Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
NWC

Scott Parker to QPR

Recommended Posts

Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.
£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.
He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!
[/quote]

He hasn''t bought QPR yet has he,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!![/quote]

He hasn''t bought QPR yet has he,

[/quote]He has, will be confirmed to the media at a 2pm press conference tomorrow. I would imagine 3 or 4 signings in the next couple of weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QPR will not be able to panic buy their way to survival. All they''ll do is set themselves up for an even bigger fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.
£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.
He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!
[/quote]

He hasn''t bought QPR yet has he,

[/quote]

He has, will be confirmed to the media at a 2pm press conference tomorrow. I would imagine 3 or 4 signings in the next couple of weeks.
[/quote]

---

All the reports suggest that as part of the deal the Mittal family will either maintain or increase its stake in QPR, and that is where the real money is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if Fernandez is taking a 51% stake as is reported, but who knows if that is true. Mittal won''t throw his money into something he doesn''t have an equal say on surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Downloads"]Not if Fernandez is taking a 51% stake as is reported, but who knows if that is true. Mittal won''t throw his money into something he doesn''t have an equal say on surely?[/quote]

---

 

At the moment Ecclestone has 66 per cent and Mittal 33 per cent. One scenario has Fernandes buying all of Ecclestone''s stake and Mittal keeping his 33 per cent. Another scenario has Fernandes buying a 56 per cent stake from Ecclestone, and Mittal''s son-in-law buying the remaining 10 per cent, taking the Mittal family holding to 43 per cent.

 

The point is that Mittal has for some time been been a minority shareholder in QPR, so he might well be happy to carry on that way. I certainly haven''t seen a scenario in which the Mittal family pulls out. But we shall know shortly, it appears.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.
£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.
He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!
[/quote]

 

It may  be true that they are interested in him but he is worth more than £4million, I would say you would have to double that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if QPR make a bid, but as soon as they do. Arsenal, Spurs, Villa will all be in there, and I don''t think he will want another relegation season.

 

£4million is a joke, and this Fernandez is supposed to be a West Ham Fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SWP Poor Mans Ruel Fox"]

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.
£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.
He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!
[/quote]

 

It may  be true that they are interested in him but he is worth more than £4million, I would say you would have to double that.

[/quote]

I don''t know, there hasn''t been much interest for Scott Parker and with the end of the transfer window only a couple of weeks away West Ham are getting desperate. They have already budgeted his current wages on other players (mainly Kevin Nolan). Parker has been offered to just about all the Premier League clubs, and nearly all of them have said no, seems strange as everyone was raving about his performances last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="SWP Poor Mans Ruel Fox"]

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.
£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.
He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!
[/quote]

 

It may  be true that they are interested in him but he is worth more than £4million, I would say you would have to double that.

[/quote]

I don''t know, there hasn''t been much interest for Scott Parker and with the end of the transfer window only a couple of weeks away West Ham are getting desperate. They have already budgeted his current wages on other players (mainly Kevin Nolan). Parker has been offered to just about all the Premier League clubs, and nearly all of them have said no, seems strange as everyone was raving about his performances last year.

[/quote]

 

I think the reason most clubs said no is they know the longer the transfer window goes on the more desperate West Ham will get. England international who was one of the best players in the Premier League last year, someone will take him. As soon as a team offers out a key player they know that they must be desperate to get rid. Which they are because of wages, if this bid gets accepted watch 4 other Premier League clubs come in. I can see him going Arsenal to be honest, and if Wenger doesn''t go for him, then he really has lost it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YellowLittle1"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="SWP Poor Mans Ruel Fox"]

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.
£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.
He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!
[/quote]

 

It may  be true that they are interested in him but he is worth more than £4million, I would say you would have to double that.

[/quote]

I don''t know, there hasn''t been much interest for Scott Parker and with the end of the transfer window only a couple of weeks away West Ham are getting desperate. They have already budgeted his current wages on other players (mainly Kevin Nolan). Parker has been offered to just about all the Premier League clubs, and nearly all of them have said no, seems strange as everyone was raving about his performances last year.

[/quote]

 

I think the reason most clubs said no is they know the longer the transfer window goes on the more desperate West Ham will get. England international who was one of the best players in the Premier League last year, someone will take him. As soon as a team offers out a key player they know that they must be desperate to get rid. Which they are because of wages, if this bid gets accepted watch 4 other Premier League clubs come in. I can see him going Arsenal to be honest, and if Wenger doesn''t go for him, then he really has lost it.

[/quote]

I doubt Arsenal will go for him; Wilshere, Ramsey and Song are all better players and Frimpong is emerging as a real talent. Can''t remember the last time Wenger bought a 30 year old midfielder but really doubt he will start on that route now. Villa might go for him or Tottenham might think about it, Redknapp specialises in last minute swoops for players. I can see him ending up at QPR to be honest, I think Parker would prefere being a key player at a small club than a fringe player at a bigger one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Song better than Parker?!

Go have a lie down, Bethnal. You seem to be delirious. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="QM"]

Song better than Parker?!

Go have a lie down, Bethnal. You seem to be delirious. ;-)

[/quote]

Song''s much better, especially at the defensive midfielder role. Parker looked out of depth playing there for England against Switzerland. Parker has a good engine and isn''t a bad passer but is often positionally naive, he stood out at West Ham last year as he seemed to be dragging them along singlehanded, but I''m not surprised no ''big'' teams have made a move for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently, insiders at Arsenal have said Arsene Wenger has absolutely no interest in signing Scott Parker, so I can''t see him going there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really cant see Parker going to QPR, unless he is utterly convinced that other players are going in with him . Parker is a class act, a player I would LOVE to see with us, but if he is up for grabs he will go to a bigger club, even, I would suggest, a top 5 club.

All looks a bit contrived by Fernandez to me , "here I am everyone and I mean business."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree entirely with "Bethnal" Against the Swiss he looked very slow and predictable and continually played the square pass to no effect. Watching the game I thought our Andrew Crofts was far more positive and passionate. I hope we do not pay £4 million for him, and I am fairly use the boss won''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Downloads"]Not if Fernandez is taking a 51% stake as is reported, but who knows if that is true. Mittal won''t throw his money into something he doesn''t have an equal say on surely?[/quote]

---

 

At the moment Ecclestone has 66 per cent and Mittal 33 per cent. One scenario has Fernandes buying all of Ecclestone''s stake and Mittal keeping his 33 per cent. Another scenario has Fernandes buying a 56 per cent stake from Ecclestone, and Mittal''s son-in-law buying the remaining 10 per cent, taking the Mittal family holding to 43 per cent.

 

The point is that Mittal has for some time been been a minority shareholder in QPR, so he might well be happy to carry on that way. I certainly haven''t seen a scenario in which the Mittal family pulls out. But we shall know shortly, it appears.

 

[/quote]

 

It turned out to be Scenario A, at least for now. According to The Guardian Fernandes paid around £35m, as opposed to the £100m figure, which always seemed to high, that was being quoted beforehand. But £35m is still about three times what it would cost to buy a majority shareholding in Norwich City.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like his quote - something along the lines of "QPR has always been a rough diamond, and I''m going to change it into a diamond"Surely a rough diamond is still a diamond Tony Tongue Tied [:S]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with Parker is that at 6 or 7 million or whatever his fee is, then around 60k a week for 3/4 years, towards the end of that contract his value as a 34 years old will be minimal.  Hes a good player, a fighter, someone you want in your corner, but i dont think hes technically good enough to play for a top team. 

 

I''ll be keen to see how much Fernandez is prepared to put in.  I''d suspect its not as much as their fans are expecting.  Can see then sepnding perhaps 10-15 million on 3 or 4 players, but i dont see that they are really gonna drastically improve the team. 

 

We''ll see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Downloads"]Not if Fernandez is taking a 51% stake as is reported, but who knows if that is true. Mittal won''t throw his money into something he doesn''t have an equal say on surely?[/quote]

---

 

At the moment Ecclestone has 66 per cent and Mittal 33 per cent. One scenario has Fernandes buying all of Ecclestone''s stake and Mittal keeping his 33 per cent. Another scenario has Fernandes buying a 56 per cent stake from Ecclestone, and Mittal''s son-in-law buying the remaining 10 per cent, taking the Mittal family holding to 43 per cent.

 

The point is that Mittal has for some time been been a minority shareholder in QPR, so he might well be happy to carry on that way. I certainly haven''t seen a scenario in which the Mittal family pulls out. But we shall know shortly, it appears.

 

[/quote]

 

It turned out to be Scenario A, at least for now. According to The Guardian Fernandes paid around £35m, as opposed to the £100m figure, which always seemed to high, that was being quoted beforehand. But £35m is still about three times what it would cost to buy a majority shareholding in Norwich City.

 

[/quote]

Purple. Interested that you feel you can buy a majority shareholding in NCFC for £12m. Surely that would just repay Delia (for I cant see Delia selling just enough for a third party to gain a majority shareholding) the "loans" that she has put in. Also if the shareholding changed, does not not trigger some form of refinance? Frankly if you could get a debt free majority shareholding in a premier league club with a few assets for £12m I think they would be beating a trail to the door...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Downloads"]Not if Fernandez is taking a 51% stake as is reported, but who knows if that is true. Mittal won''t throw his money into something he doesn''t have an equal say on surely?[/quote]

---

 

At the moment Ecclestone has 66 per cent and Mittal 33 per cent. One scenario has Fernandes buying all of Ecclestone''s stake and Mittal keeping his 33 per cent. Another scenario has Fernandes buying a 56 per cent stake from Ecclestone, and Mittal''s son-in-law buying the remaining 10 per cent, taking the Mittal family holding to 43 per cent.

 

The point is that Mittal has for some time been been a minority shareholder in QPR, so he might well be happy to carry on that way. I certainly haven''t seen a scenario in which the Mittal family pulls out. But we shall know shortly, it appears.

 

[/quote]

 

It turned out to be Scenario A, at least for now. According to The Guardian Fernandes paid around £35m, as opposed to the £100m figure, which always seemed to high, that was being quoted beforehand. But £35m is still about three times what it would cost to buy a majority shareholding in Norwich City.

 

[/quote]

Purple. Interested that you feel you can buy a majority shareholding in NCFC for £12m. Surely that would just repay Delia (for I cant see Delia selling just enough for a third party to gain a majority shareholding) the "loans" that she has put in. Also if the shareholding changed, does not not trigger some form of refinance? Frankly if you could get a debt free majority shareholding in a premier league club with a few assets for £12m I think they would be beating a trail to the door...

[/quote]

 

GPB, I didn''t say anything about buying Norwich City debt-free. I was simply comparing like with like. It has cost Fernandes £35m for a majority shareholding in QPR and it would cost someone a third of that for a majority shareholding in Norwich. I wasn''t factoring in any debt repayments that might be triggered. I haven''t  bothered to look to see what the debt position is with QPR. It might be less than with Norwich; it might be the same; it might be worse.

 

But supposing - for the sake of argument - that QPR is debt-free. It has in that case cost Fernandes £35m. Even if you add ALL our debt of around £20m/£21m (some of which may never be called in) on to the asking price for the shares, that still comes to less than the £35m Fernandes paid.

 

The general point is this. Norwich City is not over-priced. Far from it. Compared to the going rate for other clubs, such as QPR or Birmingham, it is under-priced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NWC"]I like his quote - something along the lines of "QPR has always been a rough diamond, and I''m going to change it into a diamond"
Surely a rough diamond is still a diamond Tony Tongue Tied [:S][/quote]

I thought it was a "Boutique"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Downloads"]Not if Fernandez is taking a 51% stake as is reported, but who knows if that is true. Mittal won''t throw his money into something he doesn''t have an equal say on surely?[/quote]

---

 

At the moment Ecclestone has 66 per cent and Mittal 33 per cent. One scenario has Fernandes buying all of Ecclestone''s stake and Mittal keeping his 33 per cent. Another scenario has Fernandes buying a 56 per cent stake from Ecclestone, and Mittal''s son-in-law buying the remaining 10 per cent, taking the Mittal family holding to 43 per cent.

 

The point is that Mittal has for some time been been a minority shareholder in QPR, so he might well be happy to carry on that way. I certainly haven''t seen a scenario in which the Mittal family pulls out. But we shall know shortly, it appears.

 

[/quote]

 

It turned out to be Scenario A, at least for now. According to The Guardian Fernandes paid around £35m, as opposed to the £100m figure, which always seemed to high, that was being quoted beforehand. But £35m is still about three times what it would cost to buy a majority shareholding in Norwich City.

 

[/quote]

Purple. Interested that you feel you can buy a majority shareholding in NCFC for £12m. Surely that would just repay Delia (for I cant see Delia selling just enough for a third party to gain a majority shareholding) the "loans" that she has put in. Also if the shareholding changed, does not not trigger some form of refinance? Frankly if you could get a debt free majority shareholding in a premier league club with a few assets for £12m I think they would be beating a trail to the door...

[/quote]

 

GPB, I didn''t say anything about buying Norwich City debt-free. I was simply comparing like with like. It has cost Fernandes £35m for a majority shareholding in QPR and it would cost someone a third of that for a majority shareholding in Norwich. I wasn''t factoring in any debt repayments that might be triggered. I haven''t  bothered to look to see what the debt position is with QPR. It might be less than with Norwich; it might be the same; it might be worse.

 

But supposing - for the sake of argument - that QPR is debt-free. It has in that case cost Fernandes £35m. Even if you add ALL our debt of around £20m/£21m (some of which may never be called in) on to the asking price for the shares, that still comes to less than the £35m Fernandes paid.

 

The general point is this. Norwich City is not over-priced. Far from it. Compared to the going rate for other clubs, such as QPR or Birmingham, it is under-priced.

 

[/quote]

 

Purple I''m certainly not going to enter into pointless arguments and this is my last word on the the subject. But there are two very relevant points here. 1. If Fernandez, Peter Cullum, or anyone else entered the market place , you have absolutely no idea what the "asking price for the shares" would be because they are privately held and entirely up to the holder to value, and 2. anyone seriously believing that £12m would secure a controlling shareholding in Norwich City Football Club, a Premier League football club,  is in cloud cuckoo land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Downloads"]Not if Fernandez is taking a 51% stake as is reported, but who knows if that is true. Mittal won''t throw his money into something he doesn''t have an equal say on surely?[/quote]

---

 

At the moment Ecclestone has 66 per cent and Mittal 33 per cent. One scenario has Fernandes buying all of Ecclestone''s stake and Mittal keeping his 33 per cent. Another scenario has Fernandes buying a 56 per cent stake from Ecclestone, and Mittal''s son-in-law buying the remaining 10 per cent, taking the Mittal family holding to 43 per cent.

 

The point is that Mittal has for some time been been a minority shareholder in QPR, so he might well be happy to carry on that way. I certainly haven''t seen a scenario in which the Mittal family pulls out. But we shall know shortly, it appears.

 

[/quote]

 

It turned out to be Scenario A, at least for now. According to The Guardian Fernandes paid around £35m, as opposed to the £100m figure, which always seemed to high, that was being quoted beforehand. But £35m is still about three times what it would cost to buy a majority shareholding in Norwich City.

 

[/quote]

Purple. Interested that you feel you can buy a majority shareholding in NCFC for £12m. Surely that would just repay Delia (for I cant see Delia selling just enough for a third party to gain a majority shareholding) the "loans" that she has put in. Also if the shareholding changed, does not not trigger some form of refinance? Frankly if you could get a debt free majority shareholding in a premier league club with a few assets for £12m I think they would be beating a trail to the door...

[/quote]

 

GPB, I didn''t say anything about buying Norwich City debt-free. I was simply comparing like with like. It has cost Fernandes £35m for a majority shareholding in QPR and it would cost someone a third of that for a majority shareholding in Norwich. I wasn''t factoring in any debt repayments that might be triggered. I haven''t  bothered to look to see what the debt position is with QPR. It might be less than with Norwich; it might be the same; it might be worse.

 

But supposing - for the sake of argument - that QPR is debt-free. It has in that case cost Fernandes £35m. Even if you add ALL our debt of around £20m/£21m (some of which may never be called in) on to the asking price for the shares, that still comes to less than the £35m Fernandes paid.

 

The general point is this. Norwich City is not over-priced. Far from it. Compared to the going rate for other clubs, such as QPR or Birmingham, it is under-priced.

 

[/quote]

 

Purple I''m certainly not going to enter into pointless arguments and this is my last word on the the subject. But there are two very relevant points here. 1. If Fernandez, Peter Cullum, or anyone else entered the market place , you have absolutely no idea what the "asking price for the shares" would be because they are privately held and entirely up to the holder to value, and 2. anyone seriously believing that £12m would secure a controlling shareholding in Norwich City Football Club, a Premier League football club,  is in cloud cuckoo land.

[/quote]

 

---

 

GPB, I''m all for not entering into pointless arguments, if that is what you think this is. That is fine by me. But in that case you don''t do what you have just done, which is to carry on the argument, and take it further with new points, and with a nice little "cloud cuckoo" insult thrown in for good measure, just to have the last word, while pretending you''ve stopped arguing. That really doesn''t do it for me. But each to his own, I guess. Anyway, you have it. The last word, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can''t see Parker going to QPR. Why would be want to go to another team which looks doomed. There will be a change of manager soon also so they will be in all sorts.... Maybe a loan option would be OK but I wouldn''t move to QPR.

Looking at all your discussions regarding Fernandes, surely being the majority shareholder with us is better than QPR. We are not over priced, larger stadium which is sold out just about every game, better facilities in general and better scope for marketing opportunities into Asia and Europe than QPR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="YellowLittle1"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="SWP Poor Mans Ruel Fox"]

[quote user="NWC"]Tony Fernandes is wasting no time in strenghtening their weak squad.
£4million is the rumoured fee, but I bet he''s on 40-50K.
He''s a great player, but I hope he''s carp for them!!!
[/quote]

 

It may  be true that they are interested in him but he is worth more than £4million, I would say you would have to double that.

[/quote]

I don''t know, there hasn''t been much interest for Scott Parker and with the end of the transfer window only a couple of weeks away West Ham are getting desperate. They have already budgeted his current wages on other players (mainly Kevin Nolan). Parker has been offered to just about all the Premier League clubs, and nearly all of them have said no, seems strange as everyone was raving about his performances last year.

[/quote]

 

I think the reason most clubs said no is they know the longer the transfer window goes on the more desperate West Ham will get. England international who was one of the best players in the Premier League last year, someone will take him. As soon as a team offers out a key player they know that they must be desperate to get rid. Which they are because of wages, if this bid gets accepted watch 4 other Premier League clubs come in. I can see him going Arsenal to be honest, and if Wenger doesn''t go for him, then he really has lost it.

[/quote]

I doubt Arsenal will go for him; Wilshere, Ramsey and Song are all better players and Frimpong is emerging as a real talent. Can''t remember the last time Wenger bought a 30 year old midfielder but really doubt he will start on that route now. Villa might go for him or Tottenham might think about it, Redknapp specialises in last minute swoops for players. I can see him ending up at QPR to be honest, I think Parker would prefere being a key player at a small club than a fringe player at a bigger one.

[/quote]

 

Completely disagree, Song is dodgy. I would rather Parker any day of the week and he also brings a lot of fight to the dressing room which is what Arsenal need. And Wenger in the last few seasons has bought older players. Squillaci, Campbell, Lehmann. Although probably more back up players, I think he identified them as vital experience in the dressing room, not so much Squillaci.

I think your naming one bad Parker game, which was a pretty poor England performance anyway, Song always looks pretty dodgy to me, he can make some key tackles but he also can make suicide balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×