|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 10, 2009 23:50:23 GMT
They have their own source who I presume is not The SAUCE or Paladini!
The Sun
Only person who’d take QPR job is somebody hoping for pay-off in six months By GEOFF SWEET
WANTED: A football manager who fancies getting sacked after six months. You will, though, walk away with an undisclosed pay-off!
Applicants should apply immediately to QPR supremo Flavio Briatore.
The Loftus Road chief saw off his fourth boss in 18 months yesterday after Portuguese coach Paulo Sousa was dumped — just 26 games into the job.
Sousa’s not alone. His predecessor Iain Dowie lasted 15 games — in fact the average shelf-life of a QPR boss under Briatore works out at just 17 games.
The QPR hotseat is now so hot, that, according to a club insider, it’s only suitable for “an old guy looking for a quick pay-off — or a youngster happy to be told exactly what to do”.
Because F1 chief Briatore runs QPR with an iron grip.
Our source close to the players told how Briatore: Sent Sousa a letter to underline how he was only a coach and NOT a manager and that the instruction from the board was to play 4-4-2 for the remainder of the season.
Last Saturday phoned in from Malaysia to demand Sousa replace Liam Miller with Lee Cook at half-time in the goalless draw with Crystal Palace, which he did. Demanding substitutions was a regular occurrence.
Regularly visited the dressing room and interrupted Sousa’s pre-match team talks.
Our source added: “QPR under Briatore is a complete shambles — an amateur club could be run better.
“Paulo, like Dowie before him, was actually a strong person but that’s the last sort of coach the chairman wants.”
Sousa, 38, was dumped on Thursday night, with the Championship club claiming he divulged sensitive information and that they acted after taking legal advice to “protect their position”.
Fans’ favourite Gareth Ainsworth was immediately put in charge as caretaker (for the second time) until the end of the season after Sousa’s No 2 Bruno Oliveira had his contract terminated on Monday.
It was first thought Sousa’s downfall was revealing he knew nothing about the decision to loan out top-scorer Dexter Blackstock to Nottingham Forest.
Advertisement
But last night it emerged Sousa had allegedly spoken out of turn to a fan about fitness and contract details of some first-team squad members and that this information appeared on websites.
The source added: “Briatore thinks that because he pays good wages the players are behind him. But the truth is they are afraid to say boo to a goose and most of them think he hasn’t got a clue.
“There is a post-season trip to Bahrain but hardly anyone wants to go and instead they’ve instructed their agents to find new teams.”
Briatore bought the club with a group of friends, including Grand Prix chum Bernie Ecclestone, in September 2007.
Other Briatore casualties include John Gregory and Luigi de Canio, plus Mick Harford, who lost his job as a caretaker boss.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Apr 10, 2009 23:56:17 GMT
Briatore and Ron Noades? both chairmen whom think they can pick a team and the tactics.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 10, 2009 23:59:14 GMT
And this from Des Kelly/The Mail
Ruthless Ranger All change: Briatore the axeman
When I interviewed Flavio Briatore for the BBC, the perma-tanned head honcho had just been installed at Queens Park Rangers and was promising a directors’ box full of beautiful people and a ‘boutique’ club.
After going through five managers in 18 months, Briatore’s project at Loftus Road is looking more like Woolworths. Rumours abound that the Formula One boss tries to select the team, despite his patent lack of knowledge.
Meanwhile, the dismissal of Paulo Sousa after just 26 matches was explained with the preposterous excuse that he leaked ‘highly confidential and sensitive information’ when he admitted the club’s top scorer had been loaned out without his prior knowledge.
It wasn’t confidential information. But it was obviously sensitive — to someone, at least.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Apr 11, 2009 0:05:29 GMT
This story above is unbelievaby believable. Players that want to go to other clubs. Can see why. The club is splitting apart.
Managers? Our team is being managed by phone in. The fallout from this latest mishigus will escalate. I really fear the
shape of things to come (HG Wells). Tyranny is not management, it is a destructive force.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 11, 2009 0:09:45 GMT
Obviously we don't KNOW this to be true. But it's good that it's out there now. If it's not true, I'm sure I'll read it on the boards. And if it is true (and it doesn't sound that implausible - given the past reports) well what can you say: Paladini we can replace. Briatore is in charge. Shades of Hearts and Romanov.
And what really is crazy: Noades knew about football. Even Paladini to a little degree. But Briatore knows nothing. He knows less than any of us. Can you imagine. It's total insanity. Especially since we're not just a toy. He wants to accomplish promotion.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Apr 11, 2009 0:13:26 GMT
Wouldn't we have been laughing if Briatore and Ecclestone has bought Chelski as they originally (Allegedly) wanted to and this all happened at their place??
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 11, 2009 0:17:23 GMT
G-D: What a mixed opportunity Envisage Briatore somewhere overseas calling up Mourinho and telling him to play x and that he had the wrong tactics. Yes we missed out. (Of course I hasten to add, "We were on the point of Administration...So if no Briatore, would have been the end of QPR")
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Apr 11, 2009 0:37:37 GMT
Actually mate, I think fans would let this go IF Flavio just did what directors are meant to do - supply the money and make sure the business side of the club is running smoothly and expanding. Sit in the directors box as often as possible and listen and act on the team managers requests - re transfers etc. Stay away from the dressing room, stay away from the training ground, stay away from the team selections and tactics. If he did that, he'd be popular.
As for Paladini, his job is not really required at QPR, but having said that, if he too did similar to Flavio but also did a bit more indepth work on the managers requests for players, then he too would be reasonably popular.
They created this mine field, they have to walk through it. Such as simple solution yet ego's seem to be closed to the idea.
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 11, 2009 0:51:06 GMT
And to be serious, I pretty much agree with you. That's why I didn't really mind that Paladini stayed after the takeover. But not sure it's working out.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Apr 11, 2009 0:54:19 GMT
Perhaps they might like to read my previous comment, who knows it might be what they need to see instead of some of the insults - my own ones included.
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on Apr 11, 2009 1:40:43 GMT
Scathing article by Des Kelly - Mail
''Rumours abound that the Formula One boss tries to select the team, despite his patent lack of knowledge''
|
|
|
Post by scottjones on Apr 11, 2009 8:23:48 GMT
*hangs head in shame* Probably all true isnt it
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 11, 2009 8:40:13 GMT
Of true....
And this is who Ecclestone and Mittal are trusting with their investment? This is why any other changes at the club become subordinate to this central issue: Is HE going to change behavior and I would doubt that.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Apr 11, 2009 14:46:38 GMT
Great thread, although I would say that one of the difficulties they're having to face up to is that they don't supply the money.
The money the Club has been spending for the last two decades is the Club's money, not theirs. Not Wright's, not Caliendo's, not Briatore's, not Ecclestone's.
If it belonged to the moneylenders', they would incur the losses themselves. But we know from the Accounts that the losses are the Club's. And if the losses are the Club's, then the money the Club is spending - and losing - is the Club's money too.
To spend like Man Utd, as some clearly thought we would when Briatore and his pals arrived, we would have to earn like Man Utd. And while QPR can borrow £5 million here, and £10 million there, the lenders can only siphon hundreds of millions out of the Club - by means of vast loans like the half billion plus Chelsea borrowed from Abramovich - if the Club already has hundreds of millions for them to siphon out. Or the lender is persuaded the Club will have that money when the loan falls due.
Just as a homeowner mortgages his property to a mortgagee, a football club borrower transfers the value of its resources - the stadium, future revenue - to the lender.
Ensuring the lender isn't out of pocket, no matter how much of the Club's money he loses.
What is disturbing when this happens at a football club is that lenders like Briatore and his mates - unlike old fashioned mortgagees like building societies, and unlike ABC, for that matter - are acting on their own behalf as the lender, at the same time as they're acting on the Club's behalf as its 'representatives'.
A clear conflict of interest if they're venal, foolish, incompetent, or just plain unlucky, because the Club has no-one to turn to to protect it from their folly.
You wouldn't borrow money from a moneylender, and then let him squander it himself. Why should the Club?
These people could put it all right very easily, of course. by reversing the original loan procedure, and making good any losses the Club has incurred themselves. But that would mean putting their own money into the Club - the very thing they always claim they're doing - and they never show any sign of doing it.
Their task is made easier because of the nature of debt. It is easy to give the impression that the Club's debts have been cleared by saying that a loan has been repaid, when all that has happened is that one lender has been replaced by another.
That's why we're always hearing that the Club has been saved from its losses and debts by running up even bigger losses and debts.
|
|
|
Post by grumpyolde on Apr 11, 2009 17:31:48 GMT
Ingham,
You and I are singing from the same hymn sheet. For months I have been posting on this site pointing out that the gang who run the club have given nothing to the club yet. They virtually stole the QPR shares from the fans for a derisory 1penny per share. Other money and spending has been secured with a charge on the ground at Loftus Road, whilst claiming to be spending their own. The only motive for being here was to make easy money, but because of their own incompetance this hasn't worked out.
Now having spent most or all of the equity in the ground we come to the real test. The next serious money to be spent may have to be their own. What a change in attitude this has seen. Wholesale cut backs and sackings, players sent out on loan, the foundations of the club severly eroded - the kind of action you would expect at a club threatened with administration. Certainly not a club owned by some of the wealthiest people in the world trying to create a successful team.
Most of the supporters keep saying it will be better next season when we buy x number of very good new players. Well they didn't do much of a job when they were spending the clubs money - why will it be better when theyr'e spending their own. ( thats if they spend any )
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Apr 11, 2009 18:13:28 GMT
grumpy, remember when my glass was half full? might be drinking from your glass now mate. trying to convince myself i am the eternal optimist.
|
|
|
Post by grumpyolde on Apr 11, 2009 19:50:24 GMT
CPR
Don't be downhearted. The soul of the club will always belong to you and the other supporters who really care for QPR. Sometimes, with something or somebody you love,you just don't want to see anything wrong, and this is a good quality to have.
Unfortunately an old cynic like me just has to say something when I think some people are taking liberties with an institution so many care about and enjoy.
Keep hoping - nothing lasts forever - and hope one day we will get the team back.
p.s. If I ever see you with an empty looking glass I promise to fill it for you
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 11, 2009 19:53:00 GMT
Actually there are a number of clubs that used to exist, but that no longer do! Bradford Park Avenue?
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Apr 11, 2009 20:03:13 GMT
Mike, that is not a number, that is one, they have risen from the ashes as well. Grumpy, I will hold you to that mate. Time to get wrecked then ;o See ya! ;D
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 11, 2009 20:05:23 GMT
OK: Add Wimbledon.
I can think quite a few League clubs from my youth who are now out of the league. They may theoretically still exist but they never returned to the league
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Apr 11, 2009 20:11:14 GMT
Wimbledon still exists, in two guises (sp) and I hate them both.
Going out of the league is not the demise of a club.
At that level, can even save them!
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Apr 11, 2009 20:16:19 GMT
When the Wimbledon-QPR merger was in the works: One of the arguments was that "this" QPR would be in a higher division, than if we stayed seperate. That never appealed to me. As long as QPR continue to exist as a seperate entity, whatever the division, we can continue to dream of the Premiership Championship. - And "If you Will it, it is no Dream"
|
|