lay off TF

[Kirill]

Well I didn't type that, so it isn't amazing in the slightest. My point was that it was obvious at certain times of their respective managerial reigns (for Hughes around October 2013, for Redknapp around November 2014) where it was obvious to all that they both had lost the dressing room and were making basic selection and tactical errors. Yet both of them were kept on 2-3 months longer than they should've been. That isn't even up for discussion, it's a fact. What I don't understand is why Fernandes gets absolutely no blame for this, presumably because he just happens to be a nice man. That, I'm afraid to say, is b ollocks.

Amen.

[MaineHoopsFan]

Im not commenting on here anymore. Surrey is now my advocate. Took the words right out of my fingers ;)

[surrey_hoop]

Im not commenting on here anymore. Surrey is now my advocate. Took the words right out of my fingers ;)

Truly glad that you agreed with my comments Maine. I am not so out of touch as to think that I am very much in the minority with my views on Fernandes, so anyone else in agreement are obviously very welcome and appreciated. With that said, I do not want fans to think that I am on a crusade to neg the man; like any QPR fan worth his or her salt, I sincerely wanted his ownership to be a success. The sad fact is though that we are now four years in, and have stumbled from one disastrous situation to another under his leadership - and will almost inevitably continue to do so. It's going to get worse before it (potentially) gets better.

[dsqpr]

Little disappointing that you (presumably) read that entire prose, and decided to pick up on a single word. Seeing as you have though, let me say that yes, I do think Fernandes is deluded. Pushing ahead with a 40,000 seater stadium (for a club with a record attendance of 35,000), thinking that both Hughes and Redknapp would turn their fortunes around when there was substantial evidence to the contrary, and making multiple ludicrous comments on Twitter (see his recent "surpremely confident" tweet for just one example of this) suggests that much quite strongly as far as I'm concerned.

If you think that delusion has anything to do with success in business, then I can only assume that you don't actually know the meaning of the word. Simon Cowell thinks quite highly of himself, and I'm reliably informed that he's richer than your average man on the street. Unlike you, I don't worship Fernandes (and consider him absolved of criticism) simply because he is extremely wealthy. If I feel like expressing that on a QPR Forum, then I'll go ahead and do it.

Well, that word was kind of a ridiculous one to use. I don't know why you are saying that I worship TF. If you had read my other posts you would see that I recognize as well as anybody the mistakes he has made but I nevertheless support him because I think his heart is in the right place and he has been quite unlucky with his managerial appointments. Do you think that everybody who supports TF worships him? Now THAT would be an example of deluded.

Here is the Cambridge definition of "deluded": http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...ritish/deluded
"Believing things that are not real or true". It seems pretty obvious that you can't make a fortune in business if you are deluded, and anybody who thinks otherwise is, well, deluded.

As for pushing ahead with a 40,000 seater stadium, that is called "ambition", not delusion. Was Abramovich deluded or ambitious when he said that Chelsea would eventually win the Champions League? Was Bill Shankly deluded or ambitious when he took over second division Liverpool and tried to turn them into Champions of Europe? It is pretty clear that you simply don't understand ambition. You also don't seem to understand that many fans were in favour of both the Hughes and Redknapp appointments; were they all deluded too?

And where did I question your right to call TF deluded? I merely laughed at it since it is so ridiculous. But you certainly have the right to say it.

[vespa]

dsqpr, your a decent poster on here ,there is no doubt ,but personally i side with Surrey on his opinions on TF ,not on you, but on Tony .
40,000 ? its delusional no doubt,
to be honest anyone who goes to Rangers ,has Rangers in their blood ,attends either every away or the occasional away,if they put their hand on their their heart and still think we could do with a 40,000, IS delusional not unambitious

[dsqpr]

dsqpr, your a decent poster on here ,there is no doubt ,but personally i side with Surrey on his opinions on TF ,not on you, but on Tony .
40,000 ? its delusional no doubt,
to be honest anyone who goes to Rangers ,has Rangers in their blood ,attends either every away or the occasional away,if they put their hand on their their heart and still think we could do with a 40,000, IS delusional not unambitious

It is not the critic who counts; nor the one who points out how the strong person stumbled, or where the doer of a deed could have done better.

The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who does actually strive to do deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion, spends oneself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at worst, if he or she fails, at least fails while daring greatly.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those timid spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

- Theodore Roosevelt.

http://www.appleseeds.org/dareroos.htm

[vespa]

It is not the critic who counts; nor the one who points out how the strong person stumbled, or where the doer of a deed could have done better.

The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who does actually strive to do deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion, spends oneself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at worst, if he or she fails, at least fails while daring greatly.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those timid spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

- Theodore Roosevelt.

http://www.appleseeds.org/dareroos.htm

thanks for that ,what a load of american pony

[dsqpr]

thanks for that ,what a load of american pony

[Nick]

It is not the critic who counts; nor the one who points out how the strong person stumbled, or where the doer of a deed could have done better.

The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who does actually strive to do deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion, spends oneself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at worst, if he or she fails, at least fails while daring greatly.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those timid spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

- Theodore Roosevelt.

http://www.appleseeds.org/dareroos.htm

Wtf!!

[dogsrrs]

Well I didn't type that, so it isn't amazing in the slightest. My point was that it was obvious at certain times of their respective managerial reigns (for Hughes around October 2012, for Redknapp around November 2014) where it was obvious to all that they both had lost the dressing room and were making basic selection and tactical errors. Yet both of them were kept on 2-3 months longer than they should've been. That isn't even up for discussion, it's fact. What I don't understand is why Fernandes gets absolutely no blame for this, presumably because he just happens to be a nice man. That, I'm afraid to say, is b ollocks.

Again I'm going to say T Fs crime listening to to many people and backing people as already said if you employ a manager you should alllow him to manage
But you are totally wrong to say Redknapp had lost the dressing room he most definitly had the backing of most of the players no manager
ever has all the players on side because he cant play them all but you are correct he should have gone earlier

[surrey_hoop]

Well, that word was kind of a ridiculous one to use. I don't know why you are saying that I worship TF. If you had read my other posts you would see that I recognize as well as anybody the mistakes he has made but I nevertheless support him because I think his heart is in the right place and he has been quite unlucky with his managerial appointments. Do you think that everybody who supports TF worships him? Now THAT would be an example of deluded.

Here is the Cambridge definition of "deluded": http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...ritish/deluded
"Believing things that are not real or true". It seems pretty obvious that you can't make a fortune in business if you are deluded, and anybody who thinks otherwise is, well, deluded.

As for pushing ahead with a 40,000 seater stadium, that is called "ambition", not delusion. Was Abramovich deluded or ambitious when he said that Chelsea would eventually win the Champions League? Was Bill Shankly deluded or ambitious when he took over second division Liverpool and tried to turn them into Champions of Europe? It is pretty clear that you simply don't understand ambition. You also don't seem to understand that many fans were in favour of both the Hughes and Redknapp appointments; were they all deluded too?

And where did I question your right to call TF deluded? I merely laughed at it since it is so ridiculous. But you certainly have the right to say it.

This is exactly my problem - when Fernandes makes an error of judgement (and there have been many), it is attributed by his acolytes to his "heart being in the right place." In my time supporting QPR, I can't remember another chairman being offered as much good grace as he has. When Britatore and Ecclestone did similar, they were saboteurs looking to make a quick buck whilst destroying the club in the process. Because Fernandes can give a good interview and tweet, the rules don't apply. Sorry, but I can't align myself with this way of thinking.

Pushing ahead with a 40,000 seater stadium when a) we barely sell out as it is and b) have never had more than 35,000 fans for a home game (at a time when we were arguably the best team in the country) is not ambitious. It flies in the face of common sense. Loftus Road is more than big enough for a club our size....assuming the owner recognizes that we are not a Top 10 PL side, and will not be a very long time (if ever). Progress is not expotential, it is incremental. If we were to consistently sell out, then a stadium of say 25,000 with the option to expand would be the next step in the process. Going immediately from 18,000 to 40,000 is a gamble bordering on stupidity, and a recipe for disaster - ask Coventry or Darlington fans if they were pleased with the "ambition" shown by their owners.

The examples you have given to attempt to justify your poor argument are, well, nonsense. No-one doubted Abramovich's claims for two reasons 1) the infrastructure was already in place for them to attract star players and 2) Abramovich made his intentions pretty clear early on that he was prepared to spend whatever it took for them to win the Champions League. As for Bill Shankly - you are talking about an era of football when it wasn't delusional (there's that word you love so much again) to think that it was possible to transform a football club. Those rules do not apply any more. Fernandes wants this stadium solely as a means of recouping what he has lost on his investment in QPR up to this point (which I entirely understand).

Clearly you have completely missed my point regarding Hughes and Redknapp (or simply not read my posts properly.) Never did I say that they weren't popular appointments - In fact, I explicitly stated that I understood Fernandes' reasons for hiring both. My issue was why they were both kept in the job for far longer than they should've been - Fernandes was entirely to blame for this. I honestly see absolutely nothing controversial in this assertion, and would expect the majority to be in agreement.

[surrey_hoop]

Again I'm going to say T Fs crime listening to to many people and backing people as already said if you employ a manager you should alllow him to manageBut you are totally wrong to say Redknapp had lost the dressing room he most definitly had the backing of most of the players no manager
ever has all the players on side because he cant play them all but you are correct he should have gone earlier

I agree, of course you should...until you reach the stage at which their position becomes untenable. Sadly Mr Fernandes was a little on the slow side in his appreciation of this.

[W3QPRHA4]

Personal I can't see why people are still defending him…

We're 1/50 to go down but the man still believes we'll stay up

[Kirill]

Personal I can't see why people are still defending him…

We're 1/50 to go down but the man still believes we'll stay up

I don't think he believes it,
he is not that naive surely,
he just says BS like this,
which is just plain disrespectful
to the long-suffering fans.

[surrey_hoop]

Personal I can't see why people are still defending him…

We're 1/50 to go down but the man still believes we'll stay up

I would suggest it is because his PR campaign has been first class. Where Fernandes is concerned, I will concede that much. If only we were able to win football games with the same success that he's been able to win hearts and minds. The man can do no wrong in the eyes of some - see this thread for futher evidence.