At last a tweet from Tony..

[Kirill]

What kind of a businessman gives up because he is losing his popularity...

You seriously think this is why he will run away soon? Did he give up Caterham because he lost his popularity? Substitute "popularity" with "money", simples.

[surrey_hoop]

That's not the reason he was cast in a negative view. The main reasons for that were because of his failure to take due recruitment diligence in the whole stream of managers he did appoint (Warnock was a Bhatia appointment, as said earlier), and then for his interference in team selection and not allowing them to get on with their job.



I agree. No argument from me there and a perfectly valid question.

If that's the case, then Fernandes must also be cast in a negative view for the same reason. We are 4 (soon to be 5) managers into his reign, and what must be upwards of 40 different players in the first team. If employing a (then) 66 year old with a history of walking out on clubs, or a youth coach with no managerial experience doesn't demonstrate a lack of "due recruitment diligence", then I don't know what does.

[Stanley]

If that's the case, then Fernandes must also be cast in a negative view

I agree.

for the same reason.

I disagree.

[surrey_hoop]

I agree.



I disagree.

You formulated the criteria that Briatore should be held in a negative view for his lack of managerial diligence, which unquestionably Fernandes has also demonstrated. I don't quite understand how you can disagree with that.

[Stanley]

You formulated the criteria that Briatore should be held in a negative for his lack of managerial diligence, which unquestionably Fernandes has also demonstrated. I don't quite understand how you can disagree with that.

I agree with you that TF has made some right royal f uck ups over the last 3 years. Where I disagree with you is that they've been different types of mistakes to FB. Not saying theyre better or worse, just different type of f uck ups.

[surrey_hoop]

I agree with you that TF has made some right royal f uck ups over the last 3 years. Where I disagree with you is that they've been different types of mistakes to FB.

So you believe that Fernandes is exempt from criticism for some of the mangerial appointments that he has made, or at the very least is less culpable than Briatore on this issue? That's specifically what I am referring to.

[Stanley]

So you believe that Fernandes is exempt from criticism for some of the mangerial appointments that he has made, or at the very least is less culpable than Briatore on this issue? That's specifically what I am referring to.

Here's the differences IMO. TF's mistakes haven't exactly been his appointments, but more specifically, how he naively and incompetantly handled the appointments once in situ, due to a) his lack of experience, b) being half way round the globe most of the time, and c) not appointing a qualified and fit-for-purpose CEO.

Hughes was not a bad appointment, as he has proved with his former clubs, and now at Stoke.

Problem was that TF allowed Hughes and his cronies to pull his pants down and get shafted over player recruitment, contracts and virtually an open cheque-book policy. Basically far too gullible and trusting, and as was widely-reported, at the interview Hughes interviewed TF just as much as the other way round.

No surprise that Hughes has now picked up his career where it left off, at Stoke, where they have a far more savvy Chairman who gave him a strict budget at a far more professionally run club.

As for Harry, he wasn't a bad appointment either by TF. But again he wasn't savvy and ruthless enough by not getting rid of him after the promotion, particularly in light of HR's revealing comments at the time on considering retirement while the play-off final was STILL being played when the score was 0-0.

[Stanley]

...so in summary, only time will tell if TF proves a better Chairman than FB.

You can't judge it now because TF is still in place and therefore his legacy cannot be written, unlike FB's legacy.

Only once TF has gone will you truly be able to say which of the two did a better job.

[Kirill]

Not long to wait now.

[Nick]

So you believe that Fernandes is exempt from criticism for some of the mangerial appointments that he has made, or at the very least is less culpable than Briatore on this issue? That's specifically what I am referring to.

Hindsight aside and purely going on 'at the time', I have absolutely no issues with the managers who TF has appointed-

As a qpr fan and for that reason I have a natural soft spot for Neil Warnock for what he done and achieved at this club. But from a owner/businessman's point of view- just bought a new club who have been newly promoted and with results not being great brought a new manager in who 'at the time' was a very competent manager with international managerial background and a 'successful premiership' background.

Again with Harry 'at the time' had Prem experience, was a very respected manager and was a fans favourite for the England job AND a majority favourite for qpr fans for the qpr job.

With the 2 managers gone who both had decent Prem experience and both failed, imo think tf done the right thing by learning from his mistakes and not steaming in to appoint a manager and gave it to someone who took the job on from a complete different angle, bringing youth in and finally got us playing attacking football. Just his lack of experience (didnt help us in the past) thats let him down (substitutions etc)

So overall yes 'at the time' been more than happy with TFs appointments.

[surrey_hoop]

Here's the differences IMO. TF's mistakes haven't exactly been his appointments, but more specifically, how he naively and incompetantly handled the appointments once in situ, due to a) his lack of experience, b) being half way round the globe most of the time, and c) not appointing a qualified and fit-for-purpose CEO.

Hughes was not a bad appointment, as he has proved with his former clubs, and now at Stoke.

Problem was that TF allowed Hughes and his cronies to pull his pants down and get shafted over player recruitment, contracts and virtually an open cheque-book policy. Basically far too gullible and trusting, and as was widely-reported, at the interview Hughes interviewed TF just as much as the other way round.

No surprise that Hughes has now picked up his career where it left off, at Stoke, where they have a far more savvy Chairman who gave MH a strict budget at a far more professionally run club.

As for Harry, he wasn't a bad appointment either by TF. But again he wasn't savvy and ruthless enough by not getting rid of him after the promotion, particularly in light of HR's revealing comments at the time on considering retirement while the play-off final was STILL being played when the score was 0-0.

Largely, a good post. I still maintain however that TF should've had the foresight and frankly the intelligence to construct in his own mind an idea of how these appointments might play out once in situ. Hughes was / is a widely repected manager, but I'm convinced that the ambitious nature of his personality made him think that the QPR job was beneath him (If I remember, at the time he was linked with the Aston Villa and possibly even the Chelsea job), consequently his heart wasn't really in it from day one - that must've come across in the interview for the job, unless I'm under-estimating his acting abilities. As regards Redknapp, I think anyone with even a modicum of intellect could see that he viewed us as his pension plan (reiterated by the aforementioned play-off retirement comment). I was somewhat excited with the prospect of Hughes managing the club, but the Redknapp appointment gave off some pretty bad vibes from the word go in my opinion.

[Hitman34]

Has the fat useless cant gone yet?

[dsqpr]

Selling for a huge profit - how exactly is that a bad thing? The entire point of business is that you sell your assets for more than you paid for them.

If you are the ones doing the buying and selling, and squeezing every last penny of profit out of the transaction by not even having a celebration parade after you have won the Football League, it is a very good thing.

If you are Queens Park Rangers Football Club, speculatively bought and sold on for a profit, cheated out of a Championship celebration, not given funds to strengthen the squad after promotion thereby greatly increasing the chances of immediate relegation, it is hard to see how it is a good thing.

[QPR Richard]

Say what you like about Tony, but some of those Air Asia birds he employs are right fit.

[Kirill]

If you are Queens Park Rangers Football Club, speculatively bought and sold on for a profit, cheated out of a Championship celebration, not given funds to strengthen the squad after promotion thereby greatly increasing the chances of immediate relegation, it is hard to see how it is a good thing.

Apart from that insignificant fact that even if the club got relegated as a result of that, this prudent fiscal policy would have resulted in debt elimination and even a profit.