Sherwood, Pulis or Hoddle?

[stanistheman]

Moyes wouldn't come and the rest no thanks,, only 7 games in where is everyone's loyalty

Loyalty? how much crap football have fans endured under Redknapp? how many Premiership games have QPR struggled to compete in whilst he has been manager, let alone score a goal. 32 games as manager and 17 defeats.

[West London is Rss]

Spent millions doing it whilst playing horrible dirty unattractive long ball football

Sounds like us right now.. just without the established bit.....

[stanistheman]

Has Pulis ever won anything - I don't think so - what is the hype?
He has managed Bournemouth, Gillingham, Bristol City, Portsmouth, Stoke and Cr.Palace - non of the as big as QPR
Almost 60 years - old school
No thanks

Portsmouth and Stoke would have good reasons to say they are bigger than QPR and have some history too. Also I think Palace fans would also dispute which club is bigger.

[Nick]

Sounds like us right now.. just without the established bit.....

Exactly!

[Rangersw12]

Exactly!

So the plan is to do exactly the same as last time then

Hire an out of work manager who is a short term fix , spend loads of money in January and more than likely get relegated anyway..................brilliant

[Geng]

Has Pulis ever won anything - I don't think so - what is the hype?
He has managed Bournemouth, Gillingham, Bristol City, Portsmouth, Stoke and Cr.Palace - non of the as big as QPR
Almost 60 years - old school
No thanks

I'm not banging the drum for Pulis but this is shocking logic, exactly the sort of thinking that led to us signing Park, the Ferdinands and Bosingwa, and hiring Redknapp.

We want a manager who sees us as a step up, somewhere he is privileged to work, a job that will matter for his legacy.

So what if Pulis hasn't won a FA Cup yet? Maybe it would make him try a bit harder than someone who has....

[Nick]

So the plan is to do exactly the same as last time then

Hire an out of work manager who is a short term fix , spend loads of money in January and more than likely get relegated anyway..................brilliant

Think you've misinterpreted my post mate. My 'exactly' was because of reasons we 'shouldnt' bring Pulis here... I think if we bring in Pulis in we'll end up doing full circle in 2/3 seasons time and be back where we are now.... playing rubbish and looking for a new manager.

[West London is Rss]

So the plan is to do exactly the same as last time then

Hire an out of work manager who is a short term fix , spend loads of money in January and more than likely get relegated anyway..................brilliant

Mate, we're not saying it would be our number choice, appointing Pulis.. but I think what some are saying is that, for where we are now he is probably the man for the job.
It is a hard one though because I can see why some fans are comparing Redknapp to Pulis. It is a risk.

I'd love to have an Eddie Howe in as manager but right now where we are in the Prem, bottom of the league with premier league experienced players, I just don't think Eddie Howe is the answer to the group of players we have.. If we get relegated then my mind sight would totally change in to wanting an Eddie Howe.

[Rangersw12]

Mate, we're not saying it would be our number choice, appointing Pulis.. but I think what some are saying is that, for where we are now he is probably the man for the job.
It is a hard one though because I can see why some fans are comparing Redknapp to Pulis. It is a risk.

I'd love to have an Eddie Howe in as manager but right now where we are in the Prem, bottom of the league with premier league experienced players, I just don't think Eddie Howe is the answer to the group of players we have.. If we get relegated then my mind sight would totally change in to wanting an Eddie Howe.

But can people not see that this is exactly what we did last time and maybe a change of tact is the order of the day instead of just repeating the same mistakes over and over again

Howe would be an excellent choice but the board probably don't even know who he is and as for Premier League experience he will never get any unless he is given the chance

Anyway he isn't our sort of appointment leave the well run clubs to appoint decent managers

[diao84]

So the plan is to do exactly the same as last time then

Hire an out of work manager who is a short term fix , spend loads of money in January and more than likely get relegated anyway..................brilliant

Sounds like you have no faith in a man who has never been relegated?

Palace were in a much worse position than QPR are in. Look how he turned around their fortunes. He was at Stoke for 10 years so has proven that he is willing to do a long term rebuilding job. If it wasn't for the idiotic Palace chairman he would still be there now. So where does this short term fix come into everyone's thinking?

In the short term QPR can't afford to get relegated. So why turn down a man who's main strength is avoiding relegation?

[West London is Rss]

But can people not see that this is exactly what we did last time and maybe a change of tact is the order of the day instead of just repeating the same mistakes over and over again

Howe would be an excellent choice but the board probably don't even know who he is and as for Premier League experience he will never get any unless he is given the chance

Anyway he isn't our sort of appointment leave the well run clubs to appoint decent managers

I agree, it is what we did last time.. Pulis is a lot different from Redknapp though in many ways.
We don't know if it will be a mistake or not, it is a risk just as Eddie Howe or someone like that would be a risk.
I just think that Employing a younger manager RIGHT NOW like Howe, young with no prem experience, with the players we have and the current situation we are in, would seem more of a risk than Pulis.

As I say, if we go down then yes by all means that is the direction we should go.

[Rangersw12]

I agree, it is what we did last time.. Pulis is a lot different from Redknapp though in many ways.
We don't know if it will be a mistake or not, it is a risk just as Eddie Howe or someone like that would be a risk.
I just think that Employing a younger manager RIGHT NOW like Howe, young with no prem experience, with the players we have and the current situation we are in, would seem more of a risk than Pulis.

As I say, if we go down then yes by all means that is the direction we should go.

But surely we should be looking at the bigger picture rather than just this season

Pullis will be an awful appointment for the club long term and even if we stay up people will be fed up within 12 months of his appointment ala Redknapp

[Rangersw12]

Sounds like you have no faith in a man who has never been relegated?

Palace were in a much worse position than QPR are in. Look how he turned around their fortunes. He was at Stoke for 10 years so has proven that he is willing to do a long term rebuilding job. If it wasn't for the idiotic Palace chairman he would still be there now. So where does this short term fix come into everyone's thinking?

In the short term QPR can't afford to get relegated. So why turn down a man who's main strength is avoiding relegation?

And the fact he wanted a lot of money to spend and also players wouldn't go there because of his reputation in football

If people want Pullis then we might as well keep Redknapp

[diao84]

Who says you won't be fed up of Howe after 12 months?

Remember, Howe has never managed a big name player in his life. In fact, some of the big name players at QPR are older than he is. He hasn't got the playing career or managerial career to impress the players. He will walk onto the training pitch with no idea on how to improve or work with a group of top flight players. It's all well and good playing some 5 a side and having chips an egg for lunch. But will that stop Costa and Fabregas from running rings around QPR? Will it balls.

[diao84]

And the fact he wanted a lot of money to spend and also players wouldn't go there because of his reputation in football

If people want Pullis then we might as well keep Redknapp

How many players turned him down because of his reputation? Would love to see a list...

The Palace chairman wouldn't properly pursue the players Pulis really wanted. They could have signed Caulker a week before QPR did, but the chairman was too cautious to spend any money. Then the chairman kept trying to force Zaha on Pulis, where Pulis wanted to spend the budget on his own targets. Surprise surprise Zaha signs the day after Warnock takes control ;)

Every Premier League club spends money. You're making it sound like you need a manager who will only ever use free transfers.