Tony forced to sack Hughes

[londonranger]

Telegraph

Tony Fernandes was forced to sack Mark Hughes by QPR board

QPR chairman Tony Fernandes was outvoted by his fellow Malaysian shareholders over the sacking of Mark Hughes.

By Jason Burt12:32AM GMT 25 Nov 20121

Fernandes had fought to keep Hughes in his job but met strong opposition from Kamarudin Bin Meranun — who held talks with Hughes earlier this week — and Ruben Emir Gnanalingam. Amit Bhatia, the fourth QPR shareholder, is thought to have been less vociferous than the other two in trying to force Hughes out but agreed with the decision.

Fernandes was persuaded after Harry Redknapp, who took his seat in the Old Trafford directors’ box, set QPR a deadline of Saturday to make up their minds. Redknapp insisted that otherwise he would accept an offer to become the new coach of Ukraine.

That ultimatum, the pressure from supporters calling for a change, and a fear that QPR might fail to attract another high-calibre manager led to the decision. Redknapp has not yet signed his two-and-a-half year contract, thought to be worth around £3million a season with a seven-figure bonus should he manage to escape relegation.

He will not be given significant transfer funds to spend in the January window but will be allowed to recall Joey Barton from his loan spell at Marseilles should he wish.

Redknapp will push the club to make a renewed offer for Tottenham defender Michael Dawson but will be told to sell players to make the funds available. QPR failed to persuade Dawson to sign in August after agreeing a £9million deal with Spurs. The move broke down over personal terms.

“I don’t see us spending,” Redknapp said yesterday. “Twelve players were brought in in the summer so I think QPR have basically spent their money. You can’t keep spending.” He will, however, be able to push for loan deals and can try to move some players on. A new striker and central defender are his priorities.

The 65 year-old explained why he had accepted the post despite QPR being bottom of the Premier League. “I wanted to get back into football. It’s a big challenge but it’s Premier League football,” he said. “At the start of the week I was ready to take the job in Ukraine. I really fancied it. It was almost a done deal. I’ve not even signed my contract yet, it’s been a bit hectic.”

Redknapp is expected bring in his usual backroom staff of Kevin Bond and Joe Jordan but Hughes’ assistants Mark Bowen and Eddie Niedzwiecki, who took charge of the team yesterday, have not been told they are leaving.

Redknapp called on QPR’s underperforming squad to show more fight than in recent weeks. “The players have to be at it. The buck stops with them,” he said. “There are some good players here and they really need to step up and start performing.”

Fernandes stayed away from London this week while his fellow shareholders — most notably Kamarundin — held a series of meetings. Kamarundin was at Old Trafford with QPR chief executive Philip Beard, who had been the first to express concern with Hughes.
Hughes was summoned to meet Kamarundin at Loftus Road on Tuesday and was asked whether he could improve results. Although he was not given any reassurance, Hughes left the meeting believing he would be given more time.

Two meetings with the first-team squad followed to clear the air, the most recent on Thursday evening, only hours before Hughes was dismissed. Both meetings were constructive, with players accepting that they had underperformed but also that they needed more time.
Hughes had agreed to ditch Jose Bosingwa, Esteban Granero and Junior Hoilett from the team he would have selected for yesterday’s game and to reinstate some of the old guard of Jamie Mackie, Shaun Derry and Clint Hill, along with Nedum Onuoha. They are not better footballers but they are battle. With QPR in a scrap, Hughes had to concede that things needed to change, including his management. The QPR board, who complained about Hughes’ communication skills, feared that he might be unable to do that.

There is, however, a bewildered mood at the club. Hughes did not lose the dressing room. There was no player revolt. He could not be accused of failing to work hard enough, that his teams were underprepared or that the coaching was unprofessional. QPR have advanced hugely in the past few months, particularly away from the pitch, and that has mostly been down to Hughes.

All the necessary systems were in place, including medical expertise and scouting network, and he was overseeing impressive plans for a new training ground and new stadium.
It looked like Hughes had neglected the football but he had not. Much criticism has centred on his signings but the summer spending came in at less than £14million. half what Southampton spent. The wage bill rose significantly but some of the older players acquired were there only on a short-term basis and precisely because they could stave off the possibility of relegation.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/queens-park-rangers/9701099/Tony-Fernandes-was-forced-to-sack-Mark-Hughes-by-QPR-board.html

[londonranger]

Not a bad sendoff after not being abke to win a match.

[cpr]

As the citeh fan warned, the journos who are his mates will line up to tell us well he did. He did improve a lot of things but not the number 1 priority, as has been said many times.

At least it's Din they can portray as the villain rather than Tony.

[cpr]

The commentator yesterday said that he'd spent £37 million, £1.5 million for every point he gained.

So which was it? 14 or 37 or somewhere inbetween?

[ingham]

These people are mentally deranged.

£3 million a season?

And a £1 million BONUS if we win the title! No, let me read that again.

He gets £3 million IF HE TAKES US DOWN. But if he keeps us up, well, that calls for even more money. He gets a BONUS.

Do nothing, watch us go down, and you get £3 milliion, no questions asked. Win not a single game, score not a single goal, boys, the price for Del Boy to do that will be £3 million.

Deal? Oh yes. Thank you.

Maybe I can see why people don't trust Redknapp.

But these clowns ...

Dear God, don't get us up to mid-table, Redknapp, whatever you do. Having paid Hughes vast sums of money for doing nothing, we're doing it again.

[cpr]

Nov 25, 2012 10:11:07 GMT ingham said:

These people are mentally deranged.

£3 million a season?

And a £1 million BONUS if we win the title! No, stupid. If we qualify for Europe. No, let me read that again.

He gets £3 million if he takes us down. But if he keeps us up, well, that calls for a BONUS.

Do nothing, watch us go down, and you get £3 milliion anyway. Win not a single game, score not a single goal, and you get £3 million.

I can see why people don't trust Redknapp.

But these clowns ...

That's what Hughes was on, he also got a £1 million pound bonus for "keeping us up".

Clowns? Indeed but hopefully rich clowns.

[ingham]

If we need rich clowns to provide the money, cpr, what, exactly, do we spend the £40 million a year the Club is earning from the Premiership on?

I daresay Hughes gets his bonus for keeping us up, too. If Redknapp can be bothered to exert himself for the extra £1 million.

On the other hand, although it's not big money to us, it may matter to him .

[cpr]

Players wages?

[ingham]

Be serious. Players! Where?

Go on, tell me. They get a £1 million bonus if they've seen the ball.

I liked the bit about the older players only being there to stave off the possibility of relegation.

This is the 'great' squad funded by our 'rich' owners? Bet the impostors at Stamford Bridge and City were quaking in their boots when they saw our deceptively good performances earn 4 points.

[stevo]

The Telegraph article is full of holes. The idea that Hughes was overseeing plans for the new training ground and stadium are ridiculous. He was simply managing the first team - and look how that turned out. Seems to me that this is a very supportive piece written by a journalist who is in the Hughes' camp. Shoddy piece of writing.

Fernandes has been very keen to be in the media during the good times - and has now gone to ground leaving the dirty work to others. His judgement has been exposed as flawed. He didn't want to stand up and be counted when it mattered.

I'm not saying Harry is the answer but as we need to win almost every other game to stay up it's clear things couldn't go on. The decision should have been made after Stoke.

[nomar]

Nov 25, 2012 8:16:46 GMT cpr said:

The commentator yesterday said that he'd spent £37 million, £1.5 million for every point he gained.

So which was it? 14 or 37 or somewhere inbetween?

I think they are combining the figures from the 2 transfer windows Hughes had and dividing that by the total number of pts he gained, which was sonething like 25 pts I think.

Like others I would have liked them to have sat down with several candidates and give themselves a choice but Harry had them over a barrel and he knew it.

During the course of the week I became more convinced that my first choice would have been Gus Poyet. Exactly the kind of larger than life, tub thumping, no nonsense taking manager that does well here.

However, it was clear that the board wouldn't consider a 'no name' manager so I didn't think there was any point hoping it would happen.

If true then at least they are not going to fund more excessive spending. However, I'll believe that when I see it!

My guess is that Harry's bonus is safe in our Malaysian bank as I think we are in too deep a hole with too few games left to pull it off.

But if he does keep us up I will not begrudge him it as he will have been made to earn every penny of it thanks to the ineptitude of everyone here over the last 10 months and beyond.

[Macmoish]

I posted yesterday Beard and Fernandes quotes from Aug/ September re spending
qprreport.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=34096&page=1#300406

Fernandes Tweet
You know something I don't. Wages are less than last year 15 players already left. And we have spent a net of 1.5 million this year. (Aug 23, 2012)

+After the Swansea defeat "A source close to Fernandes told the Guardian: "We haven't paid for 95%, many are free transfers and many of these players, for example, Junior Hoilett, have huge value."

+ BEARD Q&A with London 24 at beginning of Sept

QPR Q&A: Chief executive on transfers, Hughes, Green and the future

"...The figures will back me up when I say that a lot of the players who have come in have done so on free transfers rather than a significant cost. Some clubs have spent £12 million or £15m on one player. You would struggle to get that sort of number for all the players we have signed..."

"...
Q: Does the fact that you have spent so little in transfer fees suggest that you have signed players who are past their best that no other clubs want?

What Mark has tried to do is have a balance. Watching Andy Johnson and Bobby Zamora play against Manchester City, I thought they dove-tailed really well. Andy, who has maybe one or two seasons left in the top flight, really wants to succeed.

[nomar]

And as for needing to sell before he buys, what a joke! How many saleable players do they think we have?

Most are old and on salaries no one else will touch thanks to Hughes' tactic of pretending he was still at Man City when signing them.

Faurlin, Granero, Hoilett and Taarabt are the only ones with any sell on value. Looks like that'll be Adel gone in January then. The one player who could get us out of the Championship at the first time of asking.

[RoryTheRanger]

Guarentee we could move on Barton to either Marseille or West Ham for about £4 or £5m. He would take a pay cut to stay in France I reckon.

[Hogan]

Nov 25, 2012 11:14:23 GMT nomar said:

And as for needing to sell before he buys, what a joke! How many saleable players do they think we have?

Most are old and on salaries no one else will touch thanks to Hughes' tactic of pretending he was still at Man City when signing them.

Faurlin, Granero, Hoilett and Taarabt are the only ones with any sell on value. Looks like that'll be Adel gone in January then. The one player who could get us out of the Championship at the first time of asking.

I agree, Harry needs to work with 'del for the remainder of the season and not sell him. He is one player who could turn a game, win a game out of nothing.

[saphilip]

I still say this - TF should have done the deed after the West Brom defeat. We had that extra week free due to the internationals after that and it would have given us 5/6 extra games for us to turn things around.

Yes, it may have sounded harsh and hindsight is the only exact science, so there was always the possibility that Hughes may have turned things around - but the truth is that he wasn't going to.

Many of us had already seen his flaws and realised that he could be here until Christmas and nothing would have changed. TF should have seen it as well. MH's excuses and tendency to blame everybody but himself should have been a huge clue - that and the fact that many of the team didn't seem to give a damn anymore.

We lost 6 crucial weeks as a result of this dithering - and I couldn't care less how Ferguson and everybody else in the pro-Hughes media camp would have seen it if he was sacked then. We would have been in a better position by now (and yes 'Arry was availaible then as well).

If TF is now saying that he was outvoted then I really have to question his judgement - and ask what he was seeing in Clueless Hughes that virtually nobody else couldn't.

Hopefully this article is a lot of crap - but I have some doubts.

[Hogan]

Nov 25, 2012 11:16:30 GMT RoryTheRanger said:

Guarentee we could move on Barton to either Marseille or West Ham for about £4 or £5m. He would take a pay cut to stay in France I reckon.

He will leave on a free, they can't afford big fees and we need him off the payroll.

[nomar]

Lets hope you are right about Barton, Rory.

At least Harry has said Adel is a big part to play in his plans.

[sharky]

Recon he should get rid of Granero too. Not a bad player but his style of play doesn't work with ours. That will free up some money for new Jan players.

[haqpr1963]

Nov 25, 2012 15:30:11 GMT sharky said:

Recon he should get rid of Granero too. Not a bad player but his style of play doesn't work with ours. That will free up some money for new Jan players.

[ingham]

How can his style not work with ours, sharky? We have a style?

Momentary anxiety when I saw Anton's sub-title. On the other hand, Gus could leave some of this lot standing. At least he battled, though it wasn't always apparent to what effect.

Agree with Stevo and had to laugh at that bloke talking as if Hughes was masterminding the new stadium and training facilities, but not anything on the pitch, it seems.

Redknapp has a good record for quick fixes. An upmarket Holloway/Warnock, if that doesn't offend anyone.

Welcome though that will be - and the prospect that we might still be relegated is alarming, I can't do the arithmetic! - the feeling that there isn't really all that much behind the PR facade at Loftus Road lingers.

The giant stadium seems absurd, even if we'd won the title, to be honest, and we didn't quite. And it would take a lot of title wins to make that viable, in my opinion.

So why say it? And why go on backing Hughes? Being loyal to a manager meant very little when he'd just sacked Warnock, and the basis for Hughes's high profile was harder to pin down than with some individuals. Holloway and Warnock, though more 'workmanlike' and arguably a little more lower league, each has a good track record of transformations.

While Redknapp's speed in turning Clubs round seems to be matched by his speed in moving around, although I might be a little hard on him there.

And that sort of mobility looks increasingly money-oriented to me. Understandably, since few Clubs have any CONCRETE idea what they're capable of, and more importantly, what they aren't.

The big dream - ground, champions league - is making it increasingly hard for QPR to accept its own limitations, and that is a concern. If we easily attracted top managers and big stars, fine, but the movement of the Mancinis and Van Persies is predictable.

We accept that predictability with other Clubs - and the reasons why those moves ARE predictable (some or all of seriously big money, massive support, big stadiums they KNOW they can fill).

So it's understandable that some are uneasy about Redknapp. Far more convincing than Hughes to my mind, but still a little difficult to place. Is he a title-winning guy? Mid-table? Surely not relegation, despite our doubts?

Fernandes's comments quoted in this thread about how little we spent on these players interested me. Are we investing big, or on a shoestring? Or is cpr's doubts as to why we didn't go for Poyet correct? No big name, no big PR advantage.

Which places the area of doubt firmly around the boardroom. Are we getting short term, flashy, appointments coupled up with maybe laughable ideas like 45,000 attendances because they are thinking very short term indeed.

Make the Club sound more than it is, and do what householders did in the property boom. Simply cash in in an inflated market.

Businessmen are accustomed to, let us say, lawful deceptions. You make money out of the punters by finding a way of making a very ordinary product or service, or even a bad one, sound much better than it really is.

For the Club, that could be a rather dangerous game. You tend to get found out in football.

[sharky]

What I meant by "style" was before Grenero came on we had a flow to our game getting the ball forward fairly quick. After Granero came on we tried a possession game whereby Granero and others pass the ball to each other without any real purpose until we turn over possession.

[Lonegunmen]

Our style is a losing style, perhaps Redknapp can change the style to a winning one that would also suit Granero?

[ingham]

Sorry, sharky, I was just being flippant, not disputing your point. More in the nature of what lonegunmen says. This shambles constitutes a 'style'? No doubt even an ineffective side has a game plan, even if it isn't exactly working.

The question of whether there is a long term 'game plan' remains, I think. When did we ever have a manager who lasted more than 3 years? Holloway, but he had a year or two of indulgence because his attitude was refreshing after the dreadful decline before. The only really long term manager we've had in my time was Alec Stock. Venables didn't last long, Sexton didn't. Jago, Gerry Francis, Jim Smith, Don Howe. Some impressive names there.

There seem to be two possibilities. At a big club, where continuous success is possible, more or less a no-brainer. The manager stays in the job because he = success. Busby, the Boot Room regime at Anfield, and Ferguson, and Chapman before them.

Or relatively unsuccessful Clubs where it is understood that failure and losing runs are inevitable, since the Club is too small to sustain major successes for long. Clough at Forest, long after he had ceased to win things. Dario Gradi at Crewe.

QPR seem to be incapable of doing this. In a way, that isn't unreasonable. Being really successful for a Club like ours is all but impossible. But it is very easy to dream about it. Especially if the dreams are a very vague as to the details of such successes.

They aren't even dreams, really. Just assumptions. Dreams usually involve images of some kind, and it's too easy to ask 'how?' But an assumption is just words. A 45,000 ground = big = success = money. Yes, there are big clubs with grounds of that size, with success, and with money. If QPR were to be one of those big Clubs, bingo. Sorted.

Having a long term manager - with the usual combination of better periods and losing spells - would involve too much realism to sustain those assumptions.

We would know exactly what we were capable of in terms of money, size and success. We would realise how hard it is to get 'stability' that doesn't institutionalise failure.

So swapping the manager every two or three years, or even sooner, keeps the assumptions alive. Him, no, not him. Him. No, not him either. This one. Yes. No. Well, that's all the mistakes made now, from now on, it will be plain sailing.

But that means win, win, win, win, win, win. Getting a new manager in means we can explain away any losses. First, because he has to get his feet under the table. And when it happens again, because we're getting a new guy in, who will sort it.

That way, we don't have to face up to reality. If we did, and put more effort into understanding why the winners win - and, even better - why all those losers are still losing 100 years on, maybe we would do better overall. We might even attract one of those types one day.

Our way of going about things seems contradictory. If Harry gets us to mid-table, that will seem wonderful after the last couple of years. But how ambitious will that be? Surely we have ambition to have top five attendances. How will being the next Fulham make us the next Champions League regular?

If he doesn't want to be at a bigger Club, challenging for bigger things, that means he sees us as forever a small Club.

But if he doesn't haul us into the top four, how will we ever get there, if he is one of the best managers available?

Maybe there is no plan to get there. And the 45,000 stadium is just something to say, because the Board knows nothing about the game, cares nothing about QPR, and won't be around long enough for it to matter to them.

Strange, though, that as we become less and less impressive, the talk gets bigger and bigger. When we were doing well in the top flight, even very well, there was very little talk about building a huge ground and having vast attendances and lots of money to splash around.

But we had that elusive 'stability' - in the person of Gregory, and in the identity of the Club, which remained what it had been, really, except for the considerable improvement in results.

It was the brainstorms about mergers, selling the ground, moving here or there, which struck us as destabilising, and we generally opposed them.