Tight old Reading

[No Fixed Abode]

You don't really have to purpose build a 'roller disco' though. You can use a hall.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Sounds like you've never been to Rollerway in Los Angeles

[No Fixed Abode]

Sounds like you've never been to Rollerway in Los Angeles

Sounds like you don't understand.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Sounds like you've never been to Rollerway in Los Angeles

Sounds like you don't understand.

Nah m8, I'm sayin Rollerway was purpose built

It's like a big roller complex. Like an ice rink place without the ice

[The Royal Forester]

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.

But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?

[genome]

If Vydra had scored 20+ goals this season, I bet you wouldn't be calling it bloody stupid...

[P!ssed Off]

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.

But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?

You sell him.

[Ian Royal]

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.

But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?

You sell him.

Not very easy if this fictional striker has performed badly. Someone would have to actually want to pay money for him. See Pogrebnyak etc

[Extended-Phenotype]

It's as if Reading are the only club in the country who face the possibility of a signing not working out!

Personally I think paying the top price in a low bracket runs a higher risk of ending up with a duffer and most examples of us 'spending big' and it not working out fall into this area. 500k-2.5m I think is still a C List player. Having the flexibility to consider B list players who fall under the next level up, your 3m-5m players, maybe the risks of them failing lessen and with that provide better value.

I know it's not that simple and it's a bit crude to think in terms of fixed brackets etc. But you get my point. I don't think examples of <3m players failing is a strong argument against spending 3m+ on one player, if he could be exactly what we are after to complete the jigsaw.

don't buy X for 4m!!! We bought Y for 2.4m and he turned out to be shit!!!

Doesn't make sense to me.

And the idea we don't have that kind of money to spend is silly when you look at our sales, and consider total spending during transfer windows.

[royalp-we]

Tbf you would have thought our Wembley appearance last season basically covered the Vydra deal. With his record you could hardly blame the management for taking the punt on a loan deal. We had / have an unbelievable squad, on paper. Look at the brighton game; our team was littered with fully fledged 'internationals'. I'm more to the belief that the management aren't shaking things up enough this year. Can't really fault the owners on for backing on player acquisition.

[genome]

Tbf you would have thought our Wembley appearance last season basically covered the Vydra deal.

And Hector/Blackman sales

[P!ssed Off]

Tbf you would have thought our Wembley appearance last season basically covered the Vydra deal. With his record you could hardly blame the management for taking the punt on a loan deal. We had / have an unbelievable squad, on paper. Look at the brighton game; our team was littered with fully fledged 'internationals'. I'm more to the belief that the management aren't shaking things up enough this year. Can't really fault the owners on player acquisition.

Don't be daft. The Vydra money came from selling Hector.
Money that could have been spent re-invested in the squad for the long term has been largely thrown down the drain.

Steve Clarke had zero interest in building a squad for the long term. He needed promotion this season, to restore his damaged reputation. Selfish pcunt really, and showed his colours when he flirted with Fulham.
He gambled a lot of our money on short term signings and subsequently our team for next season will be a lot worse than it ought to be.
The owners have to take responsibility for allowing him to focus entirely on this season at the expense of the future.

[Maneki Neko]

And the idea we don't have that kind of money to spend is silly when you look at our sales, and consider total spending during transfer windows.

Yes. Because basing financial decsions and budget on only one part of income, is definitely the way forward.

We lose 5-10 million a year when you consider all of the accounts.
Thats all you really need to consider.

[Maneki Neko]

Tbf you would have thought our Wembley appearance last season basically covered the Vydra deal. With his record you could hardly blame the management for taking the punt on a loan deal. We had / have an unbelievable squad, on paper. Look at the brighton game; our team was littered with fully fledged 'internationals'. I'm more to the belief that the management aren't shaking things up enough this year. Can't really fault the owners on for backing on player acquisition.

The total rebuild of the squad in the summer wasnt shaking things up enough for u?

But agreed. The owners certainly backed Clarke within theirbudget.

It does seem as though theyve completely backed off from that, now theyve seen what he did with it. And the ongoing financial implications

[royalp-we]

Tbf you would have thought our Wembley appearance last season basically covered the Vydra deal. With his record you could hardly blame the management for taking the punt on a loan deal. We had / have an unbelievable squad, on paper. Look at the brighton game; our team was littered with fully fledged 'internationals'. I'm more to the belief that the management aren't shaking things up enough this year. Can't really fault the owners on for backing on player acquisition.

The total rebuild of the squad in the summer wasnt shaking things up enough for u?

But agreed. The owners certainly backed Clarke within theirbudget.

It does seem as though theyve completely backed off from that, now theyve seen what he did with it. And the ongoing financial implications

Sorry, when I said shaking things up I was more referring to a match day; let's face it most weeks we can basically predict what the management are going to pick for any match day squad; and the opposition can see it too.

Regardless, yes the shake up last summer was huge. But the players brought in should have been utilised a lot differently - there is an abundance of talent - not building our whole match day squad around Blackman for basically half of this season, as we did. Then he left and the squad look lost going forward, imo

[Ian Royal]

It's as if Reading are the only club in the country who face the possibility of a signing not working out!

Personally I think paying the top price in a low bracket runs a higher risk of ending up with a duffer and most examples of us 'spending big' and it not working out fall into this area. 500k-2.5m I think is still a C List player. Having the flexibility to consider B list players who fall under the next level up, your 3m-5m players, maybe the risks of them failing lessen and with that provide better value.

I know it's not that simple and it's a bit crude to think in terms of fixed brackets etc. But you get my point. I don't think examples of <3m players failing is a strong argument against spending 3m+ on one player, if he could be exactly what we are after to complete the jigsaw.

don't buy X for 4m!!! We bought Y for 2.4m and he turned out to be shit!!!

Doesn't make sense to me.

And the idea we don't have that kind of money to spend is silly when you look at our sales, and consider total spending during transfer windows.

Although its not silly when you look at our accounts and see that it'd mean doubling our losses.

[P!ssed Off]

It's as if Reading are the only club in the country who face the possibility of a signing not working out!

Personally I think paying the top price in a low bracket runs a higher risk of ending up with a duffer and most examples of us 'spending big' and it not working out fall into this area. 500k-2.5m I think is still a C List player. Having the flexibility to consider B list players who fall under the next level up, your 3m-5m players, maybe the risks of them failing lessen and with that provide better value.

I know it's not that simple and it's a bit crude to think in terms of fixed brackets etc. But you get my point. I don't think examples of <3m players failing is a strong argument against spending 3m+ on one player, if he could be exactly what we are after to complete the jigsaw.

don't buy X for 4m!!! We bought Y for 2.4m and he turned out to be shit!!!

Doesn't make sense to me.

And the idea we don't have that kind of money to spend is silly when you look at our sales, and consider total spending during transfer windows.

Although its not silly when you look at our accounts and see that it'd mean doubling our losses.

If you buy a player for x million, you've increased your assets by x million. There is no loss on the balance sheet.

[Royal_jimmy]

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.

But, how much would we have to spend to be trying in your eyes? You would not get much in the way of a striker on a permanent signing would you?
It was a gamble that didn't work out, but the Thai's did TRY to sort out the striker situation. If we had paid 2.5 million on a permanent signing, would that have trying? What if he did not work out either, still being paid, but not playing next season?

At least if its a permament signing we'd get some resale value

[Lower West]

We had / have an unbelievable squad, on paper.

Yeah on paper. Loads of loan players as well. Once the going got tough they disappeared. Hurtado made 5 appearances and is unlikely to return. Likewise Sa (and Blackman) made a quick exit. John and Cooper are the only players to show improvement this season.

[Royal_jimmy]

We had / have an unbelievable squad, on paper.

Yeah on paper. Loads of loan players as well. Once the going got tough they disappeared. Hurtado made 5 appearances and is unlikely to return. Likewise Sa (and Blackman) made a quick exit. John and Cooper are the only players to show improvement this season.

Agreed, although Al-Habsi is another who has improved.

Next season I hope we loan 2 players max.