Speculation: Central Defenders

[PEARCEY]

If finances are such an issue we could do worse than offer Sonko a year at £10K a week.

He sounds fairly fed up with his last three years since he left and might jump at the chance to come back.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://ww ... 2zf_E8XmLA

He might not be the player that he once was but could do a job for us.

No way Andrew. Sonko's shot.

[sandman]

It also says that none of the Long transfer fee should he leave will be used to buy.

And of course everything that the EP says is 100% correct and never sensationalist in any way - I might be concerned if this was a quote attributal to someone at the club, but I can't see any substance in that article at all....

And of course BMc never has different moods and never says things off the cuff that are aimed to make a point at the club, rather than at the greater

I didn't say it was attributed to anyone as a quote I was just pointing it out. Why do people on here take everything as if their family is being lined up and shot in front of them?

[Cypry]

I didn't say it was attributed to anyone as a quote I was just pointing it out. Why do people on here take everything as if their family is being lined up and shot in front of them?

Don't take it to heart - I just get frustrated by the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on which is based on supposition and assumption - I haven't seen anything from anyone at the club to indicate that McD will get nothing from any sale of Long - granted he said he won't get much, if anything from the Mills money, but AFAIK McD has never made any comment about what might happen in the event of Long going, and as for Fordham and his "that's what I'm hearing" comments, well unless he's prepared to reveal his source then IMO what he's saying should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

When/if Long goes, and McD says he cannot replace him, then I'll wail and gnash with the best of 'em....until then I'll give the club the benefit of the doubt....

[Elmer Park]

Firstly a small defence of Fordham. I don't know the guy but don't really understand the bad feeling towards him by some people. He is a journalist on a local paper who can only report what he is told, it's unlikely he has the phones of McDermott and Hammond tapped. I imagine he reports and tweets the information he does in good faith and in most cases he cannot reveal his sources. Everyone at the Club knows he is a journalist and those at Management level in particular are going to be well aware that what they tell him will be reported unless they ask him otherwise.

On to another aspect of the thread - the hoary chestnut of money. It does look like we are looking for a centre back on loan rather than for a fee but as far as I am aware under SJM all transfer fees go towards the running of the Club unless the DoF and Manager make a case for spending a fee on a player which has happened many times over recent years. Therefore should Long be sold I don't think the Manager will be told he has a set amount of it to spend but in my view McDermott and Hammond will be able to squeeze a decent amount of money out of SJM for a replacement striker.

As for bringing in a central defender or any other position for that matter, I have no problem with using the loan system but with a loan fee plus a percentage of wages I am a bit surprised that SJM doesn't see that as dead money and instead sanction that money to sign a player who could be developed to be sold on if we don't achieve promotion. Maybe if such a player exists there is still a chance Hammond could butter up his boss enough to persuade him to spend a modest fee.

[Vision]

Firstly a small defence of Fordham. I don't know the guy but don't really understand the bad feeling towards him by some people. He is a journalist on a local paper who can only report what he is told, it's unlikely he has the phones of McDermott and Hammond tapped. I imagine he reports and tweets the information he does in good faith and in most cases he cannot reveal his sources. Everyone at the Club knows he is a journalist and those at Management level in particular are going to be well aware that what they tell him will be reported unless they ask him otherwise.

On to another aspect of the thread - the hoary chestnut of money. It does look like we are looking for a centre back on loan rather than for a fee but as far as I am aware under SJM all transfer fees go towards the running of the Club unless the DoF and Manager make a case for spending a fee on a player which has happened many times over recent years. Therefore should Long be sold I don't think the Manager will be told he has a set amount of it to spend but in my view McDermott and Hammond will be able to squeeze a decent amount of money out of SJM for a replacement striker.

As for bringing in a central defender or any other position for that matter, I have no problem with using the loan system but with a loan fee plus a percentage of wages I am a bit surprised that SJM doesn't see that as dead money and instead sanction that money to sign a player who could be developed to be sold on if we don't achieve promotion. Maybe if such a player exists there is still a chance Hammond could butter up his boss enough to persuade him to spend a modest fee.

Pretty much agree with all of that. All deals carry different circumstances depending on various factors.

As for the Centre half situation as things stand we have two specialists at the moment who are still fairly young. Therefore our focus may well be on an experienced head to compliment Pearce & Morrison. In that situation any sell-on considerations are a bit moot as its unlikely that a centre half of a certain age will have any sell-on value anyway so a loan (with a view to permanent deal later down the line ala Liegertwood & Griffin) makes perfect sense and is pretty much a no-brainer. The flip side is that is the Morrisson and Manset type of deal where we purchase permanently (at a time where lack of experience wasnt an issue in the team/squad) and give ourselves time to work on them and get them up to speed with how we work. The expectation is far greater in that case that if they were to leave we would have made a profit on them.

Also some of the hysteria around the McShane rumour really cracks me up. Taking aside the fact that personally I think he's a steaming pile of shite, lets assume the rumour is true. Whilst he's still only 25!!! (so there might well be some re-sale value attached in the future), he was bought by Phil Brown while Hull were still in the premiership so rumours of him being on 25k a week are probably not far wide of the mark. So even if we were to meet whatever fee Hull might want, the player would still be looking at getting around that amount in wages if he were to even contemplate moving here permanently. Not only that but he would probably be looking at a deal for at least 2 (and far more likely 3 seasons).
Do fans really think the club should rush head first into committing to that sort of deal if we can get a loan deal initially?

[Svlad Cjelli]

.....

On to another aspect of the thread - the hoary chestnut of money. It does look like we are looking for a centre back on loan rather than for a fee but as far as I am aware under SJM all transfer fees go towards the running of the Club unless the DoF and Manager make a case for spending a fee on a player which has happened many times over recent years. Therefore should Long be sold I don't think the Manager will be told he has a set amount of it to spend but in my view McDermott and Hammond will be able to squeeze a decent amount of money out of SJM for a replacement striker.

As for bringing in a central defender or any other position for that matter, I have no problem with using the loan system but with a loan fee plus a percentage of wages I am a bit surprised that SJM doesn't see that as dead money and instead sanction that money to sign a player who could be developed to be sold on if we don't achieve promotion. Maybe if such a player exists there is still a chance Hammond could butter up his boss enough to persuade him to spend a modest fee.

Just to amplify this slightly, it's not so much that "all transfer fees go towards the running of the Club unless the DoF and Manager make a case for spending a fee on a player" - it's that the club is self-sustaining, financially.

No money comes in from SJM, just as no money goes out to him. So as the club is running at an annual deficit then the first chunk of incoming money is used to balance that deficit - ALL money after that is available to spend on the team (but don't forget that wages are often a more significant expense than transfer fees, so teh whole package needs to be considered).

As to the second paragraph, there are significant people in the club who want to see a centre-back brought in who is ready to go straight into the first-team, which is why loans are being considered rather than someone with potential who could be developed.

And Hammond doesn't need to butter up his boss - if they have the money they can spend it. That comes with the "nothing in, nothing out" ethos ... if they make the money from transfer fees they can spend it, the only proviso is that the books are balanced at the end of the season.

[Hoop Blah]

Just to amplify this slightly, it's not so much that "all transfer fees go towards the running of the Club unless the DoF and Manager make a case for spending a fee on a player" - it's that the club is self-sustaining, financially.

No money comes in from SJM, just as no money goes out to him. So as the club is running at an annual deficit then the first chunk of incoming money is used to balance that deficit - ALL money after that is available to spend on the team (but don't forget that wages are often a more significant expense than transfer fees, so teh whole package needs to be considered).

I think it's also worth pointing out that it's an annual deficit before the transfer dealings. According to my view of the accounts from the last few years that deficit has been turned into a profit over the last few years (2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010), presumably thanks to those transfer fees.

It'll be interesting what the books say for 2011 when they're submitted.

As to the second paragraph, there are significant people in the club who want to see a centre-back brought in who is ready to go straight into the first-team, which is why loans are being considered rather than someone with potential who could be developed.

And Hammond doesn't need to butter up his boss - if they have the money they can spend it. That comes with the "nothing in, nothing out" ethos ... if they make the money from transfer fees they can spend it, the only proviso is that the books are balanced at the end of the season.

I still think we seem quite conservative in spending what we have, but that might just be because we can't get the right players in. Is that something we need to address though?

[brendywendy]

i also see it as us looking at players that fit our style/ethos/grand plan constantly, monitoring them, scouting them, then making enquiries, and then buying them.
i dont see that changing just cos we got a chunk of money, going out and splurging 2 million quid on some player the fans are howling for for the sake of it.

that and the fact that i think the academy is just getting to the level where it can feed into our first team on a regular basis. and if BMcD thinks there is a player/players who can step up from there this season, play more games, and save us the bother of going elsewhere, then he'll do that, as he should do. and i totally trust his judgement on that

[Hoop Blah]

...that i think the academy is just getting to the level where it can feed into our first team on a regular basis...

Agreed with the rest, but I think it might be more a case of the first team getting to the level the academy can feed into it rather than the other way round.

It's certainly improving at the same time though.

[brendywendy]

bit of both. agreed

[specialjon]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12876_7030446,00.html

Posted on McCartney spotted thread but it mentions Nosworthy and Kilgallon are available. I'd be happy with either of those, probably more happy with Kilgallon on a season long loan or till January.

[roadrunner]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12876_7030446,00.html

Posted on McCartney spotted thread but it mentions Nosworthy and Kilgallon are available. I'd be happy with either of those, probably more happy with Kilgallon on a season long loan or till January.

TBH with how light we are at the back I'd snap any one or two of those three up. Killa would be the lead target tho. He was superb when at Leeds but it's all gone wrong sicnce joining Sunderland. McDermott is the sort of manager that would be good for him.

[Hoop Blah]

Kilgallon yes, Nosworthy if we're still short come the end of August, but McCartney no thanks. He's not that bad but there's something about him that's never had me convinced and getting him in would indicate that Harte was being primed for a move the centre half.

Sunderland have a few players that would be interesting (the number of recognised centre halfs is scary - Bramble, Brown, Ferdinand, Kilgallon, Nosworthy, Turner plus O'Shea) as have the likes of Stoke (Collins, Davies, Higgingbothom, Huth, Shawcross, Wilson, Woodgate) but I guess that's partly because they both use them at fullback quite a bit too.

[Barry the bird boggler]

If it was my decision I'd move for Kilgallon, on loan for a season and that Watford centre half - Taylor isn't it?

[Mid Sussex Royal]

Firstly a small defence of Fordham. I don't know the guy but don't really understand the bad feeling towards him by some people. He is a journalist on a local paper who can only report what he is told, it's unlikely he has the phones of McDermott and Hammond tapped. I imagine he reports and tweets the information he does in good faith and in most cases he cannot reveal his sources. Everyone at the Club knows he is a journalist and those at Management level in particular are going to be well aware that what they tell him will be reported unless they ask him otherwise.

On to another aspect of the thread - the hoary chestnut of money. It does look like we are looking for a centre back on loan rather than for a fee but as far as I am aware under SJM all transfer fees go towards the running of the Club unless the DoF and Manager make a case for spending a fee on a player which has happened many times over recent years. Therefore should Long be sold I don't think the Manager will be told he has a set amount of it to spend but in my view McDermott and Hammond will be able to squeeze a decent amount of money out of SJM for a replacement striker.

As for bringing in a central defender or any other position for that matter, I have no problem with using the loan system but with a loan fee plus a percentage of wages I am a bit surprised that SJM doesn't see that as dead money and instead sanction that money to sign a player who could be developed to be sold on if we don't achieve promotion. Maybe if such a player exists there is still a chance Hammond could butter up his boss enough to persuade him to spend a modest fee.

Fordham is completely useless in my view - why doesn't he act like a journalist and ask some tough questions - ie the kind of things we are going on about on here - I get the impression he just prints what the club want him to. Bring back Russell Kempson or Graham Nickless

[JS28ZoD]

I would be absolutely delighted if we signed Kilgallon.

He has got it all as a defender, is good on the ball and has pace too! If we were to sign him, I would be over the moon and it would hopefully go some way to proving the clubs ambitions to go up.

This would also be 100% realistic as he has been playing on loan in the championship recently and as he is now in his mid 20's he will want to settle somewhere and play games, something which we could nigh on guarantee given our current squad.

To summarise, Hammond please please please do all you can to sign Matt Kilgallon!

[hutch]

If finances are such an issue we could do worse than offer Sonko a year at £10K a week.

He sounds fairly fed up with his last three years since he left and might jump at the chance to come back.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://ww ... 2zf_E8XmLA

He might not be the player that he once was but could do a job for us.

No way Andrew. Sonko's shot.

+1 He is absolutely shot to pieces as a player, would NOT want to see him back.

[rhroyal]

100% agree with the Kilgallon thoughts on here. Any evidence, or even rumours, whatsoever that we may be after him? I know we looked at him in our Premiership days; it could be that NH and BM (who was our chief scout at the time) haven't forgotten him. A season loan for him would be a great deal. Still only 27, so could be worth turning into permanent deal if he's good, like Griffin and Leigertwood.

[TFF]

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/footb ... r_defender

Reading are considering offering a contract to free agent Anthony Gardner to solve their centre-back crisis, the Reading Post can reveal.

The 30-year-old former Tottenham Hotspur man spent last season on loan at Crystal Palace from parent club Hull City.

Gardner was released by Tigers boss Nigel Pearson this summer and Royals are now keen to speak to him.

[UpNorth]

Gardner did well on loan at Palace last season and they are keen to keep him.

West Scum and Brum were also interested in signing him after his release from Hull

Apparently Palace can only offer £8k a week max and Gardner is holding out for £9k. Are we prepared to pay this much?

He is the experienced centre back we need, tall and pacy. His career has been blighted by injuries but he looks a good bet..