Are QPR Really a ‘Mini’ Manchester City?

Are QPR Really a ‘Mini’ Manchester City?
Posted on: Sep 8, 2012 in Premier League
Upon their return to the Premier League in the 2011/12 season, Bolton Wanderers gave Queens Park Rangers a reality check in what was required to compete inEngland’s top flight. It doesn’t get much worse than a 4-0 defeat in front of an expectant home crowd (Who’d have thought that Bolton would be the ones to drop down to the Championship?). QPR then steadied the ship somewhat to secure their Premier League status for another season on a dramatic last day, despite losing. A new season looming and Rangers fans could be safe in the assumption that nothing could be worse than the previous season’s opening day, right? Wrong. Swansea City, under new management, bossed the game and ran out resounding winners with a 5-0 victory.

However, what followed was a creditable draw with Norwich at Carrow Road and a more than respectable performance against Manchester Cityat the Etihad, if not a result to match. The R’s still languish in the dreaded drop zone for the time being but could be equally considered as joint 16th given that there are 3 other teams on 1 point, including Liverpool. It’s therefore surprising that Hughes has been the subject of some derision amongst opposition supporters and media alike for being seen as overly active during the recent transfer window. But take a look at QPR’s business and it certainly doesn’t appear that their tactic has been to stockpile players. 11 players left the club on a permanent basis and 12 players were brought in, 7 of whom were free transfers. Given their wealthy owners, it’s easier for QPR to release players at will and for no fee, only receiving a small sum for Paddy Kenny during this window, so their net spend was a fairly considerable £16.6 million. Yet players were bought for modest sums by Premier League standards and few would argue that the signing of Park Ji-Sung didn’t represent a coup for the princely sum of £2.5 million.

It’s only when compared to other clubs that you start to realise just how distorted the popular opinion of Rangers signing policy is. Take Southampton for example. Whilst they were tooling up for a return to the Premier League and had to equip their team accordingly, they did this to the tune of £28.5 million net. This includes a club record fee paid for talented Uruguay international Gaston Ramirez. Aston Villa too dug deep and backed their new manager Paul Lambert to the tune of £21.7 million. Obviously, there were clubs of similar or greater standing who cut their cloth more accordingly and had a negligible or no net spend. But when QPR have the reputation as a ‘Mini’ Man City, when looking at the figures, why aren’t they being treated the same as other clubs looking to consolidate their positions?

It’s been tough start to the season for them and some similarly tough fixtures including consecutive London-based fixtures ahead against Chelsea, Tottenham and West Ham lie ahead. He’s not everyone’s favourite manager, but whether it’s the board’s decision or his to ease off on spending, Mark Hughes and side don’t deserve the aforementioned label. His critics should maybe now focus on performances on the pitch rather than goings on in the boardroom, and that’s one area where the Sparky might just have the last laugh.

 

Nice liked the logic.

However - do I care what others think of us - no I do not.

We are QPR.

 

Good read, no matter how many times you try to educate people, they still say we throw money around and Saints wasted 7.5m on Rodriguez and some fans already want him loaned out.

 

The money spent is one thing but what I would like to know is how much will your club spend on wages in comparison to the likes of southampton and villa as mentioned in the article. I heard you were paying joey Barton 90k a week, was that true?

 

Probably not.
Most likely he was on 40/50/60K, and he WAS bought in under Neil Warnock.
He's gone on to sign El Hadj Diouf, the "Sewer Rat"

 

No, its more like 60k. It goes up every time someone mentions it, by next year it will be 150k a week!

 

A nicely written piece , makes a change
---------------------------------------------

Upon their return to the Premier League in the 2011/12 season, Bolton Wanderers gave Queens Park Rangers a reality check in what was required to compete inEngland’s top flight. It doesn’t get much worse than a 4-0 defeat in front of an expectant home crowd (Who’d have thought that Bolton would be the ones to drop down to the Championship?). QPR then steadied the ship somewhat to secure their Premier League status for another season on a dramatic last day, despite losing. A new season looming and Rangers fans could be safe in the assumption that nothing could be worse than the previous season’s opening day, right? Wrong. Swansea City, under new management, bossed the game and ran out resounding winners with a 5-0 victory.

However, what followed was a creditable draw with Norwich at Carrow Road and a more than respectable performance against Manchester Cityat the Etihad, if not a result to match. The R’s still languish in the dreaded drop zone for the time being but could be equally considered as joint 16th given that there are 3 other teams on 1 point, including Liverpool. It’s therefore surprising that Hughes has been the subject of some derision amongst opposition supporters and media alike for being seen as overly active during the recent transfer window. But take a look at QPR’s business and it certainly doesn’t appear that their tactic has been to stockpile players. 11 players left the club on a permanent basis and 12 players were brought in, 7 of whom were free transfers. *Given their wealthy owners, it’s easier for QPR to release players at will and for no fee, only receiving a small sum for Paddy Kenny during this window, so their net spend was a fairly considerable £16.6 million. Yet players were bought for modest sums by Premier League standards and few would argue that the signing of Park Ji-Sung didn’t represent a coup for the princely sum of £2.5 million.

It’s only when compared to other clubs that you start to realise just how distorted the popular opinion of Rangers signing policy is. Take Southampton for example. Whilst they were tooling up for a return to the Premier League and had to equip their team accordingly, they did this to the tune of £28.5 million net. This includes a club record fee paid for talented Uruguay international Gaston Ramirez. Aston Villa too dug deep and backed their new manager Paul Lambert to the tune of £21.7 million. Obviously, there were clubs of similar or greater standing who cut their cloth more accordingly and had a negligible or no net spend. But when QPR have the reputation as a ‘Mini’ Man City, when looking at the figures, why aren’t they being treated the same as other clubs looking to consolidate their positions?

It’s been tough start to the season for them and some similarly tough fixtures including consecutive London-based fixtures ahead against Chelsea, Tottenham and West Ham lie ahead. He’s not everyone’s favourite manager, but whether it’s the board’s decision or his to ease off on spending, Mark Hughes and side don’t deserve the aforementioned label. His critics should maybe now focus on performances on the pitch rather than goings on in the boardroom, and that’s one area where the Sparky might just have the last laugh.

Written by Scott Sayers(State of the game)

 

City and Chelsea have very rich owners with very deep pockets.

We have very rich owners who will not be stupid. They want to achieve the same, in time, without spending stupid amounts.

 

That's the key thing here. Its not so much transfer fees - although that's a big thing too - but the unsustainable wages that we're paying to our players. Villa and to a lesser extent, Southampton, have the facilities to bring in a lot more revenue than we have so paying high wages would be more sustainable for them. Well, definitely for Villa anyway.

Our net spend of 16 odd million isn't as much as a lot of Clubs but I bet our money going out RE wages and money coming in on match day is as uneven if not more uneven than any Club in the Premier League.

Having said all that, we've got very wealthy owners so they must be financing this out of their own pockets.

 

the one thing that does scare me is if the owners decide they have had enough and get rid of their football plaything. Then we could do a pompey...........

 

That is a concern Ninj and I'd prefer if, instead of getting all defensive when people talk about our transfer policy, we look at it from all angles including the legitimate one you've posted above.

In my own opinion, our current transfer policy concerns me. I don't care if everyone says I'm being negative, that's just the way I feel.

 

we are QPR
the only answer needed

 

Thank you oh wise one.

 

What if the question is "is there a worm eating your brain?"?

 

This was the perfect thread for you to come on and explain (to those of us that are not that up on such things), the machinations of the Clubs financing of our signings and the strategy of bringing in more revenue in the future.
When I saw your name pop up I thought "great, Stan will have allayed my fears with a stunning riposte".

Instead I get "what if there's a worm eating your brain"?

God I love this Forum!!!

 

At last!! A sensible post about QPR's buying and selling over this transfer window! Very good read indeed.

 

What fans ? You bought some good players but your wage bill will be sky high , you have made a ballsy gamble , you dont get the crowds to support your wages that obvious so if you go down you are screwed .

 

That can't be right. Did Southampton really spend US$45,622,800 NET on players?

If that's real then I'm flabbergasted a newly promoted team would spend that much.

 

Why not ? If the team is weak at that level you have to strengthen , its also not as if we are short either .

 

Its an insane amount mate. And you're saying we've taken an almighty gamble?!!!

You'd better pray you stay up mate. You're in a crazier state than we are!