A Bit Of Perspective?

Serious QPR topics only. Posted images may be deleted. Off-topic or thread hijacking posts will be moved/removed and posters disallowed access to this forum. NO TICKET RELATED POSTS. ALL TICKET RELATED POSTS WILL BE DELETED. NO EXCEPTIONS. Please put ticket related posts in the right place only.

Moderators: ZENITH R, Virginia_R, nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin

Post Reply
User avatar
wrinklyhoop
2010/11 Sponsor
2010/11 Sponsor
Posts: 4626
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:35 pm
Location: St Albans

A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by wrinklyhoop » Tue May 15, 2018 10:27 am

Aidan Magee from Skysports response to being asked his views on the Ollie sacking.

Have to say I'm disappointed.

I've read closely some of the comments on here and on other QPR pages on Facebook and it's encouraging that most of our fans - usually the ones who attend most weeks - disapprove of the decision to remove Ian Holloway.

I must confess that last summer, I feared relegation and thought we'd finish with fewer than 35 points. That's certainly where our spending should have left us.

To secure safety by March, having made some very decent signings in the last 18 months, introducing some promising young players to the team, and slightly raising last season's finishing position and points total is very good going.

To do so beating Wolves, Cardiff, Aston Villa and Sheffield United, when they were second in the table, and fighting back from 2-0 down at Fulham - the best team in the Championship since Christmas - to get a draw, is also worthy of credit.

Yet doing so on a spend of £530,000 this season is, frankly, pretty remarkable.

That barely gets you a two bedroom apartment in Chiswick. And even then, you'll be lucky to get your own parking space.

In 1996/97, we paid nearly £8million in what's now the Championship for John Spencer, Gavin Peacock, Mike Sheron, Matthew Rose, Steve Slade, Paul Murray and Steve Morrow - then another £500,000 on Vinnie Jones the following season.

For the avoidance of any doubt - this was 21 years ago; Princess Diana was still alive and Hong Kong was still sovereign British territory.

I have repeatedly asked during conversations on Facebook this season who the critics of Holloway would have signed for £530,000.

Nobody has replied with a name. Not even one.

Even Holloway winning an average of one in three of his games since returning to the club warrants a mention when so many of those matches near the end of both campaigns were earmarked for looking at squad players.

Don't get me wrong, there have been low points in the last 18 months.

The away form has been very poor, certain players have not markedly improved as we hoped and the football hasn't always been attractive to watch.

Even allowing for this, it's impossible to argue that Holloway did a bad job.

In fact, he did a very good job.

I spend my professional existence talking to players, managers, agents, ex-pros, directors, owners, club media officials, fellow journalists and many others within football. All of them will tell you how critical recruitment is in the modern game.

Without good recruitment, you can't achieve the quality of individual nor the "culture" needed within a squad - and the most common result is a handful of disaffected players who undermine the manager and invariably get him sacked.

The key determinant of effective recruitment is money. And we don't have much of that. Only three clubs in our division spent less on transfer fees than we did.

There are a few who dispute how much we've spent, and point to a dwindling number of high earners still present in the squad as part of the expenditure.

The decisions not to renew the contracts of Jamie Mackie, James Perch and Nedum Onuoha make clear the club's intention to move on many of the players earning five-figure weekly sums.

There have been some horrific mistakes made in the transfer market since 2011. We all know about them. Indeed; we're still paying for them in so many ways.

At some point, though, we have to move on from those appalling errors of judgement and look at what is being done to remedy the situation. We can't change the past, so let's live in the now.

There are some who contribute to QPR debates on social media who don't grasp how little we've spent, and just how vital that is when assessing where the club, the team and the management are at.

It's absolutely fine for fans on here to immerse themselves in all things Rangers - we have careers, families and mortgages absorbing our time and headspace and we can't always preoccupy ourselves with the affairs of our Championship rivals.

A big part of my job, however, is knowing what goes on elsewhere in football.

And if I were to offer any advice to fans who use only scorelines and soundbites to form their opinion, I'd urge them to take a closer look at other clubs in our division and match what they've done against what Holloway has done.

Leeds United is a good starting point. They've spent £25.6million since last summer. They also took two Premier League loans.
The average wage of a Premier League player is now a staggering £50,817-a-week, which means that when a Championship player signs from that level on loan, even if you're only paying a percentage of the salary, you're probably placing that player among your highest earners.

Needless to say, a win at Elland Road last week would have seen us finish higher in the table than Leeds. As it was, they got four points more than our 56. It appears £25.6m doesn't buy you much these days.

Elsewhere in Yorkshire, Sheffield Wednesday spent £13.6m - including more than £10m on one player, Jordan Rhodes. We took four points off them.

Further down the country, Birmingham splashed out £15.49m, brought in five Premier League loans and I'm told they are paying their goalkeeper David Stockdale £100,000-a-week after he joined on a free from Brighton.

We did the 'double' over them and finished 10 points better off.

Norwich spent £13.3m, with three top flight loans, to finish two places and four points above us in the league, but not before we beat them 4-1 on Easter Monday.

Similarly, Reading invested £13.1m trying to bolster a squad which reached the Play-Off final at Wembley. They didn't take any Premier League loans but did sign two pretty expensive ones from the Championship in Chris Martin and Tommy Elphick - and all to finish 12 points below us in 20th.

Continuing the theme, Nottingham Forest spent £6.6m and recruited four on loan from the top division, supplemented by the not-so-cheap free transfer of former QPR loanee Ben Watson from Watford.

Forest would be considered lower end investors in the Championship, yet they've spent 12 times what we have, and finished one place below us.

Sunderland spent twice what we did and brought in nine loans from the Prem. We all know what happened to them.

Hull were supposed to be in meltdown in respect of ownership and expenditure. It didn't prevent £17.6m leaving their account. They may have beaten us 4-0 the other week but they still finished below us.

At the top end, the sums reach truly eye-watering levels.

Middlesbrough spent £50.4m and after losing their first leg Play-Off semi-final at home to Aston Villa, who boast a former England captain and Champions League winner on £100,000-a-week, they now have their work cut out to win through to the Play-Off final.

Even those who laud Neil Warnock - a manager I respect greatly - for leading Cardiff to automatic promotion and, like me, feel he should have been given the QPR job when Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink got it, will be interested to hear that he spent £11.4m. A job very well done, yes - but still no fairytale.

As documented above, we gave Holloway £530,000 to improve a squad which finished 18th the previous season.

We signed one loan from the Premier League from a side promoted from the Championship - that was Brighton's Kazenga LuaLua. He hadn't played in the top division in nearly a decade since making a handful of appearances for Newcastle.

He left us after a few months - no harm done, but he was no Alexsandar Mitrovic, who by the way cost Fulham £600,000 in loan fees alone! That's more than we spent in the entire season and he'll only be there for five months.

So if our manager gets sacked for outperforming most of his counterparts with a budget of £530,000, which he spent shopping at the likes of Barnsley, Exeter and Linfield - what should happen to the managers of Leeds, Sheff Wed, Birmingham, Hull and even Barnsley, who parted with £5.7m and got relegated?

I'm guessing they should all be burned at the stake?

Or do we accept that, actually, we were employing an experienced guy with three promotions and two Play-Off final appearances under his belt, who knew his squad and its limitations, had intimate knowledge of players coming through, had an understanding of the Championship, spent his money exceptionally well and had an historic attachment to the club?

His modest spending brought Luke Freeman, Josh Scowen, Matt Smith, Paul Smyth, Alex Baptiste and Ebere Eze to Loftus Road - all very sound acquisitions for various reasons.

How many worthwhile signings can you think of from the previous five years before Holloway returned? Charlie Austin, Ryan Nelsen, Danny Simpson, Niko Kranjcar, Matt Phillips - and you could make a case for Richard Dunne and Rob Green.

We'll be lucky to use the fingers on our second hand to count them because it's not long before you really have to start scraping the barrel.

I met up with some senior QPR employees before the Leeds game last week, and one told me that while the season as a whole represented a very respectable achievement, it's unrealistic to expect to repeat it again next year without investment.

The truth is that if we actually did have anything like a generous budget, we'd be attracting managers who aren't in the last chance saloon that Steve McClaren now finds himself in - one more bad job, and his days in front line management are probably done.

I've met McClaren at Sky a few times and he's a likeable bloke. I've even spoken to him fairly recently about his time at QPR, which he thoroughly enjoyed.

I'm doubtful that he can get more out of the squad than Holloway has. It all depends on whether he illicits the kind of response he got from his players while coaching Manchester United and QPR, and managing Middlesbrough, FC Twente, and during his first spell at Derby - rather than his unsuccessful periods with England, Wolfsburg, Forest, Newcastle and second time round at Derby.

He's experienced, respected and has plenty to prove. If QPR continue not to support their managers financially and are up front about it from the start, then at least there will be few arguments over transfer policy.

Perhaps, therefore, the job will be one that appeals to the very best of McClaren's coaching ability, which may work to our advantage.

If not, and it transpires that Tony Fernandes has yet again been seduced by a big name, then it's sadly back to square one.
Image

RType
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:11 pm

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by RType » Tue May 15, 2018 10:41 am

That's all good and well, but how much influence did Holloway have in the recruitment? I thought that was mostly down to penrice and Les?

User avatar
beaglebum
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:11 pm

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by beaglebum » Tue May 15, 2018 11:33 am

Thanks for posting. I think its a case of not knowing what you've got until it's gone. We all knew Ollie's failings (he is human after all) and many were vocal on here about it. But some of what he brought to the club may be priceless and we won't know until the next guy comes in and either takes us forward or backwards. Lets hope it's the former and he can build on the platform Ollie helped create.

But it was nice to read someone else's perspective. Is Aiden Magee connected to QPR (ie a supporter?)

Satch
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3386
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by Satch » Tue May 15, 2018 1:59 pm

I don't think anyone would accuse Holloway of squandering money. He was certainly working on a very small budget. That said, he wasn't starting from scratch - we have been investing modestly in the side over a few seasons. Player's like Smithies, Lynch and Bidwell were all first-team regulars in this division. Luongo wasn't cheap. Wszolek, Sylla, Smith and Freeman were all purchased last season. He was also able to bring in free agents in Scowen and Baptiste and had a former premier league starter in Onuoha and Robinson also purchased in our PL days. There are far more frugally assembled teams in the division.

There are of course far more expensively assembled teams and the side we have couldn't be expected to contend for the playoffs. There were, latterly at least also some good results. Enough so that Holloway might have expected to keep his job. That all said, the side Holloway had, could also have finished higher than it did. Between the away results, the propensity for conceding early in the second half and continued use of wing-backs - there were areas the clearly needed improving. Combined with the disastrous run at the end of last season, which if it had ended in relegation would have been unforgivable, there has been plenty cause for concern and to raise question marks over both Holloway's tactical nous as well, more avoidable his judgement. I don't for a second agree that on paper we're a sub-35 point team.

This raises the question for me, should Holloway be judged on the last couple of months where we've improved or his entire tenure. You could make arguments for either in my opinon.

We certainly won't know for some time if this was the correct decision and i'm not sure i would have made it. However i can see why the board did and i don't find it as inexplicable as some, much like i find it hard to describe the job Holloway was doing in the positive terms some do. Even with perspective, i'm not convinced there is the same degree of objectivity.

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 20223
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by Esox Lucius » Tue May 15, 2018 2:44 pm

Two well reasoned perspectives which are neither right or wrong. I am in the camp of those who think it was probably the right thing to do as he had achieved his objectives (as we, the fans, were given to understand) and the club were/ are moving early to the next phase of their future plans. It may also have been the herald for a buyout as suggested in other posts. The next few weeks should be interesting. The fact that IH's coaching team haven't been mentioned in any dismissals may suggest that they are still welcome to be part of the future at QPR.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

old pauline
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Wimbledon
Contact:

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by old pauline » Tue May 15, 2018 3:02 pm

Esox Lucius wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:44 pm
Two well reasoned perspectives which are neither right or wrong. I am in the camp of those who think it was probably the right thing to do as he had achieved his objectives (as we, the fans, were given to understand) and the club were/ are moving early to the next phase of their future plans. It may also have been the herald for a buyout as suggested in other posts. The next few weeks should be interesting. The fact that IH's coaching team haven't been mentioned in any dismissals may suggest that they are still welcome to be part of the future at QPR.
This so called 'next phase'. It smacks a little of Stoke thinking they could change their tactics by replacing Pulis and trying to play more football. Obviously it would be great if we can out-football all the other Championship teams but SM is going to have a tough job on his hands trying to do so unless he is allowed to replace in the region of 5-6 players.
Come on you Sooopa ........

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 20223
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by Esox Lucius » Tue May 15, 2018 3:34 pm

old pauline wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 3:02 pm
Esox Lucius wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:44 pm
Two well reasoned perspectives which are neither right or wrong. I am in the camp of those who think it was probably the right thing to do as he had achieved his objectives (as we, the fans, were given to understand) and the club were/ are moving early to the next phase of their future plans. It may also have been the herald for a buyout as suggested in other posts. The next few weeks should be interesting. The fact that IH's coaching team haven't been mentioned in any dismissals may suggest that they are still welcome to be part of the future at QPR.
This so called 'next phase'. It smacks a little of Stoke thinking they could change their tactics by replacing Pulis and trying to play more football. Obviously it would be great if we can out-football all the other Championship teams but SM is going to have a tough job on his hands trying to do so unless he is allowed to replace in the region of 5-6 players.
Maybe the objective isn't to out-football ALL the other Championship teams? Maybe it is just to get the team worth more so we can sell them for higher prices? No-one really knows.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

old pauline
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Wimbledon
Contact:

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by old pauline » Tue May 15, 2018 3:48 pm

Indeed, hopefully a statement is made when the next incumbent is announced.
Come on you Sooopa ........

stainesranger
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 1220
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:05 am

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by stainesranger » Tue May 15, 2018 4:32 pm

I’m in the camp that feels that there should at least be a persuasive explanation given for sacking him because I’m nonplussed. It’s one thing to sack him and another thing to not give an adequate set of reasons. The lack of transparency will be a breeding ground for discontent.

It’s unlikely in my case, but maybe we’d even buy into the reasoning if it was explained to us.

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 20223
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by Esox Lucius » Tue May 15, 2018 5:54 pm

stainesranger wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 4:32 pm
I’m in the camp that feels that there should at least be a persuasive explanation given for sacking him because I’m nonplussed. It’s one thing to sack him and another thing to not give an adequate set of reasons. The lack of transparency will be a breeding ground for discontent.

It’s unlikely in my case, but maybe we’d even buy into the reasoning if it was explained to us.
May just as well keep quiet about their reasons then. In the last week it is completely obvious that people are fully entrenched in their views and most unlikely to alter that no matter what the club says. A huge amount of posters on various sites seem to spin a negative perspective on any and every statement so why bother?
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

Satch
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3386
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by Satch » Tue May 15, 2018 8:08 pm

Esox Lucius wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 3:34 pm
old pauline wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 3:02 pm
Esox Lucius wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 2:44 pm
Two well reasoned perspectives which are neither right or wrong. I am in the camp of those who think it was probably the right thing to do as he had achieved his objectives (as we, the fans, were given to understand) and the club were/ are moving early to the next phase of their future plans. It may also have been the herald for a buyout as suggested in other posts. The next few weeks should be interesting. The fact that IH's coaching team haven't been mentioned in any dismissals may suggest that they are still welcome to be part of the future at QPR.
This so called 'next phase'. It smacks a little of Stoke thinking they could change their tactics by replacing Pulis and trying to play more football. Obviously it would be great if we can out-football all the other Championship teams but SM is going to have a tough job on his hands trying to do so unless he is allowed to replace in the region of 5-6 players.
Maybe the objective isn't to out-football ALL the other Championship teams? Maybe it is just to get the team worth more so we can sell them for higher prices? No-one really knows.
Or maybe just get some more points on the board.
Esox Lucius wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 5:54 pm
stainesranger wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 4:32 pm
I’m in the camp that feels that there should at least be a persuasive explanation given for sacking him because I’m nonplussed. It’s one thing to sack him and another thing to not give an adequate set of reasons. The lack of transparency will be a breeding ground for discontent.

It’s unlikely in my case, but maybe we’d even buy into the reasoning if it was explained to us.
May just as well keep quiet about their reasons then. In the last week it is completely obvious that people are fully entrenched in their views and most unlikely to alter that no matter what the club says. A huge amount of posters on various sites seem to spin a negative perspective on any and every statement so why bother?
Agreed, likewise people may not like what they hear. If the club's view is Holloway just wasn't good enough or they were finding him increasingly erratic or a poor coach of young players, no one against this decision would be willing to listen to that. Instead the board would just be accused of adding insult to injury. The usual, trite platitudes serve a purpose.

Whislt i may have stuck it out with Holloway, in lieu of an obvious replacement - i'm certainly going to embrace the change with some optimism.

stainesranger
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 1220
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:05 am

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by stainesranger » Tue May 15, 2018 8:35 pm

We’re not children. I think we can handle the truth.

Your constant justification of the board’s (unexplained) decision making process is at least as partisan (albeit less easily understood) as Ollie’s supporters. Get a grip.

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9563
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by UxbridgeR » Tue May 15, 2018 8:44 pm

wrinklyhoop wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 10:27 am
Aidan Magee from Skysports response to being asked his views on the Ollie sacking.

Have to say I'm disappointed.

I've read closely some of the comments on here and on other QPR pages on Facebook and it's encouraging that most of our fans - usually the ones who attend most weeks - disapprove of the decision to remove Ian Holloway.

I must confess that last summer, I feared relegation and thought we'd finish with fewer than 35 points. That's certainly where our spending should have left us.

To secure safety by March, having made some very decent signings in the last 18 months, introducing some promising young players to the team, and slightly raising last season's finishing position and points total is very good going.

To do so beating Wolves, Cardiff, Aston Villa and Sheffield United, when they were second in the table, and fighting back from 2-0 down at Fulham - the best team in the Championship since Christmas - to get a draw, is also worthy of credit.

Yet doing so on a spend of £530,000 this season is, frankly, pretty remarkable.

That barely gets you a two bedroom apartment in Chiswick. And even then, you'll be lucky to get your own parking space.

In 1996/97, we paid nearly £8million in what's now the Championship for John Spencer, Gavin Peacock, Mike Sheron, Matthew Rose, Steve Slade, Paul Murray and Steve Morrow - then another £500,000 on Vinnie Jones the following season.

For the avoidance of any doubt - this was 21 years ago; Princess Diana was still alive and Hong Kong was still sovereign British territory.

I have repeatedly asked during conversations on Facebook this season who the critics of Holloway would have signed for £530,000.

Nobody has replied with a name. Not even one.

Even Holloway winning an average of one in three of his games since returning to the club warrants a mention when so many of those matches near the end of both campaigns were earmarked for looking at squad players.

Don't get me wrong, there have been low points in the last 18 months.

The away form has been very poor, certain players have not markedly improved as we hoped and the football hasn't always been attractive to watch.

Even allowing for this, it's impossible to argue that Holloway did a bad job.

In fact, he did a very good job.

I spend my professional existence talking to players, managers, agents, ex-pros, directors, owners, club media officials, fellow journalists and many others within football. All of them will tell you how critical recruitment is in the modern game.

Without good recruitment, you can't achieve the quality of individual nor the "culture" needed within a squad - and the most common result is a handful of disaffected players who undermine the manager and invariably get him sacked.

The key determinant of effective recruitment is money. And we don't have much of that. Only three clubs in our division spent less on transfer fees than we did.

There are a few who dispute how much we've spent, and point to a dwindling number of high earners still present in the squad as part of the expenditure.

The decisions not to renew the contracts of Jamie Mackie, James Perch and Nedum Onuoha make clear the club's intention to move on many of the players earning five-figure weekly sums.

There have been some horrific mistakes made in the transfer market since 2011. We all know about them. Indeed; we're still paying for them in so many ways.

At some point, though, we have to move on from those appalling errors of judgement and look at what is being done to remedy the situation. We can't change the past, so let's live in the now.

There are some who contribute to QPR debates on social media who don't grasp how little we've spent, and just how vital that is when assessing where the club, the team and the management are at.

It's absolutely fine for fans on here to immerse themselves in all things Rangers - we have careers, families and mortgages absorbing our time and headspace and we can't always preoccupy ourselves with the affairs of our Championship rivals.

A big part of my job, however, is knowing what goes on elsewhere in football.

And if I were to offer any advice to fans who use only scorelines and soundbites to form their opinion, I'd urge them to take a closer look at other clubs in our division and match what they've done against what Holloway has done.

Leeds United is a good starting point. They've spent £25.6million since last summer. They also took two Premier League loans.
The average wage of a Premier League player is now a staggering £50,817-a-week, which means that when a Championship player signs from that level on loan, even if you're only paying a percentage of the salary, you're probably placing that player among your highest earners.

Needless to say, a win at Elland Road last week would have seen us finish higher in the table than Leeds. As it was, they got four points more than our 56. It appears £25.6m doesn't buy you much these days.

Elsewhere in Yorkshire, Sheffield Wednesday spent £13.6m - including more than £10m on one player, Jordan Rhodes. We took four points off them.

Further down the country, Birmingham splashed out £15.49m, brought in five Premier League loans and I'm told they are paying their goalkeeper David Stockdale £100,000-a-week after he joined on a free from Brighton.

We did the 'double' over them and finished 10 points better off.

Norwich spent £13.3m, with three top flight loans, to finish two places and four points above us in the league, but not before we beat them 4-1 on Easter Monday.

Similarly, Reading invested £13.1m trying to bolster a squad which reached the Play-Off final at Wembley. They didn't take any Premier League loans but did sign two pretty expensive ones from the Championship in Chris Martin and Tommy Elphick - and all to finish 12 points below us in 20th.

Continuing the theme, Nottingham Forest spent £6.6m and recruited four on loan from the top division, supplemented by the not-so-cheap free transfer of former QPR loanee Ben Watson from Watford.

Forest would be considered lower end investors in the Championship, yet they've spent 12 times what we have, and finished one place below us.

Sunderland spent twice what we did and brought in nine loans from the Prem. We all know what happened to them.

Hull were supposed to be in meltdown in respect of ownership and expenditure. It didn't prevent £17.6m leaving their account. They may have beaten us 4-0 the other week but they still finished below us.

At the top end, the sums reach truly eye-watering levels.

Middlesbrough spent £50.4m and after losing their first leg Play-Off semi-final at home to Aston Villa, who boast a former England captain and Champions League winner on £100,000-a-week, they now have their work cut out to win through to the Play-Off final.

Even those who laud Neil Warnock - a manager I respect greatly - for leading Cardiff to automatic promotion and, like me, feel he should have been given the QPR job when Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink got it, will be interested to hear that he spent £11.4m. A job very well done, yes - but still no fairytale.

As documented above, we gave Holloway £530,000 to improve a squad which finished 18th the previous season.

We signed one loan from the Premier League from a side promoted from the Championship - that was Brighton's Kazenga LuaLua. He hadn't played in the top division in nearly a decade since making a handful of appearances for Newcastle.

He left us after a few months - no harm done, but he was no Alexsandar Mitrovic, who by the way cost Fulham £600,000 in loan fees alone! That's more than we spent in the entire season and he'll only be there for five months.

So if our manager gets sacked for outperforming most of his counterparts with a budget of £530,000, which he spent shopping at the likes of Barnsley, Exeter and Linfield - what should happen to the managers of Leeds, Sheff Wed, Birmingham, Hull and even Barnsley, who parted with £5.7m and got relegated?

I'm guessing they should all be burned at the stake?

Or do we accept that, actually, we were employing an experienced guy with three promotions and two Play-Off final appearances under his belt, who knew his squad and its limitations, had intimate knowledge of players coming through, had an understanding of the Championship, spent his money exceptionally well and had an historic attachment to the club?

His modest spending brought Luke Freeman, Josh Scowen, Matt Smith, Paul Smyth, Alex Baptiste and Ebere Eze to Loftus Road - all very sound acquisitions for various reasons.

How many worthwhile signings can you think of from the previous five years before Holloway returned? Charlie Austin, Ryan Nelsen, Danny Simpson, Niko Kranjcar, Matt Phillips - and you could make a case for Richard Dunne and Rob Green.

We'll be lucky to use the fingers on our second hand to count them because it's not long before you really have to start scraping the barrel.

I met up with some senior QPR employees before the Leeds game last week, and one told me that while the season as a whole represented a very respectable achievement, it's unrealistic to expect to repeat it again next year without investment.

The truth is that if we actually did have anything like a generous budget, we'd be attracting managers who aren't in the last chance saloon that Steve McClaren now finds himself in - one more bad job, and his days in front line management are probably done.

I've met McClaren at Sky a few times and he's a likeable bloke. I've even spoken to him fairly recently about his time at QPR, which he thoroughly enjoyed.

I'm doubtful that he can get more out of the squad than Holloway has. It all depends on whether he illicits the kind of response he got from his players while coaching Manchester United and QPR, and managing Middlesbrough, FC Twente, and during his first spell at Derby - rather than his unsuccessful periods with England, Wolfsburg, Forest, Newcastle and second time round at Derby.

He's experienced, respected and has plenty to prove. If QPR continue not to support their managers financially and are up front about it from the start, then at least there will be few arguments over transfer policy.

Perhaps, therefore, the job will be one that appeals to the very best of McClaren's coaching ability, which may work to our advantage.

If not, and it transpires that Tony Fernandes has yet again been seduced by a big name, then it's sadly back to square one.
Seems like a real puff piece from Aidan here. Perhaps he and Holloway got matey at Sky Sports.

Patronising and arrogant too. As though only a journalist who does this for a living could possibly grasp our budgetary constraints, or be paying attention to what goes on at other clubs :roll:

Let's start with the idea that he "feared relegation and thought we'd finish with fewer than 35 points". Strange, given we finished last season with 53, had the same manager, and lost nobody significant in the summer.

Quite what the price of a two bedroom apartment in Chiswick has got to do with our transfer dealings is a mystery. As is what we were spending 20 years ago.

He quite reasonably acknowledges some of the good victories we've had, and some of the better signings, plus those clubs with bigger budgets who we've outperformed. However, there's no acknowledgement of the likes of Preston, Millwall, Brentford and even Ipswich, all doing significantly better with lesser resources. My favourite bit is this, though ::
So if our manager gets sacked for outperforming most of his counterparts with a budget of £530,000, which he spent shopping at the likes of Barnsley, Exeter and Linfield - what should happen to the managers of Leeds, Sheff Wed, Birmingham, Hull and even Barnsley, who parted with £5.7m and got relegated?
I'm guessing they should all be burned at the stake?
Well, they all parted company with their managers during the season, twice in Birmingham and Barnsley's case, and it wouldn't be a huge surprise if Leeds followed suit. And £530k was his transfer spend, not his budget. Plus if you're going to quote transfer spends (as in Hull's case), you should probably take into account outgoing as well as incoming.

Then again, I don't do this for a living, so what would I know ?
Last edited by UxbridgeR on Tue May 15, 2018 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

old pauline
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Wimbledon
Contact:

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by old pauline » Tue May 15, 2018 8:56 pm

Agree with Staines Ranger. The board should tell us what the think. I will wait until Mclaren is announced but otherwise they are sweeping it under the carpet in my opinion and it gives the impression that they are scared to tell the truth.
Come on you Sooopa ........

User avatar
Esox Lucius
dot.org vip
dot.org vip
Posts: 20223
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

Re: A Bit Of Perspective?

Post by Esox Lucius » Wed May 16, 2018 6:53 am

stainesranger wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:35 pm
We’re not children. I think we can handle the truth.

Your constant justification of the board’s (unexplained) decision making process is at least as partisan (albeit less easily understood) as Ollie’s supporters. Get a grip.
Your last sentence, which implies I am wrong, merely reinforces what I posted. The rest of your post also implies that I am wrong, so a double whammy.
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ActonArthur, Albert Steptoe, Andy_N19, Bear-Grills, Don Gibbons, IJM, jimjams, n22hoop, nic, old pauline, stainrod's elbow and 77 guests