Nice One Ron!

[Sweepy]

It has been confirmed that Queens Park Rangers are no longer allowed to sign players using cash donated by outside sources. The FA applied the embargo following a complaint by a rival chairman, I wonder who that could be?

Okay, I will stop the charade - it is confirmed on the official website of QPR, http://www.qpr.co.uk that our Ron was behind the vindictive act!

On this occasion, Ron appears to have put his incredible ability to be a tw*t to good use! For this reason, I standeth upon my pedestal, and declare "Nice One Ron.

"You did it for the Bees. You did it it for all the clubs in Division Two, who are trying to win a place in Division One the fair way" (well, that is what I would like to believe).

 

[rebus]

Regardless of outcome, I find it amazing that they are moaning, the club is either in adminstration or it isn't.

If they can find money to purchase players through supporters, then they can pay creditors also.

 

[Sweepy]

Spot on Mark.

If QPR have signed the players against Football League rules, then there must be a case supporting a points deduction.

QPR were placed in administration, assumably because owner Chris Wright admitted he had lost control over the debts. Taking that into account, it is ridiculous that QPR are in a position where they can be signing players. The brothers who have financed the signing of Doudou and sh*ttu (laugh children, laugh!) must either buy the club themselves, or wait for a new owner who may welcome their input.


Also... should there should be a full investigation into how this obviously illegal practice of financing players whilst in administration has been allowed to happen? By preventing QPR from purchasing any further players in this manner, the FA have admitted the actions of QPR Football Club are illegal. This leaves two questions unanswered:

1. Should QPR be punished for players already signed, with a points deduction?

2. Should there be an investigation into how the actions of QPR were overlooked by the FA/Football League?

 

[julia]

Fact 1. The FA have not put an embargo on us buying players. They are merely considering a complaint from Noades, and QPR officials are meeting the FA next week to try and head off a ban.

Fact 2. The Winton family offered money specifically to buy Doudou and Danny sh*ttu. They would not have given their money to be used to clear debts, so no creditors have lost out.

Fact 3. The Wintons were trying to strengthen the threadbare squad that Ian Holloway has had to assemble under the constraints of administration. If we do not strengthen the squad we may not do well on the pitch, and if we do not do well on the pitch we may not be able to attract a reputable buyer, and if we do not attract a reputable buyer then this famous old club, in which so many fans' hopes and dreams are vested, may go to the wall.

Does that strike fear into your hearts? It bloody well should do.

julia

 

[rebus]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by julia:
famous old club</font>

Old..yes, famous...no!

 

[Pauly Paul]

At the Cambridge game the U's fans were singing,

"You're not famous anymore! You're not famous anymore!"

 

[Alex]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by julia:
Fact 1. The FA have not put an embargo on us buying players. They are merely considering a complaint from Noades, and QPR officials are meeting the FA next week to try and head off a ban.

</font>

Go to http://www.qpr.co.uk first thing it says after Bristol Rovers 2 QPR 0

is

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">07.02.02 Rangers seek to clear up transfer confusion
The Football League have placed a player registration embargo on the Rs following a complaint from Brentford Chairman Ron Noades.

</font>

So there is an embargo until the football league decide.

 

[QPR_Paul]

You lot are really sad. There is an embargo until, ooh, next week, that will really affect our transfers for the season, won't it?

You know, most Rangers fans hate Noades and what he has done, but we see the Bees fans (and Palace fans) as fellow victims of Noades' disgraceful behaivour over the years. Brentford fans know what it is like to be screwed by a chairman, as do QPR fans. If the FA block this initiative, for fans with no agenda except to support their team financially, all smaller clubs will lose out.

Time to grow up a bit.

 

[Wee Dave]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by julia:
... this famous old club, in which so many fans' hopes and dreams are vested, may go to the wall.

Does that strike fear into your hearts? It bloody well should do.</font>

I'm literally quaking. With laughter, like.

 

[jonno]

You bunch of sad losers.You'll never lose that "small club" mentality will you? You've always been jealous of the Rangers and you always will be.
The fact is that there is no problem with a club in administration signing players UNLESS
they owe money to other clubs.We don't.In fact, at least one other club owes US money.
We've broken no rules whatsoever, and this pathetic attempt to disrupt our season shows that you lot are running scared of us.
It's about time you saw through the whole thing; Noades is just trying to divert attention from his shafting of your Club, if I were you I'd be concentrating on heading him off from that. He's tried to get his grubby hands on our ground as well - but that isn't going to happen. Most Rangers fans would hate to see you lot go to the wall but aren't doing yourselves any favours by displaying your obvious bitterness towards QPR.

 

[bigmac]

Running scared ???? well you are such a GREAT team we would really be running scared of you.............hmmm i don't think so. We'll see at the end of the season when we will be waving good bye to division two and up into division one and you'll be staying put. QPR, big club............my arse !!!

 

[Baz Bee]

jonno, I do not want to get involved in a petty bickering match with Rangers supporters. As has already been said, we should be concentrating upon the more serious issues facing both clubs. However, I do find it strange, if it is correct, that the League have placed an embargo on QPR registering any further players until after consideration has been given to the complaint. If it is so clear cut that no Rules or Regulations have been broken, then surely the League would have been able to immediately dismiss any such complaint? To place an embargo so that it can then be considered at a later meeting surely suggests there may have been some breach? If it is as black and white as suggested, the imposition of such an embargo by the League would leave them exposed to an action by Rangers for restraint of trade, loss of revenue/profit, etc., etc. I am sure the League(?) are not that naïve.

 

[Bee H]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jonno:
It's about time you saw through the whole thing; Noades is just trying to divert attention from his shafting of your Club, if I were you I'd be concentrating on heading him off from that.
</font>

 

[jonno]

I think that there is an automatic suspension
of activity in these cases pending an investigation. The alternative argument would be that why did they allow us to register sh*ttu if there was a breach of any rule (or even Griffiths, who we bought before
the start of the season)?
I fully expect the complaint to be dismissed next week - and I'm sure Noades does as well.
He's playing a game in which he's trying to
divert attention away from what he's really up to - which is to sell your Club down the river. Please don't let him. Good luck.

 

[Bee H]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jonno:
He's playing a game in which he's trying to divert attention away from what he's really up to - which is to sell your Club down the river. Please don't let him. Good luck.</font>

 

[shaggy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by julia:
...Fact 2. The Winton family offered money specifically to buy Doudou and Danny sh*ttu. They would not have given their money to be used to clear debts, so no creditors have lost out.
...</font>

I think the point is that QPR have committed themselves to a long term liability, which therefore does effect the financial base of the company (regardless as to short term financing from alternative sources). If QPR decide to cancel sh*ttu's contract will the family pay out for the liability, or will it rest with the club? My understanding is that it is the latter, and this cannot be right.

 

[jonno]

You're nitpicking mate. It's a professional football club, to run the business you need to have players; therefore you have to pay them wages. The League or FA will not want to jeopardise the ability to fulfil fixtures.
And without players you can't play matches....

 

[Alex]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jonno:
And without players you can't play matches....</font>

It's not as if you wouldn't have enough players without them though is it?

 

[jonno]

That's a matter for our manager and us a club to decide.....not the league, Ron Noades or Brentford. You seem to forget that 20 players left our club in the close season.

 

[Baz Bee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jonno:
I think that there is an automatic suspension
of activity in these cases pending an investigation. </font>

That cannot be right, surely?

If it is, then it leaves the door wide open for all sorts of spurious allegations to be made which will then prevent clubs’ making signings pending an investigation/hearing taking place. Unscrupulous Chairmen will then start making allegations in the vein of: “it may well be….”, or “ it is my understanding ….” etc. Nothing too concrete or committal but enough to stir the sh*t and potentially get an embargo in place.

As I say above, I cannot believe that the League are so naïve as to embargo a club unless they have serious concerns over that Club’s transfer and/or financial activities breaching their Rules and Regulations. To do so would be very dangerous indeed.

 

[jonno]

Well - that's what has happened.
We were on the point of signing another player ourselves. But the word is that will
now happen next week - after the League lift their embargo. The point is that only sad acts like Noades will put in protests (no one else has), and so it will only happen very rarely.

 

[Trandy]

Well as there is such debate I have set up a simple poll (which will run from midnight tonight till next Friday) on www.brentford-mad.co.uk

Very simple yes - no - get your opinions across.

Jonno - can u let Rangers fans know for me so you can bombard the site with "no's"?

 

[Mr Tree]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mark Chapman:
Regardless of outcome, I find it amazing that they are moaning, the club is either in adminstration or it isn't.

If they can find money to purchase players through supporters, then they can pay creditors also. </font>

bitter moaning QPR fans,

i know the above point may seem a bit "logical" to you, but what do you think? i mean, surely if someone owed you money and you found out he'd been frivolously spening his money on sh*te (literally), would you not be a little irked?

 

[jonno]

Err....let's see if I can spell this out as
you so clearly know nothing.
We have one creditor, he is Chris Wright. He
owns the club, and is a supporter. Do you think he is going to object to us being given a player by other supporters? Even if he did, it would make no difference to our liability to him - the guys who bought the player concerned wouldn't have given the money to Wright instead, would they?
Any creditor knows that the best chance of getting their money is for the business that owes it to them to keep going as a running concern. We need players to keep going, so in the long run, the whole player donation thing is in the best interest of any creditor. If we are unable to fulfil fixtures then we'll have no cash coming in and we'll be declared bankrupt - in which case most of any debts would be written off
so any creditor would get nothing.
The whole thing has been stirred up by Noades for his own ulterior motives - and the
embargo will be lifted next week. You really want to spend your time worrying about your own club's problems.

 

[Gee Bee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jonno:
Err....let's see if I can spell this out as
you so clearly know nothing.
We have one creditor, he is Chris Wright. He
owns the club, and is a supporter. Do you think he is going to object to us being given a player by other supporters? Even if he did, it would make no difference to our liability to him - the guys who bought the player concerned wouldn't have given the money to Wright instead, would they?
Any creditor knows that the best chance of getting their money is for the business that owes it to them to keep going as a running concern. We need players to keep going, so in the long run, the whole player donation thing is in the best interest of any creditor. If we are unable to fulfil fixtures then we'll have no cash coming in and we'll be declared bankrupt - in which case most of any debts would be written off
so any creditor would get nothing.
The whole thing has been stirred up by Noades for his own ulterior motives - and the
embargo will be lifted next week. You really want to spend your time worrying about your own club's problems.</font>

I read somewhere that Chris Wright was owed 6.7 million and that QPR in debt to the tune of £20m, so surely Mr Wright cannot be the only creditor. If it is only the 6.7m then surely it would be better for QPR to sell the ground for £10m and get out of administration and have money in the bank to pay rent for a number of years and work onwards from there.

 

[rebus]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jonno:

We have one creditor, he is Chris Wright. </font>

hmm, there is a few more than that.

 

[Gee Bee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mark Chapman:
hmm, there is a few more than that.</font>

Agreed, I'm sure the Bank must be one also!!

 

[AB]

There are two issues which are confusing poor old Jonno

1- the morality of the complaint.
2- the legality of the financing of the players.

1- I am happy to agree that it seems pretty underhand and part of RN's general game playing. Then again, he doesn't play games for fun but rather for profit and as BFC is his current footballing vehicle for profit, I can't see that the intention in this particular bit of chicanery is to screw US (this time!). Also, if the financing is dodgy from a legal perspective I have no problem at all about the complaint being made. No doubt jonno would, if he was a Chesterfield fan, have thought that Chester were out of order for complaining about being ripped off over the Luke Beckett transfer "as it had gone through OK at the time and therefore must have been perfectly above board".

2- Other posters on here who actually know something about finance and insolvency (eg Shaggy) have said clearly that there are potential issues raised by the funding of the player by third parties. It is also obvious that Wright is not the only creditor. Even if he was, he would need to have formally waived a portion of his debt (I would imagine) for the transaction to be completely clean. He certainly is not in a position to waive anyone else's debt. I understand from the QPR rivals board that the Inland Revenue is another major creditor. They really are unlikely to care one jot about QPR. Jonno also mentions that the best interests of the creditors are served by QPR continuing to trade and be successful. Obviously I haven't checked the books, but I would imagine that, in common with most clubs in prime South Eastern locations the best thing in the creditors' interests would be to shut down and liquidate the assets which would lead to probably 100% returns and a surplus.

 

[jonno]

Do you really believe all you read?
I hope for Brentford F.C.'s sake that not all
their fans are as naive - otherwise Noades really will shaft you.

 

[jonno]

Originally posted by AB:
There are two issues which are confusing poor old Jonno

1- the morality of the complaint.
2- the legality of the financing of the players.

1- I am happy to agree that it seems pretty underhand and part of RN's general game playing. Then again, he doesn't play games for fun but rather for profit and as BFC is his current footballing vehicle for profit, I can't see that the intention in this particular bit of chicanery is to screw US (this time!).

Err...read my comments again. I didn't say this action was screwing you, just that it was to divert attention away from what he IS
doing to you.

Also, if the financing is dodgy from a legal perspective I have no problem at all about the complaint being made. No doubt jonno would, if he was a Chesterfield fan, have thought that Chester were out of order for complaining about being ripped off over the Luke Beckett transfer "as it had gone through OK at the time and therefore must have been perfectly above board".

Eh? That's a completely different scenario, what's it got to do with QPR fans buying players? Weird.

2- Other posters on here who actually know something about finance and insolvency (eg Shaggy) have said clearly that there are potential issues raised by the funding of the player by third parties.

Like what? It's happened plenty of times already in the past, and this season. I say
again - there is no League or FA rule against it, and neither should there be. As
you'll find out when the embargo is lifted next week.


It is also obvious that Wright is not the only creditor. Even if he was, he would need to have formally waived a portion of his debt (I would imagine) for the transaction to be completely clean. He certainly is not in a position to waive anyone else's debt. I understand from the QPR rivals board that the Inland Revenue is another major creditor.

The Inland Revenue were the first to be paid off - months ago. DON'T beleive what you read in the papers about what we owe, or to who. It's inevitably b***ocks.

They really are unlikely to care one jot about QPR. Jonno also mentions that the best interests of the creditors are served by QPR continuing to trade and be successful. Obviously I haven't checked the books, but I would imagine that, in common with most clubs in prime South Eastern locations the best thing in the creditors' interests would be to shut down and liquidate the assets which would lead to probably 100% returns and a surplus.

Exactly. You haven't checked the books, and you can "imagine" all you like. I'm a shareholder and actually have the required information.

Oh....and it a bit less of the "old" if you don't mind!

 

[JonnoTheBee]

jonno there will only ever bee one Jonno(God I sound like Sweepy, sorry Sweeps!), and I would now like you to exit back to scumhole you came from leaving me and my unique name to live a peaceful Brentford supporting life.

Enjoy sh*ttu and Doudou, as they'll be last buys you make for a while!!

 

[California Bee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JonnoTheBee:


Enjoy sh*ttu and Doudou, as they'll be last buys you make for a while!!</font>

Is it me or do these two names evoke scatalogical overtones for everybody?

 

[Brentford Bob]

My Brother in law is particularly p1ssed off about the QPR malarkey at the mo.

He's a very highly regarded carpenter who is owed in the region of £20,000 by QPR who suddenly have in the region of £300,000 available to spend on players!

He has however left lots of 'unseen' pro Brentford / anti QPR graffiti around Loftus Rd just to p1ss off all the Rangers fans when it comes round to the next re-fit!

 

[Edmundo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by California Bee:
Is it me or do these two names evoke scatalogical overtones for everybody?</font>

Can't say I'd ever noticed that before!

 

[Jimbee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by California Bee:
Is it me or do these two names evoke scatalogical overtones for everybody?</font>

Very, very good

 

[Alex]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by California Bee:
Is it me or do these two names evoke scatalogical overtones for everybody?</font>

 

[hants in my pants]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by California Bee:
Is it me or do these two names evoke scatalogical overtones for everybody?</font>

not for me. i don`t know what "scatalogical"
means. sounds like a load of crap to me.

 

[jonno]

Enjoy sh*ttu and Doudou, as they'll be last buys you make for a while!![/B][/QUOTE]

What - until next week? Because we're signing a new player then! And how we'll all
laugh at you bitter and twisted lot.....

I've tried to educate you lot, but it seems that most (not all) of you seem to prefer puerile comments about players' names! What's
the average age here - about 10?
I'm signing off now, good luck for the rest of the season (I suspect you'll need it).
Obviously, you won't be getting promoted but I sincerely hope you're still in existence next year for another season in Div Two.
We'll occasionally look down from Div One
to see how our "friendly" (sic) neighbours are faring - but we won't be missing the trip back to the seventies that is a visit to Griffin Park. That's of course if Uncle Ron hasn't built flats on it by then, of course.
Cheers!

 

[Jay Bee]

Oh yes, I remember all those local derbies in the 1970s

 

[Banana]

Yeah jonno i would sign off if i were you. Particularly as the Football League fully agree with Ron. No more registrations until you're out of administration. Apparently previously there was a transfer embargo only if other clubs were owed money. Now all clubs in administration will have an transfer embargo automatically placed upon them. Can't say fairer than that!

 

[Mr Tree]

hmm, where is that smug (****) qpr fan?? have the football league done what he said they would? don't remember hearing anything about it...

 

[Walshie]

Does he really believe there are separate insolvency laws for football clubs?

This has little to do with football rules, these are LAWS governing every business in the land.

And a shareholder !! hahahahahahaha. That was a wise investment.

 

[Carl Super-Hooper]

See here for more news:

http://www.fromtheterrace.co.uk/qpr/news.cfm?newsid=100982

 

[finchbee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by julia:

Fact 2. The Winton family offered money specifically to buy Doudou and Danny sh*ttu. They would not have given their money to be used to clear debts, so no creditors have lost out.
julia</font>

If a business is in administration and revenue it gets goes to creditors, those that have the biggest interest, therefore legally this money could not go on players

 

[Baz Bee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by julia:
........
Fact 2. The Winton family offered money specifically to buy Doudou and Danny sh*ttu. They would not have given their money to be used to clear debts, so no creditors have lost out.

............

julia</font>

Individuals/families, such as the Wintons are not able to sign football players. They can only be signed by registered clubs. Therefore any transfer fee would need to be paid in to the club's account before it could then be paid to the selling club. This is clearly a breach of the insolvency legislation and Company's Acts.

Indeed, it is highly likely that these signings, if invetigated by the financial authorities, would be found to leave QPR open to criminal prosecution. It is sharp practices such as those that were used in these signings that leave many creditors out of pocket. It is a scheme to avoid the obligations and responsibilities that the club have accrued and should not be condoned.

As far as Ian Hollowy and the squad is concerned, he took on the job on that basis.
If he didn't want to operate within such a restrictions then he should have declined the appointment. But then it may just be you putting forward erroneous statements?

 

[Mr Tree]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Carl Super-Hooper:
See here for more news:

http://www.fromtheterrace.co.uk/qpr/news.cfm?newsid=100982

</font>

jeez, the author's a bit bitter isn't he?! what's all this about Noades throwing his toys out of the pram?? i'd prefer to term it "pointing out an illegal activity"... feel sorry for you carl, but not for your club... where are these other rangers fans now eh?!

 

[Sweepy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Baz Bee:
Individuals/families, such as the Wintons are not able to sign football players. They can only be signed by registered clubs. Therefore any transfer fee would need to be paid in to the club's account before it could then be paid to the selling club. This is clearly a breach of the insolvency legislation and Company's Acts.

Indeed, it is highly likely that these signings, if invetigated by the financial authorities, would be found to leave QPR open to criminal prosecution. It is sharp practices such as those that were used in these signings that leave many creditors out of pocket. It is a scheme to avoid the obligations and responsibilities that the club have accrued and should not be condoned.

As far as Ian Hollowy and the squad is concerned, he took on the job on that basis.
If he didn't want to operate within such a restrictions then he should have declined the appointment. But then it may just be you putting forward erroneous statements? </font>

Baz, you are certainly no thick prat!

Here are an assortment of my views that I have inflicted on poor QPR, on their message board tonight...

"Please do not forget that using a squad including players signed during administration, you managed to hammer yet another nail in poor Wrexham's coffin on Saturday. In my opinion, that is unfair."

"The FA/Football League are already exposed as incompetent for not dealing with the issue in the first instance. What makes you think they will not ban Doudou or sh*ttu from playing? It will probably take another complaint to allow this course of action, but it seems that other chairmen in Division Two are happy to ignore the situation. I bet the Wrexham chairman is wishing he had said something now. Why should it be Ron Noades who complains every time?"

And on a seperate thread, here are my words to a young QPR supporter, who sent his concerns to Ron...

"LincolnR, I will answer for Ron.

"Your situation concerns our club, because we are one of a number of clubs currently chasing the play-off places that you are also pursuing. Would it be fair if you hijack a play-off space from one of your second division rivals, using unlawfully signed players?

"You may be a well-respected club, but so are we. We both play our football in the second division, and we are rivals playing from a similar position. So, as well-respected club, you still have a moral obligation to compete fairly your second division rivals, despite having a recent history worthy of respect and admiration.

"I believe the ground bid was refused first, which would explain Ron's tantrum.

"If you are a club in administration, it does matter if you are being funded by external sources. Being in administration is a confirmation that your owners have lost control over your debts, and the first responsibility of the administrators is to reduce the outgoings. If financial gifts and loans are being used to purchase further assets rather than reducing the debt, the administrators are not doing their job properly.

"Once again, it has everything to do with Ron. It has everything to do with all second division teams. Be positive, if this was to be happening to you in the Premiership, then Ken Bates, Risdale, Doug Ellis, Man Utd or another nasty entity would have complained far sooner."

To conclude, I have bucked the trend on the beesotted site, where generally the Brentford supporters are sympathetic to QPR's illegal acts...

"Many of you are using Football League regulations as an argument supporting/opposing the rightful transfer embargo smashed upon QPR. The embargo is NOT a footballing decision, nor is it a business decision - it is both. Allow me to explain...

"If QPR continue to sign players while failing to pay off their other debts, they are doing their creditors an injustice. If QPR continue to sign players with money they do not have, or from brown envelopes, the entire second division is the victim of an injustice. For instance, who is to say that the quality of the playing staff that defeated Wrexham on Saturday, have not just virtually sent the latter team into Division Three? If QPR make the play-offs, which team will suffer? Knowing our luck, it will be us. However QPR are achieving these results with players that the FA have now admitted they had no right to sign.

"The Football League and the FA owe the entire second division an explanation. Tell us how QPR were able to so publically employ staff, yet now the actions are deemed unlawful? Tell us what restrictions will be placed on QPR concerning the use of these illegally signed players? Tell us why it has taken a petulant tantrum from a notorious chairman to make the authorities take action?

"I am not opposed to supporters purchasing players, it may be the way forward for us in the future, but QPR have a responsibility to their creditors, which is currently not being fufilled."

Apologies if I have repeated myself a few times, but it was too much to type all that out again!

[This message has been edited by Sweepy (edited 20 February 2002).]