JHRover

Nobody I would have thought. But the way Sharp has been writing it suggests that it is something we should be hotly anticipating as though we mean business and are set to splash the cash. £750k in League One was a lot of money for one player, in the Championship its peanuts. We also pulled off a coup with Dack because he'd had a quiet season before coming here and Gillingham needed the money. I would have expected considerably more to be invested this summer ahead of our Championship return yet the Telegraph are at work trying to convince readers that £750,000 or so is big money. It isn't.

Disturbing.

Rich Sharpe keeps on mentioning that one of our cash purchases might even eclipse the fee paid for Bradley Dack last summer. Wow. So we might surpass 750k on one player and that is supposed to be something to be excited about. I don't obsess over how much people cost but surely having won promotion to a higher level then the transfer budget should be significantly higher?

Looks like Reading are signing Sam Baldock from Brighton. Proven in the Championship, 29 years old, knows how to score. I think this is the calibre of player that we should be looking at bringing in to start with, followed by a loan afterwards.

More likely is that short term loan deals, provided they fit within the budget, can be done by Mowbray and Waggott without needing to involve those in India in the process, however when cash is needed for a lump payment to another club then the Indians have to OK the deal.

Like last year it seems the money, whatever there is of it, is going to be invested into midfield/defence rather than attack. I suspect that's because we're unwilling/unable to pay the going rate for permanent signings up front and so the alternative is to rely on the loan market to try and fill the gaps (like we did last year with Antonsson and Armstrong). It might just be my odd way of looking at things but if we've money to spend on a back up CB to sit behind Mulgrew, Lenihan, possibly Williams and Downing, then that money should be diverted elsewhere. Clearly it isn't my job to tell Mowbray what to do but I would be perplexed if we spend what money we have on a CB and 2 midfielders when the gaping hole in the squad is and has been all summer up front and out wide. We've known since January, or even before, that these positions needed addressing as our loans of Armstrong, Chapman and Payne were themselves only short term stopgaps. So to be going into our first league game at Ipswich with Bennett and Conway as our only two wide men and Graham as our only proven forward is awful.

I read that as a denial, it's clear anyway that we aren't in the market for such a calibre of player.

My prediction is we'll get one loan, probably Palmer, announced before Ipswich and after that we'll at best get one permanent done before the deadline and another loan, two at the most, before the end of August. Anyone setting themselves up for a busy exciting week of several quality new signings I think will be disappointed.

Two players who have proven in recent years to be good Championship players. Both won promotion to the Premier League. Meanwhile we're trying to borrow some kids who have hardly played anywhere.

They're mostly busy bringing in permanent signings and will sort loans out later. It appears we've occupied ourselves with loans from the start and to my knowledge still haven't signed any.

Neither do 75% of other clubs.

Difference between being highly rated in someone's academy and being able to hit the ground running in the Championship. We should know that given recent experience. I'm not writing anyone off but being a prospect used to playing reserve team football to playing every week under Championship expectation is a big jump.

I suspect that a decision has been reached that when signing forwards they are either too expensive or too much of a gamble. When paying money out cash a centre half or full back represents better value or more affordability. The position we need to strengthen is an expensive and tough one to get right, I don't think it's a coincidence that for the last 3 seasons we've addressed that area by recruiting loans en masse. Much easier, cheaper and lower risk, but people then act surprised when we can't get people in until the lastminute and always start the season slowly, I think the reason for that is quite obvious.

No indication that we're looking at signing players from abroad or the lower leagues to address our lack of forwards, two areas we should be looking at if we're short on funds. All the talk around loans up top with a permanent move for a back up cb.

If the XI that started v Everton remain fit and in form for 46 games then they should be able to compete. However that hasn't really been the concern this summer. The concern is what else we have by way of options and depth that WILL be called upon sooner or later. People will also lose form. Foolish to believe what we have is enough just because our strongest side played well against Everton.

Seems we're following the 2013-14 template, whatever that is. Home shirt with pale blue, dark blue socks/trim and the halves the opposite way round. Away shirt featuring the weird crest. It could be worse but very similar to the kit we had when relegated under Kean, not much thought gone into it.

I think we've two things running side by side and this has been the way of it since the boardroom cull and Cheston stepping up, perhaps even before that. On one side we have the club business - headed by Waggott, previously Cheston - who to a limited extent manages the operation on a day to day basis and is judged on his ability to balance the books. He'll head up payroll and daily expenditure on things like the maintenance and bills and he has to try and squeeze out as much as possible from sponsorship etc. On the other side we have the first team operation headed by Mowbray and his transfer fund is dealt with separately and is directly authorised by the owners in India. If the club was being left to wash its own face then we wouldn't even be able to stump up the £500k or whatever for Davenport and Rothwell. That cash must at least be approved by the owners as extra spending above and beyond the daily requirements. Completely agree that the black sponsor badge probably put an extra few quid on the deal. Not sure on the blue on the shirts. I expect that Umbro just lazily come up with something using colours from elsewhere and we just take whatever they give us. I'd almost be impressed if such thought had gone into the colour scheme but I think it is just laziness and taking whatever Umbro come up with. Wouldn't surprise me if our kits and Man City's kits were made in the same factory and it was cheaper for us to use the same colour as them rather than a different one. I've actually no major gripe with the sky blue, provided it is only done once every 10 years. But the dark blue socks and numbers and black sponsor wreck it. It seems that Waggott's primary duty here is to squeeze the pennies out. Fair enough as we need to do that but you've to be careful as to how much of that is centred on the existing supporters who already have had their patience and wallets tested heavily these last few years.

It just seems everything has to be left until the last minute. No need for it. New shirts - left until as late as possible when pre-season is underway, away shirt still not out and won't be until next week just a couple of days before kick off at Ipswich. New sponsor - last minute Season ticket info out later than most clubs. Season tickets still not sent out in the post with 2 weeks until the season starts at home. New digital ad boards still haven't appeared only 2 weeks until the season starts at home. Amateurish and little wonder we lag behind on revenues and income. Easy option is to blame crowds and catchment areas but I expect more effort.

3m in legal fees has been brought on themselves by challenging it and dragging it out over a number of years. They were trying to argue any fine was illegal. No doubt if they had tried to reach a settlement earlier with the league they would have been able to do so without all those legal costs. They will have known that those costs were coming and will have known for a long time now that a fine of some level was coming. They're probably celebrating that what could have been a £40 million+ fine which may have had to have been paid immediately has suddenly been reduced to £17 million spread over a decade. Not a bad outcome for the rule breakers! They might struggle, they might not, but in exchange for their Premier League promotion and tv money bonanza they're having to pay £1.7 million a year for 10 years. This £21 million equity figure is a load of nonsense. Infact I seem to remember their owners had been converting debt into equity a while ago in a ploy to avoid sanctions. That money has already been 'invested' as has Venkys 'debt' the money is spent regardless of how it is labelled on a balance sheet.

How much do you get from 1 season in the Premier League? It was 100 million+ last time I checked. I don't see how this punishment will change their preparations for the season. They've a mediocre squad and manager that is expected to struggle with or without a fine/embargo. No suggestion yet they can or will have to sell anyone to pay this fine. Notice that this fine is exempt from future calculations so their owner can pay it off in instalments and it won't count towards future FFP.

It's not 41 million in total. That's a cop out from the League included to try and hoodwink readers into thinking it is a fine of 41 million. Its a fine of 17 million, spread over a number of years to make payments manageable and not cause hardship to the club. The other 21 million is 'loaned' money that their owners have agreed to turn into capital/write off. Like Venky's having to 'pay' 20 million by turning 1/6 of their 'debt' into capital. Makes little/no material difference to anyone as that money is gone for them anyway. I'm not painting it as a pointless sanction, just that once again the League have stepped back and handed out a weaker and diluted down punishment rather than throwing the book at them. When I get time I'll go back through my posts from a couple of years ago and I predicted this - a much reduced fine spread over many years with minimal impact. If QPR struggle this year it will be more to do with their poor recruitment and mediocre manager than a January embargo or recent fine.

Legal costs would have been stuck on regardless of how much the fine was. If they were fined £40 million they would still have had to pay legal costs on top of that so it is less than half of what it should have been had the rules been applied to the letter. They've been punished, but only after about 4 years of wrangling and the punishment is less than what is should be. They've had the benefit of hundreds of millions in tv revenues since then from promotion. An embargo isn't actually an embargo either. They can still sign players provided they fall below a certain wage and certain criteria. The rules have been in place for several years and yet we've still seen Wolves, Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Bournemouth, Leicester and QPR ignoring them and spending vast sums of money. No indication of them thinking twice. QPR would have got away with it too had they managed to survive like Bournemouth and Leicester did.

The only reason QPR have ended up like this is because they spent outrageously in the Premier League, got relegated with a massive squad on huge money, kept a lot of that squad with Redknapp as manager, unfairly won promotion whilst blatantly breaking the rules, then failed to survive and came straight back down again. Their punishment for doing all of that, including 2 seasons of Premier League cash and a promotion, Is £17 million. They've probably had 10x that in revenues, tv money etc. since they did it. Small price to pay and considerably less than it should be. The other cheats - Leicester, Bournemouth etc. have had to pay nominal amounts of £3 million(ish) whilst surviving in the Premier League.

A £17 million fine is serious, but not as serious as it should be. Why have the league accepted a punishment of less than half what it should be? A £40 million fine may well have crippled them for years. A £17 million fine is probably the equivalent to less than 12 months of losses. All a January ban achieves is stopping them from adding to their squad mid-season, when most clubs don't do it anyway. Conveniently for them they still have a couple of weeks to do some business to prepare themselves for that. So once again a club has got away lightly. Also worth noting that this fine is going to be spread over a number of years to enable them to pay it back in convenient instalments rather than being forced into a fire sale to generate funds.

https://www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/qpr-settle-ffp-dispute-with-efl/ Absolutely disgraceful. So the '£40 million' fine people have been clinging to is actually only going to be £17 million (less than 50% of what the rules say it should be) and they've an embargo for the January window (when few clubs do serious business anyway. Once again a club getting off lightly.