obk
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by obk on Sept 14, 2012 19:12:25 GMT
English version of Las Vegas, would that be Blackpool?  |
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Sept 15, 2012 0:52:23 GMT
Maybe we need to have a "Where's Wally" away shirt! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 15, 2012 6:38:52 GMT
WIll be interesting to see if he's at the game today
|
|
|
|
Post by blockhead on Sept 15, 2012 8:07:29 GMT
Maybe we need to have a "Where's Wally" away shirt! ;D we have that already, in Blue. |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Sept 15, 2012 19:41:52 GMT
Mac's point that the Club is usually quick to slap down rumours is a valid one. If a rumour isn't cleared up quickly, speculation is inevitable.
Nothing wrong with that. If we believe in a particular regime - Board, Manager, Players - how are we supposed to cope when they change with such bewildering rapidity, and so frequently.
We hardly get our head round how fantastic each new initiative is before we're unthinking the justifications for backing THEM to construct a new set of enthusiasms around a different set of on and off the pitch footballing wizards.
blatantfowl's post encapsulates the contradictions. The bigger and better it all seems, the bigger and more insoluble the problems.
With the result that when the initial euphoria dies down, it all seems less convincing and nowhere near so hunky dory as it did at first glance.
One reason is that there is so little realism. When we look at QPR, look at the managers we get, the scale of the 'investment', the consequences in terms of the Club's finances, and the quality of the players we get for the money, none of it really measures up.
Why are any of them here? We're a small Club. And THEY'RE all pretty small too. The players aren't top drawer, the manager hasn't managed for any length of time at the top, or won anything much, and there is no experience of doing this sort of thing in the boardroom.
And there seems to be little idea of how HARD football is. It is as if everything else in the game is very much inferior to what we have here. And is it? Villa and Everton, Clubs whose better days are already far in the past, are averaging around 33,000 a week.
We have virtually never played in front of a crowd that size at home, even when we were very good indeed. By their standards, they are poor.
Isn't every other Club telling its supporters that things will get better. Maybe that's why they hardly ever do. They're all doing the same things that didn't work last time, because they can't do the one thing that matters.
They can't play. Everything is second hand. Cast-off players, cast-off managers, and every 2 or 3 years, complete novices in the boardroom.
Teams don't go without winning for long. And few teams keep it up. That makes it very difficult to work out, in the short term, how good we actually are. A 0-5 reverse really doesn't mean all that much. But six wins in a row don't either. How often do we win 6 games in a row?
And it will take a lot more than getting us a few more wins every season to transform the Club on every level.
The fundamental problem is that the Club can only transform itself by using the very meagre resources it has. But if those resources were enough, the Club wouldn't need transforming in the first place.
And what of our 'investors'. They are able to get hold of the shares in QPR relatively cheaply precisely because QPR doesn't have much to 'sell'.
So the fact that they've plumped for QPR, and not splashed out on a much BIGGER Club - Everton or Villa or Spurs, say - suggests not only that QPR is a small time operation.
It also suggests that they are small time charlies too.
|
|
camel
Ian Holloway
Posts: 371
|
Post by camel on Sept 16, 2012 10:16:56 GMT
Mac's point that the Club is usually quick to slap down rumours is a valid one. If a rumour isn't cleared up quickly, speculation is inevitable. Nothing wrong with that. If we believe in a particular regime - Board, Manager, Players - how are we supposed to cope when they change with such bewildering rapidity, and so frequently. We hardly get our head round how fantastic each new initiative is before we're unthinking the justifications for backing THEM to construct a new set of enthusiasms around a different set of on and off the pitch footballing wizards. blatantfowl's post encapsulates the contradictions. The bigger and better it all seems, the bigger and more insoluble the problems. With the result that when the initial euphoria dies down, it all seems less convincing and nowhere near so hunky dory as it did at first glance. One reason is that there is so little realism. When we look at QPR, look at the managers we get, the scale of the 'investment', the consequences in terms of the Club's finances, and the quality of the players we get for the money, none of it really measures up. Why are any of them here? We're a small Club. And THEY'RE all pretty small too. The players aren't top drawer, the manager hasn't managed for any length of time at the top, or won anything much, and there is no experience of doing this sort of thing in the boardroom. And there seems to be little idea of how HARD football is. It is as if everything else in the game is very much inferior to what we have here. And is it? Villa and Everton, Clubs whose better days are already far in the past, are averaging around 33,000 a week. We have virtually never played in front of a crowd that size at home, even when we were very good indeed. By their standards, they are poor. Isn't every other Club telling its supporters that things will get better. Maybe that's why they hardly ever do. They're all doing the same things that didn't work last time, because they can't do the one thing that matters. They can't play. Everything is second hand. Cast-off players, cast-off managers, and every 2 or 3 years, complete novices in the boardroom. Teams don't go without winning for long. And few teams keep it up. That makes it very difficult to work out, in the short term, how good we actually are. A 0-5 reverse really doesn't mean all that much. But six wins in a row don't either. How often do we win 6 games in a row? And it will take a lot more than getting us a few more wins every season to transform the Club on every level. The fundamental problem is that the Club can only transform itself by using the very meagre resources it has. But if those resources were enough, the Club wouldn't need transforming in the first place. And what of our 'investors'. They are able to get hold of the shares in QPR relatively cheaply precisely because QPR doesn't have much to 'sell'. So the fact that they've plumped for QPR, and not splashed out on a much BIGGER Club - Everton or Villa or Spurs, say - suggests not only that QPR is a small time operation. It also suggests that they are small time charlies too. This is an excellent post. Until the last line. You know Mittal is richer than Bill Gates, Roman Abramovich and the Queen, right? A "small town charlie" is the last thing he is. QPR are obviously a hobby, which h doesn't mind throwing a few quid at, but unlike the Russian down the road, he is not going to make it his life's mission to make QPR Champions League winners. I'm ok with that. My brother supports Portsmouth. As long QPR don't become the next Pompey, I am more than happy with Mittal's involvement with QPR. |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Sept 17, 2012 20:18:12 GMT
Good point, camel, but in what way is it obvious, would you say? If you are successful in other fields, that doesn't make you the QPR manager. If Mittal is a big shot in steel, that doesn't make him anything at QPR. So is there something concrete that we know - in facts, numbers, decisions, successes - which tells us he is - apart from the fact that he owns shares. Not a controlling interest, as far as I know. And supporters own shares, but they usually don't consider themselves big-time charlies. We know - roughly, I suppose - that the CLUB gets around £40 million a season in the Premiership, or so it is said. But that's the Club's money, not Mittal's. Is QPR spending MORE than £40 million a season on a team which has hardly risen above the relegation zone in a season and a bit? Seriously? If so, how much? And how much of it is from Mittal? Fernandes says there are loans, even Bhatia now admits it. Are the loans from Mittal? The accounts are always a year behind, but I can't recall anything specific in the accounts about Mittal, even when he didn't have a controlling interest under Ecclestone and Briatore. He can operate through front companies, but anyone can lend money to the Club in that way, it doesn't, per se, give them any particular status at QPR except creditor. But even if there are sizeable loans, and consequent debts, and Mittal is the creditor, the money spent on players or anything else is always the Club's, not Mittal's, or other lenders. If you borrow money and put it on a horse, you don't lose the lender's money, you lose your own. And even if this is happening, the only sizeable sums I know of are the TV money, I haven't heard of anything BIG from investors. They like to give us that impression. But then they tell us there's no debt. So there can't be. Mittal may be making big loans, perhaps, but is there any evidence that he is? And if he is, does that make him a major asset, or a liability? Technically, a liability, if the Club is losing money as a result. Assuming the loans are losses, that is, and the losses are debt, and the debts are liabilities. Nonetheless, money of that kind is from outside. It might make him big as a lender, but not big in or at the Club. Despite all the talk about 'soft' loans, all loans come from outside. The Club can't lend money to itself. A lot is said about the disposition and intentions of the 'investors', implying that we know their state of mind, intentions, capabilities, but a lot was said about the intentions and capabilities of their predecessors and very few turned out to be true. So, on the basis of what we know, I mark him at zero  . Which probably makes him rather less than a small time charlie! But that's just my view. I can't say much about the hobby angle. Do we know that? We can suppose that owning shares IS a hobby, but we're told football is a business. And if he just owns them, it doesn't mean anything per se, not when others have the controlling interest. And a hobby doesn't sound big time anyway, well, not to me. We could say that business is his hobby, but without some hefty figures, or some concrete information about something big he is DOING, that's just words. His shareholding didn't produce any money for the Club at all unless they were a new issue. But it seems unlikely, given the state of the Club when he arrived, that it was 'big-time' money, not when big time means Mansour or RA. So I'm not entirely sure where we differ. A hobby is small time, isn't it? The Club seems to be operating very much on the QPR scale of things which, like you, I rather prefer, to tell the truth, but that's small'time, too isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 18, 2012 21:02:07 GMT
Amit Bhatia back tweeting 5m Amit Bhatia Amit Bhatia â€@amit_Bhatia99 I'm surprised at Zenit-SP. They've brought in a lot of quality and spent a bucket load of money so would have expected better than tonight. 8m Amit Bhatia Amit Bhatia â€@amit_Bhatia99 When the time comes to move on I will have to. But for now there's loads still to be done at #QPR. We're only 4 games into the season! 10m Amit Bhatia Amit Bhatia â€@amit_Bhatia99 Haha, thank you all for your concern. I'm very much alive and have no plans of going anywhere anytime soon.14m Amit Bhatia Amit Bhatia â€@amit_Bhatia99 #JoséMourinhoisDAman 17m Amit Bhatia Amit Bhatia â€@amit_Bhatia99 Spent the last week on the road. Home tonight so decided to have a curry and watch THAT match. Boy #whatAgame! Good to be home! Expand |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Sept 19, 2012 5:40:40 GMT
So he's not going but he will at some point.
Same as everyone else then.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Sept 19, 2012 21:37:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Sept 20, 2012 9:42:19 GMT
Do you think that Abromavich and Mansour are declaring their investments as income before they put it into C*****a and Man City? Why would Mittal make his investment in the form of loans to the club from his personal income account? That would be stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 20, 2012 13:36:05 GMT
Yup. Personal residency only affects you personal tax status, not that of your companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Sept 20, 2012 19:48:32 GMT
Do you think that Abromavich and Mansour are declaring their investments as income before they put it into C*****a and Man City? Why would Mittal make his investment in the form of loans to the club from his personal income account? That would be stupid. what i am trying to say mark is that QPR will not see any substantial investment from him not because he is a non domicial but rather more like that he is like all the rest of them that claim non dom, do you not feel rather pissed off at that ? to me it shows what kind of man him and his counterparts are. i would rather put moral values ahead of trophys and leave that sh!t to the scum fans who do not care how they will try to succeed. A £393m payday... but tycoon Lakshmi Mittal won't be taxed on it here as he's a 'non-dom' By KARL WEST Last updated at 10:51 14 February 2008 Comments (0) Share Laughing all the way to the bank: Lakshmi Mittal will not pay tax in the UK on his £393m dividend due to his non-domicile status Britain's richest man is £393.9million better off today after paying himself a huge dividend from his company, safe in the knowledge that as a "non-dom" he will not pay tax on it here. Indian tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, 57, is the world's fifth wealthiest man, worth more than £19billion. But his big payout comes as the debate over the non-domiciled status of 117,000 foreigners living in Britain reaches fever pitch. These so-called non-doms, who claim their main home is in another country, pay no tax on earnings made outside Britain. From April, the Chancellor Alistair Darling plans to impose a £30,000-a-year levy on anyone who has claimed non-domiciled status for seven of the last ten years. But he has dropped a requirement for them to reveal offshore holdings. Mr Darling was this week accused of a climbdown as the Treasury "clarified" its plans, saying it did not want to "snoop" on rich foreigners' financial affairs. The way in which wealthy non-doms such as Mr Mittal and Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich, who is Russian, have been able to bypass paying British taxes while living here has come in for increasing criticism. Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said last night: "I take a fairly hard line on this whole issue. "I think it's a scandal that long-standing residents are able to take advantage of loopholes in the non-domicile rules to avoid paying tax. "The Darling poll tax on these guys is not going to make any difference. "A £30,000 charge is a fleabite in terms of the billions of regular income they get from business and capital gains." Mr Mittal, who is named after Lakshmi, the Hindu goddess of wealth, is thought to pay a modest amount of tax to Britain. His massive dividend payout came from ArcelorMittal, the world's biggest steel group, which is based in the tax haven of Luxembourg. He owns 43 per cent of the firm, which employs 320,000 people in 60 countries. Mr Mittal, who moved to London in 1995, has an Indian passport. Born into poverty in 1950, he lived in a modest house with 20 members of his family. He has said: "It was a very poor, very hard place. There was no electricity or running water." Now, he uses chauffeur-driven limousines, a private jet and a couple of yachts to travel between homes in London, Delhi and St Moritz. His Kensington mansion in one of London's most exclusive postcodes set new records when he bought it for a reputed £65.2million in 2004. The lavish property has garage space for 20 cars and is adorned with marble taken from the same quarry as that for the Taj Mahal. He also famously splashed out £30million on his daughter's wedding in 2004. Mr Mittal's deep pockets have not gone unnoticed at Westminster. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been accused of doing favours for the Indian billionaire, who has given £4million to Labour since 2001. Mr Mittal was at the centre of one of the party's biggest financial controversies in 2001, when the then Prime Minister Tony Blair allegedly intervened to help him buy a steelworks in Romania not long after he made a £125,000 donation to Labour. He was recently in the news for buying a 20 per cent stake in Queen's Park Rangers FC, where he joins other wealthy co-owners Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One boss, and Flavio Briatore, Renault F1 team manager. ArcelorMittal made £53.6billion last year, up nearly 20 per cent from 2006. That was when the Indian tycoon's firm Mittal Steel won its takeover bid for Arcelor SA, combining the No.1 and No.2 steelmakers to create a steel titan three times bigger than its closest rival and with ten per cent of the world's steel output. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514296/A-393m-payday--tycoon-Lakshmi-Mittal-wont-taxed-hes-non-dom.html#ixzz272ZMm1Uo Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook |
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Sept 21, 2012 10:42:36 GMT
what i am trying to say mark is that QPR will not see any substantial investment from him not because he is a non domicial but rather more like that he is like all the rest of them that claim non dom, do you not feel rather pissed off at that ? I'm not to sure what you are trying to get across Maude, in terms of his nom-dom status in relation to his perceived lack of investment/loans to QPR for a man of his means. His personal tax structure is relatively unknown to me and if he declares in in his country of origin and pay taxes there then that does not piss me off as India have a right to his tax receipts more so than anyone else, but it is not that important to me as it is his personal business and of which certainly should have no bearing on his level of investment/loans to the club. Philip Green and his wife piss me off as he is taking money out of the country which should be taxed but isn't due to her Monaco residency status, but with Mittal, he makes the majority of his money abroad and as such is not cheating the tax man in this country in that respect. i would rather put moral values ahead of trophys and leave that sh!t to the scum fans who do not care how they will try to succeed. We haven't agreed on anything for a while now  , but that sums it up for me. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by mfnc on Dec 3, 2012 23:14:23 GMT
you just know its all going to go tits up. same ol same ol bugger. you think that bhatia went quite because of the speed, lack of knowledge and transfer policy of fernandes? |
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Dec 4, 2012 8:29:10 GMT
you just know its all going to go tits up. same ol same ol bugger. you think that bhatia went quite because of the speed, lack of knowledge and transfer policy of fernandes? No, I think he went quiet while he worked on something concrete. |
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Dec 4, 2012 10:38:34 GMT
Laying the clubs foundations.......
|
|
.
, but that sums it up for me. Well said.