Championship 2017/18

[Mattyblue]

16 minutes ago, Raya4espania said:

I'm sure you've been trotting out such nonsense since he was rightly let go by bowyer. Now he's getting a bit of publicity for his 'good games'(being at a London club does that), you feel your stance is justified.

My opinion remains.

Rightly let go?

Behave yourself, the guy is and was a class act at this level.

[arbitro]

30 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

When he was good for us he was very good. On other days you would have hardly known he was playing. I had high hopes for him here. He seems to have come on somewhat at Fulham. I've said before players come in two categories. The ones that get you on top in a game and the ones that dominate the opposition when the first group have got you on top. He belongs in the second group.

I really don't think he was allowed to flourish too much at Ewood because Bowyer used him in the inverted winger role, a role to which many people thought didn't suit him or play to his strengths. Fulham saw him as a more central player and from there he can dominate games with his range of passing. He has McDonald alongside him who is more of a workhorse doing the uglier stuff. 

[K-Hod]

45 minutes ago, Raya4espania said:

I'm sure you've been trotting out such nonsense since he was rightly let go by bowyer. Now he's getting a bit of publicity for his 'good games'(being at a London club does that), you feel your stance is justified.

My opinion remains.

Can you at least try and be a bit less rude in your posts please?

Edited May 16, 2018 by K-Hod

[JHRover]

I could see it coming when we sold him that he would come on leaps and bounds and that it would prove to be a foolish decision to let him go so easily. And that is how it has transpired. Plenty of people on here at the time saying it was the right decision to let him go or saying that the money we got was too good to turn down, which was nonsense.

The only mugs here are Rovers who allowed such a talent to transfer to a rival club for a low fee.

[DE.]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

I really don't think he was allowed to flourish too much at Ewood because Bowyer used him in the inverted winger role, a role to which many people thought didn't suit him or play to his strengths. Fulham saw him as a more central player and from there he can dominate games with his range of passing. He has McDonald alongside him who is more of a workhorse doing the uglier stuff. 

Correct. Fulham have been smart, identified Cairney's strengths and incorporated them into the way their team play. They got him for an absolute pittance as well. He may not step up in every game but I bet he's influenced more of their matches than he ever did ours. Not sure how he manages without "the lynchpin" backing him up, mind, but all credit to him for being able to do so. 

[Oldgregg86]

4 hours ago, Raya4espania said:

I'm sure you've been trotting out such nonsense since he was rightly let go by bowyer. Now he's getting a bit of publicity for his 'good games'(being at a London club does that), you feel your stance is justified.

My opinion remains.

Actually I joined the board and started my first thread based on it. It was so clearly obvious his talent was being wasted. My opinion remains also

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

I really don't think he was allowed to flourish too much at Ewood because Bowyer used him in the inverted winger role, a role to which many people thought didn't suit him or play to his strengths. Fulham saw him as a more central player and from there he can dominate games with his range of passing. He has McDonald alongside him who is more of a workhorse doing the uglier stuff. 

I thought he could have been the new " Eyal Berkovic " for us in that midfield role but he never really took the game by the scruff of the neck. Cairney never really demanded the ball and seemed content to be a bit part player. Berkovic would want the ball no matter where he was on the pitch and no matter how many opponents were marking him.

I remember Cairney playing out wide on the right against City in that FA Cup reply when we got battered 6-0. He was the one player on our team that looked like he was good enough to play for them.

[chaddyrovers]

McClaren very close to appoint Qpr head coach. 

[JacknOry]

Anyone saying Cairney was rightly sold should give up this football lark. he wasn't consistent, wholly agree but then again he was not used right. He was suited to CM but with a Smallwood type player alongside him to do the gritty stuff - we had Lowe and Williamson. So instead, he was shunted wide which was never his position. Even there he banged in some pearlers and was the difference in some games.

The talent was always there and I just knew he would go on to become a Premiership player.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Well I think Cairneys iconsistant time here and eventual transfer is 100% on Bowyer. It was annoying watching him constantly played out of position so that we could have Williamson and Lowe in the middle 

[JacknOry]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Well I think Cairneys iconsistant time here and eventual transfer is 100% on Bowyer. It was annoying watching him constantly played out of position so that we could have Williamson and Lowe in the middle 

Well he did spot him and bring him in but I think that is one of Bowyers strengths due to his history with the youth team, he could spot a player and certainly made some decent profits. Bowyer at that time lacked a bit tactically in my view and this is where it cost him. That squad he had that he failed to even get into the playoffs was actually quit criminal but it was down to his style of play and tactics. Cairney had the technical ability and the talent and was also a fairly inteligent player, if the side was built more to his strengths rather than him being shunted out of position, we could have been in Fulhams shoes right now.

On a side note, a Cairney type player is exactly what we need next to Smallwood.

Edited May 16, 2018 by JacknOry

[Stuart]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

McClaren very close to appoint Qpr head coach. 

It’s a joke how many gigs some managers keep getting.

[Raya4espania]

8 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Actually I joined the board and started my first thread based on it. It was so clearly obvious his talent was being wasted. My opinion remains also

That's fair enough, as per a request made, I apologise for being a bit rude to you.

[Oldgregg86]

12 hours ago, Raya4espania said:

That's fair enough, as per a request made, I apologise for being a bit rude to you.

No need apologise. I didn't think you was being honest. Thought we was just discussing Tom cairney 

[Husky]

On 15/05/2018 at 21:59, bazza said:

Husky, you are as useless at predictions as I am.?

Well, I have got Boro and Villa in the play-offs . . . and Burton down . . . and Bolton should have gone down. So . . . it's not the worst it could have been. Just looks ridiculous because of how continually shite Leeds are.

[JHRover]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44171269

 

£90 million loss for the year and a wage bill of £112 million? Alright for some! Not a problem for the FFP gurus!

 

[JHRover]

QPR have confirmed McClaren as their new manager.

 

https://www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/steve-mcclaren-named-new-qpr-manager/?utm_source=direct

[DE.]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44171269

 

£90 million loss for the year and a wage bill of £112 million? Alright for some! Not a problem for the FFP gurus!

 

Just saw that. Alright for some indeed. Not sure why the BBC have it on the rugby union section of their website, mind.

[JBiz]

3 hours ago, JHRover said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44171269

 

£90 million loss for the year and a wage bill of £112 million? Alright for some! Not a problem for the FFP gurus!

 

QPR being fined 40m is certainly a problem for them, and the minute it goes through the courts - Newcastle, Leicester, Bournemouth and a few others will be getting a knock on the door! 

[JHRover]

6 minutes ago, Biz said:

QPR being fined 40m is certainly a problem for them, and the minute it goes through the courts - Newcastle, Leicester, Bournemouth and a few others will be getting a knock on the door! 

I'll believe all that when I see it. There'll be a golden handshake before anything reaches Court. That's one thing the League and clubs will agree on - wanting to avoid airing their dirty laundry in public under the scrutiny of a Judge.

Before it gets to that stage there'll be a 'settlement' of much less than the rules stipulate.

We'll all probably be dead by then at the rate it is going.

[JBiz]

3 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I'll believe all that when I see it. There'll be a golden handshake before anything reaches Court. That's one thing the League and clubs will agree on - wanting to avoid airing their dirty laundry in public under the scrutiny of a Judge.

Before it gets to that stage there'll be a 'settlement' of much less than the rules stipulate.

We'll all probably be dead by then at the rate it is going.

They anticipate it will take another 18 months but their 40m fine would be for spending 1m over FFP but converting 60m of debt into shares. It’s being appealed, which means it’s already in the process of being looked at. It’s got nothing to do with dodgy dealings, it’s simply a breach of rules, they published the finances.

If 40m is the bar, what kind of fine are Newcastle looking at? Or Wolves? Or Bournemouth? Et al. You can joke about it, or simple say it’s being trotted as an excuse, it’s a rulr to prevent calamitous debt- unless promotion is accomplished- the debt can spiral at an alarming rate. What better example do you need than us?

If you think throwing another 20m at the wage bill is the solution when the league is chock full of teams with twice the turnover, not even including parachute payments; I’d conclude you’ve learnt little from our plight.

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, Biz said:

They anticipate it will take another 18 months but their 40m fine would be for spending 1m over FFP but converting 60m of debt into shares. It’s being appealed, which means it’s already in the process of being looked at. It’s got nothing to do with dodgy dealings, it’s simply a breach of rules, they published the finances.

If 40m is the bar, what kind of fine are Newcastle looking at? Or Wolves? Or Bournemouth? Et al. You can joke about it, or simple say it’s being trotted as an excuse, it’s a rulr to prevent calamitous debt- unless promotion is accomplished- the debt can spiral at an alarming rate. What better example do you need than us?

If you think throwing another 20m at the wage bill is the solution when the league is chock full of teams with twice the turnover, not even including parachute payments; I’d conclude you’ve learnt little from our plight.

 

Yes there are some teams in the league with twice our turnover, but I think you'll find that most of those are the parachute receiving clubs who will have overheads of twice what we have, so it cancels itself out. Those clubs who don't have parachute cash, i.e. the majority in the league, do not naturally have twice our turnover. They might have bigger crowds, but the difference in income that generates isn't huge in the scheme of things.

I can joke about it, because the whole thing is a joke. Since these rules were introduced and everyone got their knickers in a twist about it, only 5 clubs have been sanctioned. Ourselves, Nottingham Forest, very briefly Cardiff, Fulham, and Leeds United, were put under transfer embargoes. Bolton had an embargo but that was for failing to file their accounts, not for spending too much. Fulham got an embargo for a brief period, yet managed to get out of that and assemble a squad packed with quality players without going down our route of decimating their squad. Amazing how some clubs can do that whilst we couldn't. 

Only one of those clubs that succeeded through breaking the rules has to my knowledge been sanctioned. Leicester removed the threat of sanctions by agreeing a pay-off. Bournemouth were fined £7 million which is nothing compared to the rewards of promotion. QPR, Wolves, Newcastle all clearly breached the limits yet haven't been punished. I also don't believe for one minute that Derby and Sheffield Wednesday have spent what they have without parachute income and avoided breaking limits. 

Case in point - Jordan Rhodes - we signed him for £8 million and paid him very well - and all we heard for 4 years was about how unsustainable that was, how we couldn't afford it, how he would eventually have to go to comply with FFP rules, and yet he cost Sheffield Wednesday more and they have him sat on their bench no problem.

So yes, it makes me quite angry when all I hear at Rovers' end is 'poor us' because our income is limited (partly our own fault) and we have to abide by these rules meanwhile numerous other clubs spend massive amounts via their owners (not through a few thousand extra through the doors every fortnight). 

It comes down to determination to get where you want to go. Those clubs determined to get to the Premier League will find ways to invest heavily without picking up punishments. Those clubs looking for an excuse to not invest will hide behind these rules when there are clearly loopholes to be exploited.

[chaddyrovers]

19 hours ago, JHRover said:

QPR have confirmed McClaren as their new manager.

 

https://www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/steve-mcclaren-named-new-qpr-manager/?utm_source=direct

No surprise after last week rumours. 

Doubt he will get much money to spend. Will be free transfers and using the youth team

[Oldgregg86]

Apparently the ostersunds manager Graham Potter in line for the Swansea job. What you think of that move chadster

[chaddyrovers]

14 minutes ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Apparently the ostersunds manager Graham Potter in line for the Swansea job. What you think of that move chadster

Dont know him at all. Only what ive read in newspapers online. No idea on how well hes done, his tactics, style of play or his management style