2013 Summer Transfer Window

[LoyalRoyalFan]

I'm quite supportive of TSI, but in all seriousness, after a summer of promising to at least splash some cash and bring in some big players, two measly free transfers (if true, of course) is a little underwhelming.

[winchester_royal]

True...but I'd have to turn him round.

*barehomo*

[Pepe the Horseman]

I'm quite supportive of TSI, but in all seriousness, after a summer of promising to at least splash some cash and bring in some big players, two measly free transfers (if true, of course) is a little underwhelming.

Akpala won't be a free.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

I'm quite supportive of TSI, but in all seriousness, after a summer of promising to at least splash some cash and bring in some big players, two measly free transfers (if true, of course) is a little underwhelming.

Akpala won't be a free.

Is he not?

[Barry the bird boggler]

I'm quite supportive of TSI, but in all seriousness, after a summer of promising to at least splash some cash and bring in some big players, two measly free transfers (if true, of course) is a little underwhelming.

Akpala won't be a free.

Is he not?

Might turn out to be a season long loan though

[DaveBanana]

There are only so many "big name" players available, and even less so that we could get in at Reading - I'd much rather one of the lesser known overseas guys than paying more for a player who's name is thrown around every transfer window, Drenthe and Williams were both surprises and have so far been fantastic.

[genome]

On BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23799306

Something about Tom Ince on there

[exileinleeds]

On BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23799306

Something about Tom Ince on there

That we are definitely not after Tom Ince. Other rumours are "closer to home". No one is closer than Gylfi, therefore Gylfi is coming home.

And Akpala may stay if everything works out....

[The Rouge]

I'm quite supportive of TSI, but in all seriousness, after a summer of promising to at least splash some cash and bring in some big players, two measly free transfers (if true, of course) is a little underwhelming.

Are you for real? or am I due a whoosh... Paying the wages to get Drenthe, Williams, Bridge - whilst paying the wages to keep Pearce and HRK. Keeping ALF and Pog (so far) then maybe getting two additional players on meaningful wages. And you are not happy? Unless joking, please go and support Chelsea or Man City.

[One8Seven1]

I'm quite supportive of TSI, but in all seriousness, after a summer of promising to at least splash some cash and bring in some big players, two measly free transfers (if true, of course) is a little underwhelming.

Are you for real? or am I due a whoosh... Paying the wages to get Drenthe, Williams, Bridge - whilst paying the wages to keep Pearce and HRK. Keeping ALF and Pog (so far) then maybe getting two additional players on meaningful wages. And you are not happy? Unless joking, please go and support Chelsea or Man City.

Modern fans! They think spending £4m is ambitious and guarantees quality - far far from it! The wages and signing on fees will be high as well, but still it's not good enough for some.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

I'm quite supportive of TSI, but in all seriousness, after a summer of promising to at least splash some cash and bring in some big players, two measly free transfers (if true, of course) is a little underwhelming.

Are you for real? or am I due a whoosh... Paying the wages to get Drenthe, Williams, Bridge - whilst paying the wages to keep Pearce and HRK. Keeping ALF and Pog (so far) then maybe getting two additional players on meaningful wages. And you are not happy? Unless joking, please go and support Chelsea or Man City.

Modern fans! They think spending £4m is ambitious and guarantees quality - far far from it! The wages and signing on fees will be high as well, but still it's not good enough for some.

Check last season for a team who spent little and went straight back down.

[Unphased Royal]

Check last season for a team who spent little and went straight back down.

Also check how much the only team in the league to finish below them spent. HTH

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Check last season for a team who spent little and went straight back down.

Also check how much the only team in the league to finish below them spent. HTH

Very true, I was more concerned with the real hoops, though.

[One8Seven1]

Modern fans! They think spending £4m is ambitious and guarantees quality - far far from it! The wages and signing on fees will be high as well, but still it's not good enough for some.

Check last season for a team who spent little and went straight back down.

That doesn't mean spending £4m+ on one player guarantees a quality signing!

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Modern fans! They think spending £4m is ambitious and guarantees quality - far far from it! The wages and signing on fees will be high as well, but still it's not good enough for some.

Check last season for a team who spent little and went straight back down.

That doesn't mean spending £4m+ on one player guarantees a quality signing!

Of course not but spending nothing on a player shows it's a gamble.

[Ian Royal]

Are you for real? or am I due a whoosh... Paying the wages to get Drenthe, Williams, Bridge - whilst paying the wages to keep Pearce and HRK. Keeping ALF and Pog (so far) then maybe getting two additional players on meaningful wages. And you are not happy? Unless joking, please go and support Chelsea or Man City.

Modern fans! They think spending £4m is ambitious and guarantees quality - far far from it! The wages and signing on fees will be high as well, but still it's not good enough for some.

Check last season for a team who spent little and went straight back down.

Then try checking the correlation between success and wages and success and transfer fees. You'll find its far greater for wages. Then get a functioning sense of perspective and look a bit further than your own nose.

[RoyalBlue]

But for each of those, and there really aren't as many as some suggest, you could add at least one other (and probably two) cheap, speculative signings that didn't work out. The tall Irish striker (Karl Sheppard?), Brett Williams? etc.

For every big money failed signing, we can afford half a dozen bargain signings to fail and still come out ahead when one succeeds. And our >/=£1m signing record is hardly good.
Lita, Seol, Fae, Halford, Matejovsky, (Rosenior), Bikey, Mills, Mariappa, Gunter, Kelly, Blackman, Williams.
Very few multi-season success stories there and several abject failures. Now, I still think we've wasted money on several players who were never going to make it (Baseya, B Williams), but as far as buying rough diamonds low and polishing them to sell them high, it's impossible to argue it's not effective.

If I'm reading it correctly there really seems to be a disingenuous use of some names in that list. Lita not good value for money? Halford we recovered the fee paid, likewise Mills? - and got good servive from the latter too. Mariappa judged after one season? Gunter likewise? I also think the argument that we afford half a dozen bargain signings and still come out ahead when one succeeds ignores the opportunity cost of filling your squad/using your your funds on those 'hopes' (largely for the future) when you really need someone to hit the ground running almost immediately.

It is very difficult for any sane person to argue against the assertion that, whilst spending more doesn't guarantee success, it does increase the chances of achieving it.

[rfc58]

But for each of those, and there really aren't as many as some suggest, you could add at least one other (and probably two) cheap, speculative signings that didn't work out. The tall Irish striker (Karl Sheppard?), Brett Williams? etc.

For every big money failed signing, we can afford half a dozen bargain signings to fail and still come out ahead when one succeeds. And our >/=£1m signing record is hardly good.
Lita, Seol, Fae, Halford, Matejovsky, (Rosenior), Bikey, Mills, Mariappa, Gunter, Kelly, Blackman, Williams.
Very few multi-season success stories there and several abject failures. Now, I still think we've wasted money on several players who were never going to make it (Baseya, B Williams), but as far as buying rough diamonds low and polishing them to sell them high, it's impossible to argue it's not effective.

If I'm reading it correctly there really seems to be a disingenuous use of some names in that list. Lita not good value for money? Halford we recovered the fee paid, likewise Mills? - and got good servive from the latter too. Mariappa judged after one season? Gunter likewise? I also think the argument that we afford half a dozen bargain signings and still come out ahead when one succeeds ignores the opportunity cost of filling your squad/using your your funds on those 'hopes' (largely for the future) when you really need someone to hit the ground running almost immediately.

It is very difficult for any sane person to argue against the assertion that, whilst spending more doesn't guarantee success, it does increase the chances of achieving it.

Agreed, unless the players coming in are better than we got, almost a guaranteed starter, like Drenthe, all you do is fill the wage bill with players who won't really challenge for a first team place. Not got a clue what Akpala is like, but if last season is anything to go by, is he better than the players we let go, I guess time will tell.

[Judge Drenthe]

That doesn't mean spending £4m+ on one player guarantees a quality signing!

Of course not but spending nothing on a player shows it's a gamble.

How old are you?? Drenthe and Bridge, oh yeah and free agent Danny Guthrie have been our BEST PLAYERS so far this season.. But yeah, they were free so they were really unambitious and a gamble. You muppet!

[Ian Royal]

But for each of those, and there really aren't as many as some suggest, you could add at least one other (and probably two) cheap, speculative signings that didn't work out. The tall Irish striker (Karl Sheppard?), Brett Williams? etc.

For every big money failed signing, we can afford half a dozen bargain signings to fail and still come out ahead when one succeeds. And our >/=£1m signing record is hardly good.
Lita, Seol, Fae, Halford, Matejovsky, (Rosenior), Bikey, Mills, Mariappa, Gunter, Kelly, Blackman, Williams.
Very few multi-season success stories there and several abject failures. Now, I still think we've wasted money on several players who were never going to make it (Baseya, B Williams), but as far as buying rough diamonds low and polishing them to sell them high, it's impossible to argue it's not effective.

If I'm reading it correctly there really seems to be a disingenuous use of some names in that list. Lita not good value for money? Halford we recovered the fee paid, likewise Mills? - and got good servive from the latter too. Mariappa judged after one season? Gunter likewise? I also think the argument that we afford half a dozen bargain signings and still come out ahead when one succeeds ignores the opportunity cost of filling your squad/using your your funds on those 'hopes' (largely for the future) when you really need someone to hit the ground running almost immediately.

It is very difficult for any sane person to argue against the assertion that, whilst spending more doesn't guarantee success, it does increase the chances of achieving it.

That's a list of £1m plus signings. Lita was hardly an unqualified success. He had two short periods of ferocious goal scoring and the rest of the time did little except be a disruptive influence before leaving because he'd failed to live up to his ability.

Whether we recover the fee or not is utterly irrelevant to whether the success rate with the signings is good or not. So yay, we got our money back on ~25% of them.

We've never filled our squad with bargain buys. We've always been buying them with a view to the future and also been buying decent quality and priced players as well. Not big money, but decent money. So that's also a non argument.

Yes of course spending more increases the chance of success, but it also increases the cost of failure. And so there becomes an cost vs benefit evaluation that needs to take place. We ere more on the side of caution than perhaps is necessary. But better that than the other way. And it is indisputable that our approach works. We've had two promotions, one survival, three play off campaigns and no below mid-table finishes in the second tier under it. Which let me remind you, is above our historical level. We're really still rounding out our familiarity and 'right' to be comfortable at this level, let alone higher.

Agreed, unless the players coming in are better than we got, almost a guaranteed starter, like Drenthe, all you do is fill the wage bill with players who won't really challenge for a first team place. Not got a clue what Akpala is like, but if last season is anything to go by, is he better than the players we let go, I guess time will tell.

That's entirely correct if you only take each season in isolation. But the fact is they aren't isolated. Your squad and players develop over seasons. So a proportion of your signings should not be for today, but for tomorrow. So you don't have to be totally reactive in the transfer market and rely on the right player being available when you need them. You are proactive and have a couple in your squad who may be able to step up and take over from the incumbant.

It's the only intelligent way to operate. Yes you need some to jump straight in as quality (Drenthe, Williams?). Just as you need some to come in and be ok as a stop gap (Bridge, Blackman?) until you can get/develop that top player to take the next step.