| Julien Stéphan 16:28 - Aug 23 with 36104 views | ted_hendrix |
I don't know what to say, do you? |  |
| My Father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic. |
| |  |
| Julien Stéphan on 08:19 - Aug 31 with 2609 views | Tonto |
The next 2 games will be interesting. Wrexham have spent big but not got the results. Stoke have had a good start to the season. 2 or 3 points from that wouldnt be too bad, but lose both and the toxic knives will be out again. |  |
| |
| Julien Stéphan on 09:16 - Aug 31 with 2436 views | Beckenhamhoop |
| Julien Stéphan on 07:47 - Aug 31 by dmm |
It's taken Stephan until the end of August to change the game model, whereas Cifuentes took months. I wonder what the next meeting of Nourry's heads of football depts will be discussing? |
Are you suggesting that it was one of these meetings that was responsible for our change of style yesterday? Or have I misunderstood your post? |  | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 09:25 - Aug 31 with 2409 views | dmm |
| Julien Stéphan on 09:16 - Aug 31 by Beckenhamhoop |
Are you suggesting that it was one of these meetings that was responsible for our change of style yesterday? Or have I misunderstood your post? |
No, not at all. I'm imagining that meeting being full of conflicted emotions and, "Well, what do we do now with the game model, boss?" comments. |  | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 09:45 - Aug 31 with 2316 views | hubble |
Our gaffer. I like him!
|  |
| |
| Julien Stéphan on 09:48 - Aug 31 with 2301 views | Esox_Lucius |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:06 - Aug 23 by The_Beast1976 |
Excellent post. All seems pretty much bang on to me.
As to your conclusion, I'm with you there too. Rueben should be on the phone to Nourry tonight telling him to clear his desk tomorrow |
Rather than dismiss him, perhaps he could ask CN to prioritise finding his own replacement. That is something he IS qualified to do. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Julien Stéphan on 18:40 - Aug 31 with 2037 views | NorthantsHoop |
Still early days for Julien, for me the jury's out until we see how he builds momentum from getting that first win. Made totally the right changes yesterday bringing in all the players he did. Probably his biggest challenge is getting Loftus Road to be a very hard place to get a result, something that basically has been missing from every manager since we came back to the Championship. Positively think we have a better squad than in previous seasons, if we had lost yesterday it might have been the start of the end of his short tenure. But he now has a reset and needs to push the team and us forward. |  | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 19:09 - Aug 31 with 1906 views | Hunterhoop |
| Julien Stéphan on 23:36 - Aug 30 by Beckenhamhoop |
I wonder why it took so long! |
Well, Cifuentes changed when it Ruben returned to London in late Nov, prevented Nourry for sacking and he was given more flexibility to make it work. If it hadn’t I’m sure he’d have been out in Jan (or earlier).
So, jungle drums start sounding about him taking the fall for it all, and Cifuentes pushed to change from the game model.
We’ve just lost 7-1…huge pressure on him and his boss…not inconceivable Stephan has reacted in the same way and to buy himself a bit of time has pushed to have more control of the set up, approach, etc. it’s been granted on a “on your head be it” condition. This would be a good thing for QPR.
Note that Ruben was back for the game yesterday. Sat behind Nourry. He’s not as absent as you think. Anyone see Nourry’s celebration? He turned out and gave it the double arms aloft at Ruben… |  | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 19:41 - Aug 31 with 1788 views | Beckenhamhoop |
| Julien Stéphan on 19:09 - Aug 31 by Hunterhoop |
Well, Cifuentes changed when it Ruben returned to London in late Nov, prevented Nourry for sacking and he was given more flexibility to make it work. If it hadn’t I’m sure he’d have been out in Jan (or earlier).
So, jungle drums start sounding about him taking the fall for it all, and Cifuentes pushed to change from the game model.
We’ve just lost 7-1…huge pressure on him and his boss…not inconceivable Stephan has reacted in the same way and to buy himself a bit of time has pushed to have more control of the set up, approach, etc. it’s been granted on a “on your head be it” condition. This would be a good thing for QPR.
Note that Ruben was back for the game yesterday. Sat behind Nourry. He’s not as absent as you think. Anyone see Nourry’s celebration? He turned out and gave it the double arms aloft at Ruben… |
Are you suggesting that Nourry was dictating our style of play up until November of last year and that RG ‘prevented’ MC’s sacking by Nourry?
Firstly, I don’t recall any talk on this forum at the time that MC was not in full control of the team tactics. I don’t recall any comment, anywhere that MC was ‘pushing’ to change the game model.
Secondly, I really don’t think CN has any authority to sack the manager in isolation.
Admittedly my memory is not what it was but what are you basing all these claims on? [Post edited 31 Aug 19:45]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Julien Stéphan on 19:43 - Aug 31 with 1779 views | Boston |
| Julien Stéphan on 09:45 - Aug 31 by hubble |
Our gaffer. I like him!
|
Seems to know his onions.
 | |
| |
| Julien Stéphan on 19:58 - Aug 31 with 1715 views | Hunterhoop |
| Julien Stéphan on 19:41 - Aug 31 by Beckenhamhoop |
Are you suggesting that Nourry was dictating our style of play up until November of last year and that RG ‘prevented’ MC’s sacking by Nourry?
Firstly, I don’t recall any talk on this forum at the time that MC was not in full control of the team tactics. I don’t recall any comment, anywhere that MC was ‘pushing’ to change the game model.
Secondly, I really don’t think CN has any authority to sack the manager in isolation.
Admittedly my memory is not what it was but what are you basing all these claims on? [Post edited 31 Aug 19:45]
|
I am suggesting that broadly, yes.
Why? From a variety of things I’ve heard from different people. Am not going to give up sources and betray confidences. Doesn’t mean you have to believe me, mind. You’re free to believe what you want.
The pragmatic approach was Cifuentes. The style of play employed at the start of last season and this season was near identical…only one constant from last season to this season. Only one person spoke about tactics and formations at the fan forum. Even if you haven’t been privy to certain things, you can work it out for yourself.
And of course, as CEO, Nourry has the authority to sack and employ staff. What planet are you on? However, if your major shareholder, who is financially propping up the entire entity single handedly tells you to give the person you want to sack more time and to empower him more before making any rash decisions, you will. You’d be writing your own resignation letter if you went above such a dominant shareholder on the Board. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:09 - Aug 31 with 1669 views | stevec |
The players looked a whole lot happier and more purposeful not having to play out from the back.
Charlton were caught with their trousers down with the change of tactics, took that huddle with Jones to sort it out and one down by then.
We will meet better sides, with their eyes open from now on. JS did well yesterday, he’ll need to keep their chins up when the oppo are ready for us, that’s the big issue with this side. |  | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:29 - Aug 31 with 1580 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:09 - Aug 31 by stevec |
The players looked a whole lot happier and more purposeful not having to play out from the back.
Charlton were caught with their trousers down with the change of tactics, took that huddle with Jones to sort it out and one down by then.
We will meet better sides, with their eyes open from now on. JS did well yesterday, he’ll need to keep their chins up when the oppo are ready for us, that’s the big issue with this side. |
This is where the 'game model' doesn't align with the players that the club currently has. There is nothing wrong with a club wanting to play through the midfield; I think most of us on here were brought up with the great 'footballing' Rangers sides of the 70/80/90s.
I'm in full support of it. However, where it is falling down is sending a manager out without the personnel to implement the preferred style.
To do it, the club needs a ball playing CB & CM. We currently have neither. Mbengue and Madsen try to do it, but the quality is not there.
CN can either go out and get the players, and we'll be in the top half or not, and it's 16th at best again.
The fact that we bid a sizeable chunk on Edwards suggests the club is prepared to spend. It'll give a big indication of the clubs ambition, or lack of it, if they sign anyone tomorrow. | |
| |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:34 - Aug 31 with 1557 views | JamesB1979 |
| Julien Stéphan on 19:58 - Aug 31 by Hunterhoop |
I am suggesting that broadly, yes.
Why? From a variety of things I’ve heard from different people. Am not going to give up sources and betray confidences. Doesn’t mean you have to believe me, mind. You’re free to believe what you want.
The pragmatic approach was Cifuentes. The style of play employed at the start of last season and this season was near identical…only one constant from last season to this season. Only one person spoke about tactics and formations at the fan forum. Even if you haven’t been privy to certain things, you can work it out for yourself.
And of course, as CEO, Nourry has the authority to sack and employ staff. What planet are you on? However, if your major shareholder, who is financially propping up the entire entity single handedly tells you to give the person you want to sack more time and to empower him more before making any rash decisions, you will. You’d be writing your own resignation letter if you went above such a dominant shareholder on the Board. |
Only the board can sack the manager, it’s too important a position. The board is controlled by Reuben and it’s all set out in the articles on companies house. For the CEO to sack the manager he’d have to present that to the board. This is the football manager not the cleaner or a youth team coach.
That isn’t to say that the CEO didn’t want to get rid of Marti. I have no idea, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. [Post edited 31 Aug 20:36]
| | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:38 - Aug 31 with 1541 views | QPR_Jim |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:34 - Aug 31 by JamesB1979 |
Only the board can sack the manager, it’s too important a position. The board is controlled by Reuben and it’s all set out in the articles on companies house. For the CEO to sack the manager he’d have to present that to the board. This is the football manager not the cleaner or a youth team coach.
That isn’t to say that the CEO didn’t want to get rid of Marti. I have no idea, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. [Post edited 31 Aug 20:36]
|
So do you think it was Reuben who decided to put MC on garden leave? |  | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:39 - Aug 31 with 1528 views | JamesB1979 |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:38 - Aug 31 by QPR_Jim |
So do you think it was Reuben who decided to put MC on garden leave? |
They would have authorised it, 100%. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:42 - Aug 31 with 1495 views | Hunterhoop |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:34 - Aug 31 by JamesB1979 |
Only the board can sack the manager, it’s too important a position. The board is controlled by Reuben and it’s all set out in the articles on companies house. For the CEO to sack the manager he’d have to present that to the board. This is the football manager not the cleaner or a youth team coach.
That isn’t to say that the CEO didn’t want to get rid of Marti. I have no idea, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. [Post edited 31 Aug 20:36]
|
That simply isn’t true in business of football. A CEO is empowered to run a business by the main shareholders and typically sits on the board with those key investors. They are quite literally paid to be the “chief executive” of the business and make such decisions.
If the shareholders don’t like the decisions the CEO or the direction they are talking the business, they oust the CEO. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:43 - Aug 31 with 1493 views | QPR_Jim |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:39 - Aug 31 by JamesB1979 |
They would have authorised it, 100%. |
Yeah authorised it, but I doubt they're making the suggestion as the idea would come from the CEO, DoF or Chairman who's involved in the day to day. So it's entirely possible one of those in a day to day role was suggesting that they sack Marti before and Reuben said no. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:47 - Aug 31 with 1454 views | JamesB1979 |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:43 - Aug 31 by QPR_Jim |
Yeah authorised it, but I doubt they're making the suggestion as the idea would come from the CEO, DoF or Chairman who's involved in the day to day. So it's entirely possible one of those in a day to day role was suggesting that they sack Marti before and Reuben said no. |
Yes, in all likelihood. My point was that the manager / 1st team coach, is far too expensive and important position to be removed without getting approval from the board and therefore by Reuben. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:51 - Aug 31 with 1431 views | JamesB1979 |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:42 - Aug 31 by Hunterhoop |
That simply isn’t true in business of football. A CEO is empowered to run a business by the main shareholders and typically sits on the board with those key investors. They are quite literally paid to be the “chief executive” of the business and make such decisions.
If the shareholders don’t like the decisions the CEO or the direction they are talking the business, they oust the CEO. |
Yes the CEO is empowered to run the business. Nourry isn’t on the board of QPR though. And certain key decisions will have to be run past the board. Removing the 1st team coach would be one of them. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:57 - Aug 31 with 1394 views | Hunterhoop |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:29 - Aug 31 by Wilkinswatercarrier |
This is where the 'game model' doesn't align with the players that the club currently has. There is nothing wrong with a club wanting to play through the midfield; I think most of us on here were brought up with the great 'footballing' Rangers sides of the 70/80/90s.
I'm in full support of it. However, where it is falling down is sending a manager out without the personnel to implement the preferred style.
To do it, the club needs a ball playing CB & CM. We currently have neither. Mbengue and Madsen try to do it, but the quality is not there.
CN can either go out and get the players, and we'll be in the top half or not, and it's 16th at best again.
The fact that we bid a sizeable chunk on Edwards suggests the club is prepared to spend. It'll give a big indication of the clubs ambition, or lack of it, if they sign anyone tomorrow. |
FFP, Wilkins? We can’t just go and spend the money to make it happen. We have to comply with FFP. Our income has gone up with the new TV deal, but so has everyone else’s so the market will suffer inflation.
This has been my point the whole way along: we can’t run to the end state we want to be. It is gradual progression.
I think the game model is the wrong game model for now, with this current personnel, our current income, our recent league table positions, the rules of FFP and PSR, the parachute payments in place in this league, etc. Sounds like you agree with me.
Could it be the right game model in time (say 3-5 years)? Quite possibly, but we cannot just flip to it. It’s hari kari. It should be a very gradual progression as we gradually rise up the league (I.e. care about short term results).
Even if FFP didn’t exist, money was no object, it would still take a couple of years AFTER signing all the correct personnel to embed a different culture and style.
Walk before you run.
The game model should be more pragmatic. It should be flexible to allow us to match our approach to the opposition, to pivot when we play a parachute team, or a promoted team, or a team on a good run, or a team with a well known style (to combat it, like Sat).
Just like you can’t just move entirely to a Player Trading model where you only sign those under 25 with a view to making a profit. To increase the value they need to be in a stable environment, with experience and game nous around them to help them learn, to have physical players around them to protect them a little. That environment will develop them the best and increase their value.
I just find Nourry’s whole approach far too theoretical without a grounding in the reality of how things work on the ground, how people work, how young talent (in any profession) develops. It’s naive. But it’s also arrogant. Surround yourself with good people who bring a different perspective to you, who will challenge you, welcome the challenge too. That way you ensure balance and the best outcomes. That is not the set up and infrastructure he has implemented. It’s all about control. That concerns me for our football club. Under a great leader, I think Nourry’s skills could perhaps be harnessed and his weaknesses, and poor EQ developed or contained. We’ve given the keys to the whole thing. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 21:15 - Aug 31 with 1266 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:57 - Aug 31 by Hunterhoop |
FFP, Wilkins? We can’t just go and spend the money to make it happen. We have to comply with FFP. Our income has gone up with the new TV deal, but so has everyone else’s so the market will suffer inflation.
This has been my point the whole way along: we can’t run to the end state we want to be. It is gradual progression.
I think the game model is the wrong game model for now, with this current personnel, our current income, our recent league table positions, the rules of FFP and PSR, the parachute payments in place in this league, etc. Sounds like you agree with me.
Could it be the right game model in time (say 3-5 years)? Quite possibly, but we cannot just flip to it. It’s hari kari. It should be a very gradual progression as we gradually rise up the league (I.e. care about short term results).
Even if FFP didn’t exist, money was no object, it would still take a couple of years AFTER signing all the correct personnel to embed a different culture and style.
Walk before you run.
The game model should be more pragmatic. It should be flexible to allow us to match our approach to the opposition, to pivot when we play a parachute team, or a promoted team, or a team on a good run, or a team with a well known style (to combat it, like Sat).
Just like you can’t just move entirely to a Player Trading model where you only sign those under 25 with a view to making a profit. To increase the value they need to be in a stable environment, with experience and game nous around them to help them learn, to have physical players around them to protect them a little. That environment will develop them the best and increase their value.
I just find Nourry’s whole approach far too theoretical without a grounding in the reality of how things work on the ground, how people work, how young talent (in any profession) develops. It’s naive. But it’s also arrogant. Surround yourself with good people who bring a different perspective to you, who will challenge you, welcome the challenge too. That way you ensure balance and the best outcomes. That is not the set up and infrastructure he has implemented. It’s all about control. That concerns me for our football club. Under a great leader, I think Nourry’s skills could perhaps be harnessed and his weaknesses, and poor EQ developed or contained. We’ve given the keys to the whole thing. |
Well they bid £5/6m apparently for Edwards. | |
| |
| Julien Stéphan on 23:43 - Aug 31 with 1082 views | Hunterhoop |
| Julien Stéphan on 21:15 - Aug 31 by Wilkinswatercarrier |
Well they bid £5/6m apparently for Edwards. |
I heard they bid more. But Edwards doesn't solve everything. Nor does it mean FFP isn't a reality. | | | |
| Julien Stéphan on 08:45 - Sep 1 with 774 views | wombat |
| Julien Stéphan on 20:39 - Aug 31 by JamesB1979 |
They would have authorised it, 100%. |
they would have but being absent owners , they would only be working on what nourry and hoos have told them about what they belived was going on , or what they wanted the owners to belive was going on , dont forget the chairman Hoos was heard shouting his mouth off while fans wrere present ref marti last season , not the most professional way of going about things id say ! |  |
| |
| Julien Stéphan on 10:40 - Sep 1 with 637 views | JamesB1979 |
| Julien Stéphan on 08:45 - Sep 1 by wombat |
they would have but being absent owners , they would only be working on what nourry and hoos have told them about what they belived was going on , or what they wanted the owners to belive was going on , dont forget the chairman Hoos was heard shouting his mouth off while fans wrere present ref marti last season , not the most professional way of going about things id say ! |
Yeah but I was just responding to point above that CEO can just fire all staff. Most staff, yes but not the 1st team coach and especially when not even a board member. Whether they are absent or not, the firing of 1st team coach, given level and cost, isn’t just 1 man’s decision. Unless of course Reuben wanted to do it, as he can do what he wants. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
