Sensible Debate On Sporting Directors/Player Buys

[writtler]

True and the answer is suitably qualified ones are fine for football - ex agents masquerading as sporting directors are questionable.

[qprjim]

qprjim wrote
but GP has no experience as a sporting director.

He has been involved in player transfers for around 25 years, tell me why exactly he is not proven in buying players?

Common Peter GP was an agent, someone who touts players around in the aim of getting them contracts and X amount of comission for himself in the back pocket.

A sporting director is someone who should have an in-depth knowledge of football and is able to identify players who will improve the squad, and succesfully negotiate a reasonalble price and fair contract.

[ginoqpr]

gp as been close to 2y whit the new regime
and very luckly 2 more at list so they most trust gp
so relax i have no problem with gp
i am more concern about crystal palace on sat week

[PeterG]

"To be fair, this is a debate on sporting directors in general and whether they are good for football. "

Actually to be fair the debate has been more about GP suitability to be the sporting director, a debate which you engaged in quite happilly a few pages along DFE etc but the valid points raised by myself, writtler and others have not been answered and now you throw up the line at the top!

it would seem that on this occasion the debate has been won fairly conclusively by those suggesting that GP is not a good choice for sporting director. Unless you have anything further to add?

[ginoqpr]

peterg
please explain your conclusion on the verdict
did you have a privare meting with FB and BE + M

[Nodge70]

Common Peter GP was an agent, someone who touts players around in the aim of getting them contracts and X amount of comission for himself in the back pocket.

A sporting director is someone who should have an in-depth knowledge of football and is able to identify players who will improve the squad, and succesfully negotiate a reasonalble price and fair contract.

Perfect summary. Nail on head, fact etc etc.......

[PeterG]

End off

[IsleworthRanger]

End off

Why is that then?

I have still to hear any conclusive evidence that GP is doing any harm to QPR?

[writtler]

and we're yet to hear of any conclusive evidence of what actual good he is doing in his position of Sporting Director.

[IsleworthRanger]

and we're yet to hear of any conclusive evidence of what actual good he is doing in his position of Sporting Director.

So how is this debate closed then?

[NewCrossHoop]

Doesn't seem tome that there has been much of a debate.

Those who defend GP refuse to offer any insight into what his qualifications for the job are

[IsleworthRanger]

Doesn't seem tome that there has been much of a debate.

Those who defend GP refuse to offer any insight into what his qualifications for the job are

Not quite sure why they should to be honest as the attack came from those opposed to him.

I am still waiting for some hard factual evidence on why my opinion should be swayed rather then the tired of flashbacks regurgitated from 2007-2008 when QPR wan in a completely different era.

[PeterG]

I best wanted to get an END OFF in really because i am often on the other side of it

If you read back you will see that the old references were started by GP advocates with the argument that he "savedthe club" arguments which have no merit in terms of the debate about sporting director role and gp' suitability for it.

we could of course go through the whole thing again but some positions are entrenched on the subject so there is probably little point.

The only offering suggesting GP is a good sporting director is that he has 25 years experience of being a players agent, the only thing of value i can surmise from that (and i have to because it has not yet been put forward as a argument) is the "poacher turned gamekeeper" argument. Very few poachers actually make good gamekeepers though because the skillset and knowledge needed to run a country estate is very different from that needed to trap the odd pheasant.

[IsleworthRanger]

I best wanted to get an END OFF in really because i am often on the other side of it

If you read back you will see that the old references were started by GP advocates with the argument that he "savedthe club" arguments which have no merit in terms of the debate about sporting director role and gp' suitability for it.

we could of course go through the whole thing again but some positions are entrenched on the subject so there is probably little point.

The only offering suggesting GP is a good sporting director is that he has 25 years experience of being a players agent, the only thing of value i can surmise from that (and i have to because it has not yet been put forward as a argument) is the "poacher turned gamekeeper" argument. Very few poachers actually make good gamekeepers though because the skillset and knowledge needed to run a country estate is very different from that needed to trap the odd pheasant.

Fair enough Peter and I always enjoy debating issues with you but I agree this subject just goes round in circles and no side ever really makes a defining and decisive point to actually sway those firmly in either camp to their point of view hence the occasionals indults etc that occur though never from you I hasten to add.

[NewCrossHoop]

Is a sporting directors role simply procuring players and negotiating terms?

I was under the impression that the role encompassed a far larger remit including implementing a strategy for developing players from the youth system up to the first team.

How are we progressing? Are we any nearer to gaining academy status?