Mate, seriously. Look at your squads over the last three seasons. Do you really think those type of players have been playing for peanuts? We don't have to show you the accounts to prove you've been spending money you haven't got. The wealth of your owners and the wealth of your club are different things. Our owners are very wealthy. We still had to shape up for FFP. Regarding the link you posted, yes, we did vote against FFP. But we were in the minority so, when it was implemented, we had to get ourselves in shape. You made no effort to do so. And also note that those "substantial loses" included the purchase of our stadium. Last season's books (the first season in which FPP was implemented) will be much healthier when they are revealed.
1) Your wage bill was huge by championship standard too. That's why you're making a loss and that why your owners are opposing current FFP rules alongside ours. 2) Yes we did...I listed some of them in a previous post. We sold Chris Samba immediately too. I think 18 players left all in all, including the likes of Cisse/Ben-Haim/A.Ferdinand/Bosingwa. The problem with Taarabt/Remy etc was no one would buy them, so the best we could do was loan them out to get a portion of the wages off the books. 3) And big clubs should? Chelsea/City's owners have spent far more than ours. They're only "big clubs" now because of overspending initially. Why do they get a free pass? The fact is, the spending is within our means, because Fernandes/Mittal have the cash to do it. All the debt is under their own name, it's not owed to any 3rd parties.
1. Where's your proof of this? First I've heard. I've explained in my previous post why we made a big loss. 2. But you didn't just get rid. You bought players in too. And not Championship level players either. 3. That's up to the Premiership to sort out. But those clubs hold the Premier League to random, because they sell Sky Sports. They create overseas fans. They sell merchandise by the bucket load. They keep the money rolling in. Clubs of our size will never have that appeal, no matter how much money we spend. And regarding your last point, if it's legit and above board, you have nothing to worry about do you?
1) I thought this was common knowledge? You've got wealthy owners and you were big spenders on a championship level. Here's one article: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/05/wage-bills-leicester-city-nottingham-forest-losses 2) The only players we paid fees for were Austin+Phillips, who were definitely championship level. Other incomings included Dunne, O'Neil, Simpson, Karl Henry. Hardly superstars are they? Getting rid of 18 players left the squad incredibly short. Yes, we loaned In the likes of Ekotto/Kranjcar, but their wages were subsidised by their parent clubs. 3) Fair point. But I do believe clubs our size can reach that level eventually; City + Chelsea weren't massive before their new owners.
1) Look at the dates reported - is before FFP and as evidenced by us not being threatened by relegation and fines, we have sorted ourselves out. 2) Yes I agree your players aren't superstars but you are putting them on superstar wages. We have a strict wage structure here at the club - which was one of the reasons the Cambiasso deal took so long as we weren't willing to break it - do you? 3) If you want to look at the past, look at Portsmouth - is what happens if things go belly up.
1. Those "reported heavy losses" were before FFP came in. And I've explained twice now why our expenditure appears so high. Read this article. And the bit about meeting FFP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26422288 2. You purchased three players; Phillips and Henry were not long out of the prem and Austin was much-sought after. And besides, it's not all about transfer fees. How much were Simpson, Dunne and O'Neil on, all former Prem players? You had eight loanees (all from top flight clubs) - even subsidised, they'd have been on a fair whack. And that's just the players that came IN! How many players were you subsiding that were at other clubs too? And it's no good saying you had to loan them out because you couldn't get rid. You shouldn't have tried to buy every player on the planet in the first place. 3. Highly unlikely. City have always had been a big club and likely to attract massive investment. Chelsea's rise was more of a case of timing and location - they were becoming an attractive option as the Premiership came into being and the game changed beyond recognition. Never say never, but I'd settle for just being in the Premiership more often than not. Besides, I'm sure as Hell that the QPR approach of spending big on average/has-been players is not the correct way to go about it.
Alright Grif? ... bet you'll be gutted if Barnet get promoted ... there goes next season's 'needle' derby eh?
1) You haven't seen your accounts for the season just gone, but you won't have won the championship on a shoe string. I imagine you'd get a small fine too- but we're the national pariah so make all the headline. 2) How do you know they're on superstar wages? Any links/quotes? Somehow I can't imagine Gary O'niel commanding a monster wage packet. Norwich can afford him, and you can afford Simpson. We refused the touted Borini + Sigthorsson deals this summer because of their wage demands- even to the detriment of our striker options (we have 2). So lessons have been learned. 3) Different scenario at Portsmouth. Our owners are the most transparent in world football, and also some of the richest. 1) That article is meaningless- of course your owners will say they're in a strong financial position. Here's one quote from it though: "But let's not ignore the fact that the Foxes have lost £34m and such a loss next year would lead to a £20m plus fine. That would certainly dampen any Premier League promotion party. " Wasn't your stadium built 10 years ago? It's hard to imagine it effecting the current balance of payments much. Besides, I seem to remember reading that building infrastructure doesn't count for the sake of FFP. It only relates to wages/transfer fees etc. Otherwise no one would ever be able to build a stadium, because you'd get fined for being in a massive deficit short term. 2) Re the part in bold; many of those player were given contracts before FFP was even created. Shaun Wright Phillips winding down his 4 year deal is a current example. How can FFP legally retrospectively fine for you wages agreed before it even came Into existence? This will not stand up in court. We're in the same position you were with contracts Sven signed off- so again the "holier than thou" spin doesn't stand up. 3) Our average signing age this window has been lower than yours You just swallow hook-line-and-sinker the media spin that QPR sign has beens. We don't anymore! Mutch 22, Caulker 22, Leroy Fer 24, Sandro 25, Vargas 24, Isla 26, McCarthy 24. I agree though, I'd just be happy with being a bottom half PL team.
1. Many of our first team were young players and not highly paid. I'm not saying our wages were on par with, say, Millwall, but they were nothing like yours. Hence a lot of our players didn't get new contracts until promotion looked assured. That quote is from Ian Stringer, the RL commentator. He likes creating drama where there is none. He knows last seasons expenditure will be nothing like the one before, unless we've gone out and bought another stadium without my knowledge. We hardly made any transfers for a start. But well done for ignoring the quote from the club: "We are highly confident of achieving compliance with the Football League's Financial Fair Play regulations during the current season, regardless of divisional status." Did your club make a similar statement? Some how, I think not. 2. FFP was known about for several years before it came in. Clubs likely to be affected, like QPR, should have acted accordingly, as we did. We took a gamble (ie spent loads of money) BEFORE FFP came in order to get promotion and avoid its affect. We failed, so guess what? We sold off all our highest-paid players. You gambled too in an attempt to avoid FFP (and relegation). You too failed but instead of cutting your cloth accordingly, you continued to spend DURING FFP. Really, if you'd sold players and not spent over £10m in buying more, people would be more sympathetic to your cause. But going out and buying the highest-rated striker in the football league won you no support, particularly from clubs that worked hard to meet FFP demands. 3. Regarding QPR's dad's army, I wasn't referring so much to this season as last time. Our side is very young, hence we've signed some much needed experience. You've done the reverse, although you have bought some more oldies too. Having said that, I'd like to put your average age theory to the test, since at least five our signings were youngsters, but really, I can't be arsed.
Sod it, I was bored. Including loanees, the average age of your 10 signings is 25.2. The average age of our 13 signings is 23.7. Sorry Griff!
You mean for Leicester? Here's a link, the 13 go down as far as Nick Powell. http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/leicester-city/transfers/verein/1003/saison_id/2014 Gotta say, I've never heard of Joe Davis or Jonny Maddison!
Can't say I've heard of Maddison, but Joe Davis is the highly-rated defender we snapped up from Port Vale, he's already played a fair few games for their first team but he's been put in our development squad.
The only thing that surprises me about this threads the hypocrisy ond gullibility of some of your posters I expected a dumb response from any, but I'd expect your more intelligent posters to know this will never happen. Oh we'll, if you guys need a bit of help to stay up then we are happy to help, but you'll need to hope another 2 teams suffer the same fate to get you of the bottom Great thread guys
If you think that the Football League will waive £40M then your arse must be the greatest place in the world as that is where your head is. You are in violation of FFP in the Football League not administration so aren't in danger of points deductions in the Premier League. You are in danger of being banned from all the Football Leagues and the League Cup - don't you know what is happening at your own club? Was waiting for your response and it hasn't disappointed
4) If you want to look at the pot, look at Gary Taylor-Fletcher - is what happens if things go belly full ...
C'mon it's stretching things a bit to include a load of fringe signings. I'm talking about the core 1st team bunch. Upson, Ulloa, Simpson, Cambiasso, Albrighton, Hamer- an average of 29. The 7 QPR signings I've listed have an average of 23.85, dragged up to 25.25 by Rio. I'm not including 20yr old Jack Robinson on that list because we've loaned him to Huddersfield. Which makes 9- I'm interested who you think our 10th signing is? I bet our Lineup Vs Utd has a lower average age than your lineup Vs Stoke
I included all signings for both clubs, using the same source. Not my fault you didn't sign enough Under-21 players! Here's the link for you signings. They go down as far as Kranjcar, who's probably the player you're overlooking (He's classed as a new signing because it's a different loan deal. So there.): http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/queens-park-rangers/transfers/verein/1039/saison_id/2014 And regarding our line-ups at the weekend, really depends if Cambiasso plays.
We have a young squad and you have an old squad that got us promoted so why is there surprise that we bought in experience and you bought in youth? As for your signings, doesn't Rio Ferdinand and Niko Kranjcar count in your age calculations? Starting line up? Don't think Cambiassio will start and 'Arry is daft enough to change the entire team and give half a dozen players debuts so will be interesting to see if that is true.
