TSI - The Promises, Policies & Progress Thread

[cmonurz]

And what Dirk said. That brick-by-brick approach is totally at odds with letting promising players leave the club.

[Vision]

I remember saying when the takeover was announced that if McD genuinely thought we'd never sell our best players then he was deluded. Everyone has their price in football but I don't really see the Pearce situation as the same as flogging our latest academy/young starlet to cover a black hole.

Just because they don't give every player (even the young ones) what they think they're worth doesn't mean the whole TSI ediface is crumbling. Pearce thinks he's worth X amount. the club don't agree. That happens at clubs with far bigger resourss and loftier ambitions than ours all the time.

[melonhead]

depends how you read them and what you read into them.
in my opinion what it doesnt mean is that we will keep players here against their will, and refuse to mention to them that big clubs have made big money offers. you cant stop a player leaving in those circumstances.

and what it does mean is that we no longer HAVE to sell players like long simply because we have lost money that year, and need to fill a hole.
the way i saw that statement was that we would return to the pre skint madejski model- prudent management of spending and wages, keeping hold of decent players if possible and the ability buying good players if they fit our ethos/style to supplement our squad when required.
ie we wouldnt really be forced to sell sigurdsson or long to mid level teams just for the cash. and if we thought we couldnt use that money to better effect we would keep them.
we would be able to get in a roberts if we thought theyd give us the edge we required that season.


obviously no one can stop a player going if they want to. not even united.
and if arsenal do come in for morrison, or liverpool for pearce(if he signs contract) then i fully expect us to put those offers to the players if they meet our valuation.

[blueroyals]

obviously no one can stop a player going if they want to. not even united.
and if arsenal do come in for morrison, or liverpool for pearce(if he signs contract) then i fully expect us to put those offers to the players if they meet our valuation.

But you'd expect that Gylfi wanted to move to Hoffenheim for more money and to play for a bigger club. You'd expect that Long wanted to move to West Brom for more money, to play in the best league in the world for a better club. If TSI were in charge when we still had Gylfi and Long whilst you'd expect us to hold out for more money for the two players because we wouldn't need to sell them, you'd still expect them to tell the club they want to leave anyway.

If we go down we are going to lose Morrison, Pearce, Karacan, Shorey, Roberts, Pog, Guthrie & the like. Not because we have to sell them, but because they will want to leave (obviously). The same can be said about any half-decent player that we get in the next 10 years unless we become a top 6 side.

tl;dr: the whole "we don't have to sell our best players anymore" thing is irrelevant - if a bid for a player comes in from a club in a higher league than us the player will leave.

[cmonurz]

depends how you read them and what you read into them.
in my opinion what it doesnt mean is that we will keep players here against their will, and refuse to mention to them that big clubs have made big money offers. you cant stop a player leaving in those circumstances.

What it meant to me was that we were in a position to offer players the financial incentive to stay, and to outline to those players, like Pearce, our ambition and how we are looking to approach the next few seasons and continue to grow the club. That we were financially secure enough to be able to compete with external offers or interest from other clubs.

[melonhead]

yeah, or that


in regards to sig i would have said there woul have been a possibility of a pay rise, and at least some effort to persuade him to stay, that would have worked imo
same with long

would have worked with sig. wouldnt have with long i dont think, although if wed showed more ambition regarding spending/selling he may have given us 1 more year

[Royal Rother]

The question is I guess, are TSI capable of going (or have the will/desire to go) a step further on a consistent basis without changing to some degree the way we've done things over the last decade?

The evidence (Pogrebnyak) would suggest that that change is already happening.
I just can't for the life of me see a pre - TSI Madejski sanctioning wages of that order.(and I mean in principle, not in his ability to afford them)
I also think that the reason why JM always fretted about keeping the wage bill under control was because he could foresee that once the wage "dam" was broken, then it could end up growing exponentially. His experience back in 2006-8 had the club almost constantly upping the ante in player wages iin order to hold on to key staff. Recent events (Pearce) suggest a danger of history repeating itself.

The words that came from TSI, and Brian, when the takeover was announced were that the new money would obviate the continual need to sell our best players in order to balance the books.
OK,so we don't have to sell a Pearce to survive any more, but the fact remains that it will cost a whole lot of money in order to retain his services, and all the other players that we value. I think this is TSI's investment.

That doesn't get around the great, big glaring paradox of the whole thing.

Everyone was reassured that the club's finances would be run in the good, old, prudent way they always had been. In the same speech, it was also stated that the club would no longer have to sell their best young players any more.

The latter can only be true if we're planning to pay whatever it takes to keep a player at the club, so that makes the two statements directly contradictory - you can't be "prudent" while also not being prepared to match wages offered elsewhere. It looks like the former statement is the one that the club is going with, but it looks like it'll mean the loss of Alex Pearce in January, who is by anyone's standards clearly one of the club's best young players.

You must have some strange agenda at work here. You heard / saw the interviews at the time and it was crystal-clear what was meant by those statements.

It simply means that with deeper pockets they won't be FORCED into selling them as a result of ongoing financial pressures.

The club HAD to sell Long because it needed the cash. Now they wouldn't HAVE to sell him. Doesn't mean they wouldn't sell him if he demanded more than the club thought he was worth in wages, or if another club made a great offer, but they wouldn't HAVE to sell him. That is prudent financial management whilst also reaping the benefit of greater muscle.

None of the statements made at the time are at odds with each other unless you choose to misinterpret them.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

No strange agenda whatsoever...

The statement made at the time was that the club would not need to sell their players because they'd be able to pay them equivalent wages to what they'd get elsewhere - so no more being outbid by bigger clubs.

Patently as ludicrous a statement then as it is now, for any club.

[Hoop Blah]

The latter can only be true if we're planning to pay whatever it takes to keep a player at the club, so that makes the two statements directly contradictory - you can't be "prudent" while also not being prepared to match wages offered elsewhere. It looks like the former statement is the one that the club is going with, but it looks like it'll mean the loss of Alex Pearce in January, who is by anyone's standards clearly one of the club's best young players.

I disagree Dirk.

Not having to sell meant more that we didn't need to sell to cover our operating costs (remember we were still losing 5 or 6 £m a season despite being so well run).

What TSI clearly meant was that we wouldn't need to cover those loses by selling out talent. What they didn't mean was that they would be able to stop players from having their heads turned by lucrative contracts from bigger clubs if they performed well enough for us.

Edit: What RR said...

[Hoop Blah]

No strange agenda whatsoever...

The statement made at the time was that the club would not need to sell their players because they'd be able to pay them equivalent wages to what they'd get elsewhere - so no more being outbid by bigger clubs.

Patently as ludicrous a statement then as it is now, for any club.

Did they? Can you back up that statement Dirk? I can only remember them saying we wouldn't have to sell our best players.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

I'm trying to find the actual statement, from Jan. but it looks like it's no longer on the official RFC website - the link was : http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/NewsDet ... 86,00.html

That was certainly my interpretation of it at the time - an impression which was reinforced by the answers given at the press conference the following week.

[Hoop Blah]

What do you think the wording was on that link then Dirk? You've obviously kept it to be able to run around claiming they've not been able to back it up.

Here's a link to the press conference if you want to find the supporting statements: http://reading.theoffside.com/odds-n-ends/video-tsi-press-conference.html

They may well exist, but I'm pretty sure the inference was that wouldn't be forced to sell, not that they'd suddenly be matching any wage offers made by other clubs courting our players.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

I don't have enough certainty to be sure on it - my memory is that it was something about being able to compete with other clubs rather than having to avoid selling to keep afloat.

But I may well be wrong on it - it's what I remember getting as the impression I got from it all 10-11 months ago.

[Hoop Blah]

One of the points mentioned on that link, as highlights of the conference, is that the wage structure will not be broken.

[SPARTA]

I have to agree with RR and Hoop Blah here, and you also take out of context what I think they meant and that was as a Championship club we would no longer have to sell our best players to fill the annual black hole. Now if a player wants to go or asks for money we don't think he is worth, then of course we'll sell. We wont be held to ransom either.

One of the points mentioned on that link, as highlights of the conference, is that the wage structure will not be broken.

However, we didn't anticipate promotion so soon, and now we are where we are we have a different wage structure to suit the league we are in and what we are prepared to spend in wages. There's no reason to suggest we have broken our new wage structure.

[Hoop Blah]

However, we didn't anticipate promotion so soon, and now we are where we are we have a different wage structure to suit the league we are in and what we are prepared to spend in wages. There's no reason to suggest we have broken our new wage structure.

Agreed (although rumours are that Pogbrenyak might've stretched the limits on that wage structure. I've not seen anything to back up those rumours though, or any evidence of Hunt kicking off about his wages).

Obviously as we move up or down the leagues, or significant changes in the industry occur, then our wage structure will move with the requirements. I've not re-listened to the press conference, but from memory I think the implications were pretty clear.

[cmonurz]

It’s obviously open to interpretation what ‘have to sell our best players’ actually means, be it to cover costs, or because we can’t compete with the deals offered by other clubs. For me I read the statement to mean we would compete with other clubs in that respect, as I coupled it with Zingarevich’s stated aim of becoming an established PL side in five years. We simply won’t do that if we let our best young players leave the club.

And for all the argument as to how much Pearce is worth, what he is is cheaper than paying a transfer fee and at least £25-30k a week for an adequate, experienced replacement (which surely we would do, given AZ's stated aim).

[melonhead]

dirk obviously has an agenda. and has done since the TSI deal.ludicrous to say he hasnt.
that doesnt mean his concerns are in valid, or that what he fears wont come to pass, but it certainly needs to be kept in mind when reading what he says.
whereas before, i used to think he was a fair and open minded commentator on the financial aspects of our club

[melonhead]

It’s obviously open to interpretation what ‘have to sell our best players’ actually means, be it to cover costs, or because we can’t compete with the deals offered by other clubs. For me I read the statement to mean we would compete with other clubs in that respect, as I coupled it with Zingarevich’s stated aim of becoming an established PL side in five years. We simply won’t do that if we let our best young players leave the club.

And for all the argument as to how much Pearce is worth, what he is is cheaper than paying a transfer fee and at least £25-30k a week for an adequate, experienced replacement (which surely we would do, given AZ's stated aim).

but what if the player we bring in is worth more, as in he is better quality, has more experience, is quicker,a better leader?

im not saying i want him to go, i dont. and im not saying we will be able to bring in a player with all those qualities.
but its important to point out ways in which it would be possible to do as you say we will, and it be better for the club.

what would be best for the club would be to get pearce to sign, AND bring in the other player

[cmonurz]

but what if the player we bring in is worth more, as in he is better quality, has more experience, is quicker,a better leader?

Well that's the crux of it really. Are we going to pay £5m and £40k a week to bring in such a player?