Hard to see any progress for the forseeable future

[Ian Royal]

I'd say Doyle going for more than he would have if he does go is certainly progress by it's very definition.

It also shows it is far from the foregone conclusion many thought it was that he'll go. Not that I'm saying he won't, because that's not possible to know for certain.

Does that answer your point AP?

To an extent yep, I wouldn't say selling him would mean progress although the profit would be absolutely huge, selling one of if not the best player doesn't represent progress for me.

However 2nd point totally agree with. Surprising but pleasing news today that none of us were expecting.

I'd say it's hard to see whether the act of selling him would allow for progress or not. Depends on replacements.
But my point, probably badly put, was that if he's going to be sold now, he'd have been sold without the new contract anyway. So it is progress that, should it happen, we are now likley to get more money than we would have if he hadn't just signed a new deal.

Basically at worst we'll get more money now than if today hadn't happened. That is progress. Not necessarily of a kind people want or meant, but still progress.

[Sun Tzu]

The original post has been made to look silly enough, I don't think anyone 'crowing' can be made to look half as silly....


The news of Doyle's signing can only be a good thing, it makes no difference to what price we might get for him if he goes but it is a very positive statement from him and the club.

thats not true

price is dependant on length of contract left to serve

How so ?

Price is surely dependent on a number of things - the need / ability to pay of the interested club, the number of interested clubs, the ability / uniqueness of the player. How long there is left on a player's contract would be a tiny factor in determining price I would think. Even if in the instance of Lita a player is right at the end of his contract if a club desperately needs a goalscorer in Januray they would still pay a hefty fee to get him as waiting until June to get him fo rnothing would be of littl euse to them.

[brendywendy]

The original post has been made to look silly enough, I don't think anyone 'crowing' can be made to look half as silly....


The news of Doyle's signing can only be a good thing, it makes no difference to what price we might get for him if he goes but it is a very positive statement from him and the club.

thats not true

price is dependant on length of contract left to serve

How so ?

Price is surely dependent on a number of things - the need / ability to pay of the interested club, the number of interested clubs, the ability / uniqueness of the player. How long there is left on a player's contract would be a tiny factor in determining price I would think. Even if in the instance of Lita a player is right at the end of his contract if a club desperately needs a goalscorer in Januray they would still pay a hefty fee to get him as waiting until June to get him fo rnothing would be of littl euse to them.

hang on sunshine!
you cant just change the constraints on the discussion when you lose you know, no one said anything about degrees of dependancy.

i just said it was a factor

and as for the example used- no one will pay more for lita in jan, not because they dont desperately need him, but because they know we will desperately want to sell, as everyone knows hell be free in three months anyway

[Sun Tzu]

Sorry Wendy - wasn't aware I'd 'lost' anything !!!

You've not explained why having 30 months rather than 18 months on a contract would up the price, and I'd kind of respectfully suggest that you've shifted your ground as well !

I'm not at all convinced contract length has any major impact on transfer fee, and in the absence of anyone explaining why it does I'll carry on believing that.

You miss the point re Lita. If (say) QPR are still searching for a goalscorer and they think having one will make the difference ebtween getting promoted or not then they will pay for him. To take the view that they could get him for free in June makes no sense as his impact on their promotion chances would be negligible come June. Now if at the same time (say) Bolton are desperate for goals to stay up and decide they also need a goalscorer then equally waiting until June to get him for nothing is not an option. For each 1, 2 or even 3 million would be a tiny price to pay compared to the prize at stake. The price woul dbe all about what he is worth to them and not about how long his ocntract is or whether we want to cash in. On the other hand if the only offer we get is a speculative punt from mid table Norwich of 500k you may be right and we'd have to sell him for that or lose him for nothing. There would be no mileage in telling Norwich to up their bid to a million....

[Gus the teenage cow]

sun tzu is behindu

[readingbedding]

sun tzu is behindu

Keep up.

[PEARCEY]

sun tzu is behindu

Keep up.

Alias Roger The Rabbit of course

[SpaceCruiser]

To an extent yep, I wouldn't say selling him would mean progress although the profit would be absolutely huge, selling one of if not the best player doesn't represent progress for me.

What if we did sell for a huge amount of dosh and managed to sign a much better forward for less money?

Although I think it's extremely unlikely because clubs would see that we sold him for large amounts of cash and would want lots of money for their own player. Catch 22.

[Alan Partridge]

To an extent yep, I wouldn't say selling him would mean progress although the profit would be absolutely huge, selling one of if not the best player doesn't represent progress for me.

What if we did sell for a huge amount of dosh and managed to sign a much better forward for less money?

Although I think it's extremely unlikely because clubs would see that we sold him for large amounts of cash and would want lots of money for their own player. Catch 22.

That is highly unlikely in all honesty.

[brendywendy]

All im saying is is that if a contract extensìon adds ten percent to a players worth its pretty significant whether its lita on his last year or doyle adding time to his contract. And id say ten percent is a fair estimate. Though that is based on nowt but opinion.

But a price increase will make some difference to any prospective deal.

[Dirk Gently]

Never forget that it won't just be the length of contract that will have changed - it'll be the other terms of contract. I'd not be at all surprised if we've increased his money and the size of any promotion bonus, and maybe tinkered with the release clause as well.

I see this as the club proactively getting ready for January by making the club more attractive for KD to stay at. And I find the fact that they've done this - and that he has agreed to it - to be tremendously encouraging.

We may not be able to keep him in January, but this proves that the club are - well in advance of January - committing the financial effort to try and keep him.

[Sun Tzu]

All im saying is is that if a contract extensìon adds ten percent to a players worth its pretty significant whether its lita on his last year or doyle adding time to his contract. And id say ten percent is a fair estimate. Though that is based on nowt but opinion.

Wendy that's fair enough, but I still haven't seen an explanation of WHY a club would pay more for a player with 2.5 years on their deal than they would for a player with 18 months left.

I can see that IF it adds 10% then it's significant, but why should it ? It's not like a player is a perishable commodity (not when they are in the twenties at least). I can see that a selling club may think that losing a player who has a long time left on a contract means they should get more 'compensation' but transfer deals are never really talked about in terms of buying up contracts.

It's not supposed to be an arguement, more a question ! Doyle's new deal should make him happier to stay with us, it might mean we can make more money because he won;t push for a move so we can resist lower offers.

[Royal Rother]

We may not be able to keep him in January,

Why not? We don't need to sell him to raise money as we're not skint - and he is obviously happy here otherwise he wouldn't have signed a new contract.

I (and one or two others) have gone against the tide of opinion and said all season long that it seemed far from a foregone conclusion we would sell him (or Hunt) in January; this news has made it almost certain we won't sell Doyle, surely?

[SpaceCruiser]

To an extent yep, I wouldn't say selling him would mean progress although the profit would be absolutely huge, selling one of if not the best player doesn't represent progress for me.

What if we did sell for a huge amount of dosh and managed to sign a much better forward for less money?

Although I think it's extremely unlikely because clubs would see that we sold him for large amounts of cash and would want lots of money for their own player. Catch 22.

That is highly unlikely in all honesty.

Did you just repeat what I said in my second paragraph without reading it?

[The 17 Bus]

We may not be able to keep him in January,

Why not? We don't need to sell him to raise money as we're not skint - and he is obviously happy here otherwise he wouldn't have signed a new contract.

I (and one or two others) have gone against the tide of opinion and said all season long that it seemed far from a foregone conclusion we would sell him (or Hunt) in January; this news has made it almost certain we won't sell Doyle, surely?

this has all ended up on the wrong thread, but hey.

What it means is that RFC have spoken to Doyle PRIOR to any bids being on the table from other clubs, it means that IF a bid comes in in Jan, he will already have one hell of a deal, and we will not need to fight to keep him, as our deal is already there, anyone would really have to up the anty now.

I still do not see Villa needing Doyle, however, it may be in their interests to have him rather than see him go to Spurs or Everton (player they failed to sign on deadline day after selling Johnson???) £10m plus a wage of over £2m a year I would say is about the get out clause at a guess.

[Dirk Gently]

We may not be able to keep him in January,

Why not? We don't need to sell him to raise money as we're not skint - and he is obviously happy here otherwise he wouldn't have signed a new contract.

I (and one or two others) have gone against the tide of opinion and said all season long that it seemed far from a foregone conclusion we would sell him (or Hunt) in January; this news has made it almost certain we won't sell Doyle, surely?

FWIW I personally think he'll stay, and this move further reinforces it. But the essential point is that in today's football if another club was determined to buy him we couldn't stop it. There's no way we would - or could - compete with the spending power of some PL clubs, and if one of those was determined to sign him them he would inevitably leave.

Yes he's under contract, but if we kept him to that against his will we'd lose out just as much as everyone else, if not more.

All we can do is what we are doing, which is make him not want to leave - but if its comes down to a financial pissing competition we will lose. Just as Man Utd almost lost Ronaldo .... there is always someone with more money.

[readingbedding]

We may not be able to keep him in January,

Why not? We don't need to sell him to raise money as we're not skint - and he is obviously happy here otherwise he wouldn't have signed a new contract.

I (and one or two others) have gone against the tide of opinion and said all season long that it seemed far from a foregone conclusion we would sell him (or Hunt) in January; this news has made it almost certain we won't sell Doyle, surely?

this has all ended up on the wrong thread, but hey.

What it means is that RFC have spoken to Doyle PRIOR to any bids being on the table from other clubs, it means that IF a bid comes in in Jan, he will already have one hell of a deal, and we will not need to fight to keep him, as our deal is already there, anyone would really have to up the anty now.

I still do not see Villa needing Doyle, however, it may be in their interests to have him rather than see him go to Spurs or Everton (player they failed to sign on deadline day after selling Johnson???) £10m plus a wage of over £2m a year I would say is about the get out clause at a guess.

Is this a sign of a stagnant setup?
A bunch of people not willing or able to take this club forward?

[readingbedding]

We may not be able to keep him in January,

Why not? We don't need to sell him to raise money as we're not skint - and he is obviously happy here otherwise he wouldn't have signed a new contract.

I (and one or two others) have gone against the tide of opinion and said all season long that it seemed far from a foregone conclusion we would sell him (or Hunt) in January; this news has made it almost certain we won't sell Doyle, surely?

FWIW I personally think he'll stay, and this move further reinforces it. But the essential point is that in today's football if another club was determined to buy him we couldn't stop it. There's no way we would - or could - compete with the spending power of some PL clubs, and if one of those was determined to sign him them he would inevitably leave.

Yes he's under contract, but if we kept him to that against his will we'd lose out just as much as everyone else, if not more.

All we can do is what we are doing, which is make him not want to leave - but if its comes down to a financial pissing competition we will lose. Just as Man Utd almost lost Ronaldo .... there is always someone with more money.

Quite,

Also loads of people on this forum were saying that they were confident of Doyle or Hunt or both staying, provided that the team had a chance this year.
Not three people, a whole load more than that.

[readingbedding]

Steve Coppell has challenged his promotion chasing team to find the consistency to push for top spot.

After a patchy start to the campaign following relegation from the Premier League, Royals are now starting to find some form.

However, they have still lost four matches this season and are currently outside the automatic promotion places which are occupied by Wolves and Birmingham City.

And Coppell told the Evening Post: “Almost every game takes on importance. If you have a good run of games you feel as though you can relax a bit, but from my point of view I want to see my team show a level of consistency.

“In the Championship you can get away with losing as many as 14 or 15 games and still be successful at the end of the year.

“Everyone would prefer to be the team far out in front, but you need a real level of consistency and to get that you have to produce good quality performances week in week out.”



Again, Mr Coppell sees what all even-handed fans sees...That's the only problem we've had since the beginning of the season.

[Ian Royal]

I think part of the consistency issue is that we haven't settled into a team that picks itself yet. Especially in central midfield. We've not quite found the combo that works best, or got those two players familiar enough with each other to produce the goods consistently.

Once we can sort that out, the rest of the team is fine. There are a couple of weaker areas in terms of cover, but no huge worries for me.

Any issues have never been about investment or forward planning and ambition for me, but about finding the right balance of what we have and if it isn't quite there finding the right player to come in at the right price.

We failed to do that last season. We made some duff buys and didn't identify the key problem areas to strengthern in time. This season we've done exactly right. Left back and Striker were the key holes to fill. We've discovered that Right wing is not a big issue thanks to Kebe and Henry stepping up a notch.

We just need that partnership in central midfield. I'm not sure we'll get it this season, but we'll still be in the promotion fight the whole way. I think Karacan is key, but it may just take him a season to find the level of performance we need. Gunnarsson is not for the future, I still have big doubts about Cisse, though he's been doing well recently and I doubt Harper and Matejovsky have the bite to form a good enough partnership. Unless they have one of Gunnar, Cisse and Karacan alongside them.