It’s about wording “Mowbray got as many wrong as right”... it’s hard to say Leutwiler (brought in as a backup GK) or Caddis (backup RB) are “wrong” since they came to backup the main squad as cheap options. I agree they aren’t particular “right” either but it’s important to have that scope. Weve spent actual fees/money on 3 players in the past 12 months and all of them will be of use in 18/19

So he deserves no credit for bringing the best out of those still here, namely the kids like Nyambe, Raya or Travis? Or what about the improvements in Evans and Williams? All of his significant outlays have been successes, and when you have a small pot to piss in - it’s key to success. Equally, Rhodes et al and many other expensive acquisitions had 0 experience in the championship, so I don’t see the relevance to that. The argument was the amount of “flops” in the market. Antonsson and Armstrong worked well. Yes Marcus didn’t get back in after injury but you can’t say either of those are “flops” Payne made some good contributions, particularly on the run in. Similar to Chapmans early season form. You can hardly blame the management for his two injuries. Smallwood and Dack the best two for me. Bell has definitely improved the squad, he looks a good left back, it’s hard to argue - certainly is no flop. Leutwiler and Caddis did their jobs too - we needed able backups. Leutwiler even ensured we didn’t have to play any games without Mulgrew.. I think Caddis is unfit but I couldn’t call his signing a flop, he offered an option when had no Nyambe or Bennett. The two year contract on the other hand... As for Samuel, I agree. All the prerequisites to be a dangerous strike just needs to find more consistency and sharpen his touch. Definitely not a flop, and definitely useful this season. Nuttall scores a few goals for the first team and I hope he can step up again. Definitely a different style of partner for our other attackers. Signing a flop? Give me a break. I agree B.B. (great to see you back btw) but I think Samuel is a run of good form away from being in a similar boat - he has pace, power, finishing, heading - I just don’t think he’s settled on exactly what kind of striker he is. He came sort of advertised as a quick poacher style, I think he is more of a destroyer in the making - a Roberts style player.

The problem is DE - between 2011 and 2015, we spent 100m+ more than we earned, and that will be a noose around our neck until the day these owners decide to walk away!

I disagree. For a manager who had to totally rebuild the squad in a division below, who had only spent 1.2million and signed 11 permenant signings in 12 months, I think he’s done very well. Add 4 of the 5 loans of (ignoring Harper), Antonsson, Armstrong, Payne and Chapman to Dack, Smallwood, Bell, Samuel, Downing, Nuttall and Leutwiler - that’s a better hit rate since the only real flops are Gladwin, Whittingham and Hart. Two of those we would have said looked decent signings on the face of it.

People are suggesting they’d be dissapointed if we didn’t spend at least more than we did for Dack, in that respect- my view is the cost is irrelevant. Dack is worth far more now, and will be if he can sustain some form in this league - he is an example of what you can get for small transfer fees. I’m excited by the prospect of adding Davenport - for perspective, he cost 1/20th of the total amount spent on Leon Best, inc wages and pay off. Football has gone daft, historically we have some prime examples of big wages/fees turning out to be carthorses, and plenty of the others - Hughes was a fantastic manager for getting quality for cheap. Generally, proven ability costs more, im not disputing that; but it’s daft rating signings by cost before they’ve even kicked a ball.

Are you missing the fact we got a “Dack” for Dacks fee? Ofcourse the markets moved on, hence why some more average players are on daft wages. The key is finding players from under the radar of others, taking a risk. In that respect, the fee is irrelevant.

I’d suggest Nuttall was a better option than both of them! Might be more if the wide forward that we are looking for as opposed to Graham cover.

This is nonsense without actually seeing him play!

I’m quite sure the transfer world record was 50m+ when we made some absolute belting signings for peanuts. Wasnt Samba cheaper than Dack? The fee is irrelevant.

3m in legal fees paid by QPR on top of the 17m + a 20+ million fine for their owners (money they could’ve potentially recouped from new owners)... They’re screwed. You don’t need to look back, try looking forwards!

Either way, you don’t get the 20 million fine (3m in legal fees on top of 17m) for spending within your turnover. You also would only be fined on relegation, so other teams might be up for something similar. At that point, the money is more important because of decrease in turnover. You’re moving goalposts because you know as well as I do, FFP (or FUP) is not a “choice”, especially for below average turnover clubs. Painting this as unimportant or a pointless sanction... Let’s see how much this impacts QPR’s season. edit - looking at a few other links - it’s actually 41m in total. Id say QPR are down!

I agree it could’ve been harsher, but it goes to show what breaking the rules could lead too. I’ve been told by JHR and others for 5 years that it’s simply an excuse for the owners not to put us in more debt to them.

@JHRover just an excuse ...

I’d be asking 25m since they just spend 45m on Richard Richard and son

Or the lad we want has 12 months left on his deal and his team won’t budge?

The last 12 months show a slight different trend, regardless of how insignificant you see the achievement of returning from the third tier at first time of asking. It also shows a trend towards gradual build, investment in some youth players, more sensible and less wasted wages, moves towards improvement in scouting, customer dialogue, social media and an actual team of directors in the uk with some level of perceived remit. Continued investment in the academy and the re-signing of our better players with more competitive salary contacts are all better signs. Im glad TM isn’t jumping the gun and signing players in panic no use to us, and if that means a loan or two extra for 6 months whilst we search for what we know will make a difference to the first team squad. There’s no rush like the previous 12 out in one go summer! Dont let all that distract you from bringing this thread though, (like a few others) to the common denominator; Venkys. We all can’t get enough talking about them, they’ve hardly had a mention in the last decade.

Hence why I was so happy to see us renewing contracts for our better players, purely so they either stay or will cost the right amount if someone above wants them. I also think costs are now in a position where a player sale isn’t necessary to cover a large shortfall, although wouldn’t be surprised if the Rao’s suddenly stopped the cheque for the difference. I think TM might’ve been surprised by the amounts people are asking, but it’s not hard to be surprised when you’re hearing Sam Gallagher is worth 10x a Bradley Dack. One thing I did feel more positive about, TM actually said he had 2nd/3rd choices should he not get what he wants. Could be just spiel, but it makes sense since we hadn’t already signed players.

Mulgrew, Lenihan, Downing, Williams, Nyambe. 5 players who you could argue are all further ahead in a back 3 or 4. In a 4, you can only play 2, he isn’t in front of Lenihan/Mulgrew and Downing would be arguably a safer shout, so I’d thought most cynics could see the benefit of him playing regular games against actual “blokes” in competitive games, as opposed to u23’s or sitting on our bench. Even with 3 at the back, TM and most managers prefer pacier/more technical defenders on sides, hence why I could see him behind Williams for the left, and Lenihan for the right. Again - the obvious answer is he won’t play enough here. Finally - I doubt a young Centreback with little to no senior experience above L2 would command such a wage that we’d need to move it out to necessitate further cheap/sensible investments. That’s not the opposite of cynical, it’s just common sense.

Maybe it’s simple? Lincoln guarantee him the games others wouldn’t? Maybe he likes Lincoln? I don’t think there is a huge amount of difference between the leagues of im honest, but there’s definitely a difference between a season with 40/50 games, and a season with 3/4 starts and a handful of sub appearances.

Nuttall again. Maybe he will one to step up again? Looks a potential alternative to DG.

It also might explain the current hold up on transfers. If Armstrong/Gallagher are 5+ million just because they have premier league clubs, I’d rather us look down the pyramid. Agree with a few yesterday on Pitman. Would be a great second Danny Graham. I still think we’d need a pacy “wide forward” style one to go with.

And you’re a hypocrite, since this is fantastic example of your “non-content” specialism.

Spot on.

Hilarious. The owners aren’t interested in what you think, IMO and via recent decisions, I don’t think they have a specific plans for the club, so I don’t have to see everything in Blue and White as their “plan”. That doesn’t mean I’m (as your entourage coined it) a “venkylover”, it means I’m prepared to judge situations without having to apply their past mistakes as a shadow. The club doesn’t have to be viewed as “venky rovers”, it’s a choice you can make. I personally choose to accept they’re here but view the management/progress in isolation. That plan seems pretty solid to me. You and others simply choose to wallow in the mistakes, for completely bizarre reasons. I think you personally can’t stand anyone else looking forward, or enjoying any aspect of the club - whilst you cannot. Being criticised for a lack of debate, by someone who simply makes the same point over and over about any plethora of club issues- I’m sure I’ll be losing hours of sleep over that

Seems quite obvious to me, pragmatic spending, keep the best players, add youth and potential, slowly move forwards. Do you think you’ll ever look at Rovers again without having to refer back in time?