| Club statement on AJ 11:43 - Sep 3 with 9268 views | Nov77 |
http://www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/030913-andy-johnson-1033056.aspx
DESPITE reports to the contrary late last night, Andy Johnson remains a QPR player and is very much part of Harry Redknapp’s first team plans this season.
As has been widely reported, Johnson’s former club Crystal Palace showed interest in the player in the final hours of Deadline Day and the club would have reluctantly agreed to let the player leave if the deal suited all parties. However, despite giving Johnson permission to open talks with the Eagles, the club failed to reach a suitable financial agreement for the player who has scored two goals in four league appearances this season.
Johnson told www.qpr.co.uk: “It was a bit of a whirlwind last night, but I’m really pleased to still be a QPR player.
“The interest from Palace was flattering, but I never once asked for a transfer and like I said a few weeks back, I owe it to QPR — who stood by me when I was injured last season — to stay and help get this club back to the Premier League.
“I am one hundred per-cent committed to QPR and will continue to give my all to help us build on what has been a promising start to the season.”
R’s boss Harry Redknapp told www.qpr.co.uk: “We reluctantly gave Andy the chance to speak to Palace, who are a club close to his heart. They were keen to offer him a two or three year deal and we felt we couldn’t hold him back from at least talking to them.
“However, when it became apparent we weren’t going to be able to get sufficient cover in ourselves in that department before the deadline, we knew we couldn’t let Andy go.”
He added: “Andy has been great for us in the opening month of the season and remains a key player for us.
“He’s committed and looking forward to the challenge of helping us challenge for a return to the Premier League.”
Read more at http://www.qpr.co.uk/news/article/030913-andy-johnson-1033056.aspx#0RFCUsEfdobAq |  |
| |  |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:46 - Sep 3 with 5393 views | N12Hoop |
At the beginning of the statement it says that they couldn't reach a "suitable financial arrangement" and at the end it says it didn't happen because we couldn't arrange a sufficient alternative. Which is it? |  |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:47 - Sep 3 with 5384 views | enfieldargh |
thankyou qpr for great communication on AJ. Glad they can see things from the fams perspective |  |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:47 - Sep 3 with 5372 views | WeaverQPR |
He can join them in the summer when his contracts up and they have been relegated. |  |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:50 - Sep 3 with 5333 views | gueRRilla |
Basically the merry-go-round stopped before it was his turn to get off. No hard feelings. Probably wasn't even in his hands.
He'll be an integral part of our team this season and I think we're all delighted to have kept hold of him. Onwards and upwards! |  | | |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:50 - Sep 3 with 5332 views | cjc |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:46 - Sep 3 by N12Hoop |
At the beginning of the statement it says that they couldn't reach a "suitable financial arrangement" and at the end it says it didn't happen because we couldn't arrange a sufficient alternative. Which is it? |
Hmmm thanks for the communication but they should have thought it through.
It sounds as though they didnt have cover so used the money issue as an excuse. |  |
| Where there is hoop there's the hoops. |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:50 - Sep 3 with 5326 views | Nov77 |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:46 - Sep 3 by N12Hoop |
At the beginning of the statement it says that they couldn't reach a "suitable financial arrangement" and at the end it says it didn't happen because we couldn't arrange a sufficient alternative. Which is it? |
I posted last night that the palace chairman was on talksport, he said the fee had been agreed, and they'd agreed a 3 year deal with Johnson, then at the last minute the 'goalposts were moved'.
My guess is a deal for crouch or a.n. other fell through and harry didn't want to leave us with just two fit strikers (well 1 plus Zamora). | |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:53 - Sep 3 with 5290 views | Nov77 |
Steve Parish has had a pop at QPR for "moving the goalposts" as Palace tried to secure a sensational return for Andy Johnson.
The 32-year-old striker, who scored 85 goals in 160 games for the Eagles between 2002 and 2007, had agreed to move back to SE25 on a three year deal.
But at the last minute the Hoops changed their minds, and the deal collapsed.
Parish told talkSPORT: “We thought we had an agreement on the player and a fee agreed but these things are very fraught. We felt the goalposts were moved at the last minute - that’s the feeling at the moment from the guys that worked on it.
“We were going to take Andy back on a three-year deal. We thought that would be very exciting for the fans, for me personally and for AJ - but it’s not to be.
“I think he’s happy to play for QPR - they’re a great club - but Palace and Andy’s relationship is special, isn’t it?"
It had a knock-on effect on Palace's other deals as they chased Arsenal's Nicklas Bendtner too, but that deal failed also, to round off a frustrating day for the Eagles.
http://www.fiveyearplanfanzine.co.uk/news/4539-qpr-moved-the-goalposts-as-crysta | |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:56 - Sep 3 with 5243 views | daveB |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:46 - Sep 3 by N12Hoop |
At the beginning of the statement it says that they couldn't reach a "suitable financial arrangement" and at the end it says it didn't happen because we couldn't arrange a sufficient alternative. Which is it? |
It's both
Pretty good move by the club to explain this |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Club statement on AJ on 11:59 - Sep 3 with 5219 views | adhoc_qpr |
So basically we pulled the plug because we couldn't get in a replacement?
Good! Madness if we hadn't, as there are no guarantees on who we'll be able to get on loan. |  | | |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:00 - Sep 3 with 5216 views | RblockPrior |
really glad the club have done this, was needed. I for 1 will still back Johnson 100% and believe he will give his all as well as being a vital member of our squad. I understand the reasons with what went on and drawing a line under it now, just hope idiots dont start to boo him for no reason |  |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:00 - Sep 3 with 5205 views | cjc |
| Club statement on AJ on 11:56 - Sep 3 by daveB |
It's both
Pretty good move by the club to explain this |
How can it be both. Its one or the other. | |
| Where there is hoop there's the hoops. |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:06 - Sep 3 with 5137 views | JonDoeman |
Just hope he stays fit now, and it isn't a case of:
:: 'Should've let him go to Palace'!!!!
Glad we pissed the Nigels off though, have to admit ;) |  |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:07 - Sep 3 with 5122 views | JonDoeman |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:00 - Sep 3 by cjc |
How can it be both. Its one or the other. |
No definitely both. | |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:09 - Sep 3 with 5113 views | RblockPrior |
fact is he is still us lets draw a line under it and cheer him and the other lads on | |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:18 - Sep 3 with 5039 views | daveB |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:00 - Sep 3 by cjc |
How can it be both. Its one or the other. |
It was both, we couldn't get a replacement and the price wasn't right. | | | |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:22 - Sep 3 with 5007 views | cjc |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:07 - Sep 3 by JonDoeman |
No definitely both. |
How could it be?
If they had a replacement it would be the money, if they didnt have replacement it would be that.
Its impossible to be both.
Are you saying they had no replacement so could not sell but also didnt agree the money when they wouldnt sell anyway because they had no replacement Or are you saying they had no replacement but would have sold if the money was right, which it wasnt
Hold on a minute i thought they said they wouldnt sell because they had no replacement .
Ah Its all clear now!
Can we get a statement on the statement please. [Post edited 3 Sep 2013 12:25]
| |
| Where there is hoop there's the hoops. |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:23 - Sep 3 with 4997 views | danehoop |
Or we couldn't get a replacement at a price that we were prepared to pay. Why sell off a proven asset at a price when the overall effect would be to increase your costs with little additional value. |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:25 - Sep 3 with 4977 views | Juzzie |
If QPR pulled out because we couldn't get a replacement in, then good. Sorry Palace but he's our player and it's our perogative. Don't go whining about goalposts being moved. It happenes all the time. |  | | |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:27 - Sep 3 with 4961 views | QPR_Jim |
It can be both. If they offered say 1.5m for Johnson and his replacement (Crouch/Defoe/Wells/etc) was going to cost 3m then we'd ring back Palace and say we'd need double the fee to buy in cover so you need to match that. Simple. Why should we lose a player and make a loss in replacing him just because Palace decide they couldn't sign their first, second or even third choice striking options so opted for AJ? |  | | |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:32 - Sep 3 with 4928 views | cjc |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:27 - Sep 3 by QPR_Jim |
It can be both. If they offered say 1.5m for Johnson and his replacement (Crouch/Defoe/Wells/etc) was going to cost 3m then we'd ring back Palace and say we'd need double the fee to buy in cover so you need to match that. Simple. Why should we lose a player and make a loss in replacing him just because Palace decide they couldn't sign their first, second or even third choice striking options so opted for AJ? |
Now you are assuming. In a court of law based on what we know from the statement there is no mention of that.
I see your point but don't think it was that.
Best to get Sherlock , Morse or the Met on the case. | |
| Where there is hoop there's the hoops. |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:35 - Sep 3 with 4903 views | QPR_Jim |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:32 - Sep 3 by cjc |
Now you are assuming. In a court of law based on what we know from the statement there is no mention of that.
I see your point but don't think it was that.
Best to get Sherlock , Morse or the Met on the case. |
Of course I'm guessing but you said "Its impossible to be both." I've just given a scenario where it would be possible to be both.
Only people inside the club will know what's gone on but we can't sit here and say they are lying when there are plausible explanations for why both may be true. | | | |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:37 - Sep 3 with 4878 views | cjc |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:35 - Sep 3 by QPR_Jim |
Of course I'm guessing but you said "Its impossible to be both." I've just given a scenario where it would be possible to be both.
Only people inside the club will know what's gone on but we can't sit here and say they are lying when there are plausible explanations for why both may be true. |
You are good at this lark. [Post edited 3 Sep 2013 12:38]
| |
| Where there is hoop there's the hoops. |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 12:47 - Sep 3 with 4812 views | YorkRanger |
I think that is a sensible, well intentioned statement by the Club to keep everyone onside. As ever some will try and find flaws in it, but I think we should move on from yesterday very satisfied indeed. |  | | |
| Club statement on AJ on 13:01 - Sep 3 with 4721 views | Stanisgod |
+1 Shut up, get over it  |  |
| It's being so happy that keeps me going. |
| |
| Club statement on AJ on 13:14 - Sep 3 with 4624 views | EalingRanger |
Good statement by the club. Nip this in the bud and get on with the serious business of promotion. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
