Back from the game - QPR

[Svlad Cjelli]

Why do people cling to the idea that a "well-run club" is one turning a profit? a "well run club" is one flexible enough to be able to survive and stay reasonably competitive.

It's because of quotes like these that some of us feel that the club and the fans' expectations are being gently, subtlely, managed downwards, and where the club levels out at will be solely determined by its level of income.
I remain of the opinion that achieving break even is only possible with either a greatly scaled down operation, or by offering a successful, attractive football product that increases its volume sales (attendances, merchandise, etc.).
Where people like me get frustrated is when we remember that 8000 for a derby game Vs Aldersh*t/Brentford at EP was considered a good gate, and we get nearly twice that as an average now. I don't care if they're "plastics", or whatever else some want to refer to them as.
As Muhammad Ali once said in a Parkinson interview "I don't care if they come to boo me, they paid me money to do it"
We've come such a long way. What a waste to let those new fans drift away, and start buying Chelsea replica shirts again.

You may think that, but sadly it is life and it is a result of the way finances in football are these days.

The attendance may have doubled since Walsall, and the ticket prices also, but the wages have grown more than ten-fold since then.

Plus, of course, expectations have grown exponentially as well.

[BR2]

Good strike from Long, was it deflected it was hard to tell from that angle and seemed to have an odd flight from the way he kicked it if it wasn't?

I was right in line and it looked a clean strike. On TV it looks like the challenge is close. Didn't look that way live.

But then I was a few feet from the penalty and I "knew" Mills made the tackle. (It was Howard)

Snowball-try Specsavers.
Also having told us that the penalty was just in front of you and thought the perpetrator was Mills how come you could tell for certain (as stated in an earlier post)that Orr's tackle on HRK at about 75 yards away was a definite red card?
No wonder (unlike the rest of us) you can never trust what you see with your own eyes.
If you could borrow the eyes of the rest of us you might see that Shane is not much of a footballer.

[Gav]

Good strike from Long, was it deflected it was hard to tell from that angle and seemed to have an odd flight from the way he kicked it if it wasn't?

I was right in line and it looked a clean strike. On TV it looks like the challenge is close. Didn't look that way live.

But then I was a few feet from the penalty and I "knew" Mills made the tackle. (It was Howard)

Snowball-try Specsavers.
Also having told us that the penalty was just in front of you and thought the perpetrator was Mills how come you could tell for certain (as stated in an earlier post)that Orr's tackle on HRK at about 75 yards away was a definite red card?
No wonder (unlike the rest of us) you can never trust what you see with your own eyes.
If you could borrow the eyes of the rest of us you might see that Shane is not much of a footballer.

That's actually mental. It was right in front of me an' all and I thought it was Mills. Jesus, I'm really effin' blind.

[BR2]

Well gav that's two of you that we should never take any notice of in any "Back from the game" postings.

[Ian Royal]

The morale of the story is always agree with the guy who has just watched the highlights over the one who was there.

[Snowball]

Also having told us that the penalty was just in front of you and thought the perpetrator was Mills how come you could tell for certain (as stated in an earlier post)that Orr's tackle on HRK at about 75 yards away was a definite red card? No wonder (unlike the rest of us) you can never trust what you see with your own eyes.

On the day I "SAW" Mills, would have been prepared to bet good money.

It's the heat of the moment, full of passion, and immediately afterwards Mills is stood there, arms at his side utterly p!ssed off ("confirming" what I thought.) It was watching the TV in the cold of recall that I saw I got it right.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF ERROR I HAVE BEEN ON ABOUT FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS ON THIS LIST. EYE-WITNES TESTIMONY IS NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE, BUT WE GIVE IT GREAT CREDIBILITY.


As for the red-card, on the day I didn't see the tackle at all. Maybe I wasn't clear, but my opinion of jow red it was was based on the TV slo-mo's.

[Snowball]

The morale of the story is always agree with the guy who has just watched the highlights over the one who was there.

It's MORAL, but yes.

Actually be there AND review in a cool p[lace.

[Ian Royal]

Just been watching the match. Got fed up and didn't finish the last ten or fifteen minutes.

QPR could have had 3 or 4 just in the first half. We didn't play particularly badly, just not well. Too many poor crosses, too many good tackles from QPR, too much hoofball, certainly first half. Not sure I can have watched the same game as those who thought McAnuff looked uninterested though.

A player who isn't up for it generally doesn't tackle back or keep running at players IMO. All of which McAnuff did. He also fell over with three players round him and still managed to get up and win the ball back. That isn't uninterested.

Poor penalty to conceed, what Howard was thinking I have no idea. Poor second, Harte caught flat footed by Taarabt's pass and then Karacan not tight enough on their scorer. Again no one following in on the third after Fed saved the freekick for Smith to slot it in.

Howard and McAnuff look like the only ones actually taking hold of the ball and playing anything other than kick and rush.

Church's shot looked goalbound 'til it hit Long, which is a shame, and his flick was a nice idea that didn't come off.

Surprised McAnuff and HRK didn't swap flanks. Jobi looked well marshalled on the right but the left back looked less convincing but had an easier time against HRK who's final ball was still poor. Then there was the sending off making it even more of a good idea to swap IMO.

Oh well. Well beaten, but I don't think we looked a particularly bad side.

[RoyalBlue]

Why do people cling to the idea that a "well-run club" is one turning a profit? a "well run club" is one flexible enough to be able to survive and stay reasonably competitive.

Maybe because Madejski, his sidekicks and their disciples kept telling us it was so well run that it was making a profit? A "well run club" certainly does not have massive black holes popping up completely unexepectedly as appears to have happened at RFC over the past couple of years (if the club knew they existed or were coming, they kept quiet until they needed to proffer the explanation to justify the transfer dealings).

If your definition is correct , then there are numerous clubs that fit that definition and Madejski and his approach isn't as unique and almighty as he and others make out!

[Ian Royal]

Why do people cling to the idea that a "well-run club" is one turning a profit? a "well run club" is one flexible enough to be able to survive and stay reasonably competitive.

Maybe because Madejski, his sidekicks and their disciples kept telling us it was so well run that it was making a profit? A "well run club" certainly does not have massive black holes popping up completely unexepectedly as appears to have happened at RFC over the past couple of years (if the club knew they existed or were coming, they kept quiet until they needed to proffer the explanation to justify the transfer dealings).

If your definition is correct , then there are numerous clubs that fit that definition and Madejski and his approach isn't as unique and almighty as he and others make out!

Bollocks, the accounts've said we made a profit in the two premier seasons and losses before that, I can't recall if we've had anything conclusive about the last couple, but I doubt there was much if any profit claimed.

How exactly were the club supposed to publically predict financial black holes that only occurred because we were relegated on the last day of the season? We've been perfectly open and it's been perfectly obvious to anyone with even the most basic grasp of finances that when you have a massive decrease in income twice in the space of 3 seasons then you need to make drastic cuts to your expenditure.

Many clubs are happy to accrue losses, or have the chairman pump money in to cancel or underwrite the deficit each season. Madejski isn't. It makes it harder for us to compete, but it also makes us far less likely to get into serious financial difficulties.

We've clearly been selling players on our terms (bar trouble makers like Hunt or Shorey - even them we got top dollar for) when we have sold them, rather than in a panic to prevent us going into administration.

And given we've finished 4th, 9th and are hanging around the fringes of the play offs again this season, we aren't exactly suffering a great deal on the pitch either.

[Tredder]

Guys, you lost, move on, losing to 10 men is not so bad, dust youselfs down and beat cardiff tomorrow, then this sorry state will be all forgotten.