kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Ramsey
Jul 27, 2015 16:31:56 GMT
Post by kilburnhoop on Jul 27, 2015 16:31:56 GMT
3 out of the last 4 years years in the prem and a win at Wembley. Is this not an improvement then. You mention Derby, Forest, Leeds, United and Arsenals success. Have we ever been consistantly sucessful?. You mention 5 clubs out of 92. What have the other 87 done?. You also failed to mention Chelseas success which has been bought with over a billion quid, i wonder why?! Can't speak for ingham but I imagine he's mentioned those clubs in reference to our boardroom's stated aims over the years. As in, we've had changes in boardroom staff and our stated expectations have ranged from Champions League football to being a steady, consistent Premier League level club to, now, being a consolidated Championship club going through a transitional period. So in terms of our higher aspirations which we've not hit, you can compare instances of success to our level of failure. I'm not saying Wembley and the premier league excursions were failures in themselves, on paper that's massive for a club of our size. Bu they were failures in terms of the expectations and aspirations set by different people in the powerful positions at our club and in terms of the level of expenditure that accompanied them. In terms of the 87 other clubs, I think it's more the fact that most of those examples aren't relevant as they havn't gone through the same kind of upheaval we have and had their boardrooms making explicit goals in terms of success that havn't been met (nor been saddled with the sheer level of debt in relation to our income). Why compare ourselves to all 92 clubs when most of them aren't comparable to our situation? I hardly think comparing us to forest, derby, arsenal or united is relevant. Basically implying we should have acheived the same success in 4 years. Why not compare us to bolton, blackburn, wigan or Coventry?. They are all going so well and have/had huge debts. Everyone club makes and sets goals so i don't quite understand what you mean by that. Some clubs choose to make them public and i admire that. I get the fact there is a very anti TF brigade but lets not pretend we are alone.
|
|
Dufster
Neil Warnock
I say!
Posts: 548
|
Ramsey
Jul 27, 2015 17:06:46 GMT
Post by Dufster on Jul 27, 2015 17:06:46 GMT
I believe that Tony Fernandes is genuinely a good person who has nothing but the clubs best interest at heart. I admire him for the way he has built Air Asia into the Global success it has become and absolutely recognise all of the charitable philanthropic work he does and the positive image he creates and represents for his country!
Sadly for us and him IMO...to date his time in charge of QPR has been a disaster!
|
|
|
Ramsey
Jul 27, 2015 19:29:32 GMT
via mobile
sharky likes this
Post by nomar on Jul 27, 2015 19:29:32 GMT
I believe that Tony Fernandes is genuinely a good person who has nothing but the clubs best interest at heart. I admire him for the way he has built Air Asia into the Global success it has become and absolutely recognise all of the charitable philanthropic work he does and the positive image he creates and represents for his country! Sadly for us and him IMO...to date his time in charge of QPR has been a disaster! Sadly, TF doesn't have a scooby doo about running a football club. Had Bhatia been running the ship from the moment we first got promoted 4 years ago we'd have a good chance of being an established mid table Prem side by now. Ingham, football is a completely different beast to what it was in those bygone years you quoted. You'd never see a team like Ipswich Town come up from the 2nd tier and win the Prem like that 1962 team did the equivalent of. Or finish 2nd like they did in 1981 and 82. Different game now so not really a fair comparison.
|
|
|
Ramsey
Jul 28, 2015 11:33:02 GMT
Post by bowranger on Jul 28, 2015 11:33:02 GMT
Can't speak for ingham but I imagine he's mentioned those clubs in reference to our boardroom's stated aims over the years. As in, we've had changes in boardroom staff and our stated expectations have ranged from Champions League football to being a steady, consistent Premier League level club to, now, being a consolidated Championship club going through a transitional period. So in terms of our higher aspirations which we've not hit, you can compare instances of success to our level of failure. I'm not saying Wembley and the premier league excursions were failures in themselves, on paper that's massive for a club of our size. Bu they were failures in terms of the expectations and aspirations set by different people in the powerful positions at our club and in terms of the level of expenditure that accompanied them. In terms of the 87 other clubs, I think it's more the fact that most of those examples aren't relevant as they havn't gone through the same kind of upheaval we have and had their boardrooms making explicit goals in terms of success that havn't been met (nor been saddled with the sheer level of debt in relation to our income). Why compare ourselves to all 92 clubs when most of them aren't comparable to our situation? I hardly think comparing us to forest, derby, arsenal or united is relevant. Basically implying we should have acheived the same success in 4 years. Why not compare us to bolton, blackburn, wigan or Coventry?. They are all going so well and have/had huge debts. Everyone club makes and sets goals so i don't quite understand what you mean by that. Some clubs choose to make them public and i admire that. I get the fact there is a very anti TF brigade but lets not pretend we are alone. Again, I can't speak for ingham, but my take on that is that it's a comparison based on how clubs, with the right investment, stewardship, management, ethos etc. etc. have the possibility of being successful within that kind of timeframe. I agree that Bolton, Blackburn, Wigan and Coventry are certainly comparable too - in that they've been exceptionally poorly ran at boardroom level - it's not mutually exclusive. It's making the same point really, though. In fairness, as nomar points out, it's a bit unfair to chuck those examples from longer ago into the mix as the path to success is so rooted in absurdly high levels of investment that there's effectively a glass ceiling to big success (e.g. a well-ran club like Swansea will never crack the top 6 I reckon, despite the fact that they are ran really, really sensibly). What I meant by talking about targets is that our targets do not particularly tally with other clubs of our size and level of money pumped into the club. We are an anomaly - we spent years setting higher targets than equivalent clubs and spending far, far more than equivalent clubs but came up short and in a far worse state. Hence why we're now tightening our belts and effectively rebuilding in the Championship. I don't really get the latter point - I agree, we are certainly not alone and there are certainly clubs in a far, far worse state off the pitch - does that make it any better? Writing it off as an "anti TF brigade" just seems lazy.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jul 29, 2015 6:43:33 GMT
|
|