Tweet
I'll take £2m for a striker that cost us £750,000 about three years ago. Smart business. Why not one of the young strikers from the youth, like that Parker chap? He's wicked!
-
-
It's only smart business if you replace him with a better player for less money. If you sell for £2m and replace him with a striker of no better quality for £2m or more then it is bad business. There aren't many strikers out there who are cheaper than £2m and better than Blackstock.Originally posted by alexferguson60 View Post
Bristol City paid Crewe £2.2m for Maynard who has fewer goals than Blackstock this season.Comment
-
-
It is smart business, and lets not forget this club cant exactly be making our owners much money at the moment!! Infact id be willing to bet the probably wont make any profit out of us unless we get to the prem.
Wasnt Dexter 500,000??....Thing is imo though weve def had worse stirkers at this club, and id rather we sold agyemang, and HH than i would get rid of dex, but then again im not the one loseing millions of pounds at the moment!! Cant blame them.Cant believe it, ive been PWOPER MUGGED ORF...Comment
-
I agree that £2M is a decent offer and would be a good profit. However, QPR will probably need to buy another striker who will be cheaper in wages, yet may score more goals - not easy.
I would like to sell Agyemang and Helgusson too and QPR might be able to recoup £500k to add to the £3M from Forest for Blackstock and perhaps, Camp.
They can be replaced by Matt Derbyshire, Chris Cox and maybe even Kris Boyd. These deals wouldn't save the club any money, in fact would cost the club an extra £3M, but are more likely to provide the team with the goals to win promotion, which is surely main QPR's target.Comment
Comment