You've got to laugh ... or else you'll cry!

[Arch]

The funny thing is that all of our sales have represented, to me, pretty good business on the part of the club. How we've managed to get £5.5m for Kitson and £3m for SHunt is beyond me. And £2m for a sadly past-it Sonko... amazing. To see Doyle going was gutting, but it was inevitable and it was a great price. The problem is that without proper re-investment this "good business" can ruin a club.

They're only good business if the impact to the quality of the squad is mitigated by bringing someone in, wouldn't one agree?

+1 would indeed agree. With the original poster too. But much as it's good to see us finally sign some players, we look some way off matching our Premier League squad. To the point that team didn't cost us much, I think the way they gelled and things worked out was a real one-off. Having made it to the position we were in further investment was the only way forward and sadly I think we're trying to repeat a miracle on the cheap rather than reinvest that income. Successful business reinvest, but we don't seem to want to and pessimism is therefore getting the better of me

Clauski, the observation about the cost of that team to us is not the suggestion that cheaping out is the best way. But it is a counterpoint to the naive statement "you get what you pay for". Strap's chart makes no undisputable point other than these players cost x and those players cost y.

[Wimb]

You mean players from the Watford team that on 2nd half form would have made the playoffs?

Replacing Reading players that on 2nd half form would have seen us relegated?

Watford got 32 points in their second half of the season, that equates to 64 for the season, it would not have made the play offs FACT..

we took 31 points in the second half of the season, that equates to 62 for a season, that is not relegation form FACT.

Their improvement was good under BR, but please keep it in context.

Rodgers took charge of 31 games at Watford, Won 13, drew 6. So over a full season that works out to about 20 wins, 9 draws, which is 69 points, good enough for 8th last year.

Ok so to be pedantic not QUITE playoff form but near enough.

The point is people are whinging about players we've lost who took 31 points in the second half of the season, when BR took the so called 'inferior group' on a better run of form.

[adamh4608]

and this is called progress

[gonesy]

The funny thing is that all of our sales have represented, to me, pretty good business on the part of the club. How we've managed to get £5.5m for Kitson and £3m for SHunt is beyond me. And £2m for a sadly past-it Sonko... amazing. To see Doyle going was gutting, but it was inevitable and it was a great price. The problem is that without proper re-investment this "good business" can ruin a club.

Those deals weren't a patch on this one though...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llion.html

[Wimb]

The funny thing is that all of our sales have represented, to me, pretty good business on the part of the club. How we've managed to get £5.5m for Kitson and £3m for SHunt is beyond me. And £2m for a sadly past-it Sonko... amazing. To see Doyle going was gutting, but it was inevitable and it was a great price. The problem is that without proper re-investment this "good business" can ruin a club.

Those deals weren't a patch on this one though...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... llion.html

If we'd kept that we'd have been promoted for sure. Always was solid, never grumbled and was always right where you wanted it.

[papereyes]

The funny thing is that all of our sales have represented, to me, pretty good business on the part of the club. How we've managed to get £5.5m for Kitson and £3m for SHunt is beyond me. And £2m for a sadly past-it Sonko... amazing. To see Doyle going was gutting, but it was inevitable and it was a great price. The problem is that without proper re-investment this "good business" can ruin a club.

They're only good business if the impact to the quality of the squad is mitigated by bringing someone in, wouldn't one agree?

The problem with that of course is that as far as this list goes those players took several seasons to reach the values listed. Given that most have only been gone just over a year (and two of them haven't actually gone anywhere) then to expect us to replace like for like with similiar players as a championship club is unrealistic if you ask me.

But just syaying "We made BLAH profit" on a player and that that's good business just misses the point, imo. Yes, we can't replace like for like but there was nothing stopping us bringing in a better quality of player when we were in the ascendent.

Its the same as "We didn't make a loss on Fae/Halford/whoever" - I'd rather see a player play for a winning Reading side than look neat and tidy on the balance sheet. We may have broken even or whatever, but a good central midfielder was what was needed.

[Roy Alsup]

With the latest rumours abounding re. Rosenior to Hull and Harper to Wolves, we could have a full starting XI playing in the Premiership this season!

Compare and contrast ..... just for perspective of course, absolutely no criticism of anyone at RFC intended.

On top of the money we spent after this was done. If you include Marek, Cisse, and Stretch there is at least another 2.5 million worth of transfer spending in our squad that could have been in your 'alternatives' list.

[Ian Royal]

Its the same as "We didn't make a loss on Fae/Halford/whoever" - I'd rather see a player play for a winning Reading side than look neat and tidy on the balance sheet. We may have broken even or whatever, but a good central midfielder was what was needed.

Obviously we'd all have rather had effective players who were successful for us instead of Halford and Fae, but there are always going to be duff buys and if you can ship those buys out for no loss or in fact a profit, then that is good business.

It doesn't change the signings from being playing failures, it merely mitgates the financial impact of the failure. The main problem appeared to be all of Coppell's duff buys turned up in quick succession, and some of his previously sound buys went through poor patches at the same time.

[loyalroyal4life]

For the record I believe Seol left Fulham last year and now plays in Germany or somewhere.

For the record you are incorrect

[Vision]

Its the same as "We didn't make a loss on Fae/Halford/whoever" - I'd rather see a player play for a winning Reading side than look neat and tidy on the balance sheet. We may have broken even or whatever, but a good central midfielder was what was needed.

Obviously we'd all have rather had effective players who were successful for us instead of Halford and Fae, but there are always going to be duff buys and if you can ship those buys out for no loss or in fact a profit, then that is good business.

It doesn't change the signings from being playing failures, it merely mitgates the financial impact of the failure. The main problem appeared to be all of Coppell's duff buys turned up in quick succession, and some of his previously sound buys went through poor patches at the same time.

Halford couldn't get into a side that finished 8th in the Premiership which was fair enough so get our money back is fine. Fae is a different case in my view because he couldn't get in a struggling team. IE when we needed him to be worth it as a signing he wasn't (or wasn't given the chance) They get lumped together alot but I'm not sure they should really.

[RoyalBlue]

+1 would indeed agree. With the original poster too. But much as it's good to see us finally sign some players, we look some way off matching our Premier League squad. To the point that team didn't cost us much, I think the way they gelled and things worked out was a real one-off. Having made it to the position we were in further investment was the only way forward and sadly I think we're trying to repeat a miracle on the cheap rather than reinvest that income. Successful business reinvest, but we don't seem to want to and pessimism is therefore getting the better of me

Clauski, the observation about the cost of that team to us is not the suggestion that cheaping out is the best way. But it is a counterpoint to the naive statement "you get what you pay for". Strap's chart makes no undisputable point other than these players cost x and those players cost y.

Only it is not a naive statement as most things in life show. Of course you can sometimes pick up a gem (in all walks of life and business) for an absolute bargain. Likewise, on occasions, you can buy a big heap of crap for way over the odds. However, in general the more you pay the better your chances of securing quality. Doyle actually proves, rather than disproves the point. The reason all the pundits were creaming themselves over Coppell's genius in that case is that such signings coming good really is a rarity.

[papereyes]

Its the same as "We didn't make a loss on Fae/Halford/whoever" - I'd rather see a player play for a winning Reading side than look neat and tidy on the balance sheet. We may have broken even or whatever, but a good central midfielder was what was needed.

Obviously we'd all have rather had effective players who were successful for us instead of Halford and Fae, but there are always going to be duff buys and if you can ship those buys out for no loss or in fact a profit, then that is good business.

It doesn't change the signings from being playing failures, it merely mitgates the financial impact of the failure. The main problem appeared to be all of Coppell's duff buys turned up in quick succession, and some of his previously sound buys went through poor patches at the same time.

But there's still the central issue that we bought the players for a reason then them failing to fill that role leaves us somewhat short. Yes, its mitigated, but I find it a very small crumb of comfort given what that actually represents.

[Ian Royal]

When a transfer fails as completely as those two did, I'm of the opinion you take your successes where you can find them. Could have been worse.

[papereyes]

When a transfer fails as completely as those two did, I'm of the opinion you take your successes where you can find them. Could have been worse.

How?

Neither player played in a league match that RFC won.

[Ian Royal]

When a transfer fails as completely as those two did, I'm of the opinion you take your successes where you can find them. Could have been worse.

How?

Neither player played in a league match that RFC won.

We could have got none of our money back...

[papereyes]

... money which we've reinvested in adequate replacements for the players involved?

[Ian Royal]

... money which we've reinvested in adequate replacements for the players involved?

Halford - Rosenior
Fae - Matejovsky, Tabb

None a brilliant success either, but yes, both replaced and one before we got money back for the other.

[fool]

Seems like very good business...

[Vision]

Halford couldn't get into a side that finished 8th in the Premiership which was fair enough so get our money back is fine. Fae is a different case in my view because he couldn't get in a struggling team. IE when we needed him to be worth it as a signing he wasn't (or wasn't given the chance) They get lumped together alot but I'm not sure they should really.

The problem with Halford and Fae is not what they cost us in terms of transfer fees vs recouped fees, as that just about breaks even - the problem is what they cost us in terms of sporting success. With our limited resources for transfers and wages, what these two wasters effectively did was to keep other potentially successful players out. Simply put, we spent the resources on wasters while we could have spent them on good players. So signing these two duds could be seen as a major contribution to our eventual relegation.

My opinion is "Halford couldn't get into a side that finished 8th " and after that season wanted out. Fae as i said is a different case. We needed him to step up and make a contribution when we signed him because we were struggling but he couldn't. Therefore he was a fail. Halford didn't contribute because the side did better than expected therefore getting our money back was ok. Fae was a failure as you say because we needed someone to contribute and the money spent on him could have been spent on someone that could.

Their cases are not the same in my opinion.

[Royal Rother]

Watford got 32 points in their second half of the season, that equates to 64 for the season, it would not have made the play offs FACT..

we took 31 points in the second half of the season, that equates to 62 for a season, that is not relegation form FACT.

Their improvement was good under BR, but please keep it in context.

Rodgers took charge of 31 games at Watford, Won 13, drew 6. So over a full season that works out to about 20 wins, 9 draws, which is 69 points, good enough for 8th last year.

Ok so to be pedantic not QUITE playoff form but near enough.

The point is people are whinging about players we've lost who took 31 points in the second half of the season, when BR took the so called 'inferior group' on a better run of form.

HOWEVER...

In their last 16 games (after the Rodgers effect had taken effect) they P16 W8 D4 L4, which gives 28 points - extrapolate that over the course of a full season and it gives 80.5 points which would have been good enough for 3rd place.