Rumour - Ben Heneghan

[morganb]

Being reported by the Chronicle

https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/spor ... -heneghan/

Bit of a write up here

https://www.nottheoldfirm.com/analysis/ ... -for-hibs/

Aged 25, cheap to buy

He's 6 foot 3 Inches (1.91m) for the height obsessed

[Denver Royal]

'Brilliant in the air, physically strong, great in the tackle and can also move the ball a bit too, a defender who can play out from the back...'.

Missed this bloke when looking at squads of the promoted (and relegated) teams in here?

[Hound]

looks a reasonable shout on paper. Don't know a lot about him tbh

[Platypuss]

OP is exactly what a rumour thread starter should look like.

[Wallsy]

Former target whilst playing in Scotland. No surprise that we are linked again now that Howe is back at the club.

Impressed on loan at Blackpool last season. A leader and a strong chap by all accounts.

Would be cheap. A traditional Reading signing.

[Snowflake Royal]

Looks to have the hallmarks of a good signing. Shouldn't be hard to compete with Hibs either, even though we're broke.

Similar sized Northern clubs may have an advantage if he doesn't want to uproot family or get homesick though.

[NewCorkSeth]

OP is exactly what a rumour thread starter should look like.

Why dont you marry him so you meanie.

[Snowflake Royal]

OP is exactly what a rumour thread starter should look like.

Why dont you marry him so you meanie.

Would have benefited from position, though that was easy to find out from the links.

[CountryRoyal]

OP is exactly what a rumour thread starter should look like.

Why dont you marry him so you meanie.

Would have benefited from position, though that was easy to find out from the links.

Felt it was missing quite a lot of detail tbh. Didn’t see any mention of what pizza toppings he likes. How are we supposed to get by without crucial information like that?

[Snowflake Royal]

Why dont you marry him so you meanie.

Would have benefited from position, though that was easy to find out from the links.

Felt it was missing quite a lot of detail tbh. Didn’t see any mention of what pizza toppings he likes. How are we supposed to get by without crucial information like that?

There's two types of people with Pizza toppings. Those who like Hawaiian and Nazis. Best not to ask really.

[Nameless]

Looks to have the hallmarks of a good signing. Shouldn't be hard to compete with Hibs either, even though we're broke.

Similar sized Northern clubs may have an advantage if he doesn't want to uproot family or get homesick though.

Just on a point of detail. We’re not broke.
We could go and break our transfer record tomorrow, and then do it again the next day.
We’re trying to remain within the FFP rules but that is not the same as being broke.

[Snowflake Royal]

Looks to have the hallmarks of a good signing. Shouldn't be hard to compete with Hibs either, even though we're broke.

Similar sized Northern clubs may have an advantage if he doesn't want to uproot family or get homesick though.

Just on a point of detail. We’re not broke.
We could go and break our transfer record tomorrow, and then do it again the next day.
We’re trying to remain within the FFP rules but that is not the same as being broke.

Our outgoings dramatically outweigh our incomings, we're broke, our owners aren't but we're not our owners. So basically the same thing.

[Wycombe Royal]

Looks to have the hallmarks of a good signing. Shouldn't be hard to compete with Hibs either, even though we're broke.

Similar sized Northern clubs may have an advantage if he doesn't want to uproot family or get homesick though.

Just on a point of detail. We’re not broke.
We could go and break our transfer record tomorrow, and then do it again the next day.
We’re trying to remain within the FFP rules but that is not the same as being broke.

Our outgoings dramatically outweigh our incomings, we're broke, our owners aren't but we're not our owners. So basically the same thing.

No it isn’t the same thing. But as it was explained to you previously and you didn’t get it there is no point explaining it again.

[Snowflake Royal]

Just on a point of detail. We’re not broke.
We could go and break our transfer record tomorrow, and then do it again the next day.
We’re trying to remain within the FFP rules but that is not the same as being broke.

Our outgoings dramatically outweigh our incomings, we're broke, our owners aren't but we're not our owners. So basically the same thing.

No it isn’t the same thing. But as it was explained to you previously and you didn’t get it there is no point explaining it again.

No, I got it, I disagreed with it.

We can't spend until we've cut cost / increased income. Broke.

[PistolPete]

How can someone be that thick?!

[URZZZZ]

Our outgoings dramatically outweigh our incomings, we're broke, our owners aren't but we're not our owners. So basically the same thing.

No it isn’t the same thing. But as it was explained to you previously and you didn’t get it there is no point explaining it again.

No, I got it, I disagreed with it.

We can't spend until we've cut cost / increased income. Broke.

There's a difference in "having no money" and "not being able to spend". One is directly affiliated with being broke, the other isn't

[Sutekh]

Technically isn’t FFP equivalent to a restraint of trade and therefore illegal?

[Snowflake Royal]

No it isn’t the same thing. But as it was explained to you previously and you didn’t get it there is no point explaining it again.

No, I got it, I disagreed with it.

We can't spend until we've cut cost / increased income. Broke.

There's a difference in "having no money" and "not being able to spend". One is directly affiliated with being broke, the other isn't

The key is that the owner's money and the club's money are not the same thing. If the club had money we could spend it. What we can't do is be gifted or loaned someone else's money to spend well beyond our means.

If your outgoings are a 130% of your income, you have no significant savings and you owe your parents thousands, it doesn't matter how rich your parents are and how much more they can loan you, you're still broke.

It's a stupid argument though, because we're not going to be gifted money and spend yet more we don't have because a fine and / or embargo and / or points deduction would be very bad so Nameless's comment is pointless.

[Wycombe Royal]

No, I got it, I disagreed with it.

We can't spend until we've cut cost / increased income. Broke.

There's a difference in "having no money" and "not being able to spend". One is directly affiliated with being broke, the other isn't

The key is that the owner's money and the club's money are not the same thing. If the club had money we could spend it. What we can't do is be gifted or loaned someone else's money to spend well beyond our means.

If your outgoings are a 130% of your income, you have no significant savings and you owe your parents thousands, it doesn't matter how rich your parents are and how much more they can loan you, you're still broke.

It's a stupid argument though, because we're not going to be gifted money and spend yet more we don't have because a fine and / or embargo and / or points deduction would be very bad so Nameless's comment is pointless.

In any other line of business a parent business can inject capital to allow them to continue trading beyond their means. FFP in football stops that happening regardless of how rich your owners are, and as someone said I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged as a restraint of trade.

However it doesn't mean your broke which is what you are saying above. I owe my mortgage company thousands but I'm not broke.

There are many businesses out there that have made massive losses every year, but they aren't broke as they have investors.

[Snowflake Royal]

There's a difference in "having no money" and "not being able to spend". One is directly affiliated with being broke, the other isn't

The key is that the owner's money and the club's money are not the same thing. If the club had money we could spend it. What we can't do is be gifted or loaned someone else's money to spend well beyond our means.

If your outgoings are a 130% of your income, you have no significant savings and you owe your parents thousands, it doesn't matter how rich your parents are and how much more they can loan you, you're still broke.

It's a stupid argument though, because we're not going to be gifted money and spend yet more we don't have because a fine and / or embargo and / or points deduction would be very bad so Nameless's comment is pointless.

In any other line of business a parent business can inject capital to allow them to continue trading beyond their means. FFP in football stops that happening regardless of how rich your owners are, and as someone said I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged as a restraint of trade.

However it doesn't mean your broke which is what you are saying above. I owe my mortgage company thousands but I'm not broke.

There are many businesses out there that have made massive losses every year, but they aren't broke as they have investors.

I'm hoping for your benefit you aren't spending 120% of your annual income and your mortgage debt us reducing, not growing larger. Or you might find yourself broke.