Player contracts.

[Rebel R's]

Les is DoF but would guess the manager has input and Tone due to budgets. Lots of nonsense talked about contracts and blaming the club if a player let's his contract run down. You can't force a player to sign and if there are no buyers during the transfer window he goes for free. We could have sold Austin but decided to keep him to try for a promotion push and then the club is blamed for not cashing in with the benefit of hindsight. On that basis let's sell Smyth and Eze now and get the cash in......

For what reason exactly,because you (still)think the manager will be given the funds??!!,smithies was sold and nothing has been spent yet,we have to move away from that train of taught ,sell a player to fund new players,because that doesn't happen here at this club any more

[SheepRanger]

For what reason exactly,because you (still)think the manager will be given the funds??!!,smithies was sold and nothing has been spent yet,we have to move away from that train of taught ,sell a player to fund new players,because that doesn't happen here at this club any more

The manager has been given funds since the Smithies sale. We have signed a free transfer at a cost of agent fees and a signing on fee. That free transfer probably cost us £300k up front. I think there will be more sales, but I don't think all the money will be used for signings and have never said this. Due to the drop in sky money I think most of the money will be used to subsidise the drop in income. There may be a few £1m signings but can't see much more than this even if we sell Mass for £5m. We have so many youngsters to slot in the side and we keep signing more 20 year olds, who again will be given signing on fees and Agents. I can see that machine running and will be surprised to see Eze and Smyth with us for 19/20 season, at which point sky money would have stopped. We will only get frees, players with one year left on their deals and sign up releases youngsters

[acricketer]

FFP has sucked any ambition dry. Drossball and buckets in our future.

[Stanley]

Unfortunately this is the nature of operating under budgetary constraints. Long term contracts are less appealing to those that monitor the purse strings. They cost too much to get out of if a player loses form, struggles with injuries or does a Caulker and farks off on the lash for 2 years.

Look at any club with financial problems. Mainly 1 and 2 year deals. 3 years absolute maximum.

Which kind of cuts your nose to spite your face, but if the cash simply isn't there (for the club to remain sustainable and to remain within FFP) then it's not there.

I would like to see us sell Washington and Sylla and buy a striker and one more central defender.

Sylla needs a chance under McClaren IMO. Be interesting to see what he can bring out of him.

[CroydonCaptainJack]

For what reason exactly,because you (still)think the manager will be given the funds??!!,smithies was sold and nothing has been spent yet,we have to move away from that train of taught ,sell a player to fund new players,because that doesn't happen here at this club any more

I never knew you were Irish Rebs

[Tarbie]

Which kind of cuts your nose to spite your face, but if the cash simply isn't there (for the club to remain sustainable and to remain within FFP) then it's not there.

Catch 22 ain't it though mate? Nobody has a crystal ball.

Nobody thought when we were dishing out 4 years contracts to Stephen Caulker, Sandro and Shaun Wright-Phillips that they's end up so costly to the club. Even before that, remember Rowan Vine? And what about Rob Hulse? All players that were offered long deals that seemed like good business, but ended costing us millions.

Regardless of how good Smyth, Eze, Chair etc. look, the club isn't in a position to be taking too many chances at the moment. Unfortunately this means we will most likely lose a few players for less than we'd like, but that is the situation which we are in and no amount of complaining by the fans will change it!

[Hitman34]

If we cannot afford to offer the players we already have, new contracts, then what's the point.

[Tarbie]

If we cannot afford to offer the players we already have, new contracts, then what's the point.

You're looking at it the wrong way mate.

We are in a situation where the club doesn't have the financial security to plan long term. Instead, we need to have a relatively short term view and work with what we have from season to season. As I said above, this unfortunately means our position when it comes to retaining our best players is relatively weak. But that's where we are.

Let's at least try and look at the positives. The supply line of good young players looks as strong as it ever has in the 30 years I've been supporting QPR.

[Rebel R's]

If we cannot afford to offer the players we already have, new contracts, then what's the point.

I tend to agree,still can't understand why holloway was sacked,they say "to move forward" ?!?,but how are we moving forward exactly with our best young players not being offered new contracts and our best player sold,and only one out of contract 2nd division German player brought in. Put whatever positive spin you want on it but we aint moving forward,sideways at best

[Awin]

I tend to agree,still can't understand why holloway was sacked,they say "to move forward" ?!?,but how are we moving forward exactly with our best young players not being offered new contracts and our best player sold,and only one out of contract 2nd division German player brought in. Put whatever positive spin you want on it but we aint moving forward,sideways at best

Impossible to say until half way through the season.

this team might be up to speed and standard, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

[SheepRanger]

I tend to agree,still can't understand why holloway was sacked,they say "to move forward" ?!?,but how are we moving forward exactly with our best young players not being offered new contracts and our best player sold,and only one out of contract 2nd division German player brought in. Put whatever positive spin you want on it but we aint moving forward,sideways at best

How do you know the young lads haven't been offered new contracts? You seem to assume incompetence if every action isn't followed up by an update on the website.....

[Jonny]

You're looking at it the wrong way mate.

We are in a situation where the club doesn't have the financial security to plan long term. Instead, we need to have a relatively short term view and work with what we have from season to season. As I said above, this unfortunately means our position when it comes to retaining our best players is relatively weak. But that's where we are.

Let's at least try and look at the positives. The supply line of good young players looks as strong as it ever has in the 30 years I've been supporting QPR.

This make sense for expensive players, such as Robinson and Onouha, but the same logic cannot be applied to u23 graduates who are probably on 1-2k a week max.

Whilst we are in a weak position retaining players such as Robinson and Onouha because there wages were already at, or outside, of our upper limit (15k - 20k max), we are alternatively in a strong position with u23 graduates, because the starting point is from the ground-up.

A 4 x increase on 2k a week u23 base, for example, puts a salary at 10k per week, a figure and salary multiple which I feel is absolutely at the upper limit for a new contract for the likes of Smyth and Eze - they have started well, but must demonstrate similar performances in the next 10 games, which is perhaps what the club is waiting to find out before laying down the contract.

In any case, over 3 years, this costs the club 1.5m. The risk of player default is more than offset by a potential valuation of 5-10m per player, which is what we are likely aiming for in such a vibrant market, awash with cash, and one which places a premium on home-grown talent. And in Eze, we likely have a special case, given the direct comparisons to James Madison who went for 24m (21 years old, only 1 full season in the championship) and Jack Grealish also likely to command the same figure. (22 years old, earlier Prem appearances, + renewed promise in the champs last year),

Further context is that if you cannot offer a “ first 18” player 10k per week in the championship, then you might as well go home- it is almost the norm and the baseline. 18 x 10k a week average = 9.36m per annum for wages, is well within our income structure. The rest of the numbers are made up of u23s on a small cost basis.

In addition, I feel this topic is a moot point because the club are simply not that stupid. I expect contract extensions for Smyth and Eze in the near future. Lastly, I also anticipate that both may even have 1 year extension options, which seems to be a new contact policy for youth teamers.

[Undecided]

This make sense for expensive players, such as Robinson and Onouha, but the same logic cannot be applied to u23 graduates who are probably on 1-2k a week max.

Whilst we are in a weak position retaining players such as Robinson and Onouha because there wages were already at, or outside, of our upper limit (15k - 20k max), we are alternatively in a strong position with u23 graduates, because the starting point is from the ground-up.

A 4 x increase on 2k a week u23 base, for example, puts a salary at 10k per week, a figure and salary multiple which I feel is absolutely at the upper limit for a new contract for the likes of Smyth and Eze - they have started well, but must demonstrate similar performances in the next 10 games, which is perhaps what the club is waiting to find out before laying down the contract.

In any case, over 3 years, this costs the club 1.5m. The risk of player default is more than offset by a potential valuation of 5-10m per player, which is what we are likely aiming for in such a vibrant market, awash with cash, and one which places a premium on home-grown talent. And in Eze, we likely have a special case, given the direct comparisons to James Madison who went for 24m (21 years old, only 1 full season in the championship) and Jack Grealish also likely to command the same figure. (22 years old, earlier Prem appearances, + renewed promise in the champs last year),

Further context is that if you cannot offer a “ first 18” player 10k per week in the championship, then you might as well go home- it is almost the norm and the baseline. 18 x 10k a week average = 9.36m per annum for wages, is well within our income structure. The rest of the numbers are made up of u23s on a small cost basis.

In addition, I feel this topic is a moot point because the club are simply not that stupid. I expect contract extensions for Smyth and Eze in the near future. Lastly, I also anticipate that both may even have 1 year extension options, which seems to be a new contact policy for youth teamers.

Nice post!

[Tarbie]

This make sense for expensive players, such as Robinson and Onouha, but the same logic cannot be applied to u23 graduates who are probably on 1-2k a week max.

Whilst we are in a weak position retaining players such as Robinson and Onouha because there wages were already at, or outside, of our upper limit (15k - 20k max), we are alternatively in a strong position with u23 graduates, because the starting point is from the ground-up.

A 4 x increase on 2k a week u23 base, for example, puts a salary at 10k per week, a figure and salary multiple which I feel is absolutely at the upper limit for a new contract for the likes of Smyth and Eze - they have started well, but must demonstrate similar performances in the next 10 games, which is perhaps what the club is waiting to find out before laying down the contract.

In any case, over 3 years, this costs the club 1.5m. The risk of player default is more than offset by a potential valuation of 5-10m per player, which is what we are likely aiming for in such a vibrant market, awash with cash, and one which places a premium on home-grown talent. And in Eze, we likely have a special case, given the direct comparisons to James Madison who went for 24m (21 years old, only 1 full season in the championship) and Jack Grealish also likely to command the same figure. (22 years old, earlier Prem appearances, + renewed promise in the champs last year),

Further context is that if you cannot offer a “ first 18” player 10k per week in the championship, then you might as well go home- it is almost the norm and the baseline. 18 x 10k a week average = 9.36m per annum for wages, is well within our income structure. The rest of the numbers are made up of u23s on a small cost basis.

In addition, I feel this topic is a moot point because the club are simply not that stupid. I expect contract extensions for Smyth and Eze in the near future. Lastly, I also anticipate that both may even have 1 year extension options, which seems to be a new contact policy for youth teamers.

Fair shout mate.

Who knows what anyone is getting or looking for in terms of a salary, but your numbers do look pretty sound. I suppose we just need to wait and see who gets tied up and when.

[SheepRanger]

Jonny you state that £9.36m is well within our budget.

What do you expect our turnover to be this year based on our last season of receiving sky money? Also, for season 19/20 when sky money to be removed in full.

Are you expecting us to be at breakeven financially this season and in debt the next?