| Celar €1.5 million 08:49 - Jul 17 with 19279 views | stumbleandfall |
Nourry 10 year contract after that masterstroke.
Tongue in cheek, of course. [Post edited 17 Jul 8:51]
|  | | |  |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:35 - Jul 17 with 2592 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:08 - Jul 17 by HAYESBOY |
|
Oh, Fabrizio, the beggar with a mobile phone?
"Lets goooo"
This guy is not a journalist, you may as well quote FLW numbers |  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:43 - Jul 17 with 2519 views | dmm |
As others have said, I'm surprised we've received anything at all for Celar.
I'm absolutely no fan of Nourry but if, as we must assume, he's achieved this deal, along with Armstrong, Dykes, Kelman and possibly Frey, I have to say he knows how to get this side of the transfer business done. |  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:51 - Jul 17 with 2450 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:08 - Jul 17 by TheChef |
Again some posters being very harsh about him.
Maybe he was similar to Madsen in taking time to adapt to a new country, new league, new place of work, new boss. It doesn't happen overnight. Scored two great goals against Cardiff and looked like he was turning a corner, then was very unlucky to get a serious injury.
I'm not saying he was likely to be a QPR legend, maybe it was never going to happen for him here. But some of our fans just look at the player on the pitch and don't think about the human being off it, and what they might be going through. |
Agree. He got the couple of goals against Cardiff away, then next game Watford at home he hit the post and looked like a different player, but his hamstring went.
We'll never know, but picking up that injury did for him, while Madsen has gotten better and better.
Good luck to him. | |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:57 - Jul 17 with 2386 views | QPR_Jim |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:43 - Jul 17 by dmm |
As others have said, I'm surprised we've received anything at all for Celar.
I'm absolutely no fan of Nourry but if, as we must assume, he's achieved this deal, along with Armstrong, Dykes, Kelman and possibly Frey, I have to say he knows how to get this side of the transfer business done. |
Wasn't those other deals leaked with similar numbers and then when it came to the accounts it turned out to be much less? I'm with those that are amazed if we got anything for him after his season here then what sounded like a poor season on loan.
I'm not sure who it benefits to have these numbers out there, does it benefit QPR to look like we're flush with money from player sales? We're told letting contract lengths be known is giving away a competitive advantage, but for some reason inflated values for transfers seem to be routinely leaked. |  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:58 - Jul 17 with 2375 views | DannytheR |
Ah, Zan Celar, the Slovenian Leon Clarke. Didn't we almost have it all, for a single Wednesday night in Cardiff. But otherwise, Christ, you were bad. |  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:58 - Jul 17 with 2377 views | TheChef |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:17 - Jul 17 by wombat |
diff was madson was trying to integrate into the team celar didnt , no running no heading no tackling madson tried stuff and it didnt come off passes shots celar did nothing in his time with us , he made mike sheron look like a hard working forward . would that excuse be the same for his season loan last year as well ?
as he did less there that he did with us ? |
Madsen barely did much either in his first six months (or more).
Sorry but I think you're just being harsh on him. |  |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:58 - Jul 17 with 2374 views | PlanetHonneywood |
I suspect like many, the 'money' being mentioned is heavily influenced by what we're saving as opposed to much, if any, what we're getting through the door in actual wedge.
His failure is heavily on QPR for signing a bloke totally unsuited to the role we assigned to him, as opposed to the ones the number crunching department based his signing on.
Good luck to him. Hope the club has learned the lesson(s) that need to be learned! |  |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:05 - Jul 17 with 2304 views | nix |
I think it’s brilliant news just not to be paying his salary any more. Anything else is just a bonus. How many players have we had in the past sitting on big salaries for years where we ended up paying them to do nothing.
It was clearly a big mistake to sign him in the first place but to mitigate your losses is vital. I was seriously worried we’d have him stinking out the training ground for the next couple of seasons. Hopefully this will free up some wages at least to cover e.g. the loan in of the goalkeeper. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:11 - Jul 17 with 2245 views | QPunkR |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:08 - Jul 17 by TheChef |
Again some posters being very harsh about him.
Maybe he was similar to Madsen in taking time to adapt to a new country, new league, new place of work, new boss. It doesn't happen overnight. Scored two great goals against Cardiff and looked like he was turning a corner, then was very unlucky to get a serious injury.
I'm not saying he was likely to be a QPR legend, maybe it was never going to happen for him here. But some of our fans just look at the player on the pitch and don't think about the human being off it, and what they might be going through. |
Both things can equally be true. He could have trouble adjusting etc and still be an awful footballer |  |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:14 - Jul 17 with 2232 views | Mr_Beef |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:43 - Jul 17 by dmm |
As others have said, I'm surprised we've received anything at all for Celar.
I'm absolutely no fan of Nourry but if, as we must assume, he's achieved this deal, along with Armstrong, Dykes, Kelman and possibly Frey, I have to say he knows how to get this side of the transfer business done. |
Time, and the accounts, will tell I guess. It does look as if we've made a loss on a striker who scored in one game for us over two years. That's a poor transfer.
Of course we'd all know more if there was more openness at the club. I can't see what commercial advantage we've gained regarding Celar during the last two years.
It's been said before, but if you want to avoid genuine scrutiny you do as much as possible to keep people in the dark. The Celar transfer is a good example of that. [Post edited 17 Jul 11:14]
|  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:15 - Jul 17 with 2215 views | stevec |
| Celar €1.5 million on 09:22 - Jul 17 by Hunterhoop |
Let’s wait and see until the accounts. They proved we did not get £2.5m for Armstrong (even if 25% went to Shamrock) and £1m for Dykes. It was £1.8m up front rising to £2.2m in total for the two of them. I’d be wary believing any numbers promoted on social media accounts.
That said, without wanting to go over old ground, I can see how a deal “worth £1.5m to QPR” is true. That looks about right for what he would have earnt in salary over 2 years. He was likely on a 4 year deal given our amortisation approach. Therefore, quite likely we’ve given him to someone for free to get his wages off the books, saving us around £1.5m versus what we were committed to take as cost if he stayed here for the next two seasons.
So they’ve done a good job to find a taker, even if the transfer fee we paid for him has proved to be a waste. Frees up some salary to sign someone on a free this summer and improve the squad. Doesn’t help with the player trading/amortisation model, as half what we paid for him will now be incurred as a cost in this financial season. |
Been saying this for some time.
Basically what you said, except they give us the money to pay up his contract. Same thing in essence, a book transaction that means we get the 1.5m from them and we hand it over to Celar to pay up his contract.
In other words, this is not and never will be, spending money.
Better get used to this double speak. |  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:19 - Jul 17 with 2197 views | Hayesender |
Hopefully this frees up some money to strengthen our defence and midfield |  |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:24 - Jul 17 with 2151 views | 100percent |
| Celar €1.5 million on 09:12 - Jul 17 by wombat |
so could be 1.5 million then , how much did we loose on him in total i wonder ?
stupid transfer in the first place was never the right fit for the team |
Look, I'm no fan of Celar, the bloke frustrated the hell out of me on a regular basis but ' never the right fit for the team' on what basis is this statement?
He came to us from Lugano and had a 1 in 2 goal ratio..... his movement in footage looked decent, and he showed that he could finish.
It never worked out with us for various reasons as have been outlined, but saying he was never the right fit is nonsense.... on that basis Burrell would never have been signed.
Just glad he's off the books and someone else's problem. |  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:27 - Jul 17 with 2115 views | OakR |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:05 - Jul 17 by nix |
I think it’s brilliant news just not to be paying his salary any more. Anything else is just a bonus. How many players have we had in the past sitting on big salaries for years where we ended up paying them to do nothing.
It was clearly a big mistake to sign him in the first place but to mitigate your losses is vital. I was seriously worried we’d have him stinking out the training ground for the next couple of seasons. Hopefully this will free up some wages at least to cover e.g. the loan in of the goalkeeper. |
Agreed. You'd assume he was on decent wages as well, and the move is best for all parties.
Will be amazed if we got anything up front for him, but let's see. Assume we have some sell on fee, or maybe something contingent on performance etc.
His signing hasn't worked out, so good we have been able to move him on for us, and him. Woud have been good to see how he woud have performed for a few months if he hadn't got injured, but he did and that basically ended it for him here.
Good transfers for us so far this window. | |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:30 - Jul 17 with 2094 views | Hunterhoop |
| Celar €1.5 million on 09:52 - Jul 17 by Padulas_Shampoo |
Hunter you're making a pretty massive assumption there. Especially given your last paragraph is worded as if the prior one is factual. [Post edited 17 Jul 10:11]
|
Well, obviously the last paragraph is conditional on the prior ones in the same post.
As I said, wait for the accounts. The fees quoted for Armstrong and Dykes were not correct. That social media journo is a well known shill. Clubs pay him to say what they want him to say. He’s a narrative machine.
As others have said, it’s commonplace for clubs to take on players contracts which in itself is a deal worth X because the selling club is no longer obligated to pay any player’s remaining contract, but it doesn’t involve an additional up front fee (unless it is to pay up the existing contract before agreeing a new salary with that player).
This number, Frey’s, they are just remarkable close to being a reasonable proportion of what those players would have cost in salary for their outstanding contract term.
As Nix said, this is still all great news. It means we can reinvest in another first team player signed on a free. That’s great. It’ll strengthen the team. And fair play to Nourry for finding a taker and getting a deal done. Far far better than Celar stinking the place out. I am very positive about this. It’s more than I thought we’d get.
But don’t think this solves the player trading model requirements. It doesn’t. Getting out of deals even with a true additional selling fee of the amount you paid, half way through a 4 year deal, would mean only half of that can be booked as net income, because you have to bring forward two years of amortised transfer cost. And that net income doesn’t remotely cover what we need to be bringing in to cover the total amount of transfer spend already committed to this year under the amortisation model. My guestimate is we need to bring in £6m per season this season and next simply to cover what we already have to book as transfer costs before we generate any extra net income to help with PSR or enable more funds to be spent. |  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:33 - Jul 17 with 2075 views | nix |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:15 - Jul 17 by stevec |
Been saying this for some time.
Basically what you said, except they give us the money to pay up his contract. Same thing in essence, a book transaction that means we get the 1.5m from them and we hand it over to Celar to pay up his contract.
In other words, this is not and never will be, spending money.
Better get used to this double speak. |
It’s a fair point but it’s not losing more money. So, say you’ve budgeted in June on the basis of having to pay him for the next two years then you find you don’t then you have more money in your budget than you started with. Budgets are always going to start with the assumption that you have to pay all those on contract until the end of their contract.
I’m happy because in the past we haven’t managed to offload these people or we’ve sent them out on loan for probably a fraction of their wages - like Macauley Bonne, Stefan Johansen (good player but crocked after the first season) or Taylor Richards.
Obviously if we find in March next year that we’ve massively overspent then that’s another conversation to have. | | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:34 - Jul 17 with 2073 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Celar €1.5 million on 10:57 - Jul 17 by QPR_Jim |
Wasn't those other deals leaked with similar numbers and then when it came to the accounts it turned out to be much less? I'm with those that are amazed if we got anything for him after his season here then what sounded like a poor season on loan.
I'm not sure who it benefits to have these numbers out there, does it benefit QPR to look like we're flush with money from player sales? We're told letting contract lengths be known is giving away a competitive advantage, but for some reason inflated values for transfers seem to be routinely leaked. |
I think its easy to see who benefits when these numbers are leaked out.
Like with Armstrong and Dykes the maximum number is fed to the press, where the fee might be linked to goals, appearances or promotions etc.
Then when the accounts come in we might see the actual incomings from sales and be able to determine what the club actually realised.
I think with Celar the wording is key and on this occasion we are probably just saving money on wages, so as other have mentioned all the "buying" club are doing is paying the compromise agreement to "release" Celar from his QPR contract, so they can negotiate with him as a free agent.
The clever wording and leak to the press is to make QPR look like they didn't catch a cold signing a player that didn't work out for us.
Personally I'm not sure how damaging it is to admit that a signing didn't work out for whatever reason. No club has a 100% success rating, especially when you are bringing in players who haven't played in England before.
I actually think the club have learned from this and subsequent recruitment, like last season has been largely better.
It sounds a lot to us, but QPR are still shopping in the middle aisle at Aldi, I think the recent exceptions have been Saito, Madsen, Kone and Ronnie, who I think we paid decent money for (still dwarfed by other teams spending, like Wrexham, Birmingham, Southampton et al) | | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:36 - Jul 17 with 2049 views | derbyhoop |
| Celar €1.5 million on 09:22 - Jul 17 by Hunterhoop |
Let’s wait and see until the accounts. They proved we did not get £2.5m for Armstrong (even if 25% went to Shamrock) and £1m for Dykes. It was £1.8m up front rising to £2.2m in total for the two of them. I’d be wary believing any numbers promoted on social media accounts.
That said, without wanting to go over old ground, I can see how a deal “worth £1.5m to QPR” is true. That looks about right for what he would have earnt in salary over 2 years. He was likely on a 4 year deal given our amortisation approach. Therefore, quite likely we’ve given him to someone for free to get his wages off the books, saving us around £1.5m versus what we were committed to take as cost if he stayed here for the next two seasons.
So they’ve done a good job to find a taker, even if the transfer fee we paid for him has proved to be a waste. Frees up some salary to sign someone on a free this summer and improve the squad. Doesn’t help with the player trading/amortisation model, as half what we paid for him will now be incurred as a cost in this financial season. |
I don't see Celar having been on 750k per annum, but it's possible and explains how the value may be 1.5m. Fabrizio Romano reported the fee as £1.3m. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:39 - Jul 17 with 2025 views | wombat |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:24 - Jul 17 by 100percent |
Look, I'm no fan of Celar, the bloke frustrated the hell out of me on a regular basis but ' never the right fit for the team' on what basis is this statement?
He came to us from Lugano and had a 1 in 2 goal ratio..... his movement in footage looked decent, and he showed that he could finish.
It never worked out with us for various reasons as have been outlined, but saying he was never the right fit is nonsense.... on that basis Burrell would never have been signed.
Just glad he's off the books and someone else's problem. |
at his previous club he played as part of a front two not a sole target man , we expect him to change his game totally to be that target man a job he had never done or by the look of him wanted to do becuae at the time that was the game plan sole striker to bring chair etc into the game , never was the type of striker he was couldnt be a worse fit if you tried to find a striker
not sure where burrell fits into the equation ? pacy young striker used to english football lower level yes but still used to it , couldnt get more of an oppsoite example to celar to be honest one wanted to learn and progress the other looked like his wife and kids were being held hostage , |  |
| |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:40 - Jul 17 with 2024 views | Juzzie |
Unless there was some deliberate laundering type thing going on, every signing is a gamble. Look at Richard Ord.
[Post edited 17 Jul 11:46]
|  | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:42 - Jul 17 with 2003 views | DannytheR |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:30 - Jul 17 by Hunterhoop |
Well, obviously the last paragraph is conditional on the prior ones in the same post.
As I said, wait for the accounts. The fees quoted for Armstrong and Dykes were not correct. That social media journo is a well known shill. Clubs pay him to say what they want him to say. He’s a narrative machine.
As others have said, it’s commonplace for clubs to take on players contracts which in itself is a deal worth X because the selling club is no longer obligated to pay any player’s remaining contract, but it doesn’t involve an additional up front fee (unless it is to pay up the existing contract before agreeing a new salary with that player).
This number, Frey’s, they are just remarkable close to being a reasonable proportion of what those players would have cost in salary for their outstanding contract term.
As Nix said, this is still all great news. It means we can reinvest in another first team player signed on a free. That’s great. It’ll strengthen the team. And fair play to Nourry for finding a taker and getting a deal done. Far far better than Celar stinking the place out. I am very positive about this. It’s more than I thought we’d get.
But don’t think this solves the player trading model requirements. It doesn’t. Getting out of deals even with a true additional selling fee of the amount you paid, half way through a 4 year deal, would mean only half of that can be booked as net income, because you have to bring forward two years of amortised transfer cost. And that net income doesn’t remotely cover what we need to be bringing in to cover the total amount of transfer spend already committed to this year under the amortisation model. My guestimate is we need to bring in £6m per season this season and next simply to cover what we already have to book as transfer costs before we generate any extra net income to help with PSR or enable more funds to be spent. |
Yeah, it feels like the clock must be ticking very loudly to get people sold for *actual* money. Real shame Varane went totally backwards (in every sense) last season, as he could have made a few quid for us and been relatively straightforward to replace. (Not like he contributed much last year anyway.)
As it is, you feel like the good financial news is that if Burrell and Kone pick up where they left off, one or both will generate a very decent fee. That'll be a pity on the field, but then, of course, this is the model... [Post edited 17 Jul 11:50]
| | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:49 - Jul 17 with 1931 views | nix |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:42 - Jul 17 by DannytheR |
Yeah, it feels like the clock must be ticking very loudly to get people sold for *actual* money. Real shame Varane went totally backwards (in every sense) last season, as he could have made a few quid for us and been relatively straightforward to replace. (Not like he contributed much last year anyway.)
As it is, you feel like the good financial news is that if Burrell and Kone pick up where they left off, one or both will generate a very decent fee. That'll be a pity on the field, but then, of course, this is the model... [Post edited 17 Jul 11:50]
|
Yes he’s the most frustrating player. He really looked like he was really progressing after the first season. Morrison also looked like a good transfer and then suddenly seemed like he’d forgotten how to play football over the summer. It’s mystifying how that happens. Whereas Madsen travelled in completely the opposite direction. I have to wonder if it’s partly a mental approach thing (I don’t mean poor mental health by the way I mean how you approach your development). Madsen quite clearly was determined to put every effort in to crack his issues on the pitch. | | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:54 - Jul 17 with 1883 views | Hunterhoop |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:36 - Jul 17 by derbyhoop |
I don't see Celar having been on 750k per annum, but it's possible and explains how the value may be 1.5m. Fabrizio Romano reported the fee as £1.3m. |
What? €14k per week or £12.5k per week? Seems pretty bang on what his salary would have been given his profile and what we paid for him. | | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:58 - Jul 17 with 1826 views | DannytheR |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:49 - Jul 17 by nix |
Yes he’s the most frustrating player. He really looked like he was really progressing after the first season. Morrison also looked like a good transfer and then suddenly seemed like he’d forgotten how to play football over the summer. It’s mystifying how that happens. Whereas Madsen travelled in completely the opposite direction. I have to wonder if it’s partly a mental approach thing (I don’t mean poor mental health by the way I mean how you approach your development). Madsen quite clearly was determined to put every effort in to crack his issues on the pitch. |
Agreed on Morrison. Like the ongoing injury situation, it feels like another thing a club in our position can't really afford is a lot of players who seem like they're actively regressing. It isn't a problem across the board – Burrell, Smyth and Madsen all got better last year, in some cases dramatically.
But again, before you even get to how we're doing on the pitch, the margins are surely too tight financially for us to have people regularly losing all form and value. Morgan too hasn't progressed nearly as much as you'd like, Saito looks a shadow of the player we've seen he can be, and Dembele and JCS both look like write-offs.
I've depressed myself now. [Post edited 17 Jul 11:59]
| | | |
| Celar €1.5 million on 12:04 - Jul 17 with 1776 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Celar €1.5 million on 11:36 - Jul 17 by derbyhoop |
I don't see Celar having been on 750k per annum, but it's possible and explains how the value may be 1.5m. Fabrizio Romano reported the fee as £1.3m. |
Romano is like the bloke down the pub chatting sh1t
Except;
1. Someone is paying him to say this
2. Millions of people are listening to this idiot
3. He doesn't get held accountable if anything he says is wrong.
He's a beggar with a mobile phone, he's not a journalist
"Lets Gooooo" | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.