Fulham show why the QPR model is one to ignore + By Kristian Balkin on Nov 20, 8:41p Bryn Lennon While their local rivals sit bottom of the Premier League, Fulham continue to establish themselves as worthy contenders, while putting themselves into a far more financially viable position. The more Queens Park Rangers stumble and the more Mark Hughes pulls them back into a state of quite dramatic disarray, the greater the feeling of content at Fulham FC must surely become. Not, simply, because the two clubs are local rivals. It may play a part, of course, but the disdain at what is going on at Loftus Road extends far, far further than that. It extends to the way the club is run - their wage bill, their financial outgoings and their insignificant income. As we speak, approximately 150% of turnover is spent funding the likes of Bobby Zamora, Andy Johnson and second choice goalkeeper, Robert Green. Green claims £50,000 per week, sitting on the bench. Zamora rakes in an estimated £72,000 and is thought to be sidelined for the remainder of the season. Is that how to run a football club? Whatever way you twist it, QPR are in a perilous state and as much as you may think this gives Fulham fans ample opportunity to ridicule, there are also valuable lessons to be learned. The most simple of which is that money isn't - despite some evidence to the contrary - the be-all-and-end all in football. There needs to be a base from which to build on, some substance with which to expand. Manchester City have that, and Rangers do too, but not to the extent that they can blow all their income, and more, on some distinctly average players. They draw a gate of under 18,000 and they cannot boast the worldwide fandom that the likes of Manchester United and Liverpool can extract so much money from. Park Ji-Sung may have been a brain-wave to that end, but it hasn't really paid off, has it? Quite simply, they have got just a little too big for their boots. And this is where Fulham have never gone wrong. Mohammed Al Fayed, despite his uncanny suggestions of creating a "Manchester United of the south", has never pumped money in unnecessarily. He's never had ideas above his station. Instead, we are one of few Premier League clubs that can turn a profit. We're a club that can support, and attract, the likes of Dimitar Berbatov, and not get carried away. Our wage bill is large, just like any other established top tier English side but, and this is vital, it's not uncontrollable. We have structure and we know there are limits. And, with Financial Fair Play beyond it's looming stage, this stability is what is required. It's not quite self-sufficiency - who can truly perform that feat in football these days? - but it's certainly not sheer neglect. It's just clever. Just forward thinking. Does it hold us back, though? Yes, probably. Al Fayed could easily afford another Berbatov here, another three Ashkan Dejagahs there. And we're not going to stop him. But your accountant would, and that's what football is, unfortunately, becoming. It's where money, ultimately, dictates everything. It's why the Premier League are in the process of agreeing £5 billion rights to its TV coverage. It's why Carlos Tevez carries home a pay slip worth just under £800,000, every month. And Fulham are acting accordingly. In fact, we always have done. We will still progress as a football club, albeit slowly, and we will continue to make inroads into the top ten and, perhaps, the top eight. But we won't spiral out of control, sacrificing our solid footing. That would probably leave us exactly where we don't want to be, and exactly where QPR are at.
Yes, a fair article. But we're still only a third of the way through the season, and a prudent management at QPR can salvage the situation. Spotlight's on them now.
He may be right, but I would still prefer TF to Fayed, and there is a fundamental difference between the clubs - we have always been mental, doing things the hard and stupid way. Prudence is for yourself - not overstretching the mortgage or credit card - not for your football club. Look how hooked we all are on this soap opera, outstanding value for money.
the only thing i would quibble with is that we have done exactly what fulham did when they came up: for tigana, "Manchester United of the south", Steve Marlet read hughes, "global brand", Stephan Mbia. But in early 2000s Fayed's money went further and established them. They seem to be doing things right now though.
with football things can turn around quickly, we might be o.k now, but in 3 months who knows, i like t.f alot, i am saddened by how bad rangers are doing, things can change quickly, i for one hope they do
Just look at Sunderland's performance last season after Martin O'Neill arrived in early December - could we perhaps write a similar story with a different manager in charge? January is too late to make the change though in my opinion, by then we'll be dead & buried under MH. Wikipedia:- "On 3 December 2011, O'Neill signed a three-year contract with the Premier League club Sunderland, the team he had supported as a boy. In O'Neill's first game in charge Sunderland came from 1â0 down to beat Blackburn Rovers 2â1 at the Stadium of Light. Under O'Neill, Sunderland began to improve dramatically with four wins from his first six games, including one over league leaders Manchester City. The Daily Telegraph commented that Sunderland could make a late challenge for a European place if they kept their performances up. Sunderland continued to perform well in the first few months under O'Neill. They rose to ninth in the league and continued their challenge for a Europa League spot. On 18 February, they beat Arsenal 2â0 to knock them out of the FA Cup fifth round. A week after this they lost 4â0 to West Bromwich Albion. The next week was O'Neill's first TyneâWear derby. The 'fiercely contested' match finished 1â1 with two red cards for Sunderland. The following week Sunderland defeated Liverpool 1â0 at the Stadium Of Light."
