| ITK Charlie Austin 13:35 - May 8 with 20640 views | NoDiddley |
Close to signing a 2 year deal. |  | | |  |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 17:49 - May 8 with 3428 views | Stanisgod |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 15:49 - May 8 by QPR_John |
He scored today after getting the ball tangled in his feet. A strikers goal in all senses. I don’t remember Clive Allen doing much outside of the penalty area. He will score goals because he knows where to be in the penalty area he does not have to run. I think we can chance a two year contract. |
Agree. He has helped Dykes enormously, and even though they probably wouldn't both play away from home, at home those two up are a good as anyone in this league, atmosphere of a crowd also a big lift. |  |
| It's being so happy that keeps me going. |
| |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:07 - May 8 with 3319 views | Hunterhoop |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 17:24 - May 8 by hantssi |
Doesn’t matter how much our owners are worth you can’t loose more than £13M per season to keep within FFP. |
Yes, you can, as 3/4 of the clubs each year do. You can’t lose more than £39m over 3 seasons, but you could lose £33m one year, as long as that loss and the prior 2 years doesn’t take you over £39m loss.
If Austin can fit within our wage structure, he is definitely worth it. Not just for his goals but for his game management and mentoring of Dykes. We are a team that creates good chances. We need a finisher and he is one. We shouldn’t break the wage structure to get him. But if we don’t have to, we should. I think a contract that involves us paying for his coaching badges and with a high promotion bonus may work.
Same goes for Johansen.
Field and De Wijs are absolute no brainers for me. They will be in our wage structure, have big upside, and should be signed. Yes De Wijs came injured, but he’s not missed tons of games since he first got on the pitch. And his record whilst on the pitch is phenomenal. He also compliments Barbet and Dickie so well. [Post edited 8 May 2021 18:58]
|  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:18 - May 8 with 3246 views | hantssi |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:07 - May 8 by Hunterhoop |
Yes, you can, as 3/4 of the clubs each year do. You can’t lose more than £39m over 3 seasons, but you could lose £33m one year, as long as that loss and the prior 2 years doesn’t take you over £39m loss.
If Austin can fit within our wage structure, he is definitely worth it. Not just for his goals but for his game management and mentoring of Dykes. We are a team that creates good chances. We need a finisher and he is one. We shouldn’t break the wage structure to get him. But if we don’t have to, we should. I think a contract that involves us paying for his coaching badges and with a high promotion bonus may work.
Same goes for Johansen.
Field and De Wijs are absolute no brainers for me. They will be in our wage structure, have big upside, and should be signed. Yes De Wijs came injured, but he’s not missed tons of games since he first got on the pitch. And his record whilst on the pitch is phenomenal. He also compliments Barbet and Dickie so well. [Post edited 8 May 2021 18:58]
|
Ok, you’re right it’s £39M over 3 seasons but we sail close to the £13M each year as it is.
Trouble is we’ve tried that route before and it didn’t go well, also if you don’t make it you have to have a fire sale of all your prized assets which means we’ll be worse off than ever.
If we can get him and SJ and stay within limits then I say go for it. |  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:27 - May 8 with 3188 views | joolsyp |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 17:21 - May 8 by CiderwithRsie |
Agreed on all points, but it's not impossible that (a) Austin is affordable, that he is willing to sign on reduced terms and (b) Johansen isn't because Fulham want him back or another club is in for him with a better offer than we can afford.
In those circs it'd make sense for us to sign Charlie and refuse to break the bank for Johansen. |
Good point. I sincerely hope Fulham don’t ask for video of the games he’s played in, and if they do Warbs needs to delete them asap! As far as Fulham should be concerned he’s been ‘mediocre’ for us. |  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:36 - May 8 with 3142 views | flynnbo |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:27 - May 8 by joolsyp |
Good point. I sincerely hope Fulham don’t ask for video of the games he’s played in, and if they do Warbs needs to delete them asap! As far as Fulham should be concerned he’s been ‘mediocre’ for us. |
Quick, slap an NDA on Konk! |  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:41 - May 8 with 3113 views | numptydumpty |
Austin could be here
Think Johansen won't be at Fulham. Ie they in a relegation fight and they loaned out at worst, a very decent squad player in Stefan. Makes no sense so clearly there must have been some kind of fall out.
But yes sure he will get lucrative offers from others.
If he is here, would be brilliant but it's sadly difficult to see how.. |  |
| |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 19:03 - May 8 with 3019 views | Antti_Heinola |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:41 - May 8 by numptydumpty |
Austin could be here
Think Johansen won't be at Fulham. Ie they in a relegation fight and they loaned out at worst, a very decent squad player in Stefan. Makes no sense so clearly there must have been some kind of fall out.
But yes sure he will get lucrative offers from others.
If he is here, would be brilliant but it's sadly difficult to see how.. |
Everyone's convinced Austin will get lucrative offers from elsewhere.
He won't. That's not a slight on him, but teams are broke. No one is going to be offering him £25k per week. Not a chance.
We won't break our wage structure to sign him either, because if we do it leaves us without a leg to stand on when negotiating new deals for our better players. They wouldn't do it for Bright, so they won't be doing it for Charlie. If he signs, it will be within the structure, likely with a hefty signing on fee. |  |
| |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 19:08 - May 8 with 2984 views | strikerace |
I view our only competition for Austin as the MLS, they may pay up for him like they have other players past their prime. I doubt an PL sides will want a 31 yr old, they view him now as a 75 min substitute to come on and try and poach a goal. They won't be willing to pay up for that.
I think Championship clubs would love him, as he is still a top striker at this level, but why would he leave QPR for another club in the same division offering the same money?
A point on what I am say is WBA. He played all the time when they were winning the Championship, and was tied for the leading goal scorer. The minute they were promoted they looked for younger players with more pace, because that is what everyone wants at that level | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| ITK Charlie Austin on 19:14 - May 8 with 2953 views | WestonsuperR |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 15:49 - May 8 by ed_83 |
Completely agree, noticed him giving the ball away a lot today too.
He's been absolutely brilliant for us this half-season, and if we can convince him to give up the massive payday he'd undoubtedly get somewhere else, then we should sign him up in a heartbeat. But there's absolutely no way we should be breaking our wage structure for a striker who'll be 32 before next season, whatever sentimental attachment we might have to him.
People were livid when we refused to fork out for Nahki Wells, who'd just had an even better 6 month spell than Charlie, and that turned out to be absolutely the right choice. We've finally got a solid, sustainable basis on which to run the club, and we need to stick to it above all else. |
Really good points made here. I think it purely comes down to money, I’d like to have Austin if the weekly wages are sensible as he brings much more than just his goals but I wouldn’t completely break a salary structure and agree he is already a long way past his best, could he galvanize the team though and help a promotion push?
I didn’t ever particularly rate Wells, remember being surprised we gave him a second loan spell as the end of his first with us was poor, definitely the right decision by the club to not try and outbid B.City where is apparently on 27k a week, mostly on the bench and hugely disliked by the fans. |  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 19:34 - May 8 with 2876 views | LazyFan |
I suspect Fulham will take him as Mitro will be off. They will pay Chaz £20K per week for 2 years easy.
We won't pay that, not even for JoJo. |  |
| |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 20:06 - May 8 with 2729 views | LowerloftLad |
if austin stays then brilliant look at how dykes as progressed. if dykes goes onto to get 20 goals with chair and wilcock also filling there boots with goals and assits we will have more than enough assets to sell on for very good profits to cover any losses ects.
also eze picked up another goal and assit today and we could well be cashing in on him again sooner rather than later. [Post edited 8 May 2021 20:07]
|  |
| |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 20:59 - May 8 with 2564 views | rsonist |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 19:34 - May 8 by LazyFan |
I suspect Fulham will take him as Mitro will be off. They will pay Chaz £20K per week for 2 years easy.
We won't pay that, not even for JoJo. |
Nonsense. They'd sooner buy Dykes for £15m than take Austin for free. |  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 21:58 - May 8 with 2397 views | GloryHunter |
At times today Charlie reminded me of Clives's epic description of Big Matt Smith - runs like a removal man carrying a fridge.
Having said that, they both know how to score goals, and their contribution to their team is far greater than just putting the ball in the net. I want Charlie to sign. [Post edited 8 May 2021 22:01]
|  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 22:32 - May 8 with 2317 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 17:24 - May 8 by hantssi |
Doesn’t matter how much our owners are worth you can’t loose more than £13M per season to keep within FFP. |
I can see what you're trying to say but this statement doesn't make sense.
First off, FFP is toast, it's P&S now.
Secondly, simply put a club can lose £39m over a rolling 3 season period (which averages at £13m per season but this is not the annual threshold).
Thirdly, the owners' wealth has nothing to do with the losses.
I think what you were trying to say was that it doesn't matter how much the owners are worth, there is only so much that they can invest in the club without breaking P&S rules. |  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 22:41 - May 8 with 2273 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 18:07 - May 8 by Hunterhoop |
Yes, you can, as 3/4 of the clubs each year do. You can’t lose more than £39m over 3 seasons, but you could lose £33m one year, as long as that loss and the prior 2 years doesn’t take you over £39m loss.
If Austin can fit within our wage structure, he is definitely worth it. Not just for his goals but for his game management and mentoring of Dykes. We are a team that creates good chances. We need a finisher and he is one. We shouldn’t break the wage structure to get him. But if we don’t have to, we should. I think a contract that involves us paying for his coaching badges and with a high promotion bonus may work.
Same goes for Johansen.
Field and De Wijs are absolute no brainers for me. They will be in our wage structure, have big upside, and should be signed. Yes De Wijs came injured, but he’s not missed tons of games since he first got on the pitch. And his record whilst on the pitch is phenomenal. He also compliments Barbet and Dickie so well. [Post edited 8 May 2021 18:58]
|
Indeed. I think another point that folk often forget is that player fees are typically paid in instalments over a period of time. These instalments are reflected in your accounts so the full fee is not accounted for against a single season.
Also, from what I understand, the club have moved towards more incentivised contracts consisting of a lower base weekly wage plus performance-related bonuses. One of the reasons why QPR haven't tailed away in recent weeks is that the players will be rewarded for finishing higher up the league.
Austin's contract could be geared towards goals and assists as well as a coaching career. QPR could also grant permission to pursue side hustles such as appearances on TalkSport. [Post edited 8 May 2021 22:45]
| | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 22:53 - May 8 with 2214 views | EalingHoop81 |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 22:41 - May 8 by Benny_the_Ball |
Indeed. I think another point that folk often forget is that player fees are typically paid in instalments over a period of time. These instalments are reflected in your accounts so the full fee is not accounted for against a single season.
Also, from what I understand, the club have moved towards more incentivised contracts consisting of a lower base weekly wage plus performance-related bonuses. One of the reasons why QPR haven't tailed away in recent weeks is that the players will be rewarded for finishing higher up the league.
Austin's contract could be geared towards goals and assists as well as a coaching career. QPR could also grant permission to pursue side hustles such as appearances on TalkSport. [Post edited 8 May 2021 22:45]
|
Paying transfer fees in instalments is a commercial arrangement to ease cash flow, from an accounting perspective the transfer fee would be recognised in the year of sale.
The performance related add ons would likely be contingent on future events and they would be recorded as and when the contingent event is satisfied. So for example we would record £16.5m as our proceeds on the sale of Eze in the year of sale - but not the future performance related payments and sell on clause [Post edited 8 May 2021 22:55]
| | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:08 - May 8 with 2159 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 22:53 - May 8 by EalingHoop81 |
Paying transfer fees in instalments is a commercial arrangement to ease cash flow, from an accounting perspective the transfer fee would be recognised in the year of sale.
The performance related add ons would likely be contingent on future events and they would be recorded as and when the contingent event is satisfied. So for example we would record £16.5m as our proceeds on the sale of Eze in the year of sale - but not the future performance related payments and sell on clause [Post edited 8 May 2021 22:55]
|
I don't think that's the case for P&S accounting. I believe that the fee is amortised over the length of the player's contract. So if a player is signed for £6m on a 3-year-deal then the fee can be spread over 3 years, i.e. £2m per season. | | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:18 - May 8 with 2125 views | EalingHoop81 |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:08 - May 8 by Benny_the_Ball |
I don't think that's the case for P&S accounting. I believe that the fee is amortised over the length of the player's contract. So if a player is signed for £6m on a 3-year-deal then the fee can be spread over 3 years, i.e. £2m per season. |
Yes I agree - I think the accounting would also amortise the contract over the life too. Apologies I had misunderstood your post and was thinking about player sales | | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:29 - May 8 with 2075 views | ed_83 |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 19:03 - May 8 by Antti_Heinola |
Everyone's convinced Austin will get lucrative offers from elsewhere.
He won't. That's not a slight on him, but teams are broke. No one is going to be offering him £25k per week. Not a chance.
We won't break our wage structure to sign him either, because if we do it leaves us without a leg to stand on when negotiating new deals for our better players. They wouldn't do it for Bright, so they won't be doing it for Charlie. If he signs, it will be within the structure, likely with a hefty signing on fee. |
Good point on setting a precedent for other deals.
We’ll see what happens - maybe no-one else comes in for him, and he decides it’s worth sticking with us. But it seems obvious to me that any team in the top half of the Championship would want him for exactly the same reasons we do, and wouldn’t need to offer anywhere near £25k a week to comprehensively outbid us. | | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:47 - May 8 with 2016 views | VancouverHoop |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 19:08 - May 8 by strikerace |
I view our only competition for Austin as the MLS, they may pay up for him like they have other players past their prime. I doubt an PL sides will want a 31 yr old, they view him now as a 75 min substitute to come on and try and poach a goal. They won't be willing to pay up for that.
I think Championship clubs would love him, as he is still a top striker at this level, but why would he leave QPR for another club in the same division offering the same money?
A point on what I am say is WBA. He played all the time when they were winning the Championship, and was tied for the leading goal scorer. The minute they were promoted they looked for younger players with more pace, because that is what everyone wants at that level |
I'd very surprised if an MLS club was interested. They have tight salary caps and the few players that get big money ie: over average Championship/League One level are those with strong International reputations who'll draw crowds. Charlie just doesn't have that. He has no caps, nor has he played for a club that's higher than low-medium level in the Prem. I very much doubt whether many fans over here have heard of him. | | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:58 - May 8 with 1978 views | BrianMcCarthy |
I thought we'd established that our wage cap doesn't go to £15k/week, or even half it? |  |
| |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:58 - May 8 with 1979 views | W7Ranger |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:47 - May 8 by VancouverHoop |
I'd very surprised if an MLS club was interested. They have tight salary caps and the few players that get big money ie: over average Championship/League One level are those with strong International reputations who'll draw crowds. Charlie just doesn't have that. He has no caps, nor has he played for a club that's higher than low-medium level in the Prem. I very much doubt whether many fans over here have heard of him. |
Chief?
That aside, I doubt he wants to uproot his family overseas for 2-3 years.
Also has his media career here bubbling away nicely. [Post edited 10 May 2021 13:24]
|  | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 00:00 - May 9 with 1966 views | W7Ranger |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 23:58 - May 8 by BrianMcCarthy |
I thought we'd established that our wage cap doesn't go to £15k/week, or even half it? |
Oh is it? I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was about £12k or something.
You're probably closer to knowing than me Bri. | | | |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 00:04 - May 9 with 1943 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| ITK Charlie Austin on 00:00 - May 9 by W7Ranger |
Oh is it? I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was about £12k or something.
You're probably closer to knowing than me Bri. |
Not really, to be honest. Only what I read on here, W7.
There was that sheet floating around showing us paying £12k to some players but it was widely disregarded as fake. Other reports said our basic was a good bit lower than that. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
