Deleted thread?! Why censor debate?

[pc1401]

Can i just get this right. We bought and paid for Aggy and One size and then just give them to another club as long as they pay the wages????? Really doesn't make any sense does it?
Sounds to me like this loan market is a bloody joke if so

Not disagreeing we needed strikers.

Beckford, Cox, Chopra, Best, list goes on.

But they cost money.

The very reason why we got the Bents, Priskins, Helgusson of this world, is that they are cheap compared to the above names.

FB had trhe budget for players, it really is that simple

Most of the loans were not needed and a complete shambles.

Take the money spent on loan fees, wages etc and you can go and BUY the likes of Hooper and a decent fullback at least.
Add 1 or 2 QUALITY loans like Simpson and voila.

Yes, not a fantastic amount of money, but in the right hands, enough to have made a difference.

[qblockpete]

Not disagreeing we needed strikers.

Beckford, Cox, Chopra, Best, list goes on.

But they cost money.

The very reason why we got the Bents, Priskins, Helgusson of this world, is that they are cheap compared to the above names.

FB had trhe budget for players, it really is that simple

[vblockranger]

once again you don't get my point. You make out that loans are free and cost the club nothing. The blackstock to forest loan deal consisted of forest paying qpr 300/400k to have him for 3 months and forest to pay a percentage of his wages.

The loanees we have had this season will have come at a cost to the club. Bar simpson how many have worked out? The combined amount spent in loan fees would easily pay for a few quality players that would be ours.

I am not saying we have had loads to spend under fb. I'm saying we have had a lot more than you make out. And most importantly the man in charge of the deals has not spent it wisely!
As clivelfw has stated we should have a promotion battling team instead of the unbalanced "who needs strikers the midfield will score the goals" squad that has been assembled.

It's clear to see the sporting director has done a poor job.

more like Shocking...and the guy needs to go for gross incompetency

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.

once again you don't get my point. You make out that loans are free and cost the club nothing. The blackstock to forest loan deal consisted of forest paying qpr 300/400k to have him for 3 months and forest to pay a percentage of his wages.

The loanees we have had this season will have come at a cost to the club. Bar simpson how many have worked out? The combined amount spent in loan fees would easily pay for a few quality players that would be ours.

I am not saying we have had loads to spend under fb. I'm saying we have had a lot more than you make out. And most importantly the man in charge of the deals has not spent it wisely!
As clivelfw has stated we should have a promotion battling team instead of the unbalanced "who needs strikers the midfield will score the goals" squad that has been assembled.

It's clear to see the sporting director has done a poor job.

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.

Nowhere near that much but both comfortably in six figures plus the usual bits and pieces

20k a week

Someone should be shot for that

Assuming of course you have not plucked that figure out of the air?:laughter:

We are now in 2010?

They both came in 2008?

Both are out on loan, so not sure how you come to 4 and half years unless they are being paid up front?

that for the 2 of them (i did say read it slowly as you seem to have a problem when replying!!!!)

so they are both out on loan YEP both crap & thank god we can recoup SOME of their wages

but that still doesn't make their "contracts" good deal, as you said when they first signed

[qblockpete]

20k a week

Someone should be shot for that

Assuming of course you have not plucked that figure out of the air?:laughter:

We are now in 2010?

They both came in 2008?

Both are out on loan, so not sure how you come to 4 and half years unless they are being paid up front?

[QPRMendoza]

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

We still paid for him though.

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

[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.

[qblockpete]

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

[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

[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.

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: