We are like QPR.......

Both have Malaysian owners and both clubs with too many Managers in quick succession, and too many players overpaid and not wanted by the replacement Managers, both of us are in a right mess.

I suppose at least we are further down the road than them, but can't see Slade here by the end of next season, so it may all start again ......

[q"Bluebina"]Both have Malaysian owners and both clubs with too many Managers in quick succession, and too many players overpaid and not wanted by the replacement Managers, both of us are in a right mess.

I suppose at least we are further down the road than them, but can't see Slade here by the end of next season, so it may all start again ......[/quote]


Their owner wrote off £60m and this is 3rd season they haven't learned from mistakes! and they are potentially up creek without paddle over ffp! we least appear to be learning from past mistakes.

Tony Fernandes has QPR best interests at heart. That's all that's matters sometimes. Surely Fernandes will stop paying players ridiculous amounts, I don't think they are to win the Champions League any time soon as he once envisaged

Tony Fernandes has QPR best interests at heart. That's all that's matters sometimes. Surely Fernandes will stop paying players ridiculous amounts, I don't think they are to win the Champions League any time soon as he once envisaged

Yes he has! but he is as stupid as tan when it comes to way club is run? He's got led ferndenand ect there but as he taken any advice from them? Doesn't look like! :

Tony Fernandes has QPR best interests at heart. That's all that's matters sometimes. Surely Fernandes will stop paying players ridiculous amounts, I don't think they are to win the Champions League any time soon as he once envisaged

Yes he has! but he is as stupid as tan when it comes to way club is run? He's got les ferndenand ect there but as he taken any advice from them? Doesn't look like! :

[q"Bluebina"]Both have Malaysian owners and both clubs with too many Managers in quick succession, and too many players overpaid and not wanted by the replacement Managers, both of us are in a right mess.

I suppose at least we are further down the road than them, but can't see Slade here by the end of next season, so it may all start again ......

Their owner wrote off £60m and this is 3rd season they haven't learned from mistakes! and they are potentially up creek without paddle over ffp! we least appear to be learning from past mistakes. [/quote]


We are trying to learn, I'm not one for changing Managers every year, but Ole had to go, and I think we would be better to get a top Manager now and build rather than half way through this season when we are below par again.......

[q"Bluebina"]Both have Malaysian owners and both clubs with too many Managers in quick succession, and too many players overpaid and not wanted by the replacement Managers, both of us are in a right mess.

I suppose at least we are further down the road than them, but can't see Slade here by the end of next season, so it may all start again ......

Their owner wrote off £60m and this is 3rd season they haven't learned from mistakes! and they are potentially up creek without paddle over ffp! we least appear to be learning from past mistakes.

We are trying to learn, I'm not one for changing Managers every year, but Ole had to go, and I think we would be better to get a top Manager now and build rather than half way through this season when we are below par again.......[/quote]



in reality we are very good with managers its just bad management with getting ole in! lots of pain before hopefully gain with tans plans at moment, not sure about slade but got to give him a clear transfer window and pre season to see how good he really is.

Don't see us getting FFP fines.

How can people say we are run similarly to QPR?

We haven't broken the rules of FFFP. Yes we had high wages but we made money from player sales, plus with all the costcutting we did this season, we'll more or less abiding by it

Don't see us getting FFP fines.

How can people say we are run similarly to QPR?

they tried to get round it by owner and others writing off their debt of £60m! so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowed to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

this is why tan is cost cutting so he isnt propping club up over the permitted limit, people dont seem to realise this is a lot to do with why tan is doing this now!

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

When is Vincent Tan swapping debt for shares? I must have missed the announcement of the date for this transaction.

He has made a number of promises to do so , but this increasingly looks to have been acts of bravado and seeking adulation that he appears to crave rather than an intention to honour his word.

Don't see us getting FFP fines.

How can people say we are run similarly to QPR?

Exactly.

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

When is Vincent Tan swapping debt for shares? I must have missed the announcement of the date for this transaction.

He has made a number of promises to do so , but this increasingly looks to have been acts of bravado and seeking adulation that he appears to crave rather than an intention to honour his word.

As rebrand has been reversed I don't see why he should have to transfer equity to debt.

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

When is Vincent Tan swapping debt for shares? I must have missed the announcement of the date for this transaction.

He has made a number of promises to do so , but this increasingly looks to have been acts of bravado and seeking adulation that he appears to crave rather than an intention to honour his word.

As rebrand has been reversed I don't see why he should have to transfer equity to debt.

I think you mean debt to equity. But I agree with you that as we have effectively rejected the rebrand, Tan is not obliged to keep his part of the bargain. We can't have the penny and the bun.

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

When is Vincent Tan swapping debt for shares? I must have missed the announcement of the date for this transaction.

He has made a number of promises to do so , but this increasingly looks to have been acts of bravado and seeking adulation that he appears to crave rather than an intention to honour his word.

As rebrand has been reversed I don't see why he should have to transfer equity to debt.

I think you mean debt to equity. But I agree with you that as we have effectively rejected the rebrand, Tan is not obliged to keep his part of the bargain. We can't have the penny and the bun.

I wrote debt to equity I thought. It also says my post was edited. Hmmmmm.

Nobody said when debt to equity? Was making distinction between QPR owner writing off debt, and debt to equity in tans case! It was Regarding ffp rules on amount of support owner can give financially.

Nobody said when debt to equity? Was making distinction between QPR owner writing off debt and debt to equity in tans case! It was Regarding ffp rules on amount of support owner can give financially.

Why are people pedantic over things? Its quite clear a distinction between QPR and city's owner regarding ffp what can or cannot be done regarding rules is being discussed!

Don't see us getting FFP fines.

How can people say we are run similarly to QPR?

There are similarities, Malaysian owners, both seemed to overspend on players both in fees and wages while promoted. Both changed Managers, and as a consequence, needed to get their own players in. The end result, relegation and big squads with new Managers needing to move players on and start again. I predict by the end of next season, we will both have new managers.

OK they have worse problems, but that's due to winning promotion and making the same mistakes again.....

Tony Fernandes has QPR best interests at heart. That's all that's matters sometimes. Surely Fernandes will stop paying players ridiculous amounts, I don't think they are to win the Champions League any time soon as he once envisaged

Yes he has! but he is as stupid as tan when it comes to way club is run? He's got led ferndenand ect there but as he taken any advice from them? Doesn't look like! :

"led ferndenand" , "ect" ?

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

When is Vincent Tan swapping debt for shares? I must have missed the announcement of the date for this transaction.

He has made a number of promises to do so , but this increasingly looks to have been acts of bravado and seeking adulation that he appears to crave rather than an intention to honour his word.

As rebrand has been reversed I don't see why he should have to transfer equity to debt.

VT should complete the debt to equity swap

1) Because he said he would , on filmed public record , and didn`t say it was conditional upon the colours the club play in
(view the interview from his "honorary degree" day and see for yourself)

2) Because the club`s directors have a legal duty , as the club is heavily insolvent , to ensure that this major debt reduction takes place when it is available . If they don`t they may well be found to be in breach of the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act.

3) Because without the promised swap being honoured , the club at all times remains with a very real risk that it could face financial collapse at any time.

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

When is Vincent Tan swapping debt for shares? I must have missed the announcement of the date for this transaction.

He has made a number of promises to do so , but this increasingly looks to have been acts of bravado and seeking adulation that he appears to crave rather than an intention to honour his word.

As rebrand has been reversed I don't see why he should have to transfer equity to debt.

VT should complete the debt to equity swap

1) Because he said he would , on filmed public record , and didn`t say it was conditional upon the colours the club play in
(view the interview from his "honorary degree" day and see for yourself)

2) Because the club`s directors have a legal duty , as the club is heavily insolvent , to ensure that this major debt reduction takes place when it is available . If they don`t they may well be found to be in breach of the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act.

3) Because without the promised swap being honoured , the club at all times remains with a very real risk that it could face financial collapse at any time.

Excellent and informative response (as usual) from Keith; although I still don't see Tan allowing the 'business' to collapse anytime soon!

Tony Fernandes has QPR best interests at heart. That's all that's matters sometimes. Surely Fernandes will stop paying players ridiculous amounts, I don't think they are to win the Champions League any time soon as he once envisaged

Yes he has! but he is as stupid as tan when it comes to way club is run? He's got led ferndenand ect there but as he taken any advice from them? Doesn't look like! :

"led ferndenand" , "ect" ?

les ferdanand you know the ex football player ? perhaps you couldnt work it out? pedantic again!

Tony Fernandes has QPR best interests at heart. That's all that's matters sometimes. Surely Fernandes will stop paying players ridiculous amounts, I don't think they are to win the Champions League any time soon as he once envisaged

Yes he has! but he is as stupid as tan when it comes to way club is run? He's got led ferndenand ect there but as he taken any advice from them? Doesn't look like! :

"led ferndenand" , "ect" ?

les ferdanand you know the ex football player ? perhaps you couldnt work it out? pedantic again!

It is Les Ferdinand and etc (short for etcetera) not ect.

..... so we are not like qpr. in our case debt to equity is totally different before anyone says!

Why is it different Allen?

I am still unsure as to what is wrong with Fernandez writing of the clubs debt to him. How would Tans debt to equity be any different?

tan is swapping debt for shares, fernandez wrote off the debt its seen as cheating ffp as owners are not allowd to prop up club by such a large ammount £60m which in essense is what he did at qpr, hence the fine by league

When is Vincent Tan swapping debt for shares? I must have missed the announcement of the date for this transaction.

He has made a number of promises to do so , but this increasingly looks to have been acts of bravado and seeking adulation that he appears to crave rather than an intention to honour his word.

As rebrand has been reversed I don't see why he should have to transfer equity to debt.

VT should complete the debt to equity swap

1) Because he said he would , on filmed public record , and didn`t say it was conditional upon the colours the club play in
(view the interview from his "honorary degree" day and see for yourself)

2) Because the club`s directors have a legal duty , as the club is heavily insolvent , to ensure that this major debt reduction takes place when it is available . If they don`t they may well be found to be in breach of the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act.

3) Because without the promised swap being honoured , the club at all times remains with a very real risk that it could face financial collapse at any time.

He doesn't have all the shares yet does he? I read on here he was still being held up. Besides it was quite clear when he proposed the rebrand he would invest 100 million pounds which would culminate in debt to equity.

The rebrand has been reversed so I don't see why he should go ahead with it notwithstanding points 2 and 3. 3 there being little chance of while the billionaire runs this club. 2 he is in the process of now but is accused of showing a lack of ambition.