By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Nourry answers questions on 01:14 - Feb 14 by LisbonR
I’ve followed this site, and occasionally contributed, for over a decade, but part of the reason I stopped checking the forums is the constant negativity. I genuinely don’t understand it. The club is in a much better position than it has been for quite some time, yet some people still feel the need to criticise and complain.
The criticism often feels less about substance and more about personal traits that have very little to do with the job itself. There’s a difference between healthy scrutiny and piling on, and at times it’s definitely tipped toward the latter by some.
The club is most definitely in a better position, and as much as some may not want to hear it, that is due to Nourry.
Is everything 100%? Nope, but I'll take this season over the past 4 seasons of utter dross. We have had good transfer windows, Academy upgrade to Tier 1, young players breaking through, sold for good money, ground is full, youngsters watching and we're still in with a shout of the playoffs despite the horrendous injury list.
I swear some want us to remain 16th forever because 'we're shyte but local'. Sod that. I want the PL and if that means Nourry annoys some while he helps get us there then I've no problem with him.
I'm wondering whether the club have ever looked into replacing the roofing with Polycarbonate (UV-Stabilized), with a cost in the region of £3m to £6m for a ground our size?
Maybe someone better informed than I could explain why not.
0
Nourry answers questions on 08:07 - Feb 14 with 1809 views
Nourry answers questions on 07:18 - Feb 14 by swisscottage
So I asked Gemini Deep Research Why do all the young players QPR have signed from Australia in the last few years all have the same agent - Matthew Moore? Is there a relationship between Moore and Christian Nourry(QPR CEO) or someone else at the club? Is there any potential conflict of interest in these deals ?
The following is the link to the report .. makes interesting reading if you go beneath the hyperbolic AI language. Nothing seemingly nefarious.
Thanks for doing this. Although some interesting information has been dug up by Gemini, it doesn't feel very satisfactory and I don't think an AI produced answer cuts the mustard.
If it's simply a niche market strategy, why did Nourry choose not to address the question in his Q&A while answering a number rather petty issues instead?
I'm not suggesting there's something 'nefarious' going on. Rather, I've questioned how this recruitment strategy can align with a data led approach?
0
Nourry answers questions on 08:21 - Feb 14 with 1766 views
The club is most definitely in a better position, and as much as some may not want to hear it, that is due to Nourry.
Is everything 100%? Nope, but I'll take this season over the past 4 seasons of utter dross. We have had good transfer windows, Academy upgrade to Tier 1, young players breaking through, sold for good money, ground is full, youngsters watching and we're still in with a shout of the playoffs despite the horrendous injury list.
I swear some want us to remain 16th forever because 'we're shyte but local'. Sod that. I want the PL and if that means Nourry annoys some while he helps get us there then I've no problem with him.
I'm not sure how we can say the club is in a better position. It's too early to say.
So far, we've spent a lot of money, in part financed by relatively big money transfers for players signed under the previous regime (Eze, Armstrong, Kelman), to get a few more points than we had last season. We're in our second consecutive season with a high number of players out with muscle injuries, we have probably the worst pitch in the division, and it's not possible for us to fully evaluate the club's transfer details due to the lack of openness in contract lengths and transfer fees.
Let's see where we are in two years time. That will tell us a lot. Hopefully everyone will agree with your first sentence then.
9
Nourry answers questions on 08:30 - Feb 14 with 1734 views
Nourry answers questions on 01:02 - Feb 14 by Hunterhoop
The real issue is that some of what he says is not the truth. He knows that. Some of us know that. If you aren’t willing to be honest on something relatively trivial (like the pitch and the cause of it being like it is), then what else are you willing to be dishonest on?
It always comes down to trust, not just competence for me. And then people leadership skills.
I don’t trust him because he has lied on a number of things (10 years in football, journalist at the guardian, pitch is due to a lack of sunlight, game model is just a loose vibe, wasn’t looking to exit Cifuentes, etc, etc), and from what I’ve heard his people leadership skills leave an awful lot to be desired too.
He has done some decent stuff, could do some great things, but he needs to build trust. How? Be authentic, be vulnerable, be open. When the workforce starts singing his praises, just like people did about Ollie, Power, etc, that will all give me more confidence. When he can handle questions, which aren’t pre-selected, in an open forum, that will give me confidence. When he can openly admit mistakes and communicate learnings from them, that will give me confidence. When people who have met him come away with more positive opinions of him than those who haven’t…that would give me some confidence.
But, everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs. And if you trust him, good luck to you. I hope your trust turns out to have been well placed and that I turn out to have been a pessimistic, cynical b*stard. Because I want the best for QPR.
I think this point about trust, and trust being built by telling the truth and being eroded when you don’t is important.
Go back to his first fans forum. He was asked why we don’t reveal contract lengths. His answer was competitive advantage and it’s now common practice among Championship clubs including Sheff Utd and Portsmouth. We were obviously going to check that against their official websites, and when we showed it wasn’t true that straight away makes me doubt the other things he’s said.
The pitch answer here is a really good example. On the face of it, fair enough. It’s been a dreadful winter of constant rain, cold, no sun, we know the pitch has historic issues on the Ellerslie Road side. I suspect 90% of you listen to that and think fair enough. However, there’s that little embellishment in there that Birmingham players came off after losing 2-1 in the 96th minute talking about how it was the best pitch they’d played on all season (hmmmm) and it deteriorated rapidly from there purely due to the weather, nothing else.
The problem he’s got with that answer is this interview with Mark Robins in August, where he says Stoke had been warned that the pitch had a problem, had been treated with an unspecified material, and that every item of clothing, footwear, person who had come into contact with it had to be cleaned thoroughly.
Now that was in August, during what the Met Office has down as the hottest, sunniest summer (1,622 hours of sunlight) in England ever.
The club is most definitely in a better position, and as much as some may not want to hear it, that is due to Nourry.
Is everything 100%? Nope, but I'll take this season over the past 4 seasons of utter dross. We have had good transfer windows, Academy upgrade to Tier 1, young players breaking through, sold for good money, ground is full, youngsters watching and we're still in with a shout of the playoffs despite the horrendous injury list.
I swear some want us to remain 16th forever because 'we're shyte but local'. Sod that. I want the PL and if that means Nourry annoys some while he helps get us there then I've no problem with him.
Who are these young players breaking through being sold for good money?
4
Nourry answers questions on 08:51 - Feb 14 with 1673 views
Thanks for doing this. Although some interesting information has been dug up by Gemini, it doesn't feel very satisfactory and I don't think an AI produced answer cuts the mustard.
If it's simply a niche market strategy, why did Nourry choose not to address the question in his Q&A while answering a number rather petty issues instead?
I'm not suggesting there's something 'nefarious' going on. Rather, I've questioned how this recruitment strategy can align with a data led approach?
What's the implied issue with leveraging an agent relationship to bring in a set of players from a particular market? Isn't a better question, what is the ongoing oversight of the transfer strategy by the board of directors?
They have said that Oz produces an "athletic profile" that they think can potentially thrive in the Championship. The answer to the Norway question suggested they weren't quite as athletic and that was data-led analysis!
Would this be a non-issue if one or two of them become successful Championship players in the next season?
The term "armchair critic" comes to mind when people have a go at the groundsman or the fitness team. Of course they know they need to improve those areas, but why would a manager come out and throw those employees under the bus? Just not reasonable or fair for continuous sniping or carping from the sidelines. Let the club manage through the issues and support their team.
I could be just as cynical and question why bloggers keep throwing these questions out into the public discourse, as it creates noise and traffic to their websites, ultimately generating income for them!
-1
Nourry answers questions on 08:51 - Feb 14 with 1670 views
We live in a 52/48 society now and everything is a culture war, even discussing a young, ambitious football administrator who has done some good work but also has a propensity to bullsht as evidenced in this Q&A.
So, the five years question was the best answer because he's right. Let's see. If we're better off than that 2019-20 QPR, with Eze, Chair, BOS, Manning, young Dickie, diags Barbet and co: OK, praise will be due. Ferdinand's last 12 months was bad, but the squad and club that he and Hoos had sent five years building only to be hijacked by Covid was more exciting in many respects than today's. Two years in is too soon.
But Nourry's only an administrator: here for a good time, not a long time. (We are here for the reverse, unfortunately).
In my life - and on off the top of my head - I can remember lots of knickers being twists about: Berlin, Blackburn, Davies, Russell, Beard and many others. Ultimately, they moved on and we forgot them. And the club remained the same.
Always more to be read from the owners' answers. But we've not heard from them for a long while...I am much less interested in Christian Nourry's five year plan than Ruben Gnanalingam's. And I'd swap an hour with Nourry for ten minutes with Richard Reilly.
7
Nourry answers questions on 09:35 - Feb 14 with 1555 views
Nourry answers questions on 08:51 - Feb 14 by rottcodd
What's the implied issue with leveraging an agent relationship to bring in a set of players from a particular market? Isn't a better question, what is the ongoing oversight of the transfer strategy by the board of directors?
They have said that Oz produces an "athletic profile" that they think can potentially thrive in the Championship. The answer to the Norway question suggested they weren't quite as athletic and that was data-led analysis!
Would this be a non-issue if one or two of them become successful Championship players in the next season?
The term "armchair critic" comes to mind when people have a go at the groundsman or the fitness team. Of course they know they need to improve those areas, but why would a manager come out and throw those employees under the bus? Just not reasonable or fair for continuous sniping or carping from the sidelines. Let the club manage through the issues and support their team.
I could be just as cynical and question why bloggers keep throwing these questions out into the public discourse, as it creates noise and traffic to their websites, ultimately generating income for them!
In terms of the question I raised to Nourry, I'm not implying anything. I ask a straight forward question: How does a data led recruitment strategy end up bringing in 4 young Aussies, 3 of whom are represented by the same agency (as did Smith) and 3 of whom played for the same team?
Although Nourry mentions superior physical attributes and lower costs, there has to be other elements involved. Perth Glory and Australia cannot be the only club and country that meet the requirements of QPR's recruitment strategy.
6
Nourry answers questions on 09:39 - Feb 14 with 1544 views
Nourry answers questions on 01:14 - Feb 14 by LisbonR
I’ve followed this site, and occasionally contributed, for over a decade, but part of the reason I stopped checking the forums is the constant negativity. I genuinely don’t understand it. The club is in a much better position than it has been for quite some time, yet some people still feel the need to criticise and complain.
The criticism often feels less about substance and more about personal traits that have very little to do with the job itself. There’s a difference between healthy scrutiny and piling on, and at times it’s definitely tipped toward the latter by some.
But is the club really in a better position?
If you base your opinion just on league position then yes we're doing well. And we're even scoring a few goals, so happy days.
But recent history shows that Barnsley and Huddersfield both made the playoffs one season only to be deep in a relegation scrap the following season. Barnsley went down and Huddersfield were only reprieved for one season by Neil Warnock working his magic on them.
There's far more to the health of the club than just one good season in the top half of the league table.
You might say we have made good signings, and some of them do look promising. But there have been flops, and the jury is still out on a lot of the players Nourry has recruited. Not to mention significant concerns at GK, FB, and CM that still haven't been fully addressed.
The key to our long term success is trading players. But that's only going to work if we can keep those players healthy.
The chronic injury problems are a serious concern that could completely derail our whole model of player trading.
A lot of money has been spent bringing in players on long term contracts. In the short term that gives us wriggle room but puts us under significant pressure to start selling players at a profit in the next couple of seasons.
If we can't keep our players fit we are going to be snookered. A couple of months ago Burrell was looking like the bargain of the season, a player guaranteed to bring in some serious wedge. Now he's on the sidelines, is unlikely to be sold this summer, and will need to come back very strong next season before anyone will take a risk on him.
Questions about the state of the pitch and the health of the players are legitimate questions. And they can only be brushed aside for so long.
I would agree with you that there has been some negativity and suspicion on here towards Nourry. But when someone rises without trace into a public facing role they appear not to have the experience for then that scepticism is inevitable.
But I would also say that even Nourry's sternest critics on here have been happy to acknowledge that he has done some things well.
So it's not just blind prejudice towards Nourry because of his background or his accent. he does get credit for doing some things well, but that doesn't mean there can't be scrutiny of anything he does.
[Post edited 14 Feb 11:14]
6
Nourry answers questions on 10:00 - Feb 14 with 1475 views
Nourry answers questions on 08:51 - Feb 14 by rottcodd
What's the implied issue with leveraging an agent relationship to bring in a set of players from a particular market? Isn't a better question, what is the ongoing oversight of the transfer strategy by the board of directors?
They have said that Oz produces an "athletic profile" that they think can potentially thrive in the Championship. The answer to the Norway question suggested they weren't quite as athletic and that was data-led analysis!
Would this be a non-issue if one or two of them become successful Championship players in the next season?
The term "armchair critic" comes to mind when people have a go at the groundsman or the fitness team. Of course they know they need to improve those areas, but why would a manager come out and throw those employees under the bus? Just not reasonable or fair for continuous sniping or carping from the sidelines. Let the club manage through the issues and support their team.
I could be just as cynical and question why bloggers keep throwing these questions out into the public discourse, as it creates noise and traffic to their websites, ultimately generating income for them!
Ooof, well shots fired there. I guess the theme of the thread is people are entitled to their point of view, and you’re certainly welcome to draw that conclusion of me. Before I leave and enjoy my Saturday I’d leave you with three ripostes if I may.
1 - LFW has been around 21 years. We managed to scrape through 19 of those without having Christian’s contradictions to point out. We’re doing fine.
2 - I absolutely HATE criticising QPR. They’re my club, I love them, I want them to do well more than anything else in the not important bit of my life. You don’t know me so you won’t know this, but when I do write pieces like the one after Paul Furlong was sacked it brings me out in hives, I sit on the train to Blackburn having a borderline panic attack. It does nothing for me personally, for my role here, or my relationship with the club to criticise them. It causes me exponentially more hassle that I don’t need. IMO though, sometimes it’s necessary. You may disagree but please don’t believe it’s done willy nilly, for clout, or more money.
3 - Hunter’s point. The people with the greatest reservations (and that’s all they are, I agree things are improving on the pitch) are frequently the people who’ve had to meet with and deal with Christian. That, inevitably, includes the bloggers/podcasters because we’re in most of the meetings.
This post has been edited by an administrator
17
Nourry answers questions on 10:23 - Feb 14 with 1431 views
Well I am sure that we are all aware of the concept of confirmation bias and I think we see it demonstrated here on this thread. So I will be completely honest and say that I struggle to approach this with a completely open mind.
1. However, what I will say is that it is better that Nourry is doing things such as this, than not doing them.
2. He actually speaks well and there does not appear to be a lot on ‘in-answer’ editing and he appears to know his brief and speaks without reference to notes.
3. His thoughts and actions about the Lower School End are very much a good thing.
4. I can see what attracted the board to employing him, presumably from their experience when he was acting as a consultant.
5. This was much better than I was expecting.
I have made a real effort not to caveat my positives here, although I was tempted to do so.
Despite all this I still have my reservations and others better positioned than me, with more inside knowledge and perhaps more eloquently have already put the counter arguments. (E.g. Clive and Hunter's posts above.)
3
Nourry answers questions on 10:55 - Feb 14 with 1341 views
Nourry answers questions on 20:39 - Feb 13 by hubble
The anti-Nourry sentiment runs deep on this site, less so elsewhere. People have expressed dislike for him based on his accent, his background, how he looks, how he expresses himself, what he does or doesn't say... a lot of judgement, a lot of suspicion about his motives. Personally I think the guy's doing a decent job and deserves a break from the undercurrent of hostility.
[Post edited 13 Feb 20:39]
I think so too - The club is heading in the right direction. Of course he is not going to get everything right but I believe he has put us on the right track.
A very intelligent, hard working CEO.
0
Nourry answers questions on 11:01 - Feb 14 with 1317 views
Nourry answers questions on 10:23 - Feb 14 by eastside_r
Well I am sure that we are all aware of the concept of confirmation bias and I think we see it demonstrated here on this thread. So I will be completely honest and say that I struggle to approach this with a completely open mind.
1. However, what I will say is that it is better that Nourry is doing things such as this, than not doing them.
2. He actually speaks well and there does not appear to be a lot on ‘in-answer’ editing and he appears to know his brief and speaks without reference to notes.
3. His thoughts and actions about the Lower School End are very much a good thing.
4. I can see what attracted the board to employing him, presumably from their experience when he was acting as a consultant.
5. This was much better than I was expecting.
I have made a real effort not to caveat my positives here, although I was tempted to do so.
Despite all this I still have my reservations and others better positioned than me, with more inside knowledge and perhaps more eloquently have already put the counter arguments. (E.g. Clive and Hunter's posts above.)
I don't agree with your second point.
I haven't met him but in most of what I have seen of him he has not come across as a good communicator. He has always seemed very guarded and calculating in his responses.
Maybe he has been working on that. And if he has then that is a good thing. I think it is important for the CEO of a community organisation like QPR to be a confident and natural communicator.
1
Nourry answers questions on 12:56 - Feb 14 with 1159 views
Great read, for so many reasons. So from my experience of leading a far larger business I would say there is an element of you can’t do right for doing wrong and vice versa. Harder for him as he has to satisfy not only employees but the amazing fanbase. From my personal experience and peers there is the obvious of not wanting to do a bad job, I really feel his motivation and decision making is for the right reason. We might not agree with his actions but believe they are made with the right intentions. We are in a better place as far as squad strength, win against Wrexham and I reckon there would be less criticism as we would be top 6. Heston, him representing us on the council, selling Dykes, Kelman and Armstrong for decent money massively ticks a box for me. I’m less on the fence than many. Clive ignore the rubbish, podcast yesterday was right up there with the best.
Andy
3
Nourry answers questions on 13:03 - Feb 14 with 1151 views
Of course, Nourry seems to have done some good things in his role here, but I genuinely don't understand how people can just shrug off the known untruths that have come from him. Then again, I felt the same way about Boris Johnson and lots of people voted for him despite his open and shameless lies.
3
Nourry answers questions on 14:03 - Feb 14 with 1051 views
Isn't the truth here that Nourry has done more good than bad when you lay it all out on paper but his approach to handling communication and building trust with the fans is terrible.
Boils down to what you want from the club at the end of the day. He's probably got us on a better track for anyone in the "premier league or nothing" cohort, but people that want to just go to the games, feel good about the club and the hands it's in regardless of division or anything else are going to be disappointed because the transparency and trustworthiness are non existent and it's hard to be comfortable with that approach
1
Nourry answers questions on 14:19 - Feb 14 with 1009 views
Nourry answers questions on 08:32 - Feb 14 by Northernr
Who are these young players breaking through being sold for good money?
I did put a comma. I meant we have sold for good money, not necessarily youngsters. £3m or circa for Kelman is pretty good going. Plus Armstrong. We still need a big, big sale though.
I know not everything is 100% and things should be questioned, but having people posting on here that Nourry has a face they want to slap is bang out of order. I think it's only right that people push back on that and point out the good as well.
I did put a comma. I meant we have sold for good money, not necessarily youngsters. £3m or circa for Kelman is pretty good going. Plus Armstrong. We still need a big, big sale though.
I know not everything is 100% and things should be questioned, but having people posting on here that Nourry has a face they want to slap is bang out of order. I think it's only right that people push back on that and point out the good as well.
Sales of players who were brought in under the previous DoF.
4
Nourry answers questions on 18:09 - Feb 14 with 851 views
The club is most definitely in a better position, and as much as some may not want to hear it, that is due to Nourry.
Is everything 100%? Nope, but I'll take this season over the past 4 seasons of utter dross. We have had good transfer windows, Academy upgrade to Tier 1, young players breaking through, sold for good money, ground is full, youngsters watching and we're still in with a shout of the playoffs despite the horrendous injury list.
I swear some want us to remain 16th forever because 'we're shyte but local'. Sod that. I want the PL and if that means Nourry annoys some while he helps get us there then I've no problem with him.
"I swear some want us to remain 16th forever because 'we're shyte but local'.
I'm sorry but I simply don't believe any Rangers fan wants unending mediocrity.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
2
Nourry answers questions on 18:44 - Feb 14 with 814 views
I did put a comma. I meant we have sold for good money, not necessarily youngsters. £3m or circa for Kelman is pretty good going. Plus Armstrong. We still need a big, big sale though.
I know not everything is 100% and things should be questioned, but having people posting on here that Nourry has a face they want to slap is bang out of order. I think it's only right that people push back on that and point out the good as well.
Yes I agree . That sort of post is just pathetic. I didn’t see that but that should be shut down immediately. But the flip side of that is those who choose to try and bat away on his behalf, every basic question of CN .
Certain person on here keeps suggesting that fans of Sam Field are like a cult. Well, defending CN sometimes is a good thing . But defending him on everything is bordering on something similar .
1
Nourry answers questions on 20:39 - Feb 14 with 722 views
"The club is most definitely in a better position."
An interesting perspective. Compared to when?
Nourry has just had his two year anniversary at the club.
Two years after Les Ferdinand became DOF - in somewhat more trying circumstances, but it's all relative - QPR lost 0-2 at home to Brentford. The result left QPR 13th in the Championship.
Today, two years after Christian Nourry assumed the role, QPR lost 1-3 at home to Blackburn. The result left QPR 13th in the Championship.
Vibes are important (and not great today) but facts are facts. Ten years on, same old QPR. Some nice players. Also, holes throughout the squad and no owner in the directors box. Doesn't matter who does the fan Q&A and what they say, not really.
4
Nourry answers questions on 20:55 - Feb 14 with 687 views
"The club is most definitely in a better position."
An interesting perspective. Compared to when?
Nourry has just had his two year anniversary at the club.
Two years after Les Ferdinand became DOF - in somewhat more trying circumstances, but it's all relative - QPR lost 0-2 at home to Brentford. The result left QPR 13th in the Championship.
Today, two years after Christian Nourry assumed the role, QPR lost 1-3 at home to Blackburn. The result left QPR 13th in the Championship.
Vibes are important (and not great today) but facts are facts. Ten years on, same old QPR. Some nice players. Also, holes throughout the squad and no owner in the directors box. Doesn't matter who does the fan Q&A and what they say, not really.
As Carlton Ridenour might say 'don't believe the hype'!
2
Nourry answers questions on 21:08 - Feb 14 with 652 views
I did put a comma. I meant we have sold for good money, not necessarily youngsters. £3m or circa for Kelman is pretty good going. Plus Armstrong. We still need a big, big sale though.
I know not everything is 100% and things should be questioned, but having people posting on here that Nourry has a face they want to slap is bang out of order. I think it's only right that people push back on that and point out the good as well.
So we got good money for the players inherited from the prior “dire” regime?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
