CONFIRMED - Alex Pearce re-signs

[Wimb]

My take on it for The Tilehurst End

http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2013/6/2 ... -readingfc

[Haag Royal]

First thing I would do is sack his idiot of an Agent. What sort of advice did he give him throughout the season? Bugger all is my suggestion - he was just looking for a big payday and didn't seem to care AP was on the bench for the majority of the time.

Well done to RFC on holding out, sitting tight and getting the right result for the club and the player.

What a waste of a season. My 5 year old could have given him better advice and would have charged a lot less than his air-head agent did.

Now lets see if he does any better for his brother or will HRK sit out most of 2013-2014 and then re sign this time next year?

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

My take on it for The Tilehurst End

http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2013/6/2 ... -readingfc

Good article Wimb.

But I think a little too much over-thinking is clouding the issues.

1) Reading would have been relegated whether Pearce played all 38 games or just the games he did. Our problems were greater than one player, and mostly rooted in the part of the field directly in front of the central defence. We could have had Kompany and Ferdinand in defence yet still gone down - our recruitment policy saw to that.

2) I think we're blaming the agent a little too much. I hate the parasites as much as the next man, but Pearce had a voice too. It perhaps exposes the lack of long-term planning on Pearce's part as much as the pay-cheque mindset of the agent.

3) As much as I love the way RFC generally go about their business, we are not blameless. In any other business, the manager(s) responsible for allowing a key employee to effectively go AWOL without recourse would not have been tolerated. One more example -if we needed it- of how far separated from reality football has become.

[Wimb]

My take on it for The Tilehurst End

http://www.thetilehurstend.com/2013/6/2 ... -readingfc

Good article Wimb.

But I think a little too much over-thinking is clouding the issues.

1) Reading would have been relegated whether Pearce played all 38 games or just the games he did. Our problems were greater than one player, and mostly rooted in the part of the field directly in front of the central defence. We could have had Kompany and Ferdinand in defence yet still gone down - our recruitment policy saw to that.

2) I think we're blaming the agent a little too much. I hate the parasites as much as the next man, but Pearce had a voice too. It perhaps exposes the lack of long-term planning on Pearce's part as much as the pay-cheque mindset of the agent.

3) As much as I love the way RFC generally go about their business, we are not blameless. In any other business, the manager(s) responsible for allowing a key employee to effectively go AWOL without recourse would not have been tolerated. One more example -if we needed it- of how far separated from reality football has become.

Cheers Goalposts,

In terms of the points raised....

1) As I said in the article I don't think we would have stayed up but the club was hardly in a position to be putting anything other than their best side possible out there. Even if it wasn't ideal in the long-term, we should have been putting out our best 11.

2) I don't think it's all down to the agent but again as I said in the article, perhaps both player and agent were aiming too high or being a little too stubborn. That's not totally unexpected though when it's a new agent trying to do a Premier League deal.

3) Can't argue with that one!

[loyalroyal4life]

Spoke to Pearce on weekend, he seemed relieved more than anything to get it sorted. Do believe he did genuinely want to stay and was just looking for money on par with some of the others. Sure he will be immense for us next season

[melonhead]

It certainly can't have helped that McD didn't play him after the contract issue came up - there were talks he'd lost the dressing room - if you rated a colleague and thought they were good at their job, but because they wouldn't agree a new contract, your boss wouldn't give him any work and he was effectively on garden leave and you missed out on a massive contract with a client, which you thought you might have had a better chance of getting had your colleague been involved, then you'd be miffed too. I'm not saying for one moment that he would have saved our season, but we'll never know because McD appeared to be too bloody minded to play him and find out.

.

he played loads after the contract issue came up.
we were leaking goals left right and centre, and we were forced to rotate to try to find the best (least worst)combo
plus if he wasnt going to sign, it was necessary for us to assess whether morrison was good enough, and get him playing

[PieEater]

Wimb a couple of points on the article.
- you forgot to mention Salako and Goater on the contract dispute, and maybe add York (Murty) to that. I'd say we've had more than our share of disputes.
- talk of reward for loyalty is total bollocks. This is a player who was after the best deal he could get, he's not rewarded for staying, he's rewarded for playing well (or otherwise)

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Wimb a couple of points on the article.
- you forgot to mention Salako and Goater on the contract dispute, and maybe add York (Murty) to that. I'd say we've had more than our share of disputes.
- talk of reward for loyalty is total bollocks. This is a player who was after the best deal he could get, he's not rewarded for staying, he's rewarded for playing well (or otherwise)

I'm not even sure he's rewarded at all - he's looked around, put his name and availability in front of lots of other clubs, but got no takers and so he's settled for the only decent offer he's got on the table. If anyone has been prepared to pay him more, he'd have been off.

[Hoop Blah]

There's lots of jumping to conclusions here when nobody knows what's actually happened.

It could easily be that Pearce was being offered something well below his worth and his stance has forced the club to make him a more reasonable offer. Everyone seems to think that Pearce has folded and taken the clubs original offer because he didn't get a mega-deal elsewhere.

All the talk of his agent getting it wrong and causing all this fuss, but his client has got a contract and I'm sure it's on more money than he was offered first up and so from their point of view he's probably done his job.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Yeah, negotiations between parties can only ever be pure speculation. We have no clue how much was down to simple hard nosed waiting until the club got themselves a little more with it in terms of their offer or how much of it was the player saying I'll sign up as no-one of any note wants me. I suspect more of the former rather than the latter and I'll be 100% behind him when he does play next.

[Ian Royal]

There's lots of jumping to conclusions here when nobody knows what's actually happened.

It could easily be that Pearce was being offered something well below his worth and his stance has forced the club to make him a more reasonable offer. Everyone seems to think that Pearce has folded and taken the clubs original offer because he didn't get a mega-deal elsewhere.

All the talk of his agent getting it wrong and causing all this fuss, but his client has got a contract and I'm sure it's on more money than he was offered first up and so from their point of view he's probably done his job.

IMO you just fell into the same trap you're accusing others of. How can you say you're sure it's more than the original offer? Especially when the original offer was made when we were a PL club and we're now a Championship one. I'd be surprised if Nick "Hard Ball" Hammond caved to money requests after a relegation.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Although I'd wager more towards the Pearce having to compromise side than Hammond.

[Wimb]

Wimb a couple of points on the article.
- you forgot to mention Salako and Goater on the contract dispute, and maybe add York (Murty) to that. I'd say we've had more than our share of disputes.
- talk of reward for loyalty is total bollocks. This is a player who was after the best deal he could get, he's not rewarded for staying, he's rewarded for playing well (or otherwise)

Fair play PE, though I'm not sure the Salako or Goater contract wrangles were in quite the same league given that it was more a case of the club wanting rid of ageing players.

[Mr Optimist]

The big question for me though is why only a two year deal? Was that the clubs or AP's decision as we could just be delaying the same pantomime for 12 months time?

[MouldyRoyal]

The big question for me though is why only a two year deal? Was that the clubs or AP's decision as we could just be delaying the same pantomime for 12 months time?

Probably it's a case of, "If we don't go straight back up I'll leave, but if I sign for 2 years you can at least sell me for a couple of mill. If we go up I can sign a longer term contract."

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Let's not forget the possibilities that, as a free agent, AP could negotiate a signing-on fee that might otherwise not be included if he'd simply renewed his contract.

[ZacNaloen]

So when did his contract actually expire? I assumed it would have been end of June

[yappy]

Yeah contracts generally run until 30th June.

[Big Ern]

There's lots of jumping to conclusions here when nobody knows what's actually happened.

This.

For me he signed and that is good enough. Still have doubts about his ability at the top level and he is still a bit of a hoofer, but hopefully his game will develop and he will be an asset for us next season and in the future.

[Ascotexgunner]

Delighted he's signed. Heard the interview he seemed happy at Reading and never had plans to move apparently. I think he would be a great captain.