Chief.

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: nige101uk, willesdenr, qprdotorgadmin, ZENITH R, Virginia_R

User avatar
SM
dot.org legend
dot.org legend
Posts: 15764
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Re: Chief.

Post by SM » Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:28 am

I personally think it’s a very misleading headline.

IMO Nedum Onuoha was, overall, a very average footballer. For a player of his ability, he did extremely well out of QPR over the years that he was here.

His wage expectations were unrealistic, nobody would match it, so he packed up and went abroad.

I find any criticism from him towards QPR very difficult to understand.
Isle Of Wight R'ssssssssss

Nick_Hammersmith
Level 1 dot.orger
Level 1 dot.orger
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:38 pm

Re: Chief.

Post by Nick_Hammersmith » Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:04 am

UxbridgeR wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:12 am
Nick_Hammersmith wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:57 pm
It's a strange one for me. I really Ned the person, but I'm struggling to feel sorry for him.
Football is a unique sector, where a contract is offered up, so Ned knows how much money to expect and how long (minimum) he can expect to be employed for (pretty much regardless of performance).

I think Ned did an OK job, not outstanding, but not poor. To me, he always looked like he could drop a ricket at any moment, but the most frustrating thing was that he had the ingredients to be a lot better.

Reading his comments, which might be out of context, it sounds like we did the right thing to let him go.

We are talking about a man who admits he didn't need the money to live, so that makes the decision about playing for "free" even stranger, as effectively he could have got some high profile minutes of Championship football under his belt to help facilitate a better move somewhere else.

I'm struggling to find any sympathy for the way the club has dealt with Ned, just like Mackie found I think the market has shown that Ned's value wasn't as high as we were paying out. So, not his fault, but he can't really moan about it, as the game is the same for everyone.

Say he was on £30k a week, that could be three more players like Eze in the squad, it's not even a choice!
He'd just played 3 consecutive seasons of "high profile" Championship football. Why would you expect him to be grateful for the offer of more for nothing in return ?

There's no doubt he earned a lot of money at QPR. When he signed a 4 and a half year contract back in Jan-12, the rumours were that he was getting £65K a week. Who knows what the actual number was, but it's pretty reasonable to assume it was in that ballpark. We'd been reportedly after him for quite a while, and it felt at the time as if we eventually upped the ante to a point where he couldn't really say no. 4 and a half years at 65k a week. Madness, but you can hardly blame the player.

However he signed a new deal after relegation, even though he had a year left on his existing one. Yes, he got the security of a 2 year extension, and I'm sure he was still one of the better paid members of the squad, but I very much doubt we were offering anyone more than £20K a week at that point. So effectively he would have been taking a 70% pay cut to stay at a newly relegated club. That doesn't strike me as the action of your archetypal "greedy footballer".

You can certainly argue that he has been very fortunate to be paid what he has relative to his actual ability. But that was QPR's fault, not his. And I don't care who you are, being asked to work for nothing at 31 years old (if that is indeed what happened) is taking the piss. He owed QPR nothing, and nor did the club owe him anything.

It was the right time for him to go, and I don't feel sorry for him. It does seem as if he thought there would be better offers out there than eventually materialized. I don't really read it as him putting the boot into the club though.
I expect we will never learn the details for the contract he was offered. It sounds like some kind of pay per play deal with no basic and all on appearances. Maybe the same type of deal that Clint Hill turned down in favour of a fixed contract? I doubt the club will come out and reveal what really happened, but Hoos might answer in a fans forum environment...

User avatar
White Duck
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Chief.

Post by White Duck » Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:30 am

I'm amazed that some people believe that he was asked to play for free. It's obviously nonsense.
Lex Talionis........

User avatar
SM
dot.org legend
dot.org legend
Posts: 15764
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Re: Chief.

Post by SM » Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:29 am

White Duck wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:30 am
I'm amazed that some people believe that he was asked to play for free. It's obviously nonsense.
Agree. It’s a stupid and deliberately misleading headline.
Isle Of Wight R'ssssssssss

User avatar
222gers
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 4569
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Chief.

Post by 222gers » Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:43 am

It's a very poor article from the BBC. More like the sort of thing you'd get in the Standard.

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9697
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Chief.

Post by UxbridgeR » Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:45 am

The club could easily clarify what happened.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

QPR_John
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Chief.

Post by QPR_John » Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:48 am

UxbridgeR wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:45 am
The club could easily clarify what happened.
Was this not a private discussion between employer and employee

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9697
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Chief.

Post by UxbridgeR » Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:50 am

He's clearly no longer an employee, and has seen fit to comment on the matter. I can't see what would stop them doing the same.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

User avatar
White Duck
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Chief.

Post by White Duck » Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:47 pm

UxbridgeR wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:50 am
He's clearly no longer an employee, and has seen fit to comment on the matter. I can't see what would stop them doing the same.
I'd like to think we were a bit more professional nowadays than potentially get into a war of words with a former player.
Lex Talionis........

Satch
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger
Posts: 3522
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: New York City

Re: Chief.

Post by Satch » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:33 pm

UxbridgeR wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:12 am
Nick_Hammersmith wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:57 pm
It's a strange one for me. I really Ned the person, but I'm struggling to feel sorry for him.
Football is a unique sector, where a contract is offered up, so Ned knows how much money to expect and how long (minimum) he can expect to be employed for (pretty much regardless of performance).

I think Ned did an OK job, not outstanding, but not poor. To me, he always looked like he could drop a ricket at any moment, but the most frustrating thing was that he had the ingredients to be a lot better.

Reading his comments, which might be out of context, it sounds like we did the right thing to let him go.

We are talking about a man who admits he didn't need the money to live, so that makes the decision about playing for "free" even stranger, as effectively he could have got some high profile minutes of Championship football under his belt to help facilitate a better move somewhere else.

I'm struggling to find any sympathy for the way the club has dealt with Ned, just like Mackie found I think the market has shown that Ned's value wasn't as high as we were paying out. So, not his fault, but he can't really moan about it, as the game is the same for everyone.

Say he was on £30k a week, that could be three more players like Eze in the squad, it's not even a choice!
He'd just played 3 consecutive seasons of "high profile" Championship football. Why would you expect him to be grateful for the offer of more for nothing in return ?

There's no doubt he earned a lot of money at QPR. When he signed a 4 and a half year contract back in Jan-12, the rumours were that he was getting £65K a week. Who knows what the actual number was, but it's pretty reasonable to assume it was in that ballpark. We'd been reportedly after him for quite a while, and it felt at the time as if we eventually upped the ante to a point where he couldn't really say no. 4 and a half years at 65k a week. Madness, but you can hardly blame the player.

However he signed a new deal after relegation, even though he had a year left on his existing one. Yes, he got the security of a 2 year extension, and I'm sure he was still one of the better paid members of the squad, but I very much doubt we were offering anyone more than £20K a week at that point. So effectively he would have been taking a 70% pay cut to stay at a newly relegated club. That doesn't strike me as the action of your archetypal "greedy footballer".

You can certainly argue that he has been very fortunate to be paid what he has relative to his actual ability. But that was QPR's fault, not his. And I don't care who you are, being asked to work for nothing at 31 years old (if that is indeed what happened) is taking the piss. He owed QPR nothing, and nor did the club owe him anything.

It was the right time for him to go, and I don't feel sorry for him. It does seem as if he thought there would be better offers out there than eventually materialized. I don't really read it as him putting the boot into the club though.
I agree with this.

The headline seems slightly exaggerated in the context of his comments but also i think it's bold to assert that it's not true that we made an offer that was potentially unreasonable. That said, if the club genuinely had little interest in re-signing him that's their prerogative but imo he's been a decent, if well paid servent of the club and i hope we treated him with respect. He wasn't the player people thought he'd become but i think he is better than is given credit for. I'd certainly still have him as a starter for us.

User avatar
White Duck
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 2366
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Bournemouth

Re: Chief.

Post by White Duck » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:11 pm

The headlines are "Can you play for free?" and "Asked to play in the Championship for free":
You think those are slightly exaggerated?
Lex Talionis........

whittonhoop
Level 2 dot.orger
Level 2 dot.orger
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Whitton

Re: Chief.

Post by whittonhoop » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:26 pm

I guess the truth is out there somewhere. A good (but essentially overpaid throughout his time here given his quality) servant, who did well out of the premier league money, not his fault.

Last year we were better with him in the side, even though there was always a clanger in there. I also believe we would be better with him in the side this year, but our cloth won't cut that far.

User avatar
UxbridgeR
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger
Posts: 9697
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Chief.

Post by UxbridgeR » Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:25 am

White Duck wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:11 pm
The headlines are "Can you play for free?" and "Asked to play in the Championship for free":
You think those are slightly exaggerated?
It sounds a ridiculous idea, and if it were just a Twitter rumour or some obvious clickbait piece, it would be understandably ignored. However this story appears on the website of our national broadcaster, which lends it a bit more credibility in my eyes. And secondly, it's Nedum Onouha, who has never exactly courted controversy and always talked in respectful terms about the club. Why would he say that ? If it were Joey Barton mouthing off, we'd all just roll our eyes and dismiss it as bullshit. But this is a player that commanded enough respect to be our captain for the last 3 seasons, and was clearly highly thought of by the powers that be.

Maybe he is just bitter that things didn't turn out the way he planned, but either that question was asked or it wasn't. I'd be interested in knowing one way or the other.
Are headphones getting bigger, or are idiots getting smaller ?

User avatar
dm
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007
Posts: 12829
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Just over the border...

Re: Chief.

Post by dm » Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:29 am

UxbridgeR wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:25 am
White Duck wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:11 pm
The headlines are "Can you play for free?" and "Asked to play in the Championship for free":
You think those are slightly exaggerated?
It sounds a ridiculous idea, and if it were just a Twitter rumour or some obvious clickbait piece, it would be understandably ignored. However this story appears on the website of our national broadcaster, which lends it a bit more credibility in my eyes. And secondly, it's Nedum Onouha, who has never exactly courted controversy and always talked in respectful terms about the club. Why would he say that ? If it were Joey Barton mouthing off, we'd all just roll our eyes and dismiss it as bullshit. But this is a player that commanded enough respect to be our captain for the last 3 seasons, and was clearly highly thought of by the powers that be.

Maybe he is just bitter that things didn't turn out the way he planned, but either that question was asked or it wasn't. I'd be interested in knowing one way or the other.
I too would be interested in the club's version of this story. Given the it's gained quite a lot of attention I think we should email the club asking for a statement to be made.

old pauline
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger
Posts: 3405
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Wimbledon
Contact:

Re: Chief.

Post by old pauline » Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:48 am

Why should the club comment on this ? They can choose not to comment upon negotiations with players if they want.

Personally, I expect the story is somewhat fabricated and I prefer to read news about the club from more reliable sources.
Come on you Sooopa ........

Post Reply