| Same old QPR, new and improved — Preview on 15:54 - Apr 10 with 837 views | Dean |
I have no inside information on the issue but my thoughts on Leistner being sub lately rings the sort of alarm bells that occur when a player has been promised an improved contract if they make a certain amount of start's, which would would make sense as the board definitely won't want to be improving his already generous contract (20k a week apparently?). I can't see any other reason |  | |  |
| Same old QPR, new and improved — Preview on 16:13 - Apr 10 with 783 views | Northernr |
| Same old QPR, new and improved — Preview on 15:54 - Apr 10 by Dean |
I have no inside information on the issue but my thoughts on Leistner being sub lately rings the sort of alarm bells that occur when a player has been promised an improved contract if they make a certain amount of start's, which would would make sense as the board definitely won't want to be improving his already generous contract (20k a week apparently?). I can't see any other reason |
I've heard that on here already and it just doesn't add up for me. You sign a guy on a three year contract and make him captain, but you include a clause that if he plays 40+ games in the first season of that deal it somehow gets bigger?
I mean, we are fcking mental, so maybe, but I don't see it.
Also, if it is the case, does that mean they've decixded they don't want him around already as well? |  | | |
| Same old QPR, new and improved — Preview on 16:23 - Apr 10 with 757 views | JAPRANGERS |
Thanks Clive, a pleasure to read as always!
Hope I can wake up here on Thursday morning to see that we actually, you know, won a match. 
But I guess not...... |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
