| Charlie 17:23 - Apr 25 with 9468 views | QPR_ARG |
I've seen a few tweets criticizing Charlie because he missed penalties vs. Hull and today.
Seen one saying: "I'm sorry for Charlie, but if he didn't miss those penalties, we wouldn't be there".
I'm seriously embarrassed by that kind of messages. The man himself felt the need to tweet apologising to QPR fans for his "shït penalty".
But I'd like to say two things:
1. We wouldn't be in the Premier League without his contribution last season.
2. We would be already relegated without his contribution this season.
I'm fully behind him and those who care and work hard for QPR.
PS: And why did I open Facebook and read this?
Steve Chamberlain‎QPR Fans
17 mins · Milton Keynes, United Kingdom ·
Charlie missing penalties so he can leave at the end of the season a bit cheaper/easier ? What do the conspiracy theorists reckon ?
FFS! [Post edited 25 Apr 2015 17:24]
|  | | |  |
| Charlie on 18:38 - Apr 27 with 1145 views | SpiritofGregory |
| Charlie on 14:11 - Apr 27 by danehoop |
Probably made your blood boil that we won at Wembley didn't it?.
Just think about that statement. We should have sacked him after our first win at Wembley since 1967 and gaining promotion to the Premier League at first time of asking.
Having done that much they felt it was worth keeping him and I think that the majority of chairman and owners would have done exactly that with Bagpuss. With hindsight we could have/shave have/might have done lots of things differently. But we didnt. The owners took a view based on the evidence that they had available at the time on what was likely to keep us up in the premiership. Tough call now, but at the time there was a case to do so.
I am not bagpuss' s number one fan, but this sort of revisionist nonsese is just typical of you SOG. |
I enjoyed Wembley, I didn't think that we'd end up making the same mistakes and end up on the brink of relegation again especially when we know that this time we are going to be on our knees if relegated.
We gained promotion by the skin of our teeth with the biggest budget in the Championship. It wasn't even a sub inspired by Harry that won it, it was Clint Hill who pointed out the obvious.
When Harry started mentioning re-signing the likes of Traore, Krancjar and Zamora and signing Rio that was our cue to kick his lazy arse out of the club.
In relation to the owners taking a decision based on the evidence at the time, it's a shame they didn't have the sense to change that decision when it became blatantly obvious to everyone that Harry wasn't up to the job especially when the likes of Pulis was available.
The fact of the matter is that Fernandes had no intention of sacking Harry, it was Harry who walked away having the last laugh. |  | | |
| Charlie on 06:02 - Apr 28 with 1047 views | californiahoop |
I have said all along that TF was afraid to sack the old git because of the media backlash.
His f@ciing knees, the man is a leach, if I where Bournemouth I would be very carefull, dangerous man!
Charlie should not have missed that pen, but I would not blame him for our relegation, it's saggy chops. |  | | |
| Charlie on 11:40 - Apr 29 with 980 views | W7Ranger |
| Charlie on 16:38 - Apr 27 by QPR1882 |
Not difficult
V West Ham we got 1 point but would have got 3 if he had scored
V Hull we got 0 points but would have got 1 if he had scored
1 + 3 = 4
For the record my original post was written at midnight after a day on the sauce and while i did not attend putting the blame on Charlie for us going down this year ( we all know Rednapp killed us ) i dont think he is titanium like a lot on here. |
????
Sorry but you're wrong there.
Against Hull we got no points. Had Charlie scored, we could have got 1 extra point.
Against West Ham we got 1 point. Had Charlie scored we could have got 2 extra points.
1 extra point (Hull) plus 2 extra points (West Ham) = 3 extra points.
Not 4 or 5pts. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
