Replacements for Long (if he goes)

[Royalwaster]

The alternative is saying "we've got lots of money to spend now and we want a striker." As well as guaranteeing that prices will go up, its a kick in the teeth to the other squad members trying to prove themselves at the moment. It's just not the way Reading does things.

He won't be replaced is not the same as saying we won't get in another striker ... it simply means we're not going to go out there and spend millions on a 'replacement'. There's me hoping at least that's what he means ...

[Woodcote Royal]

The alternative is saying "we've got lots of money to spend now and we want a striker." As well as guaranteeing that prices will go up, its a kick in the teeth to the other squad members trying to prove themselves at the moment. It's just not the way Reading does things.

The club must love the fact that there is no shortage within our idiot factor of those champing at the bit to plaster all over the net their outrage at how McDermott would not be given a brass farthing of anything up to £15m to re-invest in the squad

[Svlad Cjelli]

The alternative is saying "we've got lots of money to spend now and we want a striker." As well as guaranteeing that prices will go up, its a kick in the teeth to the other squad members trying to prove themselves at the moment. It's just not the way Reading does things.

The club must love the fact that there is no shortage within our idiot factor of those champing at the bit to plaster all over the net their outrage at how McDermott would not be given a brass farthing of anything up to £15m to re-invest in the squad

Well, quite! In fact, they must love the fact that anything released by the club's publidity department is immediately seized on as gospel truth and taken complketely at face value. That's excatly what they want, and they must love it that no-one ever seems to question what stories are being released and when/why they are released - and for whose benefit!

[ronnyroyal]

He (long) not involved in any web/stadium publicity or pictures. Wouldn't you want your top strikers in some if he was staying? It would end up like the Mills pictures where it looks like a child has used the eraser button on Windows 95 paint to cut his head off of the website.

[Hoop Blah]

The alternative is saying "we've got lots of money to spend now and we want a striker." As well as guaranteeing that prices will go up, its a kick in the teeth to the other squad members trying to prove themselves at the moment. It's just not the way Reading does things.

The club must love the fact that there is no shortage within our idiot factor of those champing at the bit to plaster all over the net their outrage at how McDermott would not be given a brass farthing of anything up to £15m to re-invest in the squad

Well, quite! In fact, they must love the fact that anything released by the club's publidity department is immediately seized on as gospel truth and taken complketely at face value. That's excatly what they want, and they must love it that no-one ever seems to question what stories are being released and when/why they are released - and for whose benefit!

So we're back to saying that all the guff that comes out of the club about not spending too much is just spin to put other clubs off the scent that we might have some secret millions in our transfer budget?

I just can't subscribe to the idea that clubs, in such an incestuous industry, are swayed either way by what the club put out on the OS or via the local hacks.

[Ian Royal]

There's no point advertising, though. It probably doesn't make mush difference, but it doesn't really cause any harm.

The only real harm can be done to fan perception, and given those who are likely to get upset by this sort of thing are those who read the most negative possible meaning out of any comments and dismiss anything positive as meaningless spin or lies.

[Hoop Blah]

I can't see it making any difference to negotiations between clubs.

To say that managing expectations amongst such a key group of stakeholders is of little importance strikes me as a bit odd. Players and fans make the club what it is. To create such an impression amongst those groups (less so the players and their is the confidence/motivation to factor in) just seems counter productive to me.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

long is going and BMCD say no replacement

AMBITION OR WHAT



ImhO

[Woodcote Royal]

So we're back to saying that all the guff that comes out of the club about not spending too much is just spin to put other clubs off the scent that we might have some secret millions in our transfer budget?

I just can't subscribe to the idea that clubs, in such an incestuous industry, are swayed either way by what the club put out on the OS or via the local hacks.

Regardless of what emanates from the club, if you believe that McDermott would see nothing from the proceeds of selling both Mills and Long......................you must have come down with the last shower which surprises me, I have to say.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Replacement will come from what we've already got. If Long goes, we'll start with Hunt and HRK or Hunt and Manset

We'll keep any money we get for Long to pay off next years defecit for this well run club of ours.

[Woodcote Royal]

We'll keep any money we get for Long to pay off next years defecit for this well run club of ours.

As I said, the club loves blokes like you.

[Hoop Blah]

We'll keep any money we get for Long to pay off next years defecit for this well run club of ours.

As I said, the club loves blokes like you.

What are you saying WR? That the club doesn't sell players to use the majority of their transfer fee to balance the books?

[roadrunner]

We'll keep any money we get for Long to pay off next years defecit for this well run club of ours.

As I said, the club loves blokes like you.

What are you saying WR? That the club doesn't sell players to use the majority of their transfer fee to balance the books?

We all thought the Sigurdsson money would cover this summers deficit didn't we? Then Mills went and it still doesn't sound quite enough.

[Hoop Blah]

Personally I thought the Sigurdsson money was being used to cover the short fall of 2010-11 actually, but it doesn't really matter.

I'm just trying to understand what WR's point is. He seems to imply that anyone who believes the club when they say we're not spending the money we receive is buying their PR spin and subterfuge hook line and sinker. I thought he'd suggested that we just spin this stuff out there to help negotiations with clubs for the replacements we have in mind.

I'm just at a bit of a loss as to what WR means.

[ZacNaloen]

If Long goes the money will not be used to buy a direct replacement, because the club believes the direct replacement already exists in the squad.

The money will be used to buy someone for 2 or 3 years time who has not yet reached the peak of their value.

It's just the way we do things. The End.


(or we'll get someone experienced to fill a gap left by the inexperienced youth, of which we have none up front they are all experienced enough now)

[specialjon]

I was thinking we should just have two threads on HNA. One called "Bitching and Moaning about the deficit" and "That's what i call Stats 2001981" for Snowball. It'd save nearly every thread turning into the same old same old.

[loyalroyal4life]

I think if we do sign a replacement then it will only come in January, which will be too little too late (unless we go on a similar run to last season)

We need to have a decent start this season especially considering our run in last 6 weeks

[Woodcote Royal]

We'll keep any money we get for Long to pay off next years defecit for this well run club of ours.

As I said, the club loves blokes like you.

What are you saying WR? That the club doesn't sell players to use the majority of their transfer fee to balance the books?

I'm saying the club doesn't need the proceeds from selling both Mills & Long (anything up to £15m) to balance the books and that anything emanating from the club suggesting this should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Also, all I've seen regarding this is Brian "suggesting" he won't replace Long........................which is not the same as saying he would not get any money from the sale.

This happens every year during the window and every year we get the same knee jerkers throwing their toys out of the pram even though it's been very rare for us not to bring in several players during this period.

So far, we've acquired an international defender on loan plus Leigertwood, for whom QPR would have demanded a substantial fee. These acquisitions would have made a serious dent in the budget yet one was made long before SGE stumped up a stupid fee for Mills.

I keep reading the view from yourself and others that no one believes our pleadings of poverty when it's worked very nicely for us down the years.

Unlike others, I don't pretend to have full details of the club's finances but whilst we rarely show a profit, we're in much better shape than most and SJM would never allow the club to sink £10m plus into the red in the current climate..........................do you really need this being pointed out to you

We achieve this healthy state by buying low and selling high and, frankly, it doesn't matter whether other more desperate clubs believe what we say publicly about our finances or not.

As things stand, Brian's squad is good to go for Millwall but I'm damn sure he and Squeeky have a shopping list and know who needs to sell before the deadline and will, therefore, be prepared to drop their prices if they have to.

Furthermore, would it be so unreasonable if Long was not replaced immediately? This time last year many fans were desperate for someone to take him off our hands. Now, we have the likes of Chuch, Mansett and HRK who all have it in them to be next the Shane Long so why fork out big bucks straight away if we don't need to?

Who knows, perhaps the club will elect to hang to any further windfalls in this window and spend some of the spoils in January........................and just how many other clubs would then be saying "Ah!!! We know you've still got £8m to spend from the sale of Shane Long. YOU'RE LOADED"

[friday fan]

why not get Harry Kewell as he is without a club and plays the role for the Aussie National Team perhaps a pay per play deal

[Hoop Blah]

I'm saying the club doesn't need the proceeds from selling both Mills & Long (anything up to £15m) to balance the books and that anything emanating from the club suggesting this should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Also, all I've seen regarding this is Brian "suggesting" he won't replace Long........................which is not the same as saying he would not get any money from the sale.

This happens every year during the window and every year we get the same knee jerkers throwing their toys out of the pram even though it's been very rare for us not to bring in several players during this period.

So far, we've acquired an international defender on loan plus Leigertwood, for whom QPR would have demanded a substantial fee. These acquisitions would have made a serious dent in the budget yet one was made long before SGE stumped up a stupid fee for Mills.

I keep reading the view from yourself and others that no one believes our pleadings of poverty when it's worked very nicely for us down the years.

Unlike others, I don't pretend to have full details of the club's finances but whilst we rarely show a profit, we're in much better shape than most and SJM would never allow the club to sink £10m plus into the red in the current climate..........................do you really need this being pointed out to you

We achieve this healthy state by buying low and selling high and, frankly, it doesn't matter whether other more desperate clubs believe what we say publicly about our finances or not.

As things stand, Brian's squad is good to go for Millwall but I'm damn sure he and Squeeky have a shopping list and know who needs to sell before the deadline and will, therefore, be prepared to drop their prices if they have to.

Furthermore, would it be so unreasonable if Long was not replaced immediately? This time last year many fans were desperate for someone to take him off our hands. Now, we have the likes of Chuch, Mansett and HRK who all have it in them to be next the Shane Long so why fork out big bucks straight away if we don't need to?

Who knows, perhaps the club will elect to hang to any further windfalls in this window and spend some of the spoils in January........................and just how many other clubs would then be saying "Ah!!! We know you've still got £8m to spend from the sale of Shane Long. YOUR LOADED"

So you are still, basically, saying that the club are putting out all these 'we're not spending anymore money' stories to prevent other clubs realising we've got a bit more money in the kitty than they otherwise might realise? Sorry, but that's borderline mental. I do agree that what they say should be taken with a pinch of salt though. Very little of what they ever say makes a hell of a lot of sense.

A couple of other points from your post too.

Why do you think QPR would've been demanding a substantial fee for Leigertwood? He was surplus to requirements, couldn't get near their team, only had a year to run on his contract and most likely we'd have done some deal with them last year to arrange a fee if we wanted to keep him. Add in a probable loan fee last season and I doubt we paid too much for him to be honest as they would've just been keen to get rid of him.

As much as it's a fact that we always sign a player or two every window, the inbound transfers are always, in recent history, a small percentage of the outbound fees. That would indicate we rarely re-invest anywhere near the amount we receive in. That's why we're in decent financial shape. That's why we won't be seeing a hell of a lot of the c. £10m-£15m we could receive this summer going back into player acquisition. You seem to agree on this at the same time as laughing at those who say pretty much the same thing. That's why I'm struggling to get the thrust of your argument here.

You say our pleading of poverty has worked out very nicely for us down the years. In what way? We've not exactly bought many bargains way below the perceived market value and, according to you, we've just been held to ransom by QPR for a substantial fee for a journeymen midfielder they didn't want. We've sold well yes, but I don't think that's been influenced by the poverty line as if anything that would push prices down a little bit as clubs think we need the money.

Would it be reasonable to not replace Long? It depends what our aims for the season are. I think we need another attacking player because we don't quite have enough in numbers as it is (once we lose Long). If we're looking for Hunt, Manset, Church and Robson-Kanu to score us our goals then I think we're short on quality and will certainly need another winger to add to McAnuff, Kebe and Obita (Antonio is discounted from contention for me as I don't rate him). I think it would be quite a gamble to rely on our existing quartet to get us in the play-off mix. It's a gamble that may well pay off, but I think realistically we'd need another player in there somewhere.