Failure to buy a striker

[Hoop Blah]

Don't forget that Gylfi was sold on the Sunday before the transfer window closed at 6 pm on the Tuesday, and that was a very unexpected deal that went through quickly.

Lining up and signing a quality striker in that limited time may not have been possible.

Don't buy that for a minute Dirk. The club were brokering the deal themselves, and the rumour from on here was that it was all set up the week before with their scouts coming over to our training to take a look.

Clubs line up deals and replacements to rubber seal at the last minute all the time (was it Taylor we had on standby in case Shorey went one window?). Apparently the deal didn't happen for whatever reason, but I don't think the Sigurdsson being a 'surprise' is a valid excuse.

[Hoop Blah]

I should have been clearer. I meant when Millwall signed him (for 130K)

So not in August as stated in the post you were quoting then?

[Snowball]

I should have been clearer. I meant when Millwall signed him (for 130K)

So not in August as stated in the post you were quoting then?

I should have been clearer. I meant when Millwall signed him (for 130K)

[Svlad Cjelli]

Don't forget that Gylfi was sold on the Sunday before the transfer window closed at 6 pm on the Tuesday, and that was a very unexpected deal that went through quickly.

Lining up and signing a quality striker in that limited time may not have been possible.

Don't buy that for a minute Dirk. The club were brokering the deal themselves, and the rumour from on here was that it was all set up the week before with their scouts coming over to our training to take a look.

Clubs line up deals and replacements to rubber seal at the last minute all the time (was it Taylor we had on standby in case Shorey went one window?). Apparently the deal didn't happen for whatever reason, but I don't think the Sigurdsson being a 'surprise' is a valid excuse.

I do - in this circumstance Hoffenheim only came in on the Saturday with a bid. Before that there was genuinely no expectation of a sale so nothing potential was lined up. With Shorey there was a real expectation of a sale, but not in this case.

They could have gone quickly for anyone who was available immediately and risked money that way, but that's not "The Reading Way"

[Hoop Blah]

No expectation of a sale? That's a bit naive isn't it?

That doesn't sound like well run club, not having a clue who to go to when the single most important player in the side was taken (I actually think they did, and it was Morison, but they just didn't manage to get it all done and dusted in time).

[Svlad Cjelli]

No expectation of a sale? That's a bit naive isn't it?

That doesn't sound like well run club, not having a clue who to go to when the single most important player in the side was taken (I actually think they did, and it was Morison, but they just didn't manage to get it all done and dusted in time).

Really? They didn't think they'd have money to spend so they didn't try to set up a deal. Sounds quite straightforward to me, and also exactly what a well-run club would do - not trying to spend money they didn't have.

It's quite possible they did want Morrison, but doesn't that support the theory that there wasn't time to do a deal by the time they knew that could fund it?

[Hoop Blah]

I think a well run outfit would have a very good idea of who they want to replace any key personnel (I think we do have an idea, and did in Sigurdssons case too).

Bascially I don't buy the excuse that they ran out of time because the bid came in too late. That bit is, in my opinion, a bit of a mistake.

It's not a case of spending money you don't have. It's a case of having a series of workable contingencies and being able to act on them quick enough.

This was by no means a quick moving transfer. We hear of loads of deals that materialise on the final day and still get completed. I'd give them the benefit that stealing a rivals top forward is a bit different to their back up right back though.

[brendywendy]

No expectation of a sale? That's a bit naive isn't it?

That doesn't sound like well run club, not having a clue who to go to when the single most important player in the side was taken (I actually think they did, and it was Morison, but they just didn't manage to get it all done and dusted in time).

Really? They didn't think they'd have money to spend so they didn't try to set up a deal. Sounds quite straightforward to me, and also exactly what a well-run club would do - not trying to spend money they didn't have.

It's quite possible they did want Morrison, but doesn't that support the theory that there wasn't time to do a deal by the time they knew that could fund it?

thats spot on isnt it?

[Hoop Blah]

It would be spot if the Sigurdsson was a last minute transfer but HNA knew he was off he day before he went didn't we?

I think the club should've been able to react quicker and be more successful at getting their targets in. Not every transfer can happen of course, but not getting in a replacement in has proven to be a mistake, and a very predictable one at that.

[Ian Royal]

It would be spot if the Sigurdsson was a last minute transfer but HNA knew he was off he day before he went didn't we?

I think the club should've been able to react quicker and be more successful at getting their targets in. Not every transfer can happen of course, but not getting in a replacement in has proven to be a mistake, and a very predictable one at that.

Oooo one extra day!

I actually agree with you that the club should have anticipated it better and had better contingencies in place to leap into action. However, I also think that just because he was being scouted (lets face it, he probably got scouted most weeks anyway) doesn't mean we really had much idea that a firm bid of a high enough amount would be made, especially so late in the window.

Hell we probably did know our target and have a rough idea of whether it would be doable, but that doesn't mean the other player and club would be as accomodating as us in processing a transfer on the quick. Especially if it really was a rival like Millwall for Morison, when clearly they then have to find his replacement as well, with even less time.

A lesson to be learnt certainly, but not exactly negligence.

[under the tin]

[quote="Ian Royal"]
Oooo one extra day!

I actually agree with you that the club should have anticipated it better and had better contingencies in place to leap into action. However, I also think that just because he was being scouted (lets face it, he probably got scouted most weeks anyway) doesn't mean we really had much idea that a firm bid of a high enough amount would be made, especially so late in the window./quote]

But it wasn't one extra day (for the club) was it?
One extra day (or so) for a bloody fan's website, with the news coming in from a contributor from Iceland (Stokie).
I confess that I'm with Hoop in that there are really some gullible people that swallow everything that the PR machine at the Madstad churns out.
Sure, they're not going to go public before the deal is done, in case it queers the pitch, (Tommy Smith, cough).
However, those within the club knew that wheels were turning.
Do you honestly believe that Hammond had not discussed ball park figures with the Hoffenheim people prior to them getting on the plane?
Do you honestly believe that RFC actually invited the Hoffenheim people to watch the training sessions (which is a world away from a scout watching a player from the stands) without the knowledge that this was very serious interest from a club that was prepared to meet the price?
The way I see it, the movers and shakers at RFC knew the Germans weren't coming here to sample the Berkshire air.
There was a very small time window between the club going public about Gylfi's sale, and the transfer deadline, but that is not the same as the timescale between Hoffenheim's hard interest, and the deadline.
The only way that the two timescales can be the same is if Mc Dermott & co were unaware of it all until the Germans turned up at Hogwood. Now there's a conspiracy theory for you....

[pea]

The problem with strikers is that if we'd signed a player like Rhodes, Fryatt, Boyd or Waghorn last January everyone would be saying that we were finally showing ambition. Now all with their big price tags are sitting warming the bench at their clubs or can't buy a goal. Spending money on an in form striker won't necessarily be any better than sticking with what we have.

[Hoop Blah]

The problem with strikers is that if we'd signed a player like Rhodes, Fryatt, Boyd or Waghorn last January everyone would be saying that we were finally showing ambition. Now all with their big price tags are sitting warming the bench at their clubs or can't buy a goal. Spending money on an in form striker won't necessarily be any better than sticking with what we have.

Agree on that, and every transfer is a gamble.

The secret is to buy a player who not only improves your team but is one you can integrate successfully and continue to get the best out of them. What we really need is a forward who is different to those we already have, who are all too similar, and that doesn't have to be an expensive player really...although you do generally get what you pay for.

[Victor Meldrew]

As under the tin says there are some really naive people on here who believe that the Gylfi deal only arose a day or two before the end of the transfer window.
The good managers have agents and contacts ready to deal if certain events occur and have dossiers on players both here and abroad.
Brian for many years scouted the teams that we were due to play and I'm sure his knowledge of players is extensive although it may be slightly less so now that he has been just managing for a year and the manager of the reserves before that.

I know of a mini mafia including Coppell,Pardew, Pulis and an agent who have maintained close links over the years leading to transfers and they have significant awareness of availability and cost of a number of mainly Southern based players.
I'm sure Brian is the same with his own connections which may have a more Northern bias if Kish,Griff and Harte are anything to go by and my view is that he wasn't allowed to buy when the Gylfi transfer became evident.
He strikes me (and most others) as a bright bloke and he has gone out on a limb in backing our strikers when I feel sure that he would love to bring in a different type of striker if only to boost the numbers and add variety.

[Snowball]

I find all these conspiracy theories a little silly.

Yes, there may have been a strong chance we were going to sell Gylfi, but there are literally HUNDREDS of caveats,

We may have been stalling, saying we needed a handshake so we could commit to buying others elsewhere. Look, for example at how Harte was instantly available. That was a done-deal. But if you are negotiating buying Striker X from club Y, THEY have a problem of who do THEY buy if they let him go. They too will be playing hard-ball, and will want a significant pay-out to justify what they are selling (and remember they have to deal with their own fans afterwards)


And you're a striker/midfielder and along comes (only moderately attractive) Reading FC to say "commit to us, tell us you'll say yes" but we won't sign you until 7PM on deadline day. Maybe another similar (or better club) is sniffing around and can commit a day earlier, with £1,000 a week more or an extra year on the contract... or you don't have to move house...

The possibilities are endless.

The Hoff deal may have been for less with us keeping him on loan and they changed their offer at the last minute. It may have been not like that but they promised a 100% decision a couple of days earlier but it didn't transpire... and a sensible club will NOT jump early.

Say we HAD jumped early and got Griff-Harte-midfielder X and striker Y... Then Hoff say, 4 million knowing we have committed.

Not saying any of these things actually happened, but a transfer one way with a replacement in house is very different from one where ideally we need to buy in at the same time.

Anyone who has ever been in a house-selling chain knows that.

[Wimb]

I find all these conspiracy theories a little silly.

Yes, there may have been a strong chance we were going to sell Gylfi, but there are literally HUNDREDS of caveats,

We may have been stalling, saying we needed a handshake so we could commit to buying others elsewhere. Look, for example at how Harte was instantly available. That was a done-deal. But if you are negotiating buying Striker X from club Y, THEY have a problem of who do THEY buy if they let him go. They too will be playing hard-ball, and will want a significant pay-out to justify what they are selling (and remember they have to deal with their own fans afterwards)


And you're a striker/midfielder and along comes (only moderately attractive) Reading FC to say "commit to us, tell us you'll say yes" but we won't sign you until 7PM on deadline day. Maybe another similar (or better club) is sniffing around and can commit a day earlier, with £1,000 a week more or an extra year on the contract... or you don't have to move house...

The possibilities are endless.

The Hoff deal may have been for less with us keeping him on loan and they changed their offer at the last minute. It may have been not like that but they promised a 100% decision a couple of days earlier but it didn't transpire... and a sensible club will NOT jump early.

Say we HAD jumped early and got Griff-Harte-midfielder X and striker Y... Then Hoff say, 4 million knowing we have committed.

Not saying any of these things actually happened, but a transfer one way with a replacement in house is very different from one where ideally we need to buy in at the same time.

Anyone who has ever been in a house-selling chain knows that.

Totally spot on Snowball

[Snowball]

Cheers, Wimb.

[leon]

I find all these conspiracy theories a little silly.

Yes, there may have been a strong chance we were going to sell Gylfi, but there are literally HUNDREDS of caveats,

We may have been stalling, saying we needed a handshake so we could commit to buying others elsewhere. Look, for example at how Harte was instantly available. That was a done-deal. But if you are negotiating buying Striker X from club Y, THEY have a problem of who do THEY buy if they let him go. They too will be playing hard-ball, and will want a significant pay-out to justify what they are selling (and remember they have to deal with their own fans afterwards)


And you're a striker/midfielder and along comes (only moderately attractive) Reading FC to say "commit to us, tell us you'll say yes" but we won't sign you until 7PM on deadline day. Maybe another similar (or better club) is sniffing around and can commit a day earlier, with £1,000 a week more or an extra year on the contract... or you don't have to move house...

The possibilities are endless.

The Hoff deal may have been for less with us keeping him on loan and they changed their offer at the last minute. It may have been not like that but they promised a 100% decision a couple of days earlier but it didn't transpire... and a sensible club will NOT jump early.

Say we HAD jumped early and got Griff-Harte-midfielder X and striker Y... Then Hoff say, 4 million knowing we have committed.

Not saying any of these things actually happened, but a transfer one way with a replacement in house is very different from one where ideally we need to buy in at the same time.

Anyone who has ever been in a house-selling chain knows that.

Totally spot on Snowball

We were building a team around Gylfi - if he goes so does our entire strategy. So selling him is big decision.

Are we saying that it was a last minute decision - that we didn't have an inkling that anyone was interested enough to make a bid in the Summer and as a result we had no contingency in place? I find that difficult to believe - if it was true why sell and put our entire plans in jeopardy?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Believe it or believe it not, it's the facts.

And think back to the situation at the time - the priorities were clearly the defence rather than the attack, so the couple of days available once the money was confirmed were spent securing Zurab & Harte.

With Hunty just one the way back from injury and effectively also a "new striker" the priority was not a striker then - it's only hindsight, and the failure of the existing strike-force, that has brought the issue to a head now - on paper at the time Long, Hunt & Church ought to have been good enough.

[leon]

Believe it or believe it not, it's the facts.

And think back to the situation at the time - the priorities were clearly the defence rather than the attack, so the couple of days available once the money was confirmed were spent securing Zurab & Harte.

With Hunty just one the way back from injury and effectively also a "new striker" the priority was not a striker then - it's only hindsight, and the failure of the existing strike-force, that has brought the issue to a head now - on paper at the time Long, Hunt & Church ought to have been good enough.

Well if that is the case I would suggest an an incompetent and short term-ist management at the club - chaotic rather than "well managed". Not good at all.