By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Question 5: On the loan is not answered. Have we paid some of it off? I so, how much? Or is it all gonna be paid off at the end again?
The rest was the usual answers. However, we got some clear answers on Richards. That's a done deal, confirmed. We found out that QPR+ gets in £500K-£600K revenue.
We found out that despite what he says later on about maximising the current stadium, they really are looking at a new one as he reveals the Linford Christie stadium deal is not dead but not exactly progressing either. He also confirms he needs more revenue from a new stadium as we can get money outside of football with that. Its clear to me we need a new stadium no matter what.
He revealed that Cat 1 is not worth it; he says players' parents don't say my kids at Cat 1, they say "my kids at Arsenal" so that's what parents care about. And that Cat 1 requirements will increase.
This last point not only do I disagree but I also call this a lie. Here is why. Sure parents say those things, but when they are shown around a Cat 1 they are clearly told the difference by the Cat 1 club so that the player does not go to QPR instead. And parents soon work out what Cat 1 means compared to Cat 2 for their player. Also, he does not refute properly that clubs can still steal our players just easily, saying it may cost em more (but probably not much more).
Really we want the Cat 1 as we can attract the players and keep them. I think what he's not revealing is that it costs more than we can afford right now and as a result, he does not want to reveal that we are not really investing properly in the future.
Also, his point on best person for the job, as I said before if Les and he can ensure we do not lose on the deals moneywise we had made overall for players, then we are still in the game. Otherwise, they have to go.
zzzzzzzzzz
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 15:06 - Apr 28 with 3124 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 15:03 - Apr 28 by LazyFan
Question 5: On the loan is not answered. Have we paid some of it off? I so, how much? Or is it all gonna be paid off at the end again?
The rest was the usual answers. However, we got some clear answers on Richards. That's a done deal, confirmed. We found out that QPR+ gets in £500K-£600K revenue.
We found out that despite what he says later on about maximising the current stadium, they really are looking at a new one as he reveals the Linford Christie stadium deal is not dead but not exactly progressing either. He also confirms he needs more revenue from a new stadium as we can get money outside of football with that. Its clear to me we need a new stadium no matter what.
He revealed that Cat 1 is not worth it; he says players' parents don't say my kids at Cat 1, they say "my kids at Arsenal" so that's what parents care about. And that Cat 1 requirements will increase.
This last point not only do I disagree but I also call this a lie. Here is why. Sure parents say those things, but when they are shown around a Cat 1 they are clearly told the difference by the Cat 1 club so that the player does not go to QPR instead. And parents soon work out what Cat 1 means compared to Cat 2 for their player. Also, he does not refute properly that clubs can still steal our players just easily, saying it may cost em more (but probably not much more).
Really we want the Cat 1 as we can attract the players and keep them. I think what he's not revealing is that it costs more than we can afford right now and as a result, he does not want to reveal that we are not really investing properly in the future.
Also, his point on best person for the job, as I said before if Les and he can ensure we do not lose on the deals moneywise we had made overall for players, then we are still in the game. Otherwise, they have to go.
not sure I really agree with your Cat 1 arguments tbh mate - or quite understand it?
Bare bones.
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 15:21 - Apr 28 with 3065 views
Thanks for posting. I always like him when I listen to him. I believe he was grumpy on the recent podcast and I know he can be brusque, but he comes across very well and he clearly knows his stuff.
Look forward to listening to it all.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 15:26 - Apr 28 by BrianMcCarthy
Thanks for posting. I always like him when I listen to him. I believe he was grumpy on the recent podcast and I know he can be brusque, but he comes across very well and he clearly knows his stuff.
Look forward to listening to it all.
Agreed- the vitriol directed to the guy is so misguided, no wonder he can come across as grumpy or dismissive. While its perhaps not professional, imagine answering the same questions over and over, presented so aggressively, by people who are so grossly misinformed, have a fraction of his knowledge/information, etc etc.
even now, people blame him for the clubs profit/loss, which is wrong. as if lee hoos is the one who pushed to spend more in the year we made a promotion push, meaning we hold onto sellable assets and spent more, resulting in a massive loss (that was edict from the board)... as if lee hoos is responsible for us making bad signings, paying unreasonably high transfer fees and overpaying wages or for failing to sell on assets for a profit (which is on les ferdinand and his below average recruitment) ... or as if he's responsible for an academy that hardly produces sellable assets to bring income into the club (thats on all of the football guys- ramsey, ferdinand, etc and the category 1/2 stuff (which i admittedly dont totally understand))... these are the factors that have led to our poor P/L and they have nothing to do with lee hoos
qpr will not improve by getting rid of him, and if anything, we'll probably hire someone worse with less institutional knowledge....
[Post edited 28 Apr 2023 16:11]
10
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:06 - Apr 28 with 2832 views
Was a little more defensive than he has been in the past (discounting the podcast when he was patently unwell) and there were some 'politician's' answers*.
I do not really understand the antipathy some fans have towards him. What he does cannot be an easy job even though I am sure he is well remunerated.
* He (pointedly?) avoided whether LF was the best man for the job, focussing instead on his own circumstance. Read into that what you may.
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 15:03 - Apr 28 by LazyFan
Question 5: On the loan is not answered. Have we paid some of it off? I so, how much? Or is it all gonna be paid off at the end again?
The rest was the usual answers. However, we got some clear answers on Richards. That's a done deal, confirmed. We found out that QPR+ gets in £500K-£600K revenue.
We found out that despite what he says later on about maximising the current stadium, they really are looking at a new one as he reveals the Linford Christie stadium deal is not dead but not exactly progressing either. He also confirms he needs more revenue from a new stadium as we can get money outside of football with that. Its clear to me we need a new stadium no matter what.
He revealed that Cat 1 is not worth it; he says players' parents don't say my kids at Cat 1, they say "my kids at Arsenal" so that's what parents care about. And that Cat 1 requirements will increase.
This last point not only do I disagree but I also call this a lie. Here is why. Sure parents say those things, but when they are shown around a Cat 1 they are clearly told the difference by the Cat 1 club so that the player does not go to QPR instead. And parents soon work out what Cat 1 means compared to Cat 2 for their player. Also, he does not refute properly that clubs can still steal our players just easily, saying it may cost em more (but probably not much more).
Really we want the Cat 1 as we can attract the players and keep them. I think what he's not revealing is that it costs more than we can afford right now and as a result, he does not want to reveal that we are not really investing properly in the future.
Also, his point on best person for the job, as I said before if Les and he can ensure we do not lose on the deals moneywise we had made overall for players, then we are still in the game. Otherwise, they have to go.
Also, his point on best person for the job, as I said before if Les and he can ensure we do not lose on the deals moneywise we had made overall for players, then we are still in the game. Otherwise, they have to go.
...
thats a fine barometer to evaluate les. but how does this have anything to do with lee hoos? He isnt the one who scouts players, decides to sign them or determine what transfer fee we should pay to bring them in.... he isnt the one who hires a manager (whose system might or might not highlight their attributes, who develops their skillset, etc.)
there's a lot you can criticise hoos for .... but why would he be responsible for the success of our transfer business?
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:24 - Apr 28 with 2709 views
Thought it was overall a fair interview. I do however question this Cat1 and Cat2 standing. I agree with the point made above that when you show a young player and his family the set up, it must come into play whether you are a Cat1 or Cat2. Of course the massive clubs like Arsenal and the like don't have to use this strategy, but I would say the group of clubs just are outside that core group would use the fact that they are Cat1. Personally think its just down to cost.
Smells like a trout farm in here
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:28 - Apr 28 with 2677 views
I think people have been angry with him because our latest accounts show a big black hole in the loss column.
He was bought in to reduce costs and make us sustainable.
He simply hasn't done that.
The rubbish about not wanting to sell last summer doesn't wash for me I'm afraid. We should be looking to sell every single summer until we are in a nice sparkly money spinning ground because unless we do that we are screwed.
He and Les should've been screaming at Beale/The Owners/whoever that under no circumstances should we keeping the band together when we (really) didn't get close to the play offs. Chair, Willock, Dieng, Dickie even Dunne could ALL have fetched a good fee last summer. Now we will have to sell more of them as their stock has fallen and we are desperate.
Sorry to harp on about Brentford but they sold Hogan, then Maupay, then Watkins and Benhrama and every single time got better for it. Now they have the best striker outside the Big 6.
We should know every single summer who is going
http://blogandwhitehoops.wordpress.com/
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:33 - Apr 28 with 2647 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:28 - Apr 28 by BAWHoops
I think people have been angry with him because our latest accounts show a big black hole in the loss column.
He was bought in to reduce costs and make us sustainable.
He simply hasn't done that.
The rubbish about not wanting to sell last summer doesn't wash for me I'm afraid. We should be looking to sell every single summer until we are in a nice sparkly money spinning ground because unless we do that we are screwed.
He and Les should've been screaming at Beale/The Owners/whoever that under no circumstances should we keeping the band together when we (really) didn't get close to the play offs. Chair, Willock, Dieng, Dickie even Dunne could ALL have fetched a good fee last summer. Now we will have to sell more of them as their stock has fallen and we are desperate.
Sorry to harp on about Brentford but they sold Hogan, then Maupay, then Watkins and Benhrama and every single time got better for it. Now they have the best striker outside the Big 6.
We should know every single summer who is going
Maybe he has shouted at the owners. What the club decides to spend is ultimately down to them. Likely he'll go to them with: 'Les and Beale want this, this is the effect of that. What do you want to do?' He can't overrule Ruben, all he can do is work to instructions.
And he and Les have massively reduced costs.
Bare bones.
6
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:33 - Apr 28 with 2644 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:28 - Apr 28 by BAWHoops
I think people have been angry with him because our latest accounts show a big black hole in the loss column.
He was bought in to reduce costs and make us sustainable.
He simply hasn't done that.
The rubbish about not wanting to sell last summer doesn't wash for me I'm afraid. We should be looking to sell every single summer until we are in a nice sparkly money spinning ground because unless we do that we are screwed.
He and Les should've been screaming at Beale/The Owners/whoever that under no circumstances should we keeping the band together when we (really) didn't get close to the play offs. Chair, Willock, Dieng, Dickie even Dunne could ALL have fetched a good fee last summer. Now we will have to sell more of them as their stock has fallen and we are desperate.
Sorry to harp on about Brentford but they sold Hogan, then Maupay, then Watkins and Benhrama and every single time got better for it. Now they have the best striker outside the Big 6.
We should know every single summer who is going
Did we get a single offer last summer for any of those players?
Agree we should have ideally sold them but not sure there was any real interest
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:34 - Apr 28 with 2644 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:28 - Apr 28 by BAWHoops
I think people have been angry with him because our latest accounts show a big black hole in the loss column.
He was bought in to reduce costs and make us sustainable.
He simply hasn't done that.
The rubbish about not wanting to sell last summer doesn't wash for me I'm afraid. We should be looking to sell every single summer until we are in a nice sparkly money spinning ground because unless we do that we are screwed.
He and Les should've been screaming at Beale/The Owners/whoever that under no circumstances should we keeping the band together when we (really) didn't get close to the play offs. Chair, Willock, Dieng, Dickie even Dunne could ALL have fetched a good fee last summer. Now we will have to sell more of them as their stock has fallen and we are desperate.
Sorry to harp on about Brentford but they sold Hogan, then Maupay, then Watkins and Benhrama and every single time got better for it. Now they have the best striker outside the Big 6.
We should know every single summer who is going
I agree with you on much of that, BAW, but those are all footballing decisions.
I'm not sure that those decisions are his to make, and I'm not sure that his replacement would get to make them either.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:24 - Apr 28 by HAYESBOY
Thought it was overall a fair interview. I do however question this Cat1 and Cat2 standing. I agree with the point made above that when you show a young player and his family the set up, it must come into play whether you are a Cat1 or Cat2. Of course the massive clubs like Arsenal and the like don't have to use this strategy, but I would say the group of clubs just are outside that core group would use the fact that they are Cat1. Personally think its just down to cost.
I don't agree with him on Cat 1/Cat 2 either.
Really good interview, though.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 15:27 - Apr 28 by Gloucs_R
Well not guessing a new stadium unless it's given to us on a plate.
Still think the two sites should simply swap places, turn LR into a dedicated athletics facility and build a new stadium on LCS. If in 5-10 yrs it's not viable then the council can use LR for much needed social housing.
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:42 - Apr 28 with 2582 views
I thought it was a fair clear and informing interview.....I do not have any real issues with Hoos - comes across as a man who is hurting because of the on field stuff we have seen since October. I do not believe he lied one bit but, for sure, some will think he has lied. We could do a lot worse without him. One point, he didn't seem to worried about FFP.
As for Cat1 & Cat2.......As he said youngsters will go to most other London Premier clubs than join QPR - for obvious reasons.
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:56 - Apr 28 with 2521 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:28 - Apr 28 by BAWHoops
I think people have been angry with him because our latest accounts show a big black hole in the loss column.
He was bought in to reduce costs and make us sustainable.
He simply hasn't done that.
The rubbish about not wanting to sell last summer doesn't wash for me I'm afraid. We should be looking to sell every single summer until we are in a nice sparkly money spinning ground because unless we do that we are screwed.
He and Les should've been screaming at Beale/The Owners/whoever that under no circumstances should we keeping the band together when we (really) didn't get close to the play offs. Chair, Willock, Dieng, Dickie even Dunne could ALL have fetched a good fee last summer. Now we will have to sell more of them as their stock has fallen and we are desperate.
Sorry to harp on about Brentford but they sold Hogan, then Maupay, then Watkins and Benhrama and every single time got better for it. Now they have the best striker outside the Big 6.
We should know every single summer who is going
As a few others have said, it's all very well wanting to sell someone every summer, but if there's no market for them, wanting won't turn into hard cash. The days of the Brentford model are gone, certainly for the time being, and we are going to have to come up with alternative short and medium/long term strategies. Just as will almost every other team in the Championship without parachute money.
One thing; in the same way that we are able to estimate where we will be in terms of FFP for the next few years because our accounts are publicly available, so we should be able to do estimate where every other team will be during that period as well. I'd be fairly surprised if each club aren't doing those calculations, so that you can spot for example that, if we are likely to get a six point fine in 24/25, who else might be. If you've got eight or nine other clubs in a similar position, it's not the complete disaster some might imagine.
Bottom line though is: we need a new stadium otherwise this club won't survive at Championship level.
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 17:02 - Apr 28 with 2487 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:56 - Apr 28 by WatfordR
As a few others have said, it's all very well wanting to sell someone every summer, but if there's no market for them, wanting won't turn into hard cash. The days of the Brentford model are gone, certainly for the time being, and we are going to have to come up with alternative short and medium/long term strategies. Just as will almost every other team in the Championship without parachute money.
One thing; in the same way that we are able to estimate where we will be in terms of FFP for the next few years because our accounts are publicly available, so we should be able to do estimate where every other team will be during that period as well. I'd be fairly surprised if each club aren't doing those calculations, so that you can spot for example that, if we are likely to get a six point fine in 24/25, who else might be. If you've got eight or nine other clubs in a similar position, it's not the complete disaster some might imagine.
Bottom line though is: we need a new stadium otherwise this club won't survive at Championship level.
I've never heard LH entertain the idea that there is something that can be done with the footprint of the current ground quite so seriously, that they are looking at that now. He's always dismissed it. So that was a breadcrumb to follow. Perhaps LCS is a distant, decades away project but there's something to be agreed with the council re LR in the meantime? Just speculating. But neither idea is dead, seemingly.
If you don't want "crazy conspiracy theories" about Richard Reilly, then don't add a fourth person to the board without any additional information. Today is the first time we've heard how he became involved. Rumour loves a vacuum.(And I still don't buy he's invested just for something to do. Let's hear from him.)
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 17:12 - Apr 28 with 2443 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:35 - Apr 28 by BrianMcCarthy
I don't agree with him on Cat 1/Cat 2 either.
Really good interview, though.
No, I see where he's coming from, if Arsenal/Chelsea come calling, the kids leaving. Hopefully our new facilities will make a better impression on potential recruits.
1
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 17:25 - Apr 28 with 2377 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:56 - Apr 28 by WatfordR
As a few others have said, it's all very well wanting to sell someone every summer, but if there's no market for them, wanting won't turn into hard cash. The days of the Brentford model are gone, certainly for the time being, and we are going to have to come up with alternative short and medium/long term strategies. Just as will almost every other team in the Championship without parachute money.
One thing; in the same way that we are able to estimate where we will be in terms of FFP for the next few years because our accounts are publicly available, so we should be able to do estimate where every other team will be during that period as well. I'd be fairly surprised if each club aren't doing those calculations, so that you can spot for example that, if we are likely to get a six point fine in 24/25, who else might be. If you've got eight or nine other clubs in a similar position, it's not the complete disaster some might imagine.
Bottom line though is: we need a new stadium otherwise this club won't survive at Championship level.
dont think a stadium moves the needle
lets assume away, for arguments sake, all the difficulties QPR has had in trying to build a new stadium in the last 10 years- planning permission, finding a site, dealing with local council, etc etc. lets also assume for a second that borrowing rates havent gone up astronomically and inflation hasnt significantly increased building costs, making these types of projects much more unattractive....
lets also assume that QPR built this stadium and it 10,000 more seats, and that each of those seats were filled (b/c QPR suddenly was able to expand its fan base even though its not sold out its current stadium in the last 20 years, or b/c long balls to chris martin become fashionable) and we sold them for £35/ticket
10,000 x 35 x 23 games = £8m (i'm assuming thats all profit and there are no additional costs to a bigger stadium and higher attendances, which of course we know is not true)
that £8m barely puts a dent into the £24m we lost last year.
using my numbers, 1 eze sale is equal to selling 570,000 additional tickets
the only way the club will realistically approach sustainability is by cutting costs (we're still paying transfer fees for players like dozzell, bonne, etc) or developing/selling players...
boro sold two players for over £10m this year.... the model for this still exists
-1
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 17:30 - Apr 28 with 2333 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 16:10 - Apr 28 by qprd
Also, his point on best person for the job, as I said before if Les and he can ensure we do not lose on the deals moneywise we had made overall for players, then we are still in the game. Otherwise, they have to go.
...
thats a fine barometer to evaluate les. but how does this have anything to do with lee hoos? He isnt the one who scouts players, decides to sign them or determine what transfer fee we should pay to bring them in.... he isnt the one who hires a manager (whose system might or might not highlight their attributes, who develops their skillset, etc.)
there's a lot you can criticise hoos for .... but why would he be responsible for the success of our transfer business?
Hoos is involved with player contract renewals and selling, as they are considered assets. He is involved in the transfers and contracts for sure. He says so in the interview.
Therefore both have to be accountable for that side of the Business as its one of the most critical parts of running a professional football club.
I understand they cannot get Eze deals every year, but we need to be at least evens on the money, even if the players let us down. Tricky situation, but that's the game we are in, and that's the money they are being paid for.
I like Hoos, as he knows to protect the stadium, but we still need those transfers. Les and Hoos have said this themselves.
zzzzzzzzzz
0
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 17:34 - Apr 28 with 2313 views
The Hoos business Q&A has surfaced... on 17:09 - Apr 28 by TK1
I've never heard LH entertain the idea that there is something that can be done with the footprint of the current ground quite so seriously, that they are looking at that now. He's always dismissed it. So that was a breadcrumb to follow. Perhaps LCS is a distant, decades away project but there's something to be agreed with the council re LR in the meantime? Just speculating. But neither idea is dead, seemingly.
If you don't want "crazy conspiracy theories" about Richard Reilly, then don't add a fourth person to the board without any additional information. Today is the first time we've heard how he became involved. Rumour loves a vacuum.(And I still don't buy he's invested just for something to do. Let's hear from him.)
being a minority investor in a football team is generally a waste of time/money
you basically have very limited say in how the club is run b/c you're a minority investor. the club loses money so you need to either invest more into the club each year (eg, how ruben extends shareholder loans to the club every 12 months) or your minority stake gets further diluted with each new injection of cash
why would the current owners invite a fourth board member? its pretty obvious. someone else comes in with new money, limiting the amount of money ruben has to additionally put in. on top of that, ruben is not losing his ownership and control of the club as the new investor is a minority with limited rights (just a board seat)
why would the new guy do it? b/c hes a rich guy who has money and what else are you going to do with millions? at the end of the day, he paid a few million to get a board seat and season tickets...
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
