| The QPR fans 09:17 - Jan 3 with 9976 views | BAWHoops |
I've been thinking long and hard about the mess that our club is in and I must say that this season has been wholly unenjoyable.
It was going absolutely fine whilst we bobbed about in mind table in August and the noises from the club were to do with consolidation... then that sodding Instagram post! Since then QPR has been a toxic atmosphere and I must say that perhaps the fans need to take a look at themselves in the mirror.
Over the last few weeks I have seen Les Ferdinand (LES FERDINAND!!!!) described as a cancer within the club. I have seen (on some other... less reputable boards) so called fans say that when JFH is sacked Les will just appoint Chris Powell, and other fans seem to insinuate that Les isn't putting the clubs best interests at heart. These type of comments are absolutely vile, racist and misinformed. However much you love Clint Hill, Charlie Austin or Joey sodding Barton not one of them can hold a candle to Les and what he has done for this club... and what the club has done for him. It's absurd to think he is using QPR as a vehicle to appoint his mates and nobody else. Keep your ill informed and archaic racism out of my club.
I was also thinking about how ashamed I am of QPR. Ashamed. What a terrible word to associate with the club you love. There's a school of thought that we are the worst run club in the country. I wouldn't argue with that. Others may say Blackpool, Leeds & Newcastle are worse.... but here's the difference, their fans have tried to do something about it. What have we as a group of fans done since Tony Fernandes came in and sent our club hurtling towards League 1 with a mountain of debt? Nothing. We have sat here and taken it because of empty promises of new stadiums (I mean... come on), new training grounds, and a global brand. Where the hell is our dignity.
We all know what is happening at QPR and we all know what way this club is going, it's going down. We as fans are sitting here silently letting it happen and letting a group of chancers take us all for a ride. Remember when we went down in 2013 and Tony 'fronted up' to the media to give a press conference about how lessons had been learnt. It's 3 years later and we are still eating the crap he is serving us.
Our next home game is live, on TV against Wolves. I think we as fans need to think about how we want to be portrayed, because I am sick of the club being bent over and shafted up the arse so that Tony sodding Fernandes and his mates can promote Air Asia across the world to the detriment of the wonderful football club I have supported all my life.
If people would rather boo Karl Henry (the man who was arguably our 2nd best player last season) than actually focus their ire and frustration on the cause of the problem then thats their decision. But not so long ago we had had enough of Briatore and his cronies ruining our club, so we did something about it. A small protest, but a protest none the less. A few weeks later Neil Warnock was in charge under Bhatia.....
For gods sake Rangers fans, lets find some dignity. lets support the team and tell these tossers in the boardroom exactly where to go and what we want with our club. It doesn't need to be mutiny but it needs something because we are sinking and sinking fast. When we are in League 1 with debt up to our eyeballs we may well wish we had said and done something a lot earlier.
Rant over. Am sure it has upset people, but I needed to get it off my chest. Happy Sunday |  |
| http://blogandwhitehoops.wordpress.com/ |
| |  |
| The QPR fans on 23:39 - Jan 4 with 1225 views | Ingham |
Some interesting posts about negativity, but I have to say I don't agree.
It would be negative to be the cause of the team's poor performances, but the supporters aren't the cause. it seems that being distressed about failure after failure is reprehensible, but being directly responsible for them, as the players, managers and directors are, is, if not exactly admired, perfectly acceptable, no matter how much damage it does to the Club, its reputation, credibility, finances, and drawing power.
It would be negative for the supporters to lose match after match while they lined their pockets at the Club's expense, but it isn't the supporters who do this. They are not paid, they pay.
If the people representing the Club were honest, and told us up front how useless they would turn out to be, that might be different. For one thing, it might bring their pay down to the level of what they actually deliver, and make an honest woman of them.
The charge that the supporters are to blame when things are going wrong is a bizarre one, but it raises its head again and again, and points up the very interesting debate going on between the lines of this thread, as there is in so many others.
Kicking off, as they usually do, with what I, at any rate, consider to be a swarm of false assumptions, the first and - in my opinion - worst of which is the imputation of bad faith in other supporters. To ensure I don't fall into the same trap, I don't say this accusation is MADE in bad faith. There may be a good deal of bad faith in football, but I don't find it among Rs supporters. Differences of opinion - and of temperament - are not instances of bad faith, any more than they are evidence of disloyalty.
Generally, the logic that tells us that getting upset or being critical is wrong goes something like this. There are optimists who hope for the best. And pessimists who - we must assume, such is the logic of this strange allegation - hope for the worst. They want us to lose (this charge is laid against them again and again), and if they don't exactly WANT us to lose, nonetheless they are delighted when we do.
This is the kind of thing that is said. It is nonsense. But it is interesting nonsense.
Because I can't see how supporters who are the most critical WANT us to lose. Their anger proclaims the opposite. The allegation is a dead duck at the outset, and no matter how often it is waved about, it will never fly. The critics are angry when we lose because they are disappointed, and it is impossible to be disappointed if that is what they want. On the contrary, they hope we'll win. Just as the optimists do.
Another dead duck, then. And absurd - to my way of thinking - to suppose Rs supporters want anything other than victory. We may fear that we will fail all too often, but even if that fear is frequently aired, it is frequently vindicated by season after season of failure, and only rarely shown to be unfounded.
But maybe a better way of looking at it is to say that pessimists EXPECT too much. But IS that what pessimists expect? How can they be accused of being glass half empty types - as, once again, they so often are - when their expectations are HIGHER than the supposedly glass half full supporters?
So this charge also appears to be nonsense. If pessimists expect too much, what on earth do optimists expect? Less? Certainly, if expecting too much is wrong, and expecting too much is exactly what the optimists accuse the critics of doing.
But surely that is a very strange kind of optimism. The optimist taking up a position where he invariably expects LESS than a pessimist.
Insisting all the while that it is the pessimist who has the negative attitude.
True, the optimist not unreasonably points out that hoping for the best and expecting it is not quite the same thing. The optimist is disappointed that we lost, but not irrationally angry about it, because his expectations are lower, while the critic hopes for too much, and is disappointed (or, as we notice from time to time on the best regulated messageboards, goes mental).
But it is at this point, when the positive supporter thinks the critic's expectations are unrealistically high, that his position just falls apart.
If his own opinion as to the Club's REAL capabilities is calmly and reasonably and, indeed, commendably and realistically LOW, and therefore - and unavoidably - much lower than the opinion of the supposedly 'negative' supporters (who, you will remember, expect too much ...
... why doesn't he BLOODY WELL SAY SO!!!
If he thinks the players, the managers and the board are jolly nice chaps but can't kick a football for toffee, and thinks the more openly critical fans have far too high an opinion of the team's and the Club's prospects, it is grossly unfair to accuse the critics of expecting more of the players than they can reasonably achieve, when the optimist is fuelling the very expectations he so roundly condemns - not only by refusing to come out and say exactly HOW negative his own view of the team's capabilities is - but by blatantly demanding everyone else should not only stop talking negatively and pessimistically about everything, they should be actively talking it all UP.
It is negative when the people representing the Club get things wrong. That is not the supporters fault. They are not responsible for the mistakes of others. And they are certainly not at fault for noticing.
It is not as if we're loyal and true to our failed players and managers, we are not. The nightmare is that we go on and on replacing failure with failure. Maybe we know no better and that is the best we can expect, but if that is so, there can be nothing wrong in saying it. [Post edited 5 Jan 2016 0:09]
|  | | |
| The QPR fans on 00:39 - Jan 5 with 1204 views | Brightonhoop |
Great first post and agree largely. However, if supporters are a 12th man how does it commute to quality on the pitch?
It doesn't. Preston some moons ago we were the 12 man and halted a slide, of no confidence, committed players not delivering but implored to dig deep made me proud, on a fcking cold night in November at HQ with little to be fond of quality wise, 1-0 no big deal but it halted the rot. Fast forward 2-0 down to Pool at HQ and whooped 'em 3-2 in the last 15. Go figiure. 2-0 down to effing poxy Albion at HQ 2 weeks ago we failed to nail it 3-2. We lack the quality on the field forever in the last 5 mins and to take 3 points from a 2-0 deficit. Mackie did. This lot do not. Supporters can only do so much. Bottom line is we are shyte, leak more gaols than we will ever score and are destined for League 3. Fernandes, whilst not with the malice of Paladini, is an incompetent bafoon. Love him to bits but having recalled Warnock and appointed JFH has no conecpt of winning a coconut shire more than a football game.
The Club's in serious trouble and it's not down to supporters. We're shyte in all quarters but not in the stands. A fish rots from the head down. |  | | |
| The QPR fans on 09:03 - Jan 5 with 1151 views | johncharles |
| The QPR fans on 23:39 - Jan 4 by Ingham |
Some interesting posts about negativity, but I have to say I don't agree.
It would be negative to be the cause of the team's poor performances, but the supporters aren't the cause. it seems that being distressed about failure after failure is reprehensible, but being directly responsible for them, as the players, managers and directors are, is, if not exactly admired, perfectly acceptable, no matter how much damage it does to the Club, its reputation, credibility, finances, and drawing power.
It would be negative for the supporters to lose match after match while they lined their pockets at the Club's expense, but it isn't the supporters who do this. They are not paid, they pay.
If the people representing the Club were honest, and told us up front how useless they would turn out to be, that might be different. For one thing, it might bring their pay down to the level of what they actually deliver, and make an honest woman of them.
The charge that the supporters are to blame when things are going wrong is a bizarre one, but it raises its head again and again, and points up the very interesting debate going on between the lines of this thread, as there is in so many others.
Kicking off, as they usually do, with what I, at any rate, consider to be a swarm of false assumptions, the first and - in my opinion - worst of which is the imputation of bad faith in other supporters. To ensure I don't fall into the same trap, I don't say this accusation is MADE in bad faith. There may be a good deal of bad faith in football, but I don't find it among Rs supporters. Differences of opinion - and of temperament - are not instances of bad faith, any more than they are evidence of disloyalty.
Generally, the logic that tells us that getting upset or being critical is wrong goes something like this. There are optimists who hope for the best. And pessimists who - we must assume, such is the logic of this strange allegation - hope for the worst. They want us to lose (this charge is laid against them again and again), and if they don't exactly WANT us to lose, nonetheless they are delighted when we do.
This is the kind of thing that is said. It is nonsense. But it is interesting nonsense.
Because I can't see how supporters who are the most critical WANT us to lose. Their anger proclaims the opposite. The allegation is a dead duck at the outset, and no matter how often it is waved about, it will never fly. The critics are angry when we lose because they are disappointed, and it is impossible to be disappointed if that is what they want. On the contrary, they hope we'll win. Just as the optimists do.
Another dead duck, then. And absurd - to my way of thinking - to suppose Rs supporters want anything other than victory. We may fear that we will fail all too often, but even if that fear is frequently aired, it is frequently vindicated by season after season of failure, and only rarely shown to be unfounded.
But maybe a better way of looking at it is to say that pessimists EXPECT too much. But IS that what pessimists expect? How can they be accused of being glass half empty types - as, once again, they so often are - when their expectations are HIGHER than the supposedly glass half full supporters?
So this charge also appears to be nonsense. If pessimists expect too much, what on earth do optimists expect? Less? Certainly, if expecting too much is wrong, and expecting too much is exactly what the optimists accuse the critics of doing.
But surely that is a very strange kind of optimism. The optimist taking up a position where he invariably expects LESS than a pessimist.
Insisting all the while that it is the pessimist who has the negative attitude.
True, the optimist not unreasonably points out that hoping for the best and expecting it is not quite the same thing. The optimist is disappointed that we lost, but not irrationally angry about it, because his expectations are lower, while the critic hopes for too much, and is disappointed (or, as we notice from time to time on the best regulated messageboards, goes mental).
But it is at this point, when the positive supporter thinks the critic's expectations are unrealistically high, that his position just falls apart.
If his own opinion as to the Club's REAL capabilities is calmly and reasonably and, indeed, commendably and realistically LOW, and therefore - and unavoidably - much lower than the opinion of the supposedly 'negative' supporters (who, you will remember, expect too much ...
... why doesn't he BLOODY WELL SAY SO!!!
If he thinks the players, the managers and the board are jolly nice chaps but can't kick a football for toffee, and thinks the more openly critical fans have far too high an opinion of the team's and the Club's prospects, it is grossly unfair to accuse the critics of expecting more of the players than they can reasonably achieve, when the optimist is fuelling the very expectations he so roundly condemns - not only by refusing to come out and say exactly HOW negative his own view of the team's capabilities is - but by blatantly demanding everyone else should not only stop talking negatively and pessimistically about everything, they should be actively talking it all UP.
It is negative when the people representing the Club get things wrong. That is not the supporters fault. They are not responsible for the mistakes of others. And they are certainly not at fault for noticing.
It is not as if we're loyal and true to our failed players and managers, we are not. The nightmare is that we go on and on replacing failure with failure. Maybe we know no better and that is the best we can expect, but if that is so, there can be nothing wrong in saying it. [Post edited 5 Jan 2016 0:09]
|
 Nice one Ingham |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| The QPR fans on 09:30 - Jan 5 with 1133 views | ElHoop |
Oh god. I'm getting pessimistic about ever being optimistic again. I'm confused as to what that means now. |  | | |
| The QPR fans on 10:03 - Jan 5 with 1107 views | johncharles |
| The QPR fans on 09:30 - Jan 5 by ElHoop |
Oh god. I'm getting pessimistic about ever being optimistic again. I'm confused as to what that means now. |
That should go on the new club badge | |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| The QPR fans on 11:24 - Jan 5 with 1077 views | Mvpeter |
| The QPR fans on 23:39 - Jan 4 by Ingham |
Some interesting posts about negativity, but I have to say I don't agree.
It would be negative to be the cause of the team's poor performances, but the supporters aren't the cause. it seems that being distressed about failure after failure is reprehensible, but being directly responsible for them, as the players, managers and directors are, is, if not exactly admired, perfectly acceptable, no matter how much damage it does to the Club, its reputation, credibility, finances, and drawing power.
It would be negative for the supporters to lose match after match while they lined their pockets at the Club's expense, but it isn't the supporters who do this. They are not paid, they pay.
If the people representing the Club were honest, and told us up front how useless they would turn out to be, that might be different. For one thing, it might bring their pay down to the level of what they actually deliver, and make an honest woman of them.
The charge that the supporters are to blame when things are going wrong is a bizarre one, but it raises its head again and again, and points up the very interesting debate going on between the lines of this thread, as there is in so many others.
Kicking off, as they usually do, with what I, at any rate, consider to be a swarm of false assumptions, the first and - in my opinion - worst of which is the imputation of bad faith in other supporters. To ensure I don't fall into the same trap, I don't say this accusation is MADE in bad faith. There may be a good deal of bad faith in football, but I don't find it among Rs supporters. Differences of opinion - and of temperament - are not instances of bad faith, any more than they are evidence of disloyalty.
Generally, the logic that tells us that getting upset or being critical is wrong goes something like this. There are optimists who hope for the best. And pessimists who - we must assume, such is the logic of this strange allegation - hope for the worst. They want us to lose (this charge is laid against them again and again), and if they don't exactly WANT us to lose, nonetheless they are delighted when we do.
This is the kind of thing that is said. It is nonsense. But it is interesting nonsense.
Because I can't see how supporters who are the most critical WANT us to lose. Their anger proclaims the opposite. The allegation is a dead duck at the outset, and no matter how often it is waved about, it will never fly. The critics are angry when we lose because they are disappointed, and it is impossible to be disappointed if that is what they want. On the contrary, they hope we'll win. Just as the optimists do.
Another dead duck, then. And absurd - to my way of thinking - to suppose Rs supporters want anything other than victory. We may fear that we will fail all too often, but even if that fear is frequently aired, it is frequently vindicated by season after season of failure, and only rarely shown to be unfounded.
But maybe a better way of looking at it is to say that pessimists EXPECT too much. But IS that what pessimists expect? How can they be accused of being glass half empty types - as, once again, they so often are - when their expectations are HIGHER than the supposedly glass half full supporters?
So this charge also appears to be nonsense. If pessimists expect too much, what on earth do optimists expect? Less? Certainly, if expecting too much is wrong, and expecting too much is exactly what the optimists accuse the critics of doing.
But surely that is a very strange kind of optimism. The optimist taking up a position where he invariably expects LESS than a pessimist.
Insisting all the while that it is the pessimist who has the negative attitude.
True, the optimist not unreasonably points out that hoping for the best and expecting it is not quite the same thing. The optimist is disappointed that we lost, but not irrationally angry about it, because his expectations are lower, while the critic hopes for too much, and is disappointed (or, as we notice from time to time on the best regulated messageboards, goes mental).
But it is at this point, when the positive supporter thinks the critic's expectations are unrealistically high, that his position just falls apart.
If his own opinion as to the Club's REAL capabilities is calmly and reasonably and, indeed, commendably and realistically LOW, and therefore - and unavoidably - much lower than the opinion of the supposedly 'negative' supporters (who, you will remember, expect too much ...
... why doesn't he BLOODY WELL SAY SO!!!
If he thinks the players, the managers and the board are jolly nice chaps but can't kick a football for toffee, and thinks the more openly critical fans have far too high an opinion of the team's and the Club's prospects, it is grossly unfair to accuse the critics of expecting more of the players than they can reasonably achieve, when the optimist is fuelling the very expectations he so roundly condemns - not only by refusing to come out and say exactly HOW negative his own view of the team's capabilities is - but by blatantly demanding everyone else should not only stop talking negatively and pessimistically about everything, they should be actively talking it all UP.
It is negative when the people representing the Club get things wrong. That is not the supporters fault. They are not responsible for the mistakes of others. And they are certainly not at fault for noticing.
It is not as if we're loyal and true to our failed players and managers, we are not. The nightmare is that we go on and on replacing failure with failure. Maybe we know no better and that is the best we can expect, but if that is so, there can be nothing wrong in saying it. [Post edited 5 Jan 2016 0:09]
|
Well bloody said. I find it extremely pessimistic of the optimistic supporters to believe that we can't possibly use Yun Smithies Hall (before it was as obvious as it is now) Gladwin Chery Polter JET etc because they don't have experience regardless of whether this means they will be less effective and regardless of the fact that experience is gained by playing.
If you want to claim to be an optimistic by playing Karl Henry as a number 10 instead of Chery and Luongo then I'm glad to own the label pessimist. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
