Deleted thread?! Why censor debate?

[CliveLFW]

I wouldn't normally wade into this kind of nonsense but I wanted to check that I'm not missing the point here.

Pete you appear to me to either be saying we haven't done very well because Briatore wouldn't spend money, or that Paladini has done the best he can on the budget Briatore gave him. Or both.

Firstly I would say that I don't believe some of your figures, secondly I would say that the problem has never really been the transfer fees it's been the gross amounts we've paid out in wages - particularly to agyemang, hall and routledge - which you fail to mention.

However let's ignore the issue of massive wages and signing on fees and pretend these figures are accurate - £6m spent on players from the date of the takeover.

from the same date:

Wolves - champions last year - spent £4.475m over two years (and brought in £5.325m) and won the league.
Burnley - play off winners last year - spent nothing at all in their promotion season and £2.05m the year before while pulling in £4m for their own players.
Birmingham - spent a million quid last year and finished second.

So I would suggest that we haven't done poorly because money wasn't spent because these three clubs spent much less than us and won promotion last season.

I would also suggest that paladini, if it is indeed him picking out potential signings, has not done the best job he could with the money he was given to spend because McLeish, McCarthy and Coyle all did better jobs with less money. Birmingham came from the prem but wolves were in a proper post Glenn Hoddle mess and Burnley were relegation candidates with us when our takeover was completed.

It's not the amount of money available, it's who you have spending it - see Blackpool, Doncaster and S****horpe this season all doing the same or better than us on budgets not even half our own.

Like I say, maybe I'm missing your point.

[QPRMendoza]

I wouldn't normally wade into this kind of nonsense but I wanted to check that I'm not missing the point here.

Pete you appear to me to either be saying we haven't done very well because Briatore wouldn't spend money, or that Paladini has done the best he can on the budget Briatore gave him. Or both.

Firstly I would say that I don't believe some of your figures, secondly I would say that the problem has never really been the transfer fees it's been the gross amounts we've paid out in wages - particularly to agyemang, hall and routledge - which you fail to mention.

However let's ignore the issue of massive wages and signing on fees and pretend these figures are accurate - £6m spent on players from the date of the takeover.

from the same date:

Wolves - champions last year - spent £4.475m over two years (and brought in £5.325m) and won the league.
Burnley - play off winners last year - spent nothing at all in their promotion season and £2.05m the year before while pulling in £4m for their own players.
Birmingham - spent a million quid last year and finished second.

So I would suggest that we haven't done poorly because money wasn't spent because these three clubs spent much less than us and won promotion last season.

I would also suggest that paladini, if it is indeed him picking out potential signings, has not done the best job he could with the money he was given to spend because McLeish, McCarthy and Coyle all did better jobs with less money. Birmingham came from the prem but wolves were in a proper post Glenn Hoddle mess and Burnley were relegation candidates with us when our takeover was completed.

It's not the amount of money available, it's who you have spending it - see Blackpool, Doncaster and S****horpe this season all doing the same or better than us on budgets not even half our own.

Like I say, maybe I'm missing your point.

Excellent analysis even if you 'maybe missing the point'

[FurtiveFox]

I wouldn't normally wade into this kind of nonsense but I wanted to check that I'm not missing the point here.

Pete you appear to me to either be saying we haven't done very well because Briatore wouldn't spend money, or that Paladini has done the best he can on the budget Briatore gave him. Or both.

Firstly I would say that I don't believe some of your figures, secondly I would say that the problem has never really been the transfer fees it's been the gross amounts we've paid out in wages - particularly to agyemang, hall and routledge - which you fail to mention.

However let's ignore the issue of massive wages and signing on fees and pretend these figures are accurate - £6m spent on players from the date of the takeover.

from the same date:

Wolves - champions last year - spent £4.475m over two years (and brought in £5.325m) and won the league.
Burnley - play off winners last year - spent nothing at all in their promotion season and £2.05m the year before while pulling in £4m for their own players.
Birmingham - spent a million quid last year and finished second.

So I would suggest that we haven't done poorly because money wasn't spent because these three clubs spent much less than us and won promotion last season.

I would also suggest that paladini, if it is indeed him picking out potential signings, has not done the best job he could with the money he was given to spend because McLeish, McCarthy and Coyle all did better jobs with less money. Birmingham came from the prem but wolves were in a proper post Glenn Hoddle mess and Burnley were relegation candidates with us when our takeover was completed.

It's not the amount of money available, it's who you have spending it - see Blackpool, Doncaster and S****horpe this season all doing the same or better than us on budgets not even half our own.

Like I say, maybe I'm missing your point.

Haven't got time to wade through a 100 posts but my take on it is twofold:

1. We have consistently signed poor players which is down to either the manager, at any given time, or GP or a combination of both. We have signed a large number of players but perhaps the majority would have been better placed at the donkey sanctuary in Lyme Regis.

2. We have consistently employed managers who fail to get the best out of the players. Coyle did an outstanding job at Burnley, Wolves had a good experienced manager in McCarthy. TBH disagree a bit on McLeish. They spent a lot of money in the Premiership and should never have been relegated. They did not lose many of their better players on relegation and to my mind should have been more impressive in this division. Sure they have had a purple patch this year but overall would not for instance want McLeish here. What we do need is someone like Warnock, to cut out the BS and has beens or never beens.

I don't actually think our squad is that bad, unbalanced certainly, and a good manager should be able to get us playing in top half of table.

[Hoopaman]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread.

At least two of our loans cost us six figures in "transfer" fees in addition to wages and bonuses.

Exactly. But because they are loans pete wants us to believe they are free!!!

Simpson must of been about 1mil for the season plus wages of 15k and taarabt the same? Guess-timating in that region.

Other loan deals would cost money too. It's big business now with the transfer windows. Watson, Blackburn midfielder, Williams, bent, priskin, ikeme, hill would all require a loan fee plus a wage contribution or wage paid in full.

Clubs aren't just going to give you players for nothing! Pete manages to avoid this point and still stands by his blinkered thought we haven't spent much this season.

[brightonr]

Exactly. But because they are loans pete wants us to believe they are free!!!

Simpson must of been about 1mil for the season plus wages of 15k and taarabt the same? Guess-timating in that region.
Other loan deals would cost money too. It's big business now with the transfer windows. Watson, Blackburn midfielder, Williams, bent, priskin, ikeme, hill would all require a loan fee plus a wage contribution or wage paid in full.

Clubs aren't just going to give you players for nothing! Pete manages to avoid this point and still stands by his blinkered thought we haven't spent much this season.

Who in their right mind would agree to a deal like that?

I think that you are surely mistaken by a long long way on this one.

[qblockpete]

Hoopaman,

You think we have spent alot, I don't.
Its all about opinions.

Sure most fans think we haven't spent the neccesary amounts.

Your right about wages but its not millions, its a big saving.

Your argument is flawed, because you are compensating signing on fees with bringing laons, as if we buy someone for 2 million and they don't get any wages.

reality is on loans.. agent fees are minimal and you simply pay wages like you would if you bought them. You save yourself millions by not buying them.

[Chalet1882]

10 pages of boring of poo boring storys about dribble dribble gp please can watrb start a seperate forum for all stories that create debates on either GP , Sousa and Flabio

meaning when a thread like this starts as something else, but type cast reverts to being a debate on the three names above, be moved into a seperate forum.

its only because it is taking us away from realy whats importent

yesterday the original thread got locked and every one started it again its silly

please mods start a GP,sousa and FB forum so i can ignore them easier and not get involved

i feel it would stop people bikering and stop hard feelings between qpr supporters

please???

[qblockpete]

Clive LFW,

it comes down to bringing in the players in relation to budget. That In January was pretty much nothing, same as August.

You are right to point to Ageymang and Hall, but that is always used in this argument when players like Gorkss, Buzsacky and Mahon are not even mentioned.

For others to say we have spent millions is way off the mark.

[CliveLFW]

But pete do birmingham, burnley and wolves not show that our budget was more than adequate to build a promotable side? we've spent more than all three. We've spent more than burnley and birmingham put together. even by your skewed figures. The person spending the money has done a poor job, simple as. mcleish, mccarthy and coyle all promoted sides with less to spend.

[pkloft]

pkloft?

You seem high on knowledge and like avoiding questions.

Why did we not bring in Beckford, Kitson, Cox or Best and could bring in Faulrin for a supposed 3.5 million?

In the 2 and half years how much did we spend on transfer fees comparedto who we sold?

Play nicely and just answer the questions, because most can see you are avoiding them

i always play nicely

as for just "answer the question" OMFG are you for real or are you that stupid!

money spent don't just come in transfer fees (you must know that, surely)

as i keep on saying (which you keep avoiding) Halls & Aggy's 4 & a half year contracts must cost the club someting in the region of £5M - £7M over the length of their contracts & not just them is it, how many other duds have we got which at a guess GP's brought in

i'd say FB has looked at the money spent (yes we do agree NOT IN TRANSFER FEES) but in Loan fees Wages & Agents fees and most probably thought F' That i'm just spending money hand over fist & getting nothing for it, which i for one can see, NOW RE READ IT, PUT BRAIN INTO GEAR & THEN, BUT ONLY THEN REPLY :cheers:

[QPRMendoza]

Hoopaman,

You think we have spent alot, I don't.
Its all about opinions.

Sure most fans think we haven't spent the neccesary amounts.

Your right about wages but its not millions, its a big saving.

Your argument is flawed, because you are compensating signing on fees with bringing laons, as if we buy someone for 2 million and they don't get any wages.

reality is on loans.. agent fees are minimal and you simply pay wages like you would if you bought them. You save yourself millions by not buying them.

A couple of points re loans:

1) Nodge, and I tend to believe him, says in at least a couple of loans we have paid 6 figure sums to get them (aside from their wages). Surely this is worse than paying 6 figures for a player that does not work out who is on a short term contract.
2) How much were Parejo's wages? Surely this could have been better spent for example on the goalie from Manure who was here on loan.
3) You can only play so many loan players - the rest you have to own.
4) Do loan players play for the shirt or the club? It breaks my heart to see a team full of mercenaries playing for QPR.

Perhaps alot of this comes back to questions about scouting - but that is a different story.

Just my opinion.

[qblockpete]

By mentioning Hall and Ageymang, it simply shows an agenda

2 players ??

Why not mention Gorkss or Mahon for example??

You are talking about wages?

The deliberate ploy to overlook players who are bought by other clubs for 1, 2 or even 3 million is mindboggling As if they don't get wages and its either one or the other:laughter:

(ps think the deals you mention would be far less than 5-7 million, spread over 4 years)

ThEY HAVE BOTH GONE

they have both gone

[qblockpete]

Parejo was brought into the club by the orange one, like or the continentals

[qblockpete]

Pretty sure we have not spent more than Birmingham or Wolves in recent years.

Burnley admittedly are a fantastically run club, but thats one club from 92 football clubs and everyone would like to be run like them.

[pkloft]

By mentioning Hall and Ageymang, it simply shows an agenda

2 players ??

Why not mention Gorkss or Mahon for example??

You are talking about wages?

The deliberate ploy to overlook players who are bought by other clubs for 1, 2 or even 3 million is mindboggling As if they don't get wages and its either one or the other:laughter:

(ps think the deals you mention would be far less than 5-7 million, spread over 4 years)

ThEY HAVE BOTH GONE

they have both gone

now now lets stick to the facts it's 4 and a half years

well lets say Hall & Aggy's combined weekly wage is £20,000 x 234 weeks = £4,680,000 + the £1M joint transfer fee comes to nearly £6M

so not that far off, in FACT, BANG ON