Alejandro Faurlin's price-tag

[Nik29]

Was just wondering if someone can please clear this up.

People seem to think we paid £3.5 million for him (Including Steve Claridge in his BBC column), however I'm sure the fee was nowhere near that, and would only actually rise to that if he played for Argentina or something ridiculous like that.

What's the score on this?

[Youvebeenrangered]

who really cares, its more important he does the buisness on the field. old news...

[Nik29]

who really cares

I do, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

[rangersroar]

At the time of signing him it was stated on SSN that it was a deal worth £3.5m. Reading between the lines I took that to mean there was an up front fee and further payments depending on his and our progress. ?

[qblockpete]

I would imagine the 3.5 million is voer a period of time, The club he came from went into admisnistraion, so its unlikely to be paid up front.

[Nik29]

Cheers boys!

It winds me up the way journalists always go on about us being "big spending" QPR.. OK so we may pay our players a good wage, but it's not as if we go throwing money around.

[davman]

This was the clearest bit of spin from our board to date. I get so p'd off with people buying it and Claridge stating live on the BBC that we paid £3.5M for one player proving that we've been splashing the cash.

Of course I don't know, but if that £3.5M was a transfer fee then there would be no need to spin, spin, spin - the fact that it could have been legitimately heralded as our 'Record Transfer' would have pushed the right buttons. The wording was very interesting at the time; it said that the DEAL WAS WORTH £3.5M for a four year deal.

My take is that the club have included his wages in that figure to make it look more impressive. Say £10k per week in a four year deal and you've got £2.6M of the £3.5M. Allegedly (of course) we paid Inter £500k to take away their first refusal on the player and we're left with a transfer fee < £500k.

Just my take of course...

[qblockpete]

I don't know for sure either, but that sounds logical.

[davman]

This was the clearest bit of spin from our board to date. I get so p'd off with people buying it and Claridge stating live on the BBC that we paid £3.5M for one player proving that we've been splashing the cash.

Of course I don't know, but if that £3.5M was a transfer fee then there would be no need to spin, spin, spin - the fact that it could have been legitimately heralded as our 'Record Transfer' would have pushed the right buttons. The wording was very interesting at the time; it said that the DEAL WAS WORTH £3.5M for a four year deal.

My take is that the club have included his wages in that figure to make it look more impressive. Say £10k per week in a four year deal and you've got £2.6M of the £3.5M. Allegedly (of course) we paid Inter £500k to take away their first refusal on the player and we're left with a transfer fee < £500k.

Just my take of course...

BTTT. The root of most of our troubles - nothing we didn't already know at the time!

[swanleyhoop]

At the time of signing him it was stated on SSN that it was a deal worth £3.5m. Reading between the lines I took that to mean there was an up front fee and further payments depending on his and our progress. ?

It's amazing how SSN seem to be so keen on stirring up the whole issue, yet they stated quite clearly that the deal was only "worth" 3.5 million.
All this week, when it's been mentioned, they've been quite happy to go along with the myth that we paid that amount, and the difference between that and the 600k on the paperwork disappeared into someone's back pocket.

[stainrodisalegend]

Cheers boys!

It winds me up the way journalists always go on about us being "big spending" QPR.. OK so we may pay our players a good wage, but it's not as if we go throwing money around.

Don't blame journalists - it appeared on QPR's own website! Why do all our fans always jump on the hacks? The club boasted the deal was "worth" that much - presumably to appease fans who thought the board was being tight - and now they have been hoist by their own petard, or lies. Because if we believe our new best mate smudger the FA - oh, irony of ironies - still think he really did cost £3.5m, but presumably suspect all sorts of dodgy payments to agents and third party owners. If our defence is "we lied about the £3.5m price tag but we are telling the truth now that we only paid £600,000, honest guv" you can see why the FA might be just a little sceptical...

[RussRanger]

Well I think this should be played over the PA on Saturday...

[TBLOCKRANGER]

Well I think this should be played over the PA on Saturday...

[RussRanger]

This was actually played at half-time.

Never knew I had such power.