| Thought's on this from Les on 09:01 - Oct 18 with 802 views | ChrisNW6 |
| Thought's on this from Les on 00:13 - Oct 18 by Benny_the_Ball |
No, they're not. I've lost count of the number of times folk said that weren't even sure what a DoF does so trying to now argue that it's the same as every other role is rather fanciful. |
Yes they are. Show me a clearly defined industry standard for each role and I will take your point. I have worked in similar roles at various firms and it will be down to semantics on how each firms diffent hierarchy is put in place. The job description will be the determining factor not the name of the role. Executive Director, Director, Technical Director can all be for the same role.
+ much will depend on where the owners are from as the US owners tend to call the role Sporting Director as this type of position is far more established there. [Post edited 18 Oct 2023 9:07]
|  | |  |
| Thought's on this from Les on 09:33 - Oct 18 with 749 views | Wegerles_Stairs |
| Thought's on this from Les on 08:01 - Oct 18 by QPR_Jim |
The fine was for 2013-14, Les joined 2014-15 and we started cutting costs in the championship 2015-16, not when the fine was eventually settled. If we hadn't started cutting the budget straight away we would have had another fine.
We have established that someone else set the budget, whoopee. LF was working on the footballing side of keeping us in the championship while the budget was cut year on year which was the challenge. Setting the budget is an accounting exercise that anyone could have done. Where LH did well if anything was to find additional revenue and cut non footballing costs to maximise the footballing budget.
The cost cutting solely wasn't down to contracts expiring either, we loaned out players like Caulker and sold other players. They are examples of the DoF influencing the budget available rather than just waiting for contracts to expire as you suggest.
He was here for 8 years and (bar a vocal minority) my recollection is that most were happy with his performance for the first 5 years at least, so reminding people of that isn't trying to justify his record it's more a case of setting the record straight. No need to tarnish his early work just because it ended badly (which was partly due to owners and managers too) in the same way you wouldn't tarnish his playing career because of how his time as DoF ended. |
How many times did we make the play-offs during those first five years? Didn't we have parachute payments for the majority of them? | | | |
| Thought's on this from Les on 15:48 - Oct 18 with 630 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Thought's on this from Les on 09:01 - Oct 18 by ChrisNW6 |
Yes they are. Show me a clearly defined industry standard for each role and I will take your point. I have worked in similar roles at various firms and it will be down to semantics on how each firms diffent hierarchy is put in place. The job description will be the determining factor not the name of the role. Executive Director, Director, Technical Director can all be for the same role.
+ much will depend on where the owners are from as the US owners tend to call the role Sporting Director as this type of position is far more established there. [Post edited 18 Oct 2023 9:07]
|
I'm a director and I can tell you unequivocally, they're not.
Show me the job descriptions for every role in your list and, if they're exactly the same, I'll take your point. As for industry standards, most of the entries in your list have 'None' assigned which suggests that the industry standard is to not employ a DoF. |  | | |
| Thought's on this from Les on 16:11 - Oct 18 with 602 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Thought's on this from Les on 08:01 - Oct 18 by QPR_Jim |
The fine was for 2013-14, Les joined 2014-15 and we started cutting costs in the championship 2015-16, not when the fine was eventually settled. If we hadn't started cutting the budget straight away we would have had another fine.
We have established that someone else set the budget, whoopee. LF was working on the footballing side of keeping us in the championship while the budget was cut year on year which was the challenge. Setting the budget is an accounting exercise that anyone could have done. Where LH did well if anything was to find additional revenue and cut non footballing costs to maximise the footballing budget.
The cost cutting solely wasn't down to contracts expiring either, we loaned out players like Caulker and sold other players. They are examples of the DoF influencing the budget available rather than just waiting for contracts to expire as you suggest.
He was here for 8 years and (bar a vocal minority) my recollection is that most were happy with his performance for the first 5 years at least, so reminding people of that isn't trying to justify his record it's more a case of setting the record straight. No need to tarnish his early work just because it ended badly (which was partly due to owners and managers too) in the same way you wouldn't tarnish his playing career because of how his time as DoF ended. |
Previously you stated:
"they immediately complied with FFP when relegated after LF's arrival cutting cost accordingly. If they hadn't they would have had another fine before 2018 for exceeding FFP limits in the championship."
Now you're stating:
"The fine was for 2013-14".
So, you're now in line with my earlier point that, although handed out in 2018, the FFP fine was related to overspending in the championship in 2014.
With respect to cost cutting, Les wasn't in charge of finances. Les can't force players with long contracts to leave prematurely just because the club needs to cut cost. The player has to want to move on. The wage bill went down slowly over time as the last of the PL players left the building. It happened mainly through expiry of contracts with only a few sales, as other clubs weren't going to offer the kind of wages QPR were handing out.
As for your recollection of folk's satisfaction with Les' initial performance, that's hot air with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I deal in facts, not vague recollections. The job entails a whole lot more than merely 'cutting costs', most of which Les didn't achieve.
Now, I accept that the board are partly to blame because they shouldn't have hired Les in the first place, just as they shouldn't have hired Mark Hughes or Harry Redknapp. However, when you boil it down, Les was a great player but a pretty poor DoF. | | | |
| Thought's on this from Les on 16:18 - Oct 18 with 594 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Thought's on this from Les on 09:33 - Oct 18 by Wegerles_Stairs |
How many times did we make the play-offs during those first five years? Didn't we have parachute payments for the majority of them? |
Indeed, we did, which is why QPR were able to sustain a higher wage bill than norm. Those parachute payments helped keep wages to turnover below 100%. Ironically, by 2020 QPR had reduced the wage bill to 20m but wages to turnover leapt back over 100% because the parachute payments ended. The sale of Eze helped but next year will be tough when that revenue rolls off the P&S books. | | | |
| Thought's on this from Les on 16:54 - Oct 18 with 555 views | ChrisNW6 |
| Thought's on this from Les on 15:48 - Oct 18 by Benny_the_Ball |
I'm a director and I can tell you unequivocally, they're not.
Show me the job descriptions for every role in your list and, if they're exactly the same, I'll take your point. As for industry standards, most of the entries in your list have 'None' assigned which suggests that the industry standard is to not employ a DoF. |
There is no industry standard definition and title does not determine the role. You are unequivocally wrong on this and each club will have different roles and responsibilities and the title does not determine this. | | | |
| Thought's on this from Les on 17:08 - Oct 18 with 540 views | QPR_Jim |
| Thought's on this from Les on 16:11 - Oct 18 by Benny_the_Ball |
Previously you stated:
"they immediately complied with FFP when relegated after LF's arrival cutting cost accordingly. If they hadn't they would have had another fine before 2018 for exceeding FFP limits in the championship."
Now you're stating:
"The fine was for 2013-14".
So, you're now in line with my earlier point that, although handed out in 2018, the FFP fine was related to overspending in the championship in 2014.
With respect to cost cutting, Les wasn't in charge of finances. Les can't force players with long contracts to leave prematurely just because the club needs to cut cost. The player has to want to move on. The wage bill went down slowly over time as the last of the PL players left the building. It happened mainly through expiry of contracts with only a few sales, as other clubs weren't going to offer the kind of wages QPR were handing out.
As for your recollection of folk's satisfaction with Les' initial performance, that's hot air with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I deal in facts, not vague recollections. The job entails a whole lot more than merely 'cutting costs', most of which Les didn't achieve.
Now, I accept that the board are partly to blame because they shouldn't have hired Les in the first place, just as they shouldn't have hired Mark Hughes or Harry Redknapp. However, when you boil it down, Les was a great player but a pretty poor DoF. |
Overspending in 2014, seasons start and finish in different calendar years so it is in fact (you like those apparently) 2013-14. Les joined as DoF in 2014 but in the 2014-15 season when we were in the Premier League, another fact for you. So although you can say Les was here in 2014 and the fine was for 2014, the two are from separate seasons.
Your point was that we were still free spending when Les joined but we were in the premier League not the championship, so theoretically not bound by FFP. The first window with Harry and Les we spent far less than previous windows and it was speculated that was contributing to Harry's decision to leave although it can't be proven. "club chairman Tony Fernandes cited the large number of signings QPR made in the summer as the reason for a lack of mid-season additions." https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/harry-redknapp-what-
So seems to disprove you assertion that the culture didn't change until 2018 and that we were "free spending". We also met FFP rules from 2015-16 seasons onwards suggesting the culture had changed from 2013-14.
You can sell players and loan them out, footballing ways of cutting costs. If we can't even agree on that perhaps we should stop discussing it. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
