circle. | | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 11:29 - Jan 9 with 2403 views | PlanetHonneywood |
Indeed there are limits Cap'n Titanic, alas you've taken us past them years ago.
Why can't this buffoon just leave his twitter machine alone and stop making a fool of him and QPR with it. |  |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 11:36 - Jan 9 with 2405 views | EastR |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 03:01 - Jan 9 by Ingham |
I'm interested to see how this turns out one or two Chairmen on, since what this regime has said - 'debt-free', Champions League, world class talent and all that - never materialised.
Especially about the debt. I'd love to think that he has now accepted that the losses are his responsibility, and he has simply written them off. In other words, he has lost £200 million of his own money. Or whatever the figure is.
There was a debate on the topic on this site when it was first said that he had 'written it off'. The discussions were very interesting, seemed well-informed, though complex, but ultimately inconclusive, since no-one was sure what was behind the claims, bearing in mind that Bhatia was suggesting the Club was effectively 'debt-free' a few years before, and that was clearly not true, especially if poor old Tone was obliged to write off the debt Bhatia implied didn't exist ... all over again.
But as far as I recall the story was not that the losses were written off. They were converted to equity. The Lender owned the debt. Now he owns it in the form of equity.
TF did say the debt was 'stadium-related'. But what he meant by that isn't recorded. Beard said the stadium would cost £200 million. But I can't see how £200 million already lost could be conjured up from the dead to spend on a new stadium, or even secured against the stadium as debt, especially as Beard said the stadium wouldn't belong to QPR.
There might be a benefit from having no debt on the Club's books. I'll be interested to see what the situation is in this year's accounts. And subsequently. But it remains the case that an incoming owner can load the cost of buying the Club back onto QPR. Leaving us, say, £300 million in debt.
We might say 'who would pay that much?' But TF, who said he paid Ecclestone £35 million for Club, effectively QUADRUPLED the Club's debt, if my calculations are roughly right, i.e. that it was £33 million under Paladini, and Ecclestone added another £22 million mostly spent on promotion under Warnock.
Fayed said he wrote Fulham's debt off, but Fulham threads on the subject were less than transparent, giving the impression that the Club's accounting was hard to decode. And it is easy to give the impression that a DEBT has been paid off when it is merely the case that a previous LENDER has, while the debt remains round the Club's neck. Such was the case with Bhatia's general statement, and, previously, more specifically, the ABC loan.
One thing I wonder about, though.
If, for one reason or another, the debt is no longer a problem for QPR - where are our big ambitions? The general impression on QPR boards is that we're no longer big spending charlies with big ideas.
Why?
If we're debt-free, we're vastly better-off than most Clubs. We can even borrow sizeable sums - not £200 million, but a few tens of millions (it would still be less than the debt Paladini left the Club with) - to make decent signings, knowing there is £60 million a year in the Premiership for a Club which is realistic - especially if it is already, DEBT-FREE, not hundreds of millions in the red.
Even if TF is fed up and really HAS lost the £200 million himself, what is there to put OFF a Buyer? People say 'who would touch us?' but I would think almost anyone, if the Club really IS debt-free? BY which I mean that TF wouldn't simply tack £200 million onto the sale price to get the 'debt' repaid one way or the other. It would be pointless saying the debt was written off if TF expected £300 million for his shares and no Buyer would pay it. The equity would be a bigger liability than the debt it was converted from.
Anyway, if the debt really is gone - and it isn't just smoke and mirrors - we can afford to bide our time, and build a squad that will pay handsome Premiership dividends. While others wrestle with THEIR losses and debts.
But we're not talking like that. Like a Club free of problems. We still talk as if the Club is burdened with vast liabilities, financial worries, so we can't even sign half-decent players at THIS level.
Even though TF genuinely writing off the debt must mean the opposite. With no debt, there is nothing to hold us back at all. We should be soaring.
But we're not. We sound desperate. [Post edited 9 Jan 2016 3:34]
|
Let's say you have £20,000 worth of debt on your credit card because of a mad spending spree and you went out and bought a car using you're card.
You now have a car you need to run and maintain and you do that by adding it to your credit card bill. You now owe £25,000.
You bought the car because you believed that unlike most other cars this one was going to be worth more in a few years time. Crazy, yes but it was a speculative gamble on your part.
After a couple of years you decide you want to be debt free and happily for you you have £30,000 in savings in the bank.
You pay it off in total, and you are now debt free. But you're left with £5k in the bank, an asset which is worth less than what you paid for it in its totality and requires proportionally more of your dwindling wealth to keep going.
And your name is TF. | |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 11:57 - Jan 9 with 2371 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 11:36 - Jan 9 by EastR |
Let's say you have £20,000 worth of debt on your credit card because of a mad spending spree and you went out and bought a car using you're card.
You now have a car you need to run and maintain and you do that by adding it to your credit card bill. You now owe £25,000.
You bought the car because you believed that unlike most other cars this one was going to be worth more in a few years time. Crazy, yes but it was a speculative gamble on your part.
After a couple of years you decide you want to be debt free and happily for you you have £30,000 in savings in the bank.
You pay it off in total, and you are now debt free. But you're left with £5k in the bank, an asset which is worth less than what you paid for it in its totality and requires proportionally more of your dwindling wealth to keep going.
And your name is TF. |
The point being, he knew nothing about football when he came in and clearly, he knew even less about QPR.
Going on five years, and its worrying how much he seems not to have learned. He never will, he's too far gone to come back I feel and when you compare his input into QPR and what Amit managed, you see where we went wrong, we like Caterham, had the wrong character in charge.
I do feel he has been taken advantage of to some extent but hey, that goes right back to the initial problem, he knew nothing about running a football club or QPR.
The real shame, is that just like the millions poured in under Messrs Wright, F1 Boys and Fernandes, we have not got anything tangible to show for it. And when we talk about £250m deficit, we should not forget that we've also spunked millions earned in TV money, sponsorship and so forth. Factor that little lot in, and its even more of a crying shame! | |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 22:36 - Jan 9 with 2272 views | Ingham |
Hello Berko, nice to talk to you again. Not sure about a Knight in Shining Armour, but swallowing the Club's entire loss himself (I don't mean what his predecessors lost, I wouldn't expect that, that wasn't his fault) would indicate he meant the Club no harm, even if he doesn't, in the end, do it any good.
So I hold myself eagerly in anticipation of evidence that he has actually done that. And that debt-free means no debt at all. At least where he has been responsible for it, which means really writing it off. But in that case, HIS money would be gone, vanished, lost forever.
But would he look a fool if he did that? Better that he should, we might say, than QPR. But does he see it like that?
If we're being realistic, such a thing, though possible, would be most unusual. Especially given our history. QPR wouldn't have a debt which constantly goes up if 'investors' really did simply write off the cost of their mistakes to QPR.
For one thing - and I think it is reasonable to take this into account - they might feel they WOULD look like fools if they did. Failures. Losers. Whereas, as things stand, or as they usually stand, anyway, it is the Club that loses. That is a failure.
Our 'owners' arrive rich, and leave rich. The Club never gets rich, never even makes a profit, and is not successful, wealthy or talented. Not in the way TF and Bhatia and Briatore implied.
It is a bit late now, and I'm a bit tired, but I am interested in EastR's analogy about the car. The point about a deteriorating asset is certainly something to take into account. And I for one don't think the effect of the huge losses on QPR's ability to buy players got sufficient attention. Once the £200 million debt was in place, serious spending - such as the kind we'd seen under Hughes ceased.
This was usually understood as being because we'd wasted the money and didn't know what we were doing, so we stopped making that mistake, and became the sensible chaps we are now.
But I think it is probably more accurate to say that that WAS the money we had to spend. And the 'losses' were not merely losses in accounting terms. A buyer with £203 million to spend, who bought QPR debt-free, would have £203 million to spend on real quality, if he knew what real quality was. With the £200 million debt, he would have £3 million.
So until I hear that the debt has just vanished, no tricks, I think the rather 'desperate' way we're talking about the Club - and TF's suddenly far less gung-ho tweets - may reflect the reality of the Club's predicament, loaded with losses, but without significant talent BOUGHT with the money to give us EARNING POWER and a status which might enable the Club to handle them.
As I say, I think of the Club not as a business - if businesses were run like Clubs, virtually none of them would exist - but as a property in a rising market. With QPR's worth determined not by the actual usefulness of it as a 'small, semi-detached kind of Club' to the person who will live in it, but as an asset the value of which depends on where it finds itself.
In the case of QPR, the Premiership or not. In the case of the house, a semi on a corner plot in a run-down former industrial town, or a semi on a corner plot in a posh residential district with planning permission for an apartment block on the site.
That might make a small semi worth 100 times as much as an identical house elsewhere.
So QPR might well be worth £200-£300 million to someone, because it has the potential to join the Premiership, where it could wallow in that £60 million a year money just for doing nothing.
One important difference between EastR's car and the Club must be that the car doesn't have tens of thousands of lifelong supporters who support the Club completely independently of what the Owners are or do to it, but despite and even in defiance of what they have done.
And of course the Owner is supposed to be acting FOR the Club and the Club's interests. Whereas the car exists solely for HIS. Of course, that is why I wonder whether he is a knight in shining armour at all, and why I think EastR's car analogy might be correct.
It doesn't really make sense to suppose the car owner is the car's knight in shining armour. As his property, that he can finance in any way he likes, even to the point where the asset has depreciated, been written off, or even scrapped, the idea that he is acting in the car's interest, and that other people should admire him, thank him, or support him for paying off the debt he incurred acquiring or using his own property would be absurd.
Unless his interest in QPR really is of that sort. Having tried to do a comparable deal at West Ham, where the existing ground could be sold off and the Club moved to a rather oversized one, he moved on to QPR, where a similar deal was proposed, with a vision of a similarly outsized future now in some doubt.
If there is no real problem, and the Club is okay, minus the stadium deal, or because it is debt-free, or or because he is brilliant and QPR will be big, have a big ground, big support, big earnings as the 'Mittal' era regime seemed to be promising, more than once, too, the same question asked above arises.
Where has the big vision, big spending, the 'world class talent' mentioned, the Champions League quality that Bhatia - as well as Briatore - thought we should be told about.
We can be sure that results - and a whole string of managers who couldn't cope with the Board's 'expectations' (it wasn't the supporters who sacked them, or the supporters performances who undermined their credibility, the managers and players were responsible for that) - are contributing to a downbeat mood about QPR.
I wonder if TF - or whoever it was - made a mistake announcing that the Club's debt had been written off - or whatever they did say. It sounds great, but they've done that before, and it is the same as telling the supporters that they know what they're doing and the future will be bigger, richer and more successful.
The problem is not, as some think, that the supporters are cynical and don't take them at their word. The problem is that we DO.
And that means that their credibility is on the line if they don't deliver. Now, they're on the spot. The support won't easily believe some fairytale about jam tomorrow. And the talent available to the Club, and its spending power, know-how, and experience of what it takes to succeed in football, appears to be not just slight, but dwindling away.
That is definitely a problem when the Club, quite some time ago, turned its face away from any reasonable 'sustainable' model of careful, controlled development (if such a thing is possible), and opted for big spending (not just in the Premiership either, promotion under Holloway and under Warnock had us - according to many - as the biggest spenders in our respective leagues when we went up from the third and the second tier).
That is why I wonder why we're not spending. Or at least more upbeat. Particularly if we are now 'debt-free'. We should be even MORE buoyant about all the things Bhatia and Fernandes held out as our future now that we ARE in a position to learn from our mistakes, but NOT burdened with a debt which not only prevents us signing players, threatens sanctions by the authorities, and precludes anyone interested in getting us INTO the Premiership from buying the Club because the cost of paying off Fernandes will be far too high to be worth bothering.
Great discussion, this one, great posts, and in a friendly and enjoyable fashion. | | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 12:07 - Jan 10 with 2144 views | francisbowles |
Am I oversimplifying things by saying that we may no longer be 'in debt' as we were but, unless TF want's to lose more money, we don't have any money to spend as our outgoings still are bigger than our income? | | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 12:45 - Jan 10 with 2120 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 12:07 - Jan 10 by francisbowles |
Am I oversimplifying things by saying that we may no longer be 'in debt' as we were but, unless TF want's to lose more money, we don't have any money to spend as our outgoings still are bigger than our income? |
No, I think that is probably about right mate. | | | |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:13 - Jan 10 with 2086 views | Bluce_Ree |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:25 - Jan 8 by CroydonCaptJack |
I still believe he is reasonably well-intentioned and does not deserve the personal abuse he gets.
That does not sit well with me or reflect well on the QPR fans as a whole. |
This.
People sending him personal abuse on Twitter are the worst of c*nts and should f*ck off and support Chelsea where their mindless bullshit is much more suited.
The club's shite and I guess the buck stops with Tony but he's not trying to f**k us over. We're just meant to be shit. Everyone wants to be good and right now almost half of the profession teams are doing it better than us. It is what it is. I'm not going to let it ruin my year or start acting like a w*nker. |  |
| Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. He runs like a cheetah, his crosses couldn't be sweeter. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. |
| |
| TF tweeting about limits? on 13:51 - Jan 10 with 2026 views | TacticalR |
@Ingham 'Having tried to do a comparable deal at West Ham, where the existing ground could be sold off and the Club moved to a rather oversized one, he moved on to QPR, where a similar deal was proposed, with a vision of a similarly outsized future now in some doubt.'
I agree that's where he got his idea from. It's also where his bargaining skills fell short as for some reason the West Ham board were reluctant to give him half the club for nothing.
What must be particularly galling for Fernandes is that it's since turned out that Her Majesty's Government is West Ham's sponsor (even paying for the goalposts)...
Olympic Stadium: New details on West Ham deal revealed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34492276 |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
