Twitter Rumour TF looking to sell up

[jfish]

I woke up.
There is only so much BS I can take.

Very odd

[nasser95]

Just 4 players?? Lol. Ok Nas.

Anyway well done the board for clearing the debt.

I'm saying just 4 players that fit Surrey's range of old players on long term contracts. There are other mistakes but they aren't within that range. Now its only natural for Surrey to come and say something about those others to divert attention away from his original point which is wrong.

[Kirill]

Very odd

Not really, I grew up in the Soviet Union, so naturally I
developed a low tolerance threshold for BS from powers that be.

[upperloft]

I'm saying just 4 players that fit Surrey's range of old players on long term contracts. There are other mistakes but they aren't within that range. Now its only natural for Surrey to come and say something about those others to divert attention away from his original point which is wrong.

So you agree most of the signing have been shocking?

[surrey_hoop]

Don't know what you are getting into, but you forget the key phrase of hindsight. Was Barton's contract a bad idea? Not really, especially since he was free. SWP was 29, make sure you learn the order of the months of the year. Irrespective, I think many of us wanted him here at the time. And then you criticise my fact finding, get yours in order, Bothroyd was signed by the previous regime. Make sure you are right when you try and break my numbers. I did also say, very specifically that 30 or over was the threshold. You seem to disagree with that, and that is your choice but don't go and call my facts selective? No no no, yours are just wrong from the get go. Then you say at least 6 of them were on contracts over 50k? All I know were Cesar, Barton, SWP, Bosingwa. Cisse was unlikely to be on that much, same for Zamora and Luke Young. So make sure you detail your facts better when you criticise mine. For the record, you are ridiculous, but that is not what I said in the first place so make sure you also improve your comprehension skills when reading my posts. I said: 'Then you go and say SOMETHING ridiculous'

How about this - I'll learn the months of the year, and you learn how to use paragraphs. Deal?

The "threshold" as you call it of players being 30 and over was your criteria, not mine. I can't really disagree with it, as I never mentioned it in the first place. Regardless, all I said was that these were all players who were past their best and on the decline...which they were. As such, giving them long term deals made very little (if any) sense. The simple fact that I am trying to get across (which you are repeatedly failing to comprehend) is a relatively simple one:- Regardless of looking at the relative success of these transfers in hindsight, could the money spent on those players have been better spent elsewhere at the time? The answer my friend is an irrefutable, undoubtable "yes". That is the fact of the matter.

Cisse and Zamora will almost certainly have been on salaries commensurate to the others I listed. Cisse's reported salary is approx. 65k a week now (never mind then), whilst it was widely reported that Zamora's salary was in the 50k - 55k a week ballpark.

[surrey_hoop]

So you agree most of the signing have been shocking?

He doesn't even know what his argument is.

[surrey_hoop]

It seems Surrey Hitman and Kiril still won't let it go. The debt has been written off. With the financial strength of our owners there was never any doubt we'd be safe. It was their money and they lost it. That's business. It wasn't owed to dodgy offshore banks. Yet for years the three of you have waged a tireless campaign against TF, who incidently owns less than a quarter of the club.

We've got no debt and hopefully still planning a new stadium and training complex. Still need to get it right on the pitch now.

Technically a year and a half in my case.....

[Kirill]

Technically a year and a half in my case.....

Come, let us just own up:
It is all our fault, innit?

[WHITECITYONE]

Ruben yes, TF not really, and TF is the one people criticise.

Bit disingenuous Nasser

Your whole thread referred not to Fernandes but the whole Board : "You'll see people here go on about how they could run this better than TF and Co, but the truth is, no one of us can. There is a reason they own it and have the money to just write of millions in debt. Its because they have money. How do they get that money? By being smart and passionate. These guys didn't inherit stuff. They built stuff"

[Kirill]

How do they get that money? By being smart and passionate. These guys didn't inherit stuff. They built stuff"

And then they came to QPR.

[WHITECITYONE]

The club never had the money in the first place, all the money spent on players and wages have come from the board. This club with 19k stadium can only afford about paying 2k a week in player wages.

"all the money spent on players and wages have come from the board"

Well that's true only to a point

It's true that the club has clearly incurred costs that were £180m greater than revenues in the past four years

But don't forget that those revenues include the monies from Sky TV too

Just think: if the club had been run on a break-even basis pre TV monies, there'd be over £200 MILLION sitting in the QPR Holdings Bank Account now

[nasser95]

Bit disingenuous Nasser

Your whole thread referred not to Fernandes but the whole Board : "You'll see people here go on about how they could run this better than TF and Co, but the truth is, no one of us can. There is a reason they own it and have the money to just write of millions in debt. Its because they have money. How do they get that money? By being smart and passionate. These guys didn't inherit stuff. They built stuff"

Thats fair enough actually. My bad on that one, albeit I still believe that doesn't make him any less of a top businessman, I do agree that I did miss that bit of info. Cheers tho

[nasser95]

How about this - I'll learn the months of the year, and you learn how to use paragraphs. Deal?

The "threshold" as you call it of players being 30 and over was your criteria, not mine. I can't really disagree with it, as I never mentioned it in the first place. Regardless, all I said was that these were all players who were past their best and on the decline...which they were. As such, giving them long term deals made very little (if any) sense. The simple fact that I am trying to get across (which you are repeatedly failing to comprehend) is a relatively simple one:- Regardless of looking at the relative success of these transfers in hindsight, could the money spent on those players have been better spent elsewhere at the time? The answer my friend is an irrefutable, undoubtable "yes". That is the fact of the matter.

Cisse and Zamora will almost certainly have been on salaries commensurate to the others I listed. Cisse's reported salary is approx. 65k a week now (never mind then), whilst it was widely reported that Zamora's salary was in the 50k - 55k a week ballpark.

You really think Cisse or Zamora were anywhere near that money? I'd put both at 40k from my understanding of the way the club was run. This is undoubtedly all speculation at the end of the day. Now, I don't disagree with you in hindsight but that is not the key point and you cannot criticise the board for hindsight. In that moment, some of these signings appeared like great coups. Also, calling me out for my lack of paragraphing? C'mon now, you can do better, can't you? Actually it is as close to a numerical representation of the threshold you sent which was players coming towards the end of their career. I'd define the declining years as post 30. Midfielders tend to reach their peaks at 30, strikers not relying on pace tend to reach it at 30 too, defenders won't until about 32 and keepers at about 33. So I went with that to define the threshold. But it is all perspective.

[surrey_hoop]

You really think Cisse or Zamora were anywhere near that money? I'd put both at 40k from my understanding of the way the club was run. This is undoubtedly all speculation at the end of the day. Now, I don't disagree with you in hindsight but that is not the key point and you cannot criticise the board for hindsight. In that moment, some of these signings appeared like great coups. Also, calling me out for my lack of paragraphing? C'mon now, you can do better, can't you? Actually it is as close to a numerical representation of the threshold you sent which was players coming towards the end of their career. I'd define the declining years as post 30. Midfielders tend to reach their peaks at 30, strikers not relying on pace tend to reach it at 30 too, defenders won't until about 32 and keepers at about 33. So I went with that to define the threshold. But it is all perspective.

I would imagine that you no absolutely no more about the wage structure at the club than I do. I simply go on what I have read, and those are the figures that were reported concerning Cisse or Zamora. It doesn't make much difference what I think.

You still haven't responded to my question - could the money have been better spent elsewhere? I suspect you have deliberately dodged this because you know the answer. You may consider them to have been "great coups" for a club of our size, but it was pretty obvious from the day they joined that none of them would represent value for money for one reason or another.

re: Paragraphs - no worse than your sarcastic remark concerning months of the year.

At the very least, you are admitting that all of the players I have mentioned would've been well past their best by the time their contracts had expired (if they had stayed that long), with virtually no re-sale value. Please educate me on how that is sensible business....

[nasser95]

I would imagine that you no absolutely no more about the wage structure at the club than I do. I simply go on what I have read, and those are the figures that were reported concerning Cisse or Zamora. It doesn't make much difference what I think.

You still haven't responded to my question - could the money have been better spent elsewhere? I suspect you have deliberately dodged this because you know the answer. You may consider them to have been "great coups" for a club of our size, but it was pretty obvious from the day they joined that none of them would represent value for money for one reason or another.

re: Paragraphs - no worse than your sarcastic remark concerning months of the year.

At the very least, you are admitting that all of the players I have mentioned would've been well past their best by the time their contracts had expired (if they had stayed that long), with virtually no re-sale value. Please educate me on how that is sensible business....

I actually didn't dodge anything, I gave you my answer but here it is again for your reading:

Now, I don't disagree with you in hindsight...

By the time their contracts would have expired, they may well have been past their best, but we were more looking at what they could offer in the time they weren't past their best. SWP and all the others should have offered more to the club from day one. That isn't the owner's fault though.