By Paul Warburton Jan 19 2012 MARK Hughes has admitted QPR’s perilous position is making it tough to attract new signings. The new Rs boss has fingers in pies all over the Premier League and Europe – but has yet to rubber stamp a single deal with 12 days of the transfer window left. The club face a six-pointer at home to Wigan on Saturday, but will do so minus the services of Manchester City’s Nedum Onuoha (pic) and Chelsea’s Alex – just two of the players Sparky hopes to recruit and help Rangers out of the bottom three. “It would be easier if we were a mid-table club looking down rather than up,” said Hughes. “Our league position tempers their enthusiasm and there is that worry (for them) they’re coming into a situation they don’t want to happen – as we all do. “But if players hear the same story I heard when I joined, then they’ll be comfortable with it too.” The manager agreed Rangers will have to pay top dollar to recompense anyone taking on the relegation challenge – but scoffed at the notion they were considering paying Onuoha £80,000-a-week. “Financial incentives go hand in hand with attracting them here,” he said. “But some of the figures I’ve seen bandied about are way off the mark. It’s almost like think of a figure and double it.” Read More http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/london-sport/london-qpr/2012/01/19/sparky-admits-to-qpr-struggle-on-transfers-82029-30159807/?#ixzz1jwgLSeRS
Money is a big deal, so why not give them a get-out clause that, if we do not make it, they are all allowed to leave? Surely that seems fair? But then again they may not all want to be associated with helping a team not be able to get out of relegation. Tough sell indeed. But did we need to know how hard it is for him to get the players he wants? Does it mean he overestimated his own reputation and clout?
Anyone we sign will have a relegation 'goodbye' clause in the contract, it protects us from paying silly money in the Championship...
It has to work both ways. If a player comes in and the team still goes down then it is partly that player's fault. There should be a clause that says that if a team goes down the players all bets are off and the player takes a massive pay cut and makes up any difference between what the club paid for them and what the club manage to get for them if they are sold on. It wasn't so long ago that the clubs had the players by the goolies. Changes were made to adress this. Now it has gone too far the other way. Players and their agents take the mick most of the time. Most top clubs have to go into debt or rely on sugar-daddies ploughing in/giving lots of cash in order to keep going. The biggest financial burden? Player's wages. There are players who "earn" millions, yet haven't turned out for their clubs first team more than half a dozen times in a season - despite being fit and available. These people are paid far too much on contract. You look at many other sports stars/pop stars who earn 6, 7, 8 figures and they do so because of results. Nobody said to Rory McIlroy "You are a good pro, we will pay you £3m a year for four years regardless of how well you do." He WINS the big money. As long as he works hard and plays well he will still get "appearance money"/spnsorship and advertising deals, etc. If he doesn't play well the appearance money starts getting smaller quite quickly. there are a few exceptions, like Tiger Woods, but not that many. The competition amonmgst players is not who can play the best and get into the team, it is who can secure the best contract. Once the contract has been signed they can do what the F they like. Some are great professionals and give their all, many others just take the money. Footballers should be paid a good basic salary, but not the obscene amounts that we see today. If they want the BIG money, then they should earn it. They already get lots of bonus payments for performance, but when the basic salary is so high it doesn't matter if they get the bonuses.
