|  Author | Topic: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented? (Read 740 times) |
Macmoish
Administrator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://65.98.18.218/images/P/0019_l.jpg "[avatar]")
.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 39,459
|  | Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Thread Started on Aug 2, 2012, 8:09am » | |
Trying to think of who else has attempted what Fernandes et al are attempting: To build QPR (presumably permanently) into a much bigger club..Than ever been historically
When think of what's happened at Chelsea and Manchester City: Definitely a lot of money poured in. And won things. But as clubs, I think it's more a "Revival" than a Quantum Change. Both Chelsea & Man City have big histories. Relatively big clubs.
Elsewhere: There's Wigan. But I think sooner or later, they'll sink back. Al-Fayed at Fulham has bumped them back. But not made them much bigger/Long-term successful...
At QPR: The goal I presume is to make us self-supporting/bigger.
|
"..I also find it insulting that qpr-reports site are asking so many questions. They seem to want to know everything that goes on at the club..."
|
|
maudesfishnchips
Global Moderator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UaLWp72nij4/TDu6Z73Sw9I/AAAAAAAARDY/VaLbhd55Vks/s1600/harry-hill.jpg "[avatar]")
Joined: Jul 2012
Gender: Male 
Posts: 2,291
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #1 on Aug 2, 2012, 12:01pm » | |
Their aim firstly is to build our support, globally, and more importanly with the kids.
Its why they decided to re locate the 480 odd supporters and give the seats free to the under 8's.
Cant think of a club who has achieved this or even attempted it.
|
“We haven’t made the investment of this summer to simply compete at the same level as last season. The investment has been made so that we feel we are a club which can compete against – and beat – every club we play.”
|
|
fraserinbc
Dave Sexton
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-IAD5JVG5wLs/UDSznAMIw8I/AAAAAAAACBg/8dA-cuVsc1E/s128/faurlin.jpg "[avatar]")
Joined: May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,237
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #2 on Aug 2, 2012, 5:06pm » | |
That comment really belongs on WATRBs
|
Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always certain |
|
stylecouncillor
Dave Mangnall
member is offline
Joined: Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 179
Location: Islington
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #3 on Aug 2, 2012, 7:04pm » | |
Still think that Jim gregory built us into a club with an all seater stadium from division 3 to the finest side in what was division 1 runners up he was i think still in charge when the plastic pitch was here rubish but very ahead of its time.so yes Fernades is doing a superb job but still Jim Gregory is imho our number 1 chairman but I will be happy to have him replaced by Tony Fernandes in the years to come.
| |
|
The Scooter
Neil Warnock
member is offline
Joined: Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 632
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #4 on Aug 2, 2012, 11:01pm » | |
Chelsea never really had a big history or any real form of sustained success. Big crowds once in a blue moon but that's about it. No bigger than West Ham. I suppose what Fayed has done for Fulham is the closest marker to what TF is trying to do in the summer where they bought Marlet, Riedle and a few others.
|
Tramps like us.... |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,517
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #5 on Aug 3, 2012, 5:36pm » | |
I see no facts. Nothing indicating QPR WILL become a big Club, and no facts indicating it even COULD do so.
One minute, the Club is so inadequate, it can't even have a ground of its own. The next, 45,000 will attend its matches regularly.
With 45,000 attendances, it will be in the Premiership, I assume. And will get £40 million or more per season.
But they're considering groundsharing because the Club can't be expected to pay the rent.
All that big talk, and they're still clinging to a £10 million debt which dates back almost 20 years!
But that, and the money to be earned from selling Loftus Road, however much or however little it is, gives you an idea of the scale they're thinking of.
Sure, with the CLUB'S £40 million from the Premiership, they'll splash money around as if they're something big in football, which they aren't.
Where is their credibility. With no track record, experience or know-how in the game, with Bhatia saying there's no debt, Fernandes saying there is, Beard saying groundsharing, Fernandes saying no, is there anything that gives the impression that here are individuals like Ferguson, or the Spain national coach, or the illustrious Brits of old, who actually KNEW something.
Why do they belittle QPR so much? If Fernandes and Mittal and their poodles are capable of lining their own pockets on such a scale, why are they always poormouth about QPR? Groundsharing, can't pay its way (£40 million a season and they're still paying way over the odds for managers and players who can't earn the Club a profit), can't afford its own ground (but, strangely, it can FILL a ground THREE times the size, yeah, right), and the Club to be a mere tenant.
People in football are easy to fill with 'confidence'. Every bunch of losers is brimful with it. Facts, and actual achievements, they're rare as hen's teeth.
Still, if Mittal is worth more than Abramovich (or even less), we can expect the £1 billion title season soon. Why isn't he spending on that scale? He has the money, if they're all as ambitious as they pretend - and I'm not sure they're even pretending - why aren't we up there already?
Surely success breeds money on a huge scale, so any monies advanced will be easily recovered.
At least the 45,000 stadium would fit that bill. Spending to the level that even the relegated Clubs can manage hardly does. But we can wait. We've outlasted all their predecessors, and none of them changed the size of QPR, not even Jim Gregory.
So the answer to your question, Mac, is that Fernandes, Mittal et al aren't attempting anything of the sort.
If they were, we'd know all about it. Anyone can tell a winning team. Anyone can spot a succesful one. Brilliance is easy. Even the innumerate can recognise wealth and profitability.
Are QPR any of the above? Are Fernandes and Mittal, as 'football men'?
| |
|
RoryTheRanger
Alec Stock
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg528/RoryTheRanger/th_QPR-1.jpg "[avatar]")
Joined: Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,419
Location: Essex
|  | Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #6 on Aug 3, 2012, 5:43pm via the ProBoards Mobile App » | |
Aug 3, 2012, 5:36pm, ingham wrote:I see no facts. Nothing indicating QPR WILL become a big Club, and no facts indicating it even COULD do so.
One minute, the Club is so inadequate, it can't even have a ground of its own. The next, 45,000 will attend its matches regularly.
With 45,000 attendances, it will be in the Premiership, I assume. And will get £40 million or more per season.
But they're considering groundsharing because the Club can't be expected to pay the rent.
All that big talk, and they're still clinging to a £10 million debt which dates back almost 20 years!
But that, and the money to be earned from selling Loftus Road, however much or however little it is, gives you an idea of the scale they're thinking of.
Sure, with the CLUB'S £40 million from the Premiership, they'll splash money around as if they're something big in football, which they aren't.
Where is their credibility. With no track record, experience or know-how in the game, with Bhatia saying there's no debt, Fernandes saying there is, Beard saying groundsharing, Fernandes saying no, is there anything that gives the impression that here are individuals like Ferguson, or the Spain national coach, or the illustrious Brits of old, who actually KNEW something.
Why do they belittle QPR so much? If Fernandes and Mittal and their poodles are capable of lining their own pockets on such a scale, why are they always poormouth about QPR? Groundsharing, can't pay its way (£40 million a season and they're still paying way over the odds for managers and players who can't earn the Club a profit), can't afford its own ground (but, strangely, it can FILL a ground THREE times the size, yeah, right), and the Club to be a mere tenant.
People in football are easy to fill with 'confidence'. Every bunch of losers is brimful with it. Facts, and actual achievements, they're rare as hen's teeth.
Still, if Mittal is worth more than Abramovich (or even less), we can expect the £1 billion title season soon. Why isn't he spending on that scale? He has the money, if they're all as ambitious as they pretend - and I'm not sure they're even pretending - why aren't we up there already?
Surely success breeds money on a huge scale, so any monies advanced will be easily recovered.
At least the 45,000 stadium would fit that bill. Spending to the level that even the relegated Clubs can manage hardly does. But we can wait. We've outlasted all their predecessors, and none of them changed the size of QPR, not even Jim Gregory. |
|
We're not in debt and we're not going to be ground sharing with another club.
The new stadium is 5 years away, it's hardly the next minute like you implied.
|
'Arry Redknapp's Blue and White Army. |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,517
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #7 on Aug 3, 2012, 8:22pm » | |
I'm going by what the accounts say.
The accounts say we're in debt. Fernandes says QPR are in debt. Even Bhatia says QPR is in debt. And, as ever, the loan secured against the ground says we're in debt.
True, Bhatia contradicts himself. He claimed the ABC loan had been paid off. Everyone knew it wasn't. There it was in the Accounts. Trying to make out that it was the loan, and not merely the lender, who had been paid off didn't fool anyone. The 'ABC' loan had been round QPR's neck like an albatross long before ABC, let alone Bhatia.
Not that that that prevented him suggesting much the same thing again.
"Let’s be clear" he said. "Previously directors provided loans and those debts no longer exist. They have been wiped out". Well, we've been there already. The directors were 'wiped out' - paid off - not the loans.
So that when Fernandes arrived, there were new directors, new lenders, and new loans. Bhatia told us so himself. He even claimed there were no interest payments on the loan that didn't exist any more.
Bhatia went on to say that "In fact I would go so far as to describe the club as being debt free". OK. But saying you would 'describe' the Club as debt free isn't the same thing as saying that it 'is'.
Which was just as well. Not long after, Fernandes confirmed that QPR had 'debts'.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that either Fernandes or Bhatia was telling the truth. Either when he said we were in debt. Or when he implied the opposite.
So, for now, the accounts will have to do.
The only way of getting rid of debt is to write it off. Then, every time there is a £20 million loss, the people responsible for the loss are losing their own money. Every dud player and manager is a waste of their money, not QPR's.
That's why investors don't do it. Their investment is in shares, moneylending, and property deals and developments. As Fernandes, Bhatia and Beard have indicated.
We think Banks are crooks, but they don't usually lend borrowers the money, then spend it THEMSELVES. And so incompetently that massive losses are incurred.
I'd prefer they were good at football. But I'd also prefer it if they'd gamble away their own money, and their own homes, rather than QPR's.
45,000, eh? But surely we can expect Mittal to spend the £1 billion now, can't we? The 'investors' at Chelsea and City did.
Does Mittal prefer us to be unsuccessful for as long as possible? Or does he simply lack the ambition?
| |
|
Lonegunmen
Administrator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.qpr.co.nz/photos/andy/tron01.jpg "[avatar]")
Flynn Lives !!
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,163
Location: New Zealand
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #8 on Aug 3, 2012, 8:33pm » | |
Improvement wise - training grounds etc and squad wise, I guess this has to be the biggest change we've had since Jim Gregory started his improvements.
|
|
|
fraserinbc
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,237
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #9 on Aug 3, 2012, 8:55pm » | |
I started thinking about Jack Walker and checked out his Wikipedia page:
"He took full control of the club in January 1991, having backed the club on a regular basis for five years previously, and within the first three years he spent £25 million on new players, twice breaking the British record for the most expensive transfer of a football player, signing Alan Shearer from Southampton for £3.3million in 1992 and Chris Sutton from Norwich for £5million in 1994.
In the early stages of his ownership of Blackburn, he also tried to bring England internationals Geoff Thomas and Gary Lineker to the club, but bids for both players failed.
The Ewood Park ground was reconstructed at a cost of more than £20 million to give it a capacity of just over 30,000, with a new Jack Walker Stand providing a lasting tribute.
When he bought Blackburn, the 1990-91 season was half completed and they were just above the relegation zone. Manager Don Mackay initially used Walker's funds to make signings which helped ensure Blackburn's survival that season, and built the platform for a promotion challenge in 1991-92. Walker declared his ambition early on that Blackburn would return to the top flight, establish themselves as a top side in England and eventually go on to compete with the very best clubs in Europe. At this time, the ones likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United were generally regarded as the nation's top clubs, while the European scene (with English clubs having only recently been re-admitted following a five-year ban as a result of the Heysel disaster) was being dominated by AC Milan, Inter Milan, FC Barcelona and Real Madrid.
Kenny Dalglish became manager in October 1991, and by May, Blackburn had been promoted to the newly formed Premier League through the play offs.[9] In the 1994-95 season, Blackburn Rovers won the Premiership title."
What we are doing sounds more modest (i.e. no British record-breaking signings) and hopefully longer-lasting, e.g. academy, although Jack Walker didn't build a new stadium, so not too sure where this stands in terms of precedence. Oh, and he made his fortune in steel, like another owner I know....
|
Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always certain |
|
Macmoish
Administrator
member is offline
.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 39,459
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #10 on Aug 3, 2012, 9:48pm » | |
Jack Walker was a great guy vis-a-vis Blackburn. And I believe left lot of money to Blackburn in Trust
I don't understand, that being the case, how come they were sold...
And how come they're back in Div II (The Championship)
How do the gates compare with pre Walker era?
|
"..I also find it insulting that qpr-reports site are asking so many questions. They seem to want to know everything that goes on at the club..."
|
|
fraserinbc
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,237
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #11 on Aug 3, 2012, 10:53pm » | |
One very dodgy (as it doesn't give sources) gives the average Blackburn attendance in 1990 and 1991 as being 8126 and 9624 respectively, mainly since they were in the old Division 2 at the time.
Looking at attendances, I noticed that QPR's average attendance (again sources are dodgy) during the 1992-3 season (when we finished fifth) was 13592. Now our average is over 17k. I know that these are small figures, but there is obviously room to grow (whether we could consistently fill a 45k-seater stadium is a different matter).
|
Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always certain |
|
Macmoish
Administrator
member is offline
.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 39,459
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #12 on Aug 3, 2012, 11:06pm » | |
Sure QPR attendances were bigger when we had standing... But I recall even when we were the best team in Europe, we were very often far from full
|
"..I also find it insulting that qpr-reports site are asking so many questions. They seem to want to know everything that goes on at the club..."
|
|
tom007
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,493
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #13 on Aug 3, 2012, 11:15pm » | |
Aug 3, 2012, 8:22pm, ingham wrote:I'm going by what the accounts say.
The accounts say we're in debt. Fernandes says QPR are in debt. Even Bhatia says QPR is in debt. And, as ever, the loan secured against the ground says we're in debt.
True, Bhatia contradicts himself. He claimed the ABC loan had been paid off. Everyone knew it wasn't. There it was in the Accounts. Trying to make out that it was the loan, and not merely the lender, who had been paid off didn't fool anyone. The 'ABC' loan had been round QPR's neck like an albatross long before ABC, let alone Bhatia.
Not that that that prevented him suggesting much the same thing again.
"Let’s be clear" he said. "Previously directors provided loans and those debts no longer exist. They have been wiped out". Well, we've been there already. The directors were 'wiped out' - paid off - not the loans.
So that when Fernandes arrived, there were new directors, new lenders, and new loans. Bhatia told us so himself. He even claimed there were no interest payments on the loan that didn't exist any more.
Bhatia went on to say that "In fact I would go so far as to describe the club as being debt free". OK. But saying you would 'describe' the Club as debt free isn't the same thing as saying that it 'is'.
Which was just as well. Not long after, Fernandes confirmed that QPR had 'debts'.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that either Fernandes or Bhatia was telling the truth. Either when he said we were in debt. Or when he implied the opposite.
So, for now, the accounts will have to do.
The only way of getting rid of debt is to write it off. Then, every time there is a £20 million loss, the people responsible for the loss are losing their own money. Every dud player and manager is a waste of their money, not QPR's.
That's why investors don't do it. Their investment is in shares, moneylending, and property deals and developments. As Fernandes, Bhatia and Beard have indicated.
We think Banks are crooks, but they don't usually lend borrowers the money, then spend it THEMSELVES. And so incompetently that massive losses are incurred.
I'd prefer they were good at football. But I'd also prefer it if they'd gamble away their own money, and their own homes, rather than QPR's.
45,000, eh? But surely we can expect Mittal to spend the £1 billion now, can't we? The 'investors' at Chelsea and City did.
Does Mittal prefer us to be unsuccessful for as long as possible? Or does he simply lack the ambition? |
|
you have a good point ingham and we will have to wait and see whay happens from here.
| |
|
Lonegunmen
Administrator
member is offline
Flynn Lives !!
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,163
Location: New Zealand
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #14 on Aug 3, 2012, 11:16pm » | |
I think it is time to bring back terracing and drop entry prices so that the game can be a family game again. Hopefully some maturity might come to the fore so that drunk non ticket holding fans dont show up to "All Ticket" games. I missed the tremendous atmospheres that used to come from the terraces.
|
|
|
fraserinbc
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,237
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #15 on Aug 4, 2012, 12:06am » | |
According to this site, out largest average attendance was 23850 in 1976. Did anything exciting happen in that year? 
Anyway, the site is http://www.stadium-attendances.com/Queen....ttendances.html if you want to check it out, but it is annoying that there are no sources listed.
|
Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always certain |
|
gramps
Terry Venables
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/6899/grampschase1a.jpg "[avatar]")
Published Author
Joined: Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,769
Location: Maldon, Essex
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #16 on Aug 4, 2012, 9:14am » | |
Aug 3, 2012, 11:16pm, Lonegunmen wrote:| I think it is time to bring back terracing and drop entry prices so that the game can be a family game again. Hopefully some maturity might come to the fore so that drunk non ticket holding fans dont show up to "All Ticket" games. I missed the tremendous atmospheres that used to come from the terraces. |
|
Oh yes, Lone, YES! How I long for the old terracing.
|
|
|
Lonegunmen
Administrator
member is offline
Flynn Lives !!
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,163
Location: New Zealand
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #17 on Aug 4, 2012, 9:41am » | |
Aug 4, 2012, 12:06am, fraserinbc wrote:According to this site, out largest average attendance was 23850 in 1976. Did anything exciting happen in that year?
|
|
Ask Free Seat. he's good at "years". 1968 being a particular favourite.
|
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,517
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #18 on Aug 4, 2012, 6:52pm » | |
Depends how you look at it, Fraser, although 4,000 seems pretty small to me (especially, as you say, vis a vis 45,000).
Getting 25,000 every week would seem to be an achievement based not only on what we get now, but what we've had when we were much further up the table.
Generally speaking, if you go back to the year dot - I mean 1920s to date - QPR generally manage attendances between 8,000 and 18,000.
Much lower than 8,000 indicates hard times. Much more than 18,000, exceptional ones.
I don't mean the odd 'big game' here or there. An unusual drop in a handful of extremely dismal seasons - or an unusual increase in our most outstanding, chiefly 1976.
I think the issue was well put - making a different point - by Mac. He said did we want to end up like Barnet or Brentford?
The implication (or so I thought) seemed to be that Barnet and Brentford aren't merely temporarily down in the doldrums. They're stuck.
But the case in favour of QPR suddenly jumping out of its own skin and becoming the equal - attendance wise - of Clubs which have won the Premiership at least 7 times between them - implies the opposite.
1. That a Club can easily become a much bigger Club, more or less overnight.
2. And that the past - even if it was generally unspectacular - and Brentford finished in the top 5 of the top flight at least once in the 1930s, long before we even got close) - has little or nothing to do with it. Just because they are dodos now, or have always been dodos, can't prevent it happening.
It happens all the time, in a far more modest way, but that isn't all that encouraging either. I'm not sure what the figures are in the last 4 or 5 seasons, but I counted ten years back from about 2008 to 1998 (as I say, I'd need to look it up again), and out of the 30 promotion and relegation positions available to and from the Premiership over those ten seasons, something like 23 different sides were promoted, and 22 different ones relegated out of the 30 opportunities in each direction.
Not for nothing do supporters cast around for a more modest side which has established itself in the top flight convincingly, and come up with one name - Fulham. Charlton were the golden boys, but collapsed. Middlesbrough, but they did, too. And neither was up there all that long. Many of them seem like an arrow in flight. The thing keeps going up for a while after the initial thrust has weakened, but it is soon surpassed by the next bunch of johnny-come-latelys.
This is important because the other sides weaken QPR. If there was only one Club to take the standard of player we are obliged to sign, we could at least pick the very best, even if they are far short of real quality.
But we can't. We have to compete with dozens of Clubs in the top flight, the Championship and even the third tier. And pay top dollar because few of them have much idea what they're doing, and their appalling finances means they're driven to gamble on very poor choices indeed. Occasionally, that favours us, but there are far more of them, and once we've signed a half-decent striker, we're out of contention for better ones as they come on the market. Transfer windows don't help much either.
So I think, in many ways, you've hit the nail on the head. That difference of 4,000 is the sort of thing we're talking about. Not 15,000 to 45,000.
Personally, I think that if any Club could just change its size overnight, the league would become unworkable. Big Clubs would do a Glasgow Rangers, and find themselves trying to fill huge grounds in matches with tiny teams, in competition with loads of other big Clubs also fallen into the third or fourth tier.
While the little Clubs would be obliged to build vast stadia to accommodate huge attendances Shrewsbury could hardly cope with once they were in the Champions League every season.
The pyramid of football prevents that from happening. And the fact that investors are spending the Clubs' money, not their own, means that their private wealth isn't the determining factor, by and large. It's how much money the Club can reasonably be expected to generate to provide investors with an easy profit. So even if the ground is rebuilt, it is usually rebuilt modestly, like Arsenal's. MUCH smaller than United's. And named after someone else's business.
Look how hard it is for the £1 billion spenders to make a serious dent in Man United-Ferguson. City and Chelsea have huge debts incurred pretty well exclusively from buying players. United's huge debt PREVENTS them buying players. But they're up there every year, and the Club has such prestige (except with us, of course) and punching power that City barely scraped the title in the last minute last season, with Ferguson almost over the line, and fielding a team which my Arsenal mate reckons is no great shakes at all at that level.
We might imagine that the pyramid could be threatened by lots and lots of £1 billion guys, but how could it? Either 10 billionaires buy the title for 10 different Clubs - in which case ALL of them lose 9 out of 10 times - or the modern pattern of one Club winning far more than anyone else continues, in which case all but one loses pretty well all the time. And 6 of them finish out of the Champions League places on a regular basis.
This is why there is no European Super League, I'd suggest. So many 'big' Clubs would be mid-table at best, or in the 'relegation' zone, that they prefer their much easier domestic competitions.
Personally, I think football is much harder and far more unforgiving than investors - many of whom have rather unrealistic ideas of their own capabilities - can even imagine. But if you look at how most of them 'invest' they go to enormous lengths to ensure there is little or no risk at all.
And this tends to reinforce the status quo, with money spent at Clubs which are proportionally more likely to earn it.
| |
|
canadaranger
Dave Sexton
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.ursatech.com/video/qprbear100px.jpg "[avatar]")
Joined: Jun 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,614
Location: Canada
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #19 on Aug 4, 2012, 9:09pm » | |
I think Tony has an excellent business model which has made him very successful. Give a large number of people a great product at a price they can afford whilst still covering costs and you will grow and make money. Applying that to football, I think it would be a reasonably safe bet that QPR would get a crowd of more than 30,000 to a regular league game within 5 years of having a stadium of at least that capacity, and a crowd of 45,000 to a home game (cup, league, or Europe) within 10 years.
| |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,517
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #20 on Aug 6, 2012, 3:45pm » | |
Which competitions has he entered his successful 'teams' in, Canada?
A competition is an entirely different thing to 'competing' in the way businesses use the term. In business, you're a winner if your publicity says you are. Or if it is someone else's opinion.
There is no objective way of deciding it at all.
Football is the opposite. Winning or losing is absolute. It doesn't matter how well you played, or think you played, how much money you made, how big your support is, or what you or others think you deserved. One wins, the rest lose. Once the match is over, the referee sends the result, which has been achieved by one or both teams, and is witnessed by everybody, at the game, on TV, in the press.
Businesses aren't like that at all.
Compared to football, they are effete. In football, your rival enters your premises and screws up everything you are trying to dom while you are trying to do it. If he can ensure that you do nothing, he will. That is not wrong - it is the whole point. If he did that in business, kicking you all over the office, someone would call the cops. I realise it happens in business, too. Even in nice places like Canada, Canada - but surely even there it is against the law 
I assume you're suggesting that his plan - whatever it is - will work because he did much the same thing with an airline, as he hasn't done anything in football.
If so, I can't see what the connection would be. If an airline is effectively the same thing as a football club, why isn't every airline running up colossal losses all the time, in the way football clubs are?
ESPECIALLY the successful ones.
And if a football club can be run by someone who only knows about airlines, presumably airlines can be run by people who only know about football - but how could that work? With every airline making bigger and bigger losses every year for 20 years - but still remaining fairly effortlessly in existence? Where 70 of the 90 airlines which were in the competition 90 years ago still in existence, and still in the airline equivalent of the 'League', when most of them had never been successful at all.
Success, in airline-land, is vague, as it is in any business. You can measure profits, but there is no formal correlation between profits or expansion or sales and success. You can claim there is, but I can claim QPR won the title at 'Maine Road' last season (it has some silly name) and everyone knows whether it is true by reference to something real, that really did happen, and was measurable, precisely - not just what some speculator claims might happen.
Airlines are businesses, and football clubs are not. The people who run football clubs use them as resources for their own business activities like share dealing, moneylending and property development. Practically every chairman of QPR wanted to sell the Ground, or sell some other Club's Ground. Businessmen who bought in to QPR have been involved in 'attempts to close down QPR itself, Brentford, Fulham and Wimbledon, and to sell off Loftus Road, Craven Cottage, Stamford Bridge and Griffin Park.
That is what businesses do, but supporters thwarted them. Jim Gregory did his best to do us over twice.
The difference is that businesses keep their customers when the business is better, cheaper or more convenient. A football club keeps its supporters despite the fact that, like QPR, it is none of those things.
Because the supporters believe they belong to the Club - as a Club is a thing to which people like us belong. Not in terms of memberships, but loyalty.
No-one thinks he belongs to a business. There are business plans all over football, and endless losses and failure on the pitch.
That is unavoidable - the game is designed to create as much failure as possible. It is English, after all.
What do you think?
| |
|
fraserinbc
Dave Sexton
member is offline
Joined: May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,237
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #21 on Aug 6, 2012, 10:06pm » | |
I like reading your posts, Ingham, even if the train of logic is a little difficult to follow and you're not known for your short, one sentence replies ;-)
So, if I have understood you correctly, you are being dismissive of the current board's plans for QPR as they smack of self-interest, i.e. trying to turn a profit on QPR without taking any risk on themselves, and that they do not understand how football works, therefore what they are attempting is doomed to failure, since it has not been properly thought out in terms of the way football works.
The trouble is with speculating about the future there are no right or wrong opinions. Hell, even talking about current facts is highly objective with there being no such thing as truth. I am not too sure that I can follow the absolute logic, though, of Tony Fernandes, since he only has experience of running an airline, not being in a good position to run a football club.
I remember in Four Year Plan when Warnock talked about Briatore, etc. of running QPR as they had previously run their businesses as that is all that they knew, e.g. Bernie going in to the dressing room and complaining about the sports drinks. I think that is correct, but from what I have read of Tony Fernandes he appears to be a very hands-off owner (airline and football club) and doesn't get involved in the footballing side of things, unlike Briatore, and surely that is the distinction we can make.
Sure Tony goes on the radio a lot and goes on Twitter, making comments that he shouldn't do (e.g. referreeing decisions) but that shows he has a passion for the club, even if it only goes so far as to making it successful. If they can get the money side of things sorted without hamstringing the football side of things, then surely it is a good combination.
I also think you are slightly wrong talking about customers. QPR has a core support of, what 10-14k that can be relied on when the team is playing moderately well? I think Rory mentioned elsewhere that Fernandes is probably hoping to attract more supporters (tourists if you like) with marquee signings (hello Park) and ultimately cheaper ticket prices (new 45k-seater stadium). This could be achievable if we keep our status, as you mentioned, otherwise we will have a half-empty stadium. Is it better to have tried and failed than to never try at all? That one is definitely open for argument.
I foresee a future when QPR has a 45k-seater stadium in White City, with a great shopping area and transport links into Central London, with a Tune Hotel sitting in one corner of the complex. QPR will no longer own the stadium, which will be owned by the Tune Group or something similar. Will this be for QPR's benefit. Not at all, but will QPR benefit from it? Again, difficult to foresee but worth the crap shoot I say.
|
Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always certain |
|
grillr
Guest
| | Re: Is What Fernandes Attempting Unprecedented?
« Reply #22 on Aug 7, 2012, 9:10pm » | |
I'd suggest that continually recording an old/outstanding loan or debt in our accounts is a deliberate and conscious approach about minimising tax. I have no idea how high finance works but it does not seem sensible to trumpet about making juicy profits that would attract tax liabilities if you can legally present accounts on paper that says you're boracic? I already resent giving that chinless oaf Osborne nearly a tenner in VAT every time I buy a ticket.... I deffo don't want more of my dosh ending up in his pockets via corporation tax too. Long may we be "skint" I say.
| |
| |
|
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Logged![[image]](http://www.qpr.co.nz/headings/qpr/qprfanz25w.png "[image]")