| Kelman:Here We Go 19:14 - Jul 26 with 16176 views | Northolt_Rs |
|  |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |  |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:09 - Jul 28 with 1599 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 10:57 - Jul 28 by JamesB1979 |
He definitely wasn’t given a decent chance by any of the prior managers, both in position and minutes. But that’s a separate point. The fact that none of them wanted to give him much game time says a lot I think. |
It says more about Kelman 23’ than Kelman 25’ |  | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:11 - Jul 28 with 1592 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 15:57 - Jul 27 by kensalriser |
It still doesn't change the factors that influenced the decision because the future is unknown. The ability to sell Kelman and sign Burrell for a net gain was a known; right now, what's the likely marginal difference between Kelman and Burrell?
And you're ignoring the crucial factor - he didn't want to play for us. So we could have been stuck in a relegation battle with Kelman not featuring, no transfer fee receipt and no Burrell.
It's not just the right decision, it's the only rational decision. |
Has he stated he didn’t want to play for us? Seen this thrown round a lot but no evidence.
I see the clubs point of view, and won’t criticise the decision especially with the other lad coming in.
I predict a lot of hindsight in the future of this forum.. [Post edited 28 Jul 11:17]
| | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:16 - Jul 28 with 1537 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Fair enough. You are 100% right.
Thanks! | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:22 - Jul 28 with 1479 views | EastR |
Who was it that said previously that Kelman was 'the best finisher at the club'? |  |
| |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:24 - Jul 28 with 1475 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:22 - Jul 28 by EastR |
Who was it that said previously that Kelman was 'the best finisher at the club'? |
Les Ferdinand I think. | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:33 - Jul 28 with 1441 views | QPRSam |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 10:53 - Jul 28 by BazzaInTheLoft |
We should be measuring goals in minutes not games if we want a more accurate picture. |
Regardless of minutes no one was clamouring for Kelman to come back and be our starting striker after 3 goals in a season, it's a rewriting of history otherwise
Does Esox_Lucius agree or are we just downvoting all comments for no reason, just trying to talk football on a football forum here [Post edited 28 Jul 11:34]
| | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:39 - Jul 28 with 1401 views | Rangersw12 |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:33 - Jul 28 by QPRSam |
Regardless of minutes no one was clamouring for Kelman to come back and be our starting striker after 3 goals in a season, it's a rewriting of history otherwise
Does Esox_Lucius agree or are we just downvoting all comments for no reason, just trying to talk football on a football forum here [Post edited 28 Jul 11:34]
|
I'm very critical of the club at times but you can't knock them for anything they have done with Kelman imo
In fact have to give them a pat on the back for renewing his contract last summer when very few of us would have done so | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:48 - Jul 28 with 1362 views | QPRSam |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:39 - Jul 28 by Rangersw12 |
I'm very critical of the club at times but you can't knock them for anything they have done with Kelman imo
In fact have to give them a pat on the back for renewing his contract last summer when very few of us would have done so |
I agree completely. Trying to score points against the club for not involving him last season is so easy to do, but like I've said it's just pure hindsight. Just see the thread and upvoted comments from 18 months ago to see how we really thought about him
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/forum/305900/4886534/
"Why don't we just cut these players like any other club would. He's no good, we've had him for nearly 3 or 4 seasons now. What else can we possibly need to know about him. Luton have proved that there's gems out there."
"I don't want to be overly cruel but few things say 'we expect to be in the division below next season' like extending Charlie Kelman's contract."
"Only QPR could extend the contract of a striker who has a record of 0 goals in 26 appearances for us." | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:51 - Jul 28 with 1341 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:33 - Jul 28 by QPRSam |
Regardless of minutes no one was clamouring for Kelman to come back and be our starting striker after 3 goals in a season, it's a rewriting of history otherwise
Does Esox_Lucius agree or are we just downvoting all comments for no reason, just trying to talk football on a football forum here [Post edited 28 Jul 11:34]
|
This is true, I certainly wasn’t, but that was two years ago. Why is that the yardstick and not last season?
As I said above I’m not going to bash the club but it’s risky. [Post edited 28 Jul 11:51]
| | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:53 - Jul 28 with 1317 views | QPRSam |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:51 - Jul 28 by BazzaInTheLoft |
This is true, I certainly wasn’t, but that was two years ago. Why is that the yardstick and not last season?
As I said above I’m not going to bash the club but it’s risky. [Post edited 28 Jul 11:51]
|
The context is I was replying to TK1 who said the club fcked up for not keeping him to compete for starting striker last season. Obviously it would be different this season had he wanted to stay and extended his contract. | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:55 - Jul 28 with 1307 views | daveB |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:22 - Jul 28 by EastR |
Who was it that said previously that Kelman was 'the best finisher at the club'? |
Was Warburton although he hardly ever picked him, neither did any of the following managers
You'd hope that would change now and he'd get a chance a lot sooner |  | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:58 - Jul 28 with 1278 views | eastside_r |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:48 - Jul 28 by QPRSam |
I agree completely. Trying to score points against the club for not involving him last season is so easy to do, but like I've said it's just pure hindsight. Just see the thread and upvoted comments from 18 months ago to see how we really thought about him
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/forum/305900/4886534/
"Why don't we just cut these players like any other club would. He's no good, we've had him for nearly 3 or 4 seasons now. What else can we possibly need to know about him. Luton have proved that there's gems out there."
"I don't want to be overly cruel but few things say 'we expect to be in the division below next season' like extending Charlie Kelman's contract."
"Only QPR could extend the contract of a striker who has a record of 0 goals in 26 appearances for us." |
LOL
Glad I didn’t post on that thread. |  | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 12:13 - Jul 28 with 1204 views | themodfather |
as a club we need money, if we have to sell kelman, who few r's fans will have seen in hoops to maybe strengthen squad, i'll go with that .
just hope he never plays v us. | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 12:32 - Jul 28 with 1152 views | ed_83 |
Would have loved him to stay, and think he’ll do well for Charlton, but if he wasn’t going to sign a new contract then selling is absolutely the right call, and £3.5m is a great fee.
Possibly some questions about how we’ve handled his time here - could we have got him to his current level a bit sooner, and given ourselves more options? - but I think on balance, given what he’d shown prior to last season, there’s not too much you can criticise the club for here. | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 13:13 - Jul 28 with 985 views | TK1 |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 11:53 - Jul 28 by QPRSam |
The context is I was replying to TK1 who said the club fcked up for not keeping him to compete for starting striker last season. Obviously it would be different this season had he wanted to stay and extended his contract. |
I still think the club should've kept him last summer and sent Lloyd/Kolli out on loan instead (if anyone wanted them), have Kelman play the Lloyd role as back-up. I think Lloyd in particular needed that. Instead, we sometimes played without a striker - I did not enjoy that. Did you?
As I have said: I saw CK a couple of times in his first spell at Orient, thought he was poor. Would've let him leave, as I am just an idiot fan. However, Wellens - clearly a good judge and coach - saw something else and got him back. Good move by him and Os.
Nice to get money for him, but ultimately the money is all smoke and PR mirrors. Everyone is very interested in the bottom line, sell-ons and what-not - not so much myself, not since details are all a big secret to be kept from the plebs. Interesting to note that when players get sold, the fee gets leaked fairly clearly. When we buy players, it's often much more opaque.
Ultimately, we spent four years developing a striker into a £3 million player during a period we have not had a striker of any note. I like to watch the players the club develop at least play a few games in their position before selling them, otherwise I'll start supporting an estate agent.
Selling him is obviously the right thing, though, not disputing that. Good luck to him and us. | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 13:35 - Jul 28 with 899 views | Landshark |
There are lot of people on here that are a better spotter of talent than me. I would never have thought at this time last season that Kelman should be anywhere near first team.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. You know that if he had stuck around last season we would be having very different conversations about him currently, probably similar to how Celar is talked out.
I am happy with players coming to us for cheap, going out on loan and then selling on at a profit without making a dent in the first team. If we can do that with a few more players each season and use that money to reinvest then great. | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 13:57 - Jul 28 with 834 views | QPRSam |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 13:13 - Jul 28 by TK1 |
I still think the club should've kept him last summer and sent Lloyd/Kolli out on loan instead (if anyone wanted them), have Kelman play the Lloyd role as back-up. I think Lloyd in particular needed that. Instead, we sometimes played without a striker - I did not enjoy that. Did you?
As I have said: I saw CK a couple of times in his first spell at Orient, thought he was poor. Would've let him leave, as I am just an idiot fan. However, Wellens - clearly a good judge and coach - saw something else and got him back. Good move by him and Os.
Nice to get money for him, but ultimately the money is all smoke and PR mirrors. Everyone is very interested in the bottom line, sell-ons and what-not - not so much myself, not since details are all a big secret to be kept from the plebs. Interesting to note that when players get sold, the fee gets leaked fairly clearly. When we buy players, it's often much more opaque.
Ultimately, we spent four years developing a striker into a £3 million player during a period we have not had a striker of any note. I like to watch the players the club develop at least play a few games in their position before selling them, otherwise I'll start supporting an estate agent.
Selling him is obviously the right thing, though, not disputing that. Good luck to him and us. |
The striker rotation last year was horrible I agree, having to force Bennie Yang and Dembele up front wasn't enjoyable also agree. I'm just not upset at the club when it comes to the Kelman situation. We should've tried to get another striker (especially after Dykes left), but at the time no one would be saying that Kelman was the answer. I would've loved us to try Kelman for next season. If a developmental loan works and the player actually develops I want that to benefit QPR on the pitch. Ultimately he seems to be holding a grudge even despite a completely new management setup so I think we done what was best which was a great transfer fee we can use to buy multiple new players. Really excited about Burrell btw | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 14:07 - Jul 28 with 788 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 13:35 - Jul 28 by Landshark |
There are lot of people on here that are a better spotter of talent than me. I would never have thought at this time last season that Kelman should be anywhere near first team.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. You know that if he had stuck around last season we would be having very different conversations about him currently, probably similar to how Celar is talked out.
I am happy with players coming to us for cheap, going out on loan and then selling on at a profit without making a dent in the first team. If we can do that with a few more players each season and use that money to reinvest then great. |
Last paragraph 👍. We need to view loans as not just developing players for the the first team, but also for sale. | |
| |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 14:24 - Jul 28 with 715 views | NW5Hoop |
I had hoped we'd give him a go. But if he didn't want to stay – and it's hard to blame him – then we have obviously done the right thing. And £3.5m plus add-ons for a striker with one good season in the division below strikes me as a good bit of business: we've absolutely maximised the potential of that signing. which is what a club like this needs to do.
Look at this way. If he had in fact been a reasonable squad player for the last four seasons – say 30 goals in 100, which we would all think had been a good return on a punt from Southend – we would have been dancing in the street to get £3.5m for him. And that is *probably* what he'll turn out to be. [Post edited 28 Jul 14:26]
| | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 16:35 - Jul 28 with 461 views | QPR_John |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 14:24 - Jul 28 by NW5Hoop |
I had hoped we'd give him a go. But if he didn't want to stay – and it's hard to blame him – then we have obviously done the right thing. And £3.5m plus add-ons for a striker with one good season in the division below strikes me as a good bit of business: we've absolutely maximised the potential of that signing. which is what a club like this needs to do.
Look at this way. If he had in fact been a reasonable squad player for the last four seasons – say 30 goals in 100, which we would all think had been a good return on a punt from Southend – we would have been dancing in the street to get £3.5m for him. And that is *probably* what he'll turn out to be. [Post edited 28 Jul 14:26]
|
Does anybody know if there was a sell on clause when we bought him from Southend | | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 17:07 - Jul 28 with 341 views | LazyFan |
Last season, we sold two forwards, Dykes and Armstrong.
People were up in arms about these sales, yet Dykes was getting worse and worse stats wise, and Armstrong was not progressing (although he may still come good later, some strikers take longer than others).
These two sales netted 3.5m - 4.5m, depending on which rumour is correct. Not only that, but Dykes wages were one of the highest earners here as he signed a past contract when he did have a good stint. These sales have proven to be smart business as neither has cracked on since we transferred them.
Now, here we are again, getting almost the same monies for just one player, and we have a sneaky sell-on clause. Also Santos wages are off the books too. And Cooper if he plays regular, has a great L1 loan, which is only the division below.
If Ba comes in then Celar may be off and Nardi looks like he's on his way out as well (which I think is a mistake unless we can get big monies for him).
Now we just need to offload Madsen if we can or get him to run, I am not sure which is the harder ask. |  |
| |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 17:14 - Jul 28 with 322 views | Juzzie |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 16:35 - Jul 28 by QPR_John |
Does anybody know if there was a sell on clause when we bought him from Southend |
previous page states £750k. |  | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 17:14 - Jul 28 with 322 views | QPRSam |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 17:07 - Jul 28 by LazyFan |
Last season, we sold two forwards, Dykes and Armstrong.
People were up in arms about these sales, yet Dykes was getting worse and worse stats wise, and Armstrong was not progressing (although he may still come good later, some strikers take longer than others).
These two sales netted 3.5m - 4.5m, depending on which rumour is correct. Not only that, but Dykes wages were one of the highest earners here as he signed a past contract when he did have a good stint. These sales have proven to be smart business as neither has cracked on since we transferred them.
Now, here we are again, getting almost the same monies for just one player, and we have a sneaky sell-on clause. Also Santos wages are off the books too. And Cooper if he plays regular, has a great L1 loan, which is only the division below.
If Ba comes in then Celar may be off and Nardi looks like he's on his way out as well (which I think is a mistake unless we can get big monies for him).
Now we just need to offload Madsen if we can or get him to run, I am not sure which is the harder ask. |
You seem to have an agenda against Madsen or just really don't like him, why? He became one of our better players at the end of last season and was fine in the recent friendlies. One of the best creators in the squad. Someone who can actually pass through the lines. He's documented his personal struggles last season. Why are you continuing to slate him and write him off so easily? [Post edited 28 Jul 17:21]
| | | |
| Kelman:Here We Go on 17:51 - Jul 28 with 177 views | baz_qpr |
Watched a few Orient games last year because Kelman was there. He has definitely improved you can see some Gallen in him and some Austin. But he currently lacks Austins Nouse and heading ability and Gallens ability to read the game and what he lacks most strikingly is that yard of pace or extra strength that top forwards need at this level (and Celar also lacks)
I think it says a lot that its Charlton 2nd Favourites for relegation and not a very good team truth be told and not a top 10 or 15 side. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
