Orlando Vs Kermorgant

[Extended-Phenotype]

RF seems awfully uptight and angry about a simple discussion

Anyway, surely the argument is not whether Kermorgant is any good - he clearly is and has a track record to prove it - it's whether signing someone who is that old and therefore short term, makes any sense.

Likewise the argument re: Sa - he clearly wasn't playing well going by his record and performances but it's reasonable to argue we should have managed him and given him time to come good rather than take a loss and start over.

[RoyallyFcuked]

LWJ nah that's not my comment I wrote a different one on there saying something similar but that also got likes on it and as you can see by the comments on that page the majority agree with me...

[Vision]

suprisingly you get more sense on Facebook (which most of you are old to have) where I got 20 likes for a comment on the ReadingFC page's story on Orlando leaving saying that I felt sorry for him, that its more proof that getting McD back was a mistake and that he's clueless

20 people out of 315,000 (thousand) likes on the page.

Soz Laurence you bellend

LIKE.

Is that how it works?

[Extended-Phenotype]

The deeply furrowed brow tallies up with the rage in his posts

[LWJ]

LWJ nah that's not my comment I wrote a different one on there saying something similar but that also got likes on it and as you can see by the comments on that page the majority agree with me...

[RoyallyFcuked]

RF seems awfully uptight and angry about a simple discussion

Anyway, surely the argument is not whether Kermorgant is any good - he clearly is and has a track record to prove it - it's whether signing someone who is that old and therefore short term, makes any sense.

Likewise the argument re: Sa - he clearly wasn't playing well going by his record and performances but it's reasonable to argue we should have managed him and given him time to come good rather than take a loss and start over.

EP you can see that was one of my main points, I said replacing a 27 year old with a 34 year old who isn't really any better makes no sense. I never said Kermorgant was no good, I said he was modest then said he's a bit better than modest.

Also said that Orlando didn't get much time as he was here less than 6 months, McD didn't like him and never gave him a proper chance and still stand by that, although its true Orlando may have wanted to leave when McD became manager.

[LWJ]

Thinking you are right because of a bunch of people on Facebook liking your statement is stupid. You are basically relying on people who sell their half used shampoo bottles for 50p and are 'full time mummies' agreeing with you.

[Extended-Phenotype]

RF seems awfully uptight and angry about a simple discussion

Anyway, surely the argument is not whether Kermorgant is any good - he clearly is and has a track record to prove it - it's whether signing someone who is that old and therefore short term, makes any sense.

Likewise the argument re: Sa - he clearly wasn't playing well going by his record and performances but it's reasonable to argue we should have managed him and given him time to come good rather than take a loss and start over.

EP you can see that was one of my main points, I said replacing a 27 year old with a 34 year old who isn't really any better makes no sense. I never said Kermorgant was no good, I said he was modest then said he's a bit better than modest.

Also said that Orlando didn't get much time as he was here less than 6 months, McD didn't like him and never gave him a proper chance and still stand by that, although its true Orlando may have wanted to leave when McD became manager.

Fingers crossed Kermorgant isn't Sa's direct replacement though. If Bradshaw or Rakels come in then Kermorgant could be seen as a nice bonus.

Sa: we don't know that McD didn't like him. He wasn't getting games before McD came in. It's possible the club said we needed to sell him to bring in someone else. it's being in the dark about it is what is frustrating to me.

[RoyallyFcuked]

Thinking you are right because of a bunch of people on Facebook liking your statement is stupid. You are basically relying on people who sell their half used shampoo bottles for 50p and are 'full time mummies' agreeing with you.

Who cares exactly who wrote it, the point is a lot of people wrote it or something similar. The general feeling on there is that it was a mistake to bring back McD and he treated Sa unfairly, that's the point I was making and it still stands.

And haha nearly all of the people who liked mine and that guy's comment were male, so no full time mummies Most of who at least must be Reading fans as they liked the page, some of who may well go and watch Reading.

And no one cares what you do with your shampoo bottles mate.

@EP Hopefully he isn't the direct replacment but don't be surprised if he is, club look as though they want to cut costs and not spend, which is a joke in itself.

[LWJ]

So you are full of shit?

[RoyallyFcuked]

So you are full of shit?

How?

[leon]

Nothing to see here.

Onto the next joker.

[genome]

HOF

[floyd__streete]

You don't understand Hammond's role do you !

http://thetilehurstend.sbnation.com/201 ... se-of-nick

This article - 14 months old - does not agree with my general concerns at what I perceive to be Hammond's shortcomings of late, as it is free to do of course.....it is just an opinion which cannot be measured one way or another.

However it says:

His role, as I understand it, arose in 2003 out of John Madejski’s self-proclaimed lack of football knowledge, and his need to have someone to advise him on football matters, especially when considering spending money on players. The chairman felt he wasn’t in a position to judge whether prospective players were worth the wages and transfer fees being asked, and so needed an informed link between himself and the football club, and someone who could act as "Chairman’s proxy."

The writer has clearly researched the DoF role at Reading more than I have done, I would freely admit that. It also seems to corroborate my suspicions that NH has an active role to play in who we recruit, not just on the terms we negotiate.

[Nameless]

It says he deals in wages and fees.
There would be uproar on here if anyone thought a manager was having his squad selected by someone else (see recent suggestions that Rakells has been personally scouted by Sasima and previous debate around Drenthe and Pog).
Obviously it makes sense for Hammond to push back on managers if players they ask for want daft money or clubs want stupid fees. But from everything I have gleaned over the years Hammond doesn't decide who we buy or who we sell.

[Extended-Phenotype]

You don't understand Hammond's role do you !

http://thetilehurstend.sbnation.com/201 ... se-of-nick

This article - 14 months old - does not agree with my general concerns at what I perceive to be Hammond's shortcomings of late, as it is free to do of course.....it is just an opinion which cannot be measured one way or another.

However it says:

His role, as I understand it, arose in 2003 out of John Madejski’s self-proclaimed lack of football knowledge, and his need to have someone to advise him on football matters, especially when considering spending money on players. The chairman felt he wasn’t in a position to judge whether prospective players were worth the wages and transfer fees being asked, and so needed an informed link between himself and the football club, and someone who could act as "Chairman’s proxy."

The writer has clearly researched the DoF role at Reading more than I have done, I would freely admit that. It also seems to corroborate my suspicions that NH has an active role to play in who we recruit, not just on the terms we negotiate.

No it doesn't.

[Nameless]

On the basis of Sa's rcord here in what way has he been treated unfairly ?
He's not scored since October, he's only scored in 3 games, he's hardly looked like a player likely to score 10-15 goals in a season. He couldn't leave in November or December, this was his first opportunity to move on and there is at least a slightly credible reason for going whereas the 'Brian doesn't like him' is entirely speculative.
As for the logic of signing Kergomanat, he doesn't look to be a like for like and why on earth should he be. If Sa did a role that Brian wasn't wanting in the team then bringing in someone who can do a differ t role,is logical is it not ? His age is fairly immaterial too. Not every signing is a long term view, if it was no players over 28 would ever get a contract. Sometimes you sign a player to do a job for a year while you look for a longer term option, or allow a young player to develop. Karmagoat till May then Samuel in the team next season and the Frenchie on the Bench ?

[The Sum of the Parts]

I think the point that's being missed is - what is the actual objective here?

If it's to get to the Premier League and then to have a wholesale change of players, using PL-level budgets, then the age of the striker concerned is utterly irrelevant. Sa or Kermorgant would both be finished here at the point of promotion - who cares how old they are?

McDermott also knows the importance of team spirit and togetherness in the dressing room - he was there and heavily involved in the 106-point team, and he fluked a promotion in 2012with a squad that wasn't up to the job but got there almost entirely on team spirit and determination.

If he wants to get rid of someone who doesn't fit into the "togetherness and team spirit" he's trying to build, and replace him with someone else plus a pot of cash, fair play to him.

One of the most critical things in winning promotion isn't the quality of the individual players - it's their fit together in building a team. Sa might be the better individual, but if he fits into the team as a whole less-well than Kermorgant does then why retain him?

[Extended-Phenotype]

fluked

Stopped reading

[kwik-silva]

You don't understand Hammond's role do you !

http://thetilehurstend.sbnation.com/201 ... se-of-nick

This article - 14 months old - does not agree with my general concerns at what I perceive to be Hammond's shortcomings of late, as it is free to do of course.....it is just an opinion which cannot be measured one way or another.

However it says:

His role, as I understand it, arose in 2003 out of John Madejski’s self-proclaimed lack of football knowledge, and his need to have someone to advise him on football matters, especially when considering spending money on players. The chairman felt he wasn’t in a position to judge whether prospective players were worth the wages and transfer fees being asked, and so needed an informed link between himself and the football club, and someone who could act as "Chairman’s proxy."

The writer has clearly researched the DoF role at Reading more than I have done, I would freely admit that. It also seems to corroborate my suspicions that NH has an active role to play in who we recruit, not just on the terms we negotiate.

No it doesn't.

Well I think it does in the sense that if Hammond thinks someone is too expensive, we won't sign him.