Tight old Reading

[Ian Royal]

you're asking us to double, maybe triple our loss every year

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that we allow ourselves to spend above the 2-3m mark on a player we need once in a while.

Which will double our losses in most years we might do it, and there's no way you (or many others) would accept it as a one off, once in every 5 - 6 seasons.

Once it's been done, it'd be bemoaned that we don't do it more regularly and that we should allow ourselves to spend more than our £4-5m limit once in a while, when it doesn't result in tangible success each time, or to hit the next level.

Fact is, our expenditure is at or just beyond the level we can afford. We can spend money we don't have, but we know how that ends in the long run. So until our income goes up (and we don't have significant streams beyond those of our competitors), we can't spend more.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Well never mind, I disagree, I don’t think we invest enough back into the club, I don’t think the investment matches the clubs stated ambitions and I think our shortcomings can be entirely laid upon a disjointed patchwork side of weak signings and the failure to bring in what’s needed because we have a self-defeating, financial attitude of excuses that insist Reading is somehow unique (like Reading are the only club that pays wages!) holding us back.
 
The club throwing comparatively deficient figures at out-of-form loaners, cheap has-beens and complete unknowns, while meeting the modern demands of wages that all clubs must bear, doesn’t contradict that belief.

It's disatisfying cos it sometimes feels we are within reach of clicking but fall short out of stubbornness and a lack of vision compared to other clubs in/around our level.

Oh well.


 

[Maneki Neko]

I don’t think the investment matches the clubs stated ambitions

investment matching our income>>>>>>>>>>>investment matching ambition



spent a fortune in the summer- achieved the square root of oxf*rd all.

& who are these mythical investors who are itching to throw money down the drain at RFC?



BOOOOOOOO Royal blue>>>>>>EP

[The Royal Forester]

"It's not your money"



Dunno how many times I've clarified that. It's not my football team either, I'm not the manager, nor are you, but we discuss and suggest formations, line-up, selections and tactics.

I'm saying if we were a little less strict in the market and occasionally allowed ourselves to continue to persue the right player when our standard bids are rejected, maybe that would be a better use of money rather than throwing minimal sums at players who aren't quite right.

It feels like we set a limit and give up if it looks like going over.

Never mind, I just don't think it should be a tabboo subject which gets spun into demmands for bankruptcy or dismissed with Anton being missused as an example of more investment.

Massive +1 the club need to accept you cannot progress in this division or the next without spending more than they currently are. Times have changed a lot in football and what we currently spend just doesn't get you enough quality. I'm not advocating spending loads of money for the sake of it but if we feel a certain player is right for the club to make progress then we should be prepared to spend outside of our comfort zone to make it happen. Obviously there comes a point when you have to walk away if you get outbid and you can't afford to offer more but at the moment we don't even try.

So, paying two and a half million quid on a LOAN player is not even trying, then? Can you let us know how many millions of pounds you think RFC need to spend to be trying in your view? Also, don't forget if we had reached the promised land, a further 10 million may have been spent to secure his permanent signing. Would you agree that would have been trying?

[Extended-Phenotype]

Well, if you cough while peeing, the pee goes everywhere

[Dr_Hfuhruhurr]

I don’t think the investment matches the clubs stated ambitions

investment matching our income>>>>>>>>>>>investment matching ambition



spent a fortune in the summer- achieved the square root of oxf*rd all.

& who are these mythical investors who are itching to throw money down the drain at RFC?



BOOOOOOOO Royal blue>>>>>>EP

I'm sure there's some twisted logic in there, or I'm just not reading it right? Isn't Clarke's spend in the summer exactly what myself (and maybe E-P) are complaining about? Individually, each signing is acceptable under current policy because there are no offensive transfer fees in there (and, of course, the signings quite obviously have been made under current policy) but collectively, the manager has turned over half the squad for no real reason. That squad turnover is worsened because we are going to have to replace all the loans, and the squad has only managed to get us to 15th. No-one is defending the summer spend. Plus, we've spent a large amount on the academy, we should really be offsetting the NUMBERS of players we buy each year with our U21s. What more do they have to achieve to get into a midtable championship club? One of things I don't like about the recent style of running clubs is that transfer windows seem to consist of 5 or 6 players each time (I'm sure it used to be less). It has a detrimental effect on a club identity, and it really isn't good for club finances because it encourages wage bills, and the point I'm trying to make is that a lot of these players are bang average, have no resale value and STAY on your wage bill.

A couple of counter-examples to the 'we must have a transfer ceiling to stay within our means' argument.

1. I've been saying for over half a decade that we've needed a centre back with authority, as we've had a decent set of young CBs (starting with Pearce) who would have benefitted from playing along a solid, no-nonsense player. Plus, we've had a decent requirement for an aggressive captain for quite some time. We finally get one 'in our price range' in McShane. Was it worth the four/five year wait? When we could have just gone out of our comfort zone and got one when we needed it. We've been really poor at focussing on what we need. Even Brian's done it. We didnt replace Sigurdson, but instead got a slew of transfer-acceptable defensive midfielders (which incidentally drove a decent player like Jay Tabb out of the squad). It all adds up, and its just a waste of money as anything else.

2. I hate to bring this up as you dont like this example, but WE WERE THERE for the Jordan Rhodes deal. Lets not revise history, we had Morison as the makeweight in the deal and were in the prime seat. But Hammond declared that Huddersfield's valuation of Morison didnt match our own. Or in other words, the cash bit in CASH+MORISON=RHODES was too high. We had the money and we gave it to Pogrebnyak and Guthrie. The rest is (financial) history. I know we all like to portray AZ as some bankrupt fool, but he spawned a year in the premiership (HE spawned, not BM). Ill reiterate why i think this was a missed opportunity - because it was quite clearly a low risk deal. He could have scored 3 goals and kept his value that season. Given that Rhodes has maintained his value at a Midtable championship club - isnt that EXACTLY WHAT WE NEEDED as we re-financed the club to keep Pogrebnyak in wages?

Anyway, enough is enough, and there are actually three very good examples of good transfers in that era within the club budget - Gunter, McLeary and Mariappa. We've got a ton of games out of Gunter. This season aside, Mcleary has been a beacon of quality. And we quickly found out that Mariappa was weak in the tackle and moved him on. Nothing wrong with that. Just dont mention them, they weaken my argument somewhat

[Maneki Neko]

bring it up all you like.
the idea that we were at fault for not spending 8 million on Jordan Rhodes is utterly insane.
if we'd have bought him instead of Blackburn, we'd have had years of paying him, and not going up just like them, being unable to sell him as his wages and price are too high, leaving the club in a financial state.


agree totally about the shit turnover at the club last summer, and this summer. its damaging, and one more reason to make me look back on clarkes tenure with little more than disgust,
agree also on the daftness of my post, where I say our owners did invest in one line, and then decry the lack of an investor willing to invest in the very next line

think the plan for next year is to be supplementing the squad with youth players wherever possible.
I think that's what brains appointment was all about. to try and get the best out of the imbalanced squad we have this season, before yet another rebuild using academy graduates, and a couple of canny purchases from outside.


anyway, not sure what im arguing about now .......think its that its all very well saying that spending more (in a better more planned way) could possibly end up with bigger rewards, but there is no one at the club, or interested in coming to the club and spending 8 million on one player.
and I think that's a good thing.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I don’t think the investment matches the clubs stated ambitions

investment matching our income>>>>>>>>>>>investment matching ambition



spent a fortune in the summer- achieved the square root of oxf*rd all.

& who are these mythical investors who are itching to throw money down the drain at RFC?



BOOOOOOOO Royal blue>>>>>>EP

I'm sure there's some twisted logic in there, or I'm just not reading it right? Isn't Clarke's spend in the summer exactly what myself (and maybe E-P) are complaining about? Individually, each signing is acceptable under current policy because there are no offensive transfer fees in there (and, of course, the signings quite obviously have been made under current policy) but collectively, the manager has turned over half the squad for no real reason. That squad turnover is worsened because we are going to have to replace all the loans, and the squad has only managed to get us to 15th. No-one is defending the summer spend. Plus, we've spent a large amount on the academy, we should really be offsetting the NUMBERS of players we buy each year with our U21s. What more do they have to achieve to get into a midtable championship club? One of things I don't like about the recent style of running clubs is that transfer windows seem to consist of 5 or 6 players each time (I'm sure it used to be less). It has a detrimental effect on a club identity, and it really isn't good for club finances because it encourages wage bills, and the point I'm trying to make is that a lot of these players are bang average, have no resale value and STAY on your wage bill.

A couple of counter-examples to the 'we must have a transfer ceiling to stay within our means' argument.

1. I've been saying for over half a decade that we've needed a centre back with authority, as we've had a decent set of young CBs (starting with Pearce) who would have benefitted from playing along a solid, no-nonsense player. Plus, we've had a decent requirement for an aggressive captain for quite some time. We finally get one 'in our price range' in McShane. Was it worth the four/five year wait? When we could have just gone out of our comfort zone and got one when we needed it. We've been really poor at focussing on what we need. Even Brian's done it. We didnt replace Sigurdson, but instead got a slew of transfer-acceptable defensive midfielders (which incidentally drove a decent player like Jay Tabb out of the squad). It all adds up, and its just a waste of money as anything else.

2. I hate to bring this up as you dont like this example, but WE WERE THERE for the Jordan Rhodes deal. Lets not revise history, we had Morison as the makeweight in the deal and were in the prime seat. But Hammond declared that Huddersfield's valuation of Morison didnt match our own. Or in other words, the cash bit in CASH+MORISON=RHODES was too high. We had the money and we gave it to Pogrebnyak and Guthrie. The rest is (financial) history. I know we all like to portray AZ as some bankrupt fool, but he spawned a year in the premiership (HE spawned, not BM). Ill reiterate why i think this was a missed opportunity - because it was quite clearly a low risk deal. He could have scored 3 goals and kept his value that season. Given that Rhodes has maintained his value at a Midtable championship club - isnt that EXACTLY WHAT WE NEEDED as we re-financed the club to keep Pogrebnyak in wages?

Anyway, enough is enough, and there are actually three very good examples of good transfers in that era within the club budget - Gunter, McLeary and Mariappa. We've got a ton of games out of Gunter. This season aside, Mcleary has been a beacon of quality. And we quickly found out that Mariappa was weak in the tackle and moved him on. Nothing wrong with that. Just dont mention them, they weaken my argument somewhat

Nailed it.

But the Brendy/Ian tag team will hang you for demanding we do a Portsmouth / spending money which isn't yours / talking about something you can't directly control / wanting Anton Zingaravich back / forgetting we signed Vydross for 2.5k / doubling-trebling-quadrupling our losses / wanting to spend all the money in the world / ignoring WAGES WAGES WAGES WAGES.

Then call you worse than Royal blue, who seems to be some kind of wanker or something.

Then remind you, again, that transfer fees =/= success, like some boring 'how to operate your sky remote' info channel that just plays on a fcuking loop unaffected by anything said at it.

The gaylords.

[Maneki Neko]

we don't have loads of money.
the owners don't have loads of money they want to spunk on expensive players and wages,

until one of those things changes, the issue its moot.

[No Fixed Abode]

we don't have loads of money.
the owners don't have loads of money they want to spunk on expensive players and wages,

until one of those things changes, the issue its moot.

Aren't the Thai's doing the right thing though with Royal Elm Park on the horizon? I've been saying it for years - Reading as a club needs more revenue streams and I'm pretty shocked it's taken so long. I'm not really talking about a huge project like REP but more concerts and things going on at the Stadium during the close season. Even when events are on it's poorly advertised.

[trueroyal1871]

"It's not your money"



Dunno how many times I've clarified that. It's not my football team either, I'm not the manager, nor are you, but we discuss and suggest formations, line-up, selections and tactics.

I'm saying if we were a little less strict in the market and occasionally allowed ourselves to continue to persue the right player when our standard bids are rejected, maybe that would be a better use of money rather than throwing minimal sums at players who aren't quite right.

It feels like we set a limit and give up if it looks like going over.

Never mind, I just don't think it should be a tabboo subject which gets spun into demmands for bankruptcy or dismissed with Anton being missused as an example of more investment.

Massive +1 the club need to accept you cannot progress in this division or the next without spending more than they currently are. Times have changed a lot in football and what we currently spend just doesn't get you enough quality. I'm not advocating spending loads of money for the sake of it but if we feel a certain player is right for the club to make progress then we should be prepared to spend outside of our comfort zone to make it happen. Obviously there comes a point when you have to walk away if you get outbid and you can't afford to offer more but at the moment we don't even try.

So, paying two and a half million quid on a LOAN player is not even trying, then? Can you let us know how many millions of pounds you think RFC need to spend to be trying in your view? Also, don't forget if we had reached the promised land, a further 10 million may have been spent to secure his permanent signing. Would you agree that would have been trying?

No paying £2.5 million for a loan player is bloody stupid, it would have been far more sensible to spend that and maybe a bit more to have brought a permanent signing in to the club. It's very rare you hear of clubs paying that sort of money to loan a player, you do hear of clubs paying the wages of loanees but not very often a fee to the parent club. As it turns out the loan hasn't worked and the season has been poor and we've pissed £2.5 million up the wall.

[Extended-Phenotype]

we don't have loads of money.
the owners don't have loads of money they want to spunk on expensive players and wages,

until one of those things changes, the issue its moot.

Aren't the Thai's doing the right thing though with Royal Elm Park on the horizon? I've been saying it for years - Reading as a club needs more revenue streams and I'm pretty shocked it's taken so long. I'm not really talking about a huge project like REP but more concerts and things going on at the Stadium during the close season. Even when events are on it's poorly advertised.

Ice rink

[Maneki Neko]

Lolz @ 1-2m being hailed as examples of significant investment.

Clive Baskerville, Charles Watts, Tim Dellor, Mick Gooding, Steve Coppell, Addy Williams, Jimmy Kebe and swathes of other pundits, players and journos have all mentioned that Reading suffer from a lack of real investment.
 
.

no one is disagreeing with that though.
of course that is the case.

your response to this fact is to say just invest more
that money has to come from somewhere.
we don't have anywhere to get it from.

so we are forced to continue running ourselves like a business. spending just above our means, and financing that through yearly player sales.

[Maneki Neko]

When you sell your best top goalscoring 2 forwards Blackman and Sa in January and you don't replace them (which we haven't) then you are going to be giving yourself a problem. We have struggled for goals since McDermott returned, oh I wonder why...

We cannot keep selling players without adequately replacing them otherwise we will end up in league one. We nearly did last year and well... if we somehow did go down this year then it will teach the board a lesson.

have to agree. quality ill continue to drop until we bottom out financially with the wages/parachutes.
only then is it realistic for us to start growing as a club again.


unless one of the thai/Russians suddenly decides to roll the dice with their own money, or with the clubs 'money'/assets

[Maneki Neko]

we don't have loads of money.
the owners don't have loads of money they want to spunk on expensive players and wages,

until one of those things changes, the issue its moot.

Aren't the Thai's doing the right thing though with Royal Elm Park on the horizon? I've been saying it for years - Reading as a club needs more revenue streams and I'm pretty shocked it's taken so long. I'm not really talking about a huge project like REP but more concerts and things going on at the Stadium during the close season. Even when events are on it's poorly advertised.

yes.
and hopefully we will see the benefit of that future investment off the field, instead of the thais buggering off with all the profits when its finished

[Maneki Neko]

Massive +1 the club need to accept you cannot progress in this division or the next without spending more than they currently are. Times have changed a lot in football and what we currently spend just doesn't get you enough quality. I'm not advocating spending loads of money for the sake of it but if we feel a certain player is right for the club to make progress then we should be prepared to spend outside of our comfort zone to make it happen. Obviously there comes a point when you have to walk away if you get outbid and you can't afford to offer more but at the moment we don't even try.

So, paying two and a half million quid on a LOAN player is not even trying, then? Can you let us know how many millions of pounds you think RFC need to spend to be trying in your view? Also, don't forget if we had reached the promised land, a further 10 million may have been spent to secure his permanent signing. Would you agree that would have been trying?

No paying £2.5 million for a loan player is bloody stupid, it would have been far more sensible to spend that and maybe a bit more to have brought a permanent signing in to the club. It's very rare you hear of clubs paying that sort of money to loan a player, you do hear of clubs paying the wages of loanees but not very often a fee to the parent club. As it turns out the loan hasn't worked and the season has been poor and we've pissed £2.5 million up the wall.

we paid 2.5 million to buy a player for 1 year, as a bit of a gamble, because we knew we were short of a decent goal scorer, and because he had been scoring for fun in the championship.

we just didn't realise the bloke was mentally shot from being dumped by his club after winning them promotion.

its a failure and a mistake by Clarke and the club, in hindsight. but the idea behind it was vaguely understandable.

[Maneki Neko]

we don't have loads of money.
the owners don't have loads of money they want to spunk on expensive players and wages,

until one of those things changes, the issue its moot.

Aren't the Thai's doing the right thing though with Royal Elm Park on the horizon? I've been saying it for years - Reading as a club needs more revenue streams and I'm pretty shocked it's taken so long. I'm not really talking about a huge project like REP but more concerts and things going on at the Stadium during the close season. Even when events are on it's poorly advertised.

Ice rink

and a Bowloplex

[No Fixed Abode]

we don't have loads of money.
the owners don't have loads of money they want to spunk on expensive players and wages,

until one of those things changes, the issue its moot.

Aren't the Thai's doing the right thing though with Royal Elm Park on the horizon? I've been saying it for years - Reading as a club needs more revenue streams and I'm pretty shocked it's taken so long. I'm not really talking about a huge project like REP but more concerts and things going on at the Stadium during the close season. Even when events are on it's poorly advertised.

Ice rink

Well a town that professes to be a City should really have one.

[No Fixed Abode]

Aren't the Thai's doing the right thing though with Royal Elm Park on the horizon? I've been saying it for years - Reading as a club needs more revenue streams and I'm pretty shocked it's taken so long. I'm not really talking about a huge project like REP but more concerts and things going on at the Stadium during the close season. Even when events are on it's poorly advertised.

Ice rink

and a Bowloplex

Yep. Reading needs more places for kids to hang out. Get them off the street and reduce crime. Also get them away from the TV on a Saturday night watching X Factor. That's no bad thing.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Aren't the Thai's doing the right thing though with Royal Elm Park on the horizon? I've been saying it for years - Reading as a club needs more revenue streams and I'm pretty shocked it's taken so long. I'm not really talking about a huge project like REP but more concerts and things going on at the Stadium during the close season. Even when events are on it's poorly advertised.

Ice rink

Well a town that professes to be a City should really have one.

Or at least a roller disco