Selling club

[Rob-Royal]

they turned down massive massive bids cos their chairman/backers are loaded.

ours isnt

so we couldnt

agree totally if wed kept sig, and long wed have been promoted


but that doesnt really deal in reality[/quote]

It had nothing to do with Spurs being well backed that they turned away Chelsea's money, it was about ambition and giving themselves the best chance this season and it's paying off. Modric wanted to leave, the transfer fee was irrelvant. Redknapp made it clear and was backed by his board to keep Modric at all costs. I can deal with players going onto better things, what I can't stomach are new contracts with minimum release clauses which get agents all excited......[/quote]


nonsense- they could afford to take that hit
we could not[/quote]

I know you like to type faster than your brain can keep up but please read the post and try to take an objective view....if you can...

[melonhead]

i did.

hence why i correctlyidentified it as rubbish.


if we had a chairman/backer who had millions to spare wed have been able to turn down whatever Bids we wanted for sig too
so to say money had nowt to do with it is silly

[Rob-Royal]

i did.

hence why i correctlyidentified it as rubbish.


if we had a chairman/backer who had millions to spare wed have been able to turn down whatever Bids we wanted for sig too
so to say money had nowt to do with it is silly

Ok melon head, got it....thx

[melonhead]

jolly good

[Extended-Phenotype]

As a nearly team all we need is a little gamble, a little injection, a bit of faith – it’s not like the investment couldn’t be recovered if we were successful; why do we always have to presume we wouldn’t be?

[melonhead]

As a nearly team all we need is a little gamble, a little injection, a bit of faith – it’s not like the investment couldn’t be recovered if we were successful; why do we always have to presume we wouldn’t be?

i dont presume that- i always presume we'll succeed. and if i had 5 million quid to throw away id certainly gamble it on RFC promotion with the purchase of jordan rhodes, and an attacking midfielder.
but the club doesnt have that money, so the question is a bit pointless

[Extended-Phenotype]

The club has the capacity to have the money.

So the question isn't pointless.

[melonhead]

The club has the capacity to have the money.

So the question isn't pointless.

if it was full every week we would make money
but even when we were walking the league we only really sold out when we actually got to the prem
you only have to look at leicester and ipswich to ralise that spending money on a load of new exciting players doesnt guarantee promotion
and nothing reduces attendance like losing every week- meaning theyve just spent a load of money they dont have, and are now losing more money on match days than before- not a good combo

[Extended-Phenotype]

John injects money into his other businesses. Therefore he has the capacity to do so with RFC. Therefore, the question isn’t pointless.

RFC can, like other clubs, go to the bank. This doesn’t equate to automatic bankruptcy. Therefore, the question isn’t pointless.

I appreciate what has become a slogan for tightfistedness; “spending doesn’t guarantee promotion”, but it isn’t an argument with any legs. Like I said, Reading are almost there, and a bit of investment would far more likely do Reading good, than bad.

The likes of Leicester and Ipswich were not building on what we already have; a sound and together squad who, as you keep reminding me, have finished in or just outside the play-offs every season since we came down.

Investing in the spark we are missing should not conjure such a pessimistic outlook which has us imploding, sliding down the table, and ending up in financial ruin.

Far more likely Reading would improve that bit more and earn a promotion.

[melonhead]

John injects money into his other businesses. Therefore he has the capacity to do so with RFC. Therefore, the question isn’t pointless.

RFC can, like other clubs, go to the bank. This doesn’t equate to automatic bankruptcy. Therefore, the question isn’t pointless.

I appreciate what has become a slogan for tightfistedness; “spending doesn’t guarantee promotion”, but it isn’t an argument with any legs. Like I said, Reading are almost there, and a bit of investment would far more likely do Reading good, than bad.

The likes of Leicester and Ipswich were not building on what we already have; a sound and together squad who, as you keep reminding me, have finished in or just outside the play-offs every season since we came down.

Investing in the spark we are missing should not conjure such a pessimistic outlook which has us imploding, sliding down the table, and ending up in financial ruin.

Far more likely Reading would improve that bit more and earn a promotion.

but he said hes not going to any more- partly i believe because hes probably at his limit for what he can get back on a sale when in the championship.

hes probably owed about 20-40 million
if he starts "lending" us more, he either wont ever be able to sell, or he'll have to take a hit on a business he spent yuears building and making succesful.
which is fair enough imo

not sure what your point is- are you just raging at JM for doing what he likes with his own money?
hes said he wants us to be self sufficient, so thats what we are.
moaning about it aint really achieving owt


yes- we could get money from banks, or stop paying our tax bill
but risks, and gambles are only sensible if you can afford to fail.

[Extended-Phenotype]

John injects money into his other businesses. Therefore he has the capacity to do so with RFC. Therefore, the question isn’t pointless.

RFC can, like other clubs, go to the bank. This doesn’t equate to automatic bankruptcy. Therefore, the question isn’t pointless.

I appreciate what has become a slogan for tightfistedness; “spending doesn’t guarantee promotion”, but it isn’t an argument with any legs. Like I said, Reading are almost there, and a bit of investment would far more likely do Reading good, than bad.

The likes of Leicester and Ipswich were not building on what we already have; a sound and together squad who, as you keep reminding me, have finished in or just outside the play-offs every season since we came down.

Investing in the spark we are missing should not conjure such a pessimistic outlook which has us imploding, sliding down the table, and ending up in financial ruin.

Far more likely Reading would improve that bit more and earn a promotion.

but he said hes not going to any more- partly i believe because hes probably at his limit for what he can get back on a sale when in the championship.

hes probably owed about 20-40 million
if he starts "lending" us more, he either wont ever be able to sell, or he'll have to take a hit on a business he spent yuears building and making succesful.
which is fair enough imo

Ok, but this doesn’t reduce the fans desire for investment to an impossible demand. Not wanting to and not being able to are two different things, so why do you often confuse the former with the latter? If it’s the former, then the fans have every right to vent.

not sure what your point is- are you just raging at JM for doing what he likes with his own money?
hes said he wants us to be self sufficient, so thats what we are.
moaning about it aint really achieving owt

What, never in your life have you spoken of your desire for something to improve? You might be happy with that sort of passive robotic approach to life, but that ain’t my style. People have a right to a voice.

yes- we could get money from banks, or stop paying our tax bill
but risks, and gambles are only sensible if you can afford to fail.

Again, the only way you can sustain your point is by taking the alternative to the extreme. Would a modest transfer really collapse the club if we did not achieve promotion?

That's a pretty negative outlook.

[melonhead]

its not extreme in the slightest- if JM says hes not giving us any more money, and we have to be self sufficient- then thats what we have to do, and spending more than we can afford will have negative consequences if the gamble fails.which it does for the majority of clubs.

thats not us refusing to do something, its just the reality of the situation.


of course i want improvement-especially after the last three games, but i personally, and we as a club dont have the cash to throw more about.
im simply not sure how we are supposed to get more money to throw about by throwing more about before weve got it.
we are 5th, and were in the play off final last year- and if we improve it will be through hard work, and the odd judicious purchase


& LOL at me having a negative outlook

[Extended-Phenotype]

1. Majority of clubs?

2. The reality of the situation is that we have consistently finished circa play-offs, and investment is more likely to improve that rather than hinder it.

3. Again, the club have the capacity to obtain the cash.

4. Our consistency is great, which is why that proven addition ain’t much of a gamble.

5. It’s pretty bleak thinking to assume failure and bankruptcy when discussing modest investment.

[melonhead]

yes, the majority of clubs who have bet the house on promotion to the prem havent stayed there


investment of any kind above the money you have can lead to bankruptcy.im not saying that will happen-im saying that for me personally, and gladly for the club, its too big a risk




all your other points are valid opinions

[Arch]

I'm with EP on this one, brendy, although I think you're both letting the terms of the debate be too vague. I'm not convinced "a modest investment" is always right even for a team around the playoffs, but this year for us I'm sure it is. Last season, we weren't just "around the playoffs" but in the final, and if we had played as well in the first 45 minutes as we did most of the time since January we'd likely be in the Premiership now. The Mills-Gorkss switch shows that you don't have to reinvest every penny to get an upgrade, but Gorkss was an investment and a very sound one which means that we're better defensively now than we were a year ago. The real difference is losing Long. If we're going down the road of keeping last year's team as a platform rather than completely retooling, then we need a striker with something like Long's luck, confidence and talent to make it pay. A one-player investment, 2 or 3 million. I understand that's not money lying around, but nor is the money I need for my new roof. Neither I nor RFC will be bankrupted.

[melonhead]

I'm with EP on this one, brendy, although I think you're both letting the terms of the debate be too vague. I'm not convinced "a modest investment" is always right even for a team around the playoffs, but this year for us I'm sure it is. Last season, we weren't just "around the playoffs" but in the final, and if we had played as well in the first 45 minutes as we did most of the time since January we'd likely be in the Premiership now. The Mills-Gorkss switch shows that you don't have to reinvest every penny to get an upgrade, but Gorkss was an investment and a very sound one which means that we're better defensively now than we were a year ago. The real difference is losing Long. If we're going down the road of keeping last year's team as a platform rather than completely retooling, then we need a striker with something like Long's luck, confidence and talent to make it pay. A one-player investment, 2 or 3 million. I understand that's not money lying around, but nor is the money I need for my new roof. Neither I nor RFC will be bankrupted.

we could still yet sign jordan rhodes for the 3 million we have left in our war-chest, and all three of us will be very happy indeed!



im just arguing for the sake of it- just looking at the figures i think we should already have the money, ready to buy this jan- if we can get someone the manager wants, and who fits with the club
and also agree that that modest investment could see us more likely to go up

it just depends whether the club want to spend it all, and end up having to sell more players in the summer if we dont manage it

[Extended-Phenotype]

That's the concern.

A) Are the club actually aware we need a creative spark in the middle? Chasing these strikers suggests not.

B) Is signing a good player, improving our football and getting promotion even a priority for JM? Or is he satisfied with us sitting safely in the Championship and feeding other clubs with the talent we nurture?

[melonhead]

That's the concern.

A) Are the club actually aware we need a creative spark in the middle? Chasing these strikers suggests not.

B) Is signing a good player, improving our football and getting promotion even a priority for JM? Or is he satisfied with us sitting safely in the Championship and feeding other clubs with the talent we nurture?

if he ever wants to get his money/profitback we have to be in the prem


and there are many ways that football can work.
they do not all require an attacking midfielder

[robb the royal]

Its all very well saying we have £3 million or 5 million to spend on a player...but that player won't play for free...I would hazard a guess that it is more wages that keep us from buying an expensive player who will be on a huge wad of cash. That's the money we don't have.
As I hear some children reminding the stweards every week, we pay their wages...the same goes for the players, so there is only 3 ways for us to get better players:
Get more fans in
Get a wealthy owner to splash the cash
Buy cheap, unproven players and give them a shot to get us promoted, when we will get more "fans" into the stadium.

Also, as I have said before, why should Sir John put his own money into the club? We aren't bankrupt, we are probably achieving our realistic aims for the season (play-offs), so don'T NEED the money. I wouldn't expect my boss to put his own money into the company if we were achieving those goals.

[melonhead]

me either