|
Post by rickyqpr on Dec 6, 2019 17:58:58 GMT
www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/gary-penrice-departs/Quite a strange statement - but gone after 12 years. 'All parties have been very open and honest with each other over the past six months which has enabled us to prepare accordingly for this January’s transfer window and beyond.' WTF?
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Dec 7, 2019 10:04:22 GMT
www.qpr.co.uk/news/club-news/gary-penrice-departs/Quite a strange statement - but gone after 12 years. 'All parties have been very open and honest with each other over the past six months which has enabled us to prepare accordingly for this January’s transfer window and beyond.' WTF? If you re-read the article it says Penrice has been in his recruitment role for two and a half years and the man stepping up now Gary has gone is Andy Belk who has been with the club for 12 years. Anyway the thing is that times change and I doubt we will ever know the full story. Could be Penrice has a better offer as I doubt we are increasing back room salaries. Could be Warburton wants to be his own man in the transfer window. Could be Penrice identified some players to sign in January and was told we cannot afford it. Could be we told him Eze is being sold. Could be Donald Trump is ............ Could be anything. People move on.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Dec 7, 2019 10:35:05 GMT
The message I get from the statement seems to be pushing the idea that it's 'job done'. He was brought in to restructure the scouting and recruitment systems, we feel we are in a good place with that and therefore, time to move on.
Penrice has got a pretty decent chunk of experience on his CV, being at Plymouth n Leicester with Ollie alongside a lot of other clubs. I remember hearing there being a bit of discord there when McLaren was in charge - the main rumour being that he'd done his homework and presented a bunch of potential signings who McLaren then turned his nose up at (namely Tilt at Blackpool as a CB to sign, if I remember right).
Could be anything, really. He may have wanted a more significant role and we weren't up for it. Could be that he was pricey to have around and that, now we are in a better place in the recruitment department, we're happy to move him on and recruit internally - that presumably being more cost effective. Or maybe he had plans for January, Belk had a different take on it and we sided with the latter? As always, hard to know who exactly does what.
Who knows? It hopefully doesn't matter too much. What is definitive though is that our strategy in the back room seems a whole lot better than it was years ago.
|
|