RUMOUR - Yun Suk Young

[SPARTA]

According to @RobBrennan82 we've had an other knocked back by QPR.

Who's in for Suk-Young on the back of their shirts then?

[Tommio]

Talk sport say QPR have rejected a bid from us

[Tommio]

-

[Gilksy]

Who?

[CholseyRoyal]

From Charles Watts:-

Reports coming in that QPR have rejected a bid from Reading for left-back Yun Suk-Young.

The 24-year-old arrived at Loftus Road in January 2013 but has struggled for game time at the west London club.

He had a brief spell on loan at Doncaster Rovers last season.

[LoyalRoyal22]

No thanks. Shows our level of ambition.

[M Brook]

If we really want this chap, why on earth didn't we tie it in with the AlexMac sale?

[SPARTA]

If we really want this chap, why on earth didn't we tie it in with the AlexMac sale?

This! It's probably the club leaking details to make us look more active than we are.

[RG7Fan]

If we really want this chap, why on earth didn't we tie it in with the AlexMac sale?

Maybe we did but they wouldnt go for it - the McCarthy sale seemed to take an age.

[Extended-Phenotype]

If we really want this chap, why on earth didn't we tie it in with the AlexMac sale?

Maybe we did but they wouldnt go for it - the McCarthy sale seemed to take an age.

Then we shouldn't have sold. I know its often hard to remember but we don't HAVE to sell. We can argue terms.

[Wycombe Royal]

If we really want this chap, why on earth didn't we tie it in with the AlexMac sale?

Maybe we did but they wouldnt go for it - the McCarthy sale seemed to take an age.

Then we shouldn't have sold. I know its often hard to remember but we don't HAVE to sell. We can argue terms.

Whats the point of holding on to a player in the last year of his contract who isn't going to sign a new deal? Especially when we have a perfectly adequate replacement.

Just because we can? It made sense to sell regardless of anything else that may have fallen through

[Extended-Phenotype]

Whats the point of holding on to a player in the last year of his contract who isn't going to sign a new deal? Especially when we have a perfectly adequate replacement.

Just because we can?

No, because our (hypothetical) terms were not met.

Plus, we don't know whether he would or wouldn't sign a new deal.

[Ian Royal]

Ludicrous to reject a deal just because we can't get a specific left back as part of it.

[leon]

Hammond is renowned for driving a hard bargain (even Warnock has said that - and he never compliments others) so I would suggest that we tried - or we became aware of the guy's availability at the last moment

[Extended-Phenotype]

Ludicrous to reject a deal just because we can't get a specific left back as part of it.

Ludicrous to reject a deal because your terms were not met? Plenty of clubs have rejected our offers supposedly, so it does happen from time to time.

All a bit of a bent conversation really, but if we desperately needed a left-back (which we do) and we fancied ol' Suk (which we apparently did), instead of desperately grabbing the money for a player we'd otherwise have used and benefited from (and depending on Reading FC's ambition and success, could have wanted to remain with us for longer - it's not like he's gone to or was wanted by a genuine nailed on Prem club) I don't think there is any real argument against the principle of holding out for terms we wanted i.e. money plus player.

[Ian Royal]

Ludicrous to reject a deal just because we can't get a specific left back as part of it.

Ludicrous to reject a deal because your terms were not met? Plenty of clubs have rejected our offers supposedly, so it does happen from time to time.

All a bit of a bent conversation really, but if we desperately needed a left-back (which we do) and we fancied ol' Suk (which we apparently did), instead of desperately grabbing the money for a player we'd otherwise have used and benefited from (and depending on Reading FC's ambition and success, could have wanted to remain with us for longer - it's not like he's gone to or was wanted by a genuine nailed on Prem club) I don't think there is any real argument against the principle of holding out for terms we wanted i.e. money plus player.

Yeah, we could have not got a left back and kept a player we aren't playing and who we'd lose for nothing at the end of the season, rather than getting £3m for him. What great business that would have been.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Ludicrous to reject a deal just because we can't get a specific left back as part of it.

Ludicrous to reject a deal because your terms were not met? Plenty of clubs have rejected our offers supposedly, so it does happen from time to time.

All a bit of a bent conversation really, but if we desperately needed a left-back (which we do) and we fancied ol' Suk (which we apparently did), instead of desperately grabbing the money for a player we'd otherwise have used and benefited from (and depending on Reading FC's ambition and success, could have wanted to remain with us for longer - it's not like he's gone to or was wanted by a genuine nailed on Prem club) I don't think there is any real argument against the principle of holding out for terms we wanted i.e. money plus player.

Yeah, we could have not got a left back and kept a player we aren't playing and who we'd lose for nothing at the end of the season, rather than getting £3m for him. What great business that would have been.

We would play him though. And he may have re-signed or wanted to stay. Or more to the point, we might have sold him and got a LB plus cash.

You don't have to sell players before their contract runs out, you know. You've paid x amount for 3 years, it's not lost money if they complete their time.

[Wycombe Royal]

Whats the point of holding on to a player in the last year of his contract who isn't going to sign a new deal? Especially when we have a perfectly adequate replacement.

Just because we can?

No, because our (hypothetical) terms were not met.

Plus, we don't know whether he would or wouldn't sign a new deal.

I think it is pretty clear that McCarthy would not be signing a new deal, and therefore once an acceptable offer is on the table you take it. In this situation getting a player in return makes little or no difference as we needed to shift McCarthy on or lose him for less in January or nothing next summer.