Deleted thread?! Why censor debate?

[CliveLFW]

But pete do birmingham, burnley and wolves not show that our budget was more than adequate to build a promotable side? we've spent more than all three. We've spent more than burnley and birmingham put together. even by your skewed figures. The person spending the money has done a poor job, simple as. mcleish, mccarthy and coyle all promoted sides with less to spend.

[qblockpete]

Clive LFW,

it comes down to bringing in the players in relation to budget. That In January was pretty much nothing, same as August.

You are right to point to Ageymang and Hall, but that is always used in this argument when players like Gorkss, Buzsacky and Mahon are not even mentioned.

For others to say we have spent millions is way off the mark.

[Chalet1882]

10 pages of boring of poo boring storys about dribble dribble gp please can watrb start a seperate forum for all stories that create debates on either GP , Sousa and Flabio

meaning when a thread like this starts as something else, but type cast reverts to being a debate on the three names above, be moved into a seperate forum.

its only because it is taking us away from realy whats importent

yesterday the original thread got locked and every one started it again its silly

please mods start a GP,sousa and FB forum so i can ignore them easier and not get involved

i feel it would stop people bikering and stop hard feelings between qpr supporters

please???

[qblockpete]

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.

[brightonr]

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.

Who in their right mind would agree to a deal like that?

I think that you are surely mistaken by a long long way on this one.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread.

At least two of our loans cost us six figures in "transfer" fees in addition to wages and bonuses.

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.

[FurtiveFox]

I wouldn't normally wade into this kind of nonsense but I wanted to check that I'm not missing the point here.

Pete you appear to me to either be saying we haven't done very well because Briatore wouldn't spend money, or that Paladini has done the best he can on the budget Briatore gave him. Or both.

Firstly I would say that I don't believe some of your figures, secondly I would say that the problem has never really been the transfer fees it's been the gross amounts we've paid out in wages - particularly to agyemang, hall and routledge - which you fail to mention.

However let's ignore the issue of massive wages and signing on fees and pretend these figures are accurate - £6m spent on players from the date of the takeover.

from the same date:

Wolves - champions last year - spent £4.475m over two years (and brought in £5.325m) and won the league.
Burnley - play off winners last year - spent nothing at all in their promotion season and £2.05m the year before while pulling in £4m for their own players.
Birmingham - spent a million quid last year and finished second.

So I would suggest that we haven't done poorly because money wasn't spent because these three clubs spent much less than us and won promotion last season.

I would also suggest that paladini, if it is indeed him picking out potential signings, has not done the best job he could with the money he was given to spend because McLeish, McCarthy and Coyle all did better jobs with less money. Birmingham came from the prem but wolves were in a proper post Glenn Hoddle mess and Burnley were relegation candidates with us when our takeover was completed.

It's not the amount of money available, it's who you have spending it - see Blackpool, Doncaster and S****horpe this season all doing the same or better than us on budgets not even half our own.

Like I say, maybe I'm missing your point.

Haven't got time to wade through a 100 posts but my take on it is twofold:

1. We have consistently signed poor players which is down to either the manager, at any given time, or GP or a combination of both. We have signed a large number of players but perhaps the majority would have been better placed at the donkey sanctuary in Lyme Regis.

2. We have consistently employed managers who fail to get the best out of the players. Coyle did an outstanding job at Burnley, Wolves had a good experienced manager in McCarthy. TBH disagree a bit on McLeish. They spent a lot of money in the Premiership and should never have been relegated. They did not lose many of their better players on relegation and to my mind should have been more impressive in this division. Sure they have had a purple patch this year but overall would not for instance want McLeish here. What we do need is someone like Warnock, to cut out the BS and has beens or never beens.

I don't actually think our squad is that bad, unbalanced certainly, and a good manager should be able to get us playing in top half of table.

[QPRMendoza]

I wouldn't normally wade into this kind of nonsense but I wanted to check that I'm not missing the point here.

Pete you appear to me to either be saying we haven't done very well because Briatore wouldn't spend money, or that Paladini has done the best he can on the budget Briatore gave him. Or both.

Firstly I would say that I don't believe some of your figures, secondly I would say that the problem has never really been the transfer fees it's been the gross amounts we've paid out in wages - particularly to agyemang, hall and routledge - which you fail to mention.

However let's ignore the issue of massive wages and signing on fees and pretend these figures are accurate - £6m spent on players from the date of the takeover.

from the same date:

Wolves - champions last year - spent £4.475m over two years (and brought in £5.325m) and won the league.
Burnley - play off winners last year - spent nothing at all in their promotion season and £2.05m the year before while pulling in £4m for their own players.
Birmingham - spent a million quid last year and finished second.

So I would suggest that we haven't done poorly because money wasn't spent because these three clubs spent much less than us and won promotion last season.

I would also suggest that paladini, if it is indeed him picking out potential signings, has not done the best job he could with the money he was given to spend because McLeish, McCarthy and Coyle all did better jobs with less money. Birmingham came from the prem but wolves were in a proper post Glenn Hoddle mess and Burnley were relegation candidates with us when our takeover was completed.

It's not the amount of money available, it's who you have spending it - see Blackpool, Doncaster and S****horpe this season all doing the same or better than us on budgets not even half our own.

Like I say, maybe I'm missing your point.

Excellent analysis even if you 'maybe missing the point'

[CliveLFW]

I wouldn't normally wade into this kind of nonsense but I wanted to check that I'm not missing the point here.

Pete you appear to me to either be saying we haven't done very well because Briatore wouldn't spend money, or that Paladini has done the best he can on the budget Briatore gave him. Or both.

Firstly I would say that I don't believe some of your figures, secondly I would say that the problem has never really been the transfer fees it's been the gross amounts we've paid out in wages - particularly to agyemang, hall and routledge - which you fail to mention.

However let's ignore the issue of massive wages and signing on fees and pretend these figures are accurate - £6m spent on players from the date of the takeover.

from the same date:

Wolves - champions last year - spent £4.475m over two years (and brought in £5.325m) and won the league.
Burnley - play off winners last year - spent nothing at all in their promotion season and £2.05m the year before while pulling in £4m for their own players.
Birmingham - spent a million quid last year and finished second.

So I would suggest that we haven't done poorly because money wasn't spent because these three clubs spent much less than us and won promotion last season.

I would also suggest that paladini, if it is indeed him picking out potential signings, has not done the best job he could with the money he was given to spend because McLeish, McCarthy and Coyle all did better jobs with less money. Birmingham came from the prem but wolves were in a proper post Glenn Hoddle mess and Burnley were relegation candidates with us when our takeover was completed.

It's not the amount of money available, it's who you have spending it - see Blackpool, Doncaster and S****horpe this season all doing the same or better than us on budgets not even half our own.

Like I say, maybe I'm missing your point.

[Chalet1882]

no worries, report said no worries too pete

[qblockpete]

GL

cheers

Thought so

First part ...lowest

Second period..Highest

According to that

We should know in next few days what the last 6 months was. I await with interest.

[brightonr]

still failed to answer my question. Il have the decency to answer yours though.

I would imagine they are all aware of the circus that is Qpr and wanted to avoid us. Also, Newcastle and west brom are a far
more attractive proposition

Hi Terry,

As you know, I have no agenda one way or the other. However, if you are correct with this assumption, then does logic not dictate that GP should not soldier all of the blame, on the basis that the players that are prepared to come to us are vastly inferior to those that are not, hence he cannot be criticised for bringing in players of Bent's pedigree as opposed to the potential of Cox. The flip side of course, is that he is somehow responsible for the decline in the way things are done here, bringing that problem upon himslf to some degree. Just a balanced opinion as I have no great insight into the workings of our club.

[Chalet1882]

as per request of petey and link has been prduced by qprreport

Agents Spending

August 20, 2009:
"QPR Spending on Agents Highest in Football League - Latest Agents Fees Report"

http://qprreport.blogspot.com/2009/08/latest-league-football-agents-report.html

Feb 26, 2009
"Latest Football League Agents Report - QPR Spending Relatively Little on Agents"

http://qprreport.blogspot.com/2009/02/qpr-agents-fees-latest-report.html

i am not in any way taking flak for this post simply helping out with a request made to me!

[terry ball]

I would have thought so

We can have beckford for 2 million.. NO

We can have Cox for xx amount of million..NO

We can have Leon Best for 1 million..NO

Well we can get Priskin and Bent for Free..YES

Terry Ball you are avoiding my question

Why did we not bring in Beckford, Kitson, Cox or Best and could bring in Faulrin for a supposed 3.5 million?

still failed to answer my question. Il have the decency to answer yours though.

I would imagine they are all aware of the circus that is Qpr and wanted to avoid us. Also, Newcastle and west brom are a far
more attractive proposition

[qblockpete]

GL

Do me a favour

A genuine request as QPR report has banned the whole building, about 12 QPR fans here cannot get on.

Link up the last two agents fee reports submitted to the football league

One was July 2009, the other Jan 2009...He will have them on file.

cheers, because it would be interesting to digest those stats