| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players 21:40 - Jan 14 with 2414 views | hunty21 |
Even with Nsiala leaving I dont think we have much wriggle room to sign Walton permanently and are holding out for a last minute extension shown by the fact we cant sign bonne permanently |  | | |  |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 21:42 - Jan 14 with 2366 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
biggest factor here is that pc left is in a terrible league position a million miles off the play offs
Bonne and Walton don't want to immediately commit long term to a club that's more than likely to be in L1 next season.
Hence loan extension, and possibly similar with Brighton with a bumped up loan fee. |  |
| |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 21:44 - Jan 14 with 2347 views | ElderGrizzly |
Not really. We were already paying Bonne, we still are.
Fees are not our issue, wage limits are. |  | | |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 21:44 - Jan 14 with 2348 views | Illinoisblue |
That’s more of an opinion than evidence of anything |  |
| |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 22:16 - Jan 14 with 2154 views | chrismakin |
No. It's ended how I'd hope it would.
Of the 2.. I'm more desperate for Walton to join perm.. I don't think we could afford to buy both. . 1 however... |  |
| |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 22:31 - Jan 14 with 2063 views | PrrrromotionGiven |
The real issue is wages. One assumes with these loan players that we aren't covering the whole wage bill, especially in Walton's case since his is a premier league contract. Assuming with Bonne we have just extended the previous terms, that means we haven't worsened our wage bill with him. I doubt we can do any better with Walton to be honest, Brighton are probably covering a lot of his wages atm and even if they had no buyers, we are in no position to give Walton a contract as meaty as what he's on. If we have him on loan on February 1st I'll be considering that a coup.
Best we can hope for is that Nsiala going has freed up some room on the wage bill for a more modern style of centre back as cover. | | | |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 23:25 - Jan 14 with 1858 views | xrayspecs |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 22:31 - Jan 14 by PrrrromotionGiven |
The real issue is wages. One assumes with these loan players that we aren't covering the whole wage bill, especially in Walton's case since his is a premier league contract. Assuming with Bonne we have just extended the previous terms, that means we haven't worsened our wage bill with him. I doubt we can do any better with Walton to be honest, Brighton are probably covering a lot of his wages atm and even if they had no buyers, we are in no position to give Walton a contract as meaty as what he's on. If we have him on loan on February 1st I'll be considering that a coup.
Best we can hope for is that Nsiala going has freed up some room on the wage bill for a more modern style of centre back as cover. |
Suspect that QPR have us covering more of Bonne's wages to allow him to stay (MB had said that this agreement was difficult, which I would guess is about money).
I cannot believe that Nsiala was on more than a few k per week. Chambers was reportedly on 4k pw, so while younger, I cannot see him being on big wages.
Significant team strengthening will likely require the owners to put more cash into the club, which for now they seem to be prepared to do. | | | |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 00:23 - Jan 15 with 1726 views | Bluearmy71 |
Time to lay off the weed bruh!! |  | | |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 08:12 - Jan 15 with 1442 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 23:25 - Jan 14 by xrayspecs |
Suspect that QPR have us covering more of Bonne's wages to allow him to stay (MB had said that this agreement was difficult, which I would guess is about money).
I cannot believe that Nsiala was on more than a few k per week. Chambers was reportedly on 4k pw, so while younger, I cannot see him being on big wages.
Significant team strengthening will likely require the owners to put more cash into the club, which for now they seem to be prepared to do. |
Will be interesting to hear a bit more detail, that may come out in the coming days. From MB's interview and reading between the lines, it sounds like QPR/he had more lucrative offers and we've had to stump up more cash to keep him, as you say. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 09:00 - Jan 15 with 1308 views | jayessess |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 22:31 - Jan 14 by PrrrromotionGiven |
The real issue is wages. One assumes with these loan players that we aren't covering the whole wage bill, especially in Walton's case since his is a premier league contract. Assuming with Bonne we have just extended the previous terms, that means we haven't worsened our wage bill with him. I doubt we can do any better with Walton to be honest, Brighton are probably covering a lot of his wages atm and even if they had no buyers, we are in no position to give Walton a contract as meaty as what he's on. If we have him on loan on February 1st I'll be considering that a coup.
Best we can hope for is that Nsiala going has freed up some room on the wage bill for a more modern style of centre back as cover. |
Not sure where the assumption comes from that we're only paying a fraction of Bonne and Walton's wages.
Both have played regularly at a higher level than L1 so there's no real "player development" advantage to loaning them out. Reducing their parent club's wage bill is the main reason they're here, so why wouldn't they be looking to get most of it covered? |  |
| |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 09:06 - Jan 15 with 1279 views | HighgateBlue |
When we signed Bonne on loan initially was that evidence we couldn't sign any permanent players? No. We signed a dozen. I think you struggle with the meaning of evidence.
Now if we had /failed/ to keep Bonne for the rest of the season due to lack of funds, then you may have had a point... |  | | |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 09:12 - Jan 15 with 1260 views | BloomBlue |
Depends if it cost more to keep him here. If I was QPR I would have been looking for an additional payment for him to remain here ie £500k or if we are only playing a % of his wages to pay his wages in full if we wanted to keep him here. |  | | |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 09:15 - Jan 15 with 1239 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 09:06 - Jan 15 by HighgateBlue |
When we signed Bonne on loan initially was that evidence we couldn't sign any permanent players? No. We signed a dozen. I think you struggle with the meaning of evidence.
Now if we had /failed/ to keep Bonne for the rest of the season due to lack of funds, then you may have had a point... |
Everything about the original post is wrong. We loaned Bonnie for the season, albeit with a recall clause. QPR not recalling does mean the loan has been extended. |  |
| |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 09:26 - Jan 15 with 1212 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 09:15 - Jan 15 by Pinewoodblue |
Everything about the original post is wrong. We loaned Bonnie for the season, albeit with a recall clause. QPR not recalling does mean the loan has been extended. |
Not been extended literally but effectively has because QPR were clearly going to recall. New terms will have been negotiated. | | | |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 13:16 - Jan 15 with 882 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Yes and no.
You have to remember that the club is effectively being run on borrowed money via a spreadsheet in Ohio that only gets looked at if a red flag is raised.
A pot of cash (borrowed)) would have been put in for this season - and it might include promotion bonuses etc - and sundry other things looking unlikely that still might happen.
Hidden within this is the high cost of player wages which invariably include bonuses for doing your job - and hononouring your contract. Even just getting rid of Toto might have been a costly exercise. As might be letting players ride out their contracts to get their hands on fat bonuses.
So yes - it's invariably better financially to let other clubs pay your players wages if you can - even if it is far from entirely sensible. And yes - the additional cost of getting rid of Cook and his hangers-on, together with appointing Mckenna and his yes men will all be on top of what's in the original spreadsheet.
Or to put it another way, if Ashton dials up Ohio on Zoom and asks to buy another soccer player, especially one already in the team, the answer will be 'Nuts' | |
| |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 13:50 - Jan 15 with 821 views | Churchman |
| Bonne loan extension evidence we cant sign anymore permanent players on 13:16 - Jan 15 by ElephantintheRoom |
Yes and no.
You have to remember that the club is effectively being run on borrowed money via a spreadsheet in Ohio that only gets looked at if a red flag is raised.
A pot of cash (borrowed)) would have been put in for this season - and it might include promotion bonuses etc - and sundry other things looking unlikely that still might happen.
Hidden within this is the high cost of player wages which invariably include bonuses for doing your job - and hononouring your contract. Even just getting rid of Toto might have been a costly exercise. As might be letting players ride out their contracts to get their hands on fat bonuses.
So yes - it's invariably better financially to let other clubs pay your players wages if you can - even if it is far from entirely sensible. And yes - the additional cost of getting rid of Cook and his hangers-on, together with appointing Mckenna and his yes men will all be on top of what's in the original spreadsheet.
Or to put it another way, if Ashton dials up Ohio on Zoom and asks to buy another soccer player, especially one already in the team, the answer will be 'Nuts' |
Yeah, but what’s the bad news? Exactly how much did Toto’s departure cost us and what are your sources, since you are clearly in the know?
I see you’ve got Everton today. Are you confident of getting a result (for a change)? [Post edited 15 Jan 2022 13:52]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
