New Signings ?

[Ian Royal]

I don't think we can have made a net profit in the Premier League on transfer fees.

I can think of:

Spent:
Seol £1m, Bikey £1m, Matejovsky ~£1m, Rosenior ~£1m, Fae £2.5m, Halford £2.5m, Duberry £800k, Cisse £600k, Kebe £400k. I think we paid a few hundred thousand all told for Bennett and Sodje as well didn't we?
~£11m

Received:
Seol £1m, Halford £2.5m, Cox £200k... err...
~£4m

Ok so once we were relegated we then got something like £12m for Shorey, Kitson and Sonko, but that is post Premier League. At that point we needed to reduce the squad and wages and recoup some money to make up for the loss of revenue, despite running the club ina Premier League style.

Look at how well we did. I'm not sure we really needed to spend a great deal more than we did.

Getting shot of Lita permanently earlier may have forced Long into the limelight earlier where he seemed to start putting it together. Or just straight replacing him with a new player. We needed another Winger really and we under used Henry, but the wheels had only really started to fall off towards the end of January. Prior to that we were having very few problems and looked like we were starting to hit our stride in December.

A better blend of midfield would have been nice as well, but a simple change of formation may have been enough for that.

[Dennis the Butler]

Talking of Fae, is he still on our books or did we actually sell him ... if not, maybe he might come good under Rodgers ...

[Mike Hunt]

Talking of Fae, is he still on our books or did we actually sell him ... if not, maybe he might come good under Rodgers ...

I believe he was sold in Jan ?

for 2.5 ?

[prostak]

The cretins who still think that 6.5m received in transfer fees = 6.5m to spend out again are aware that economic realities are more complex than in Football Manager, aren't they?
This is probably better suited to another thread, but it's worth remembering that most on-the-field success is bankrolled (whether literally or by some potentially fly-by-night sugar daddy) by unmanageable debt. Manchester United's annual repayments are pretty similar to the record transfer fee they just received from Real Madrid, for instance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... ll-finance - This article is a few months old, but still bears relevance here, particularly this quote from a financial director:

"Southampton used to be run very well, by former investment bankers who managed the club like a business. But the fans got upset that they weren't spending ridiculous amounts of money on star players... The fans wanted Southampton to be like Chelsea or Man United [and] bit the hand that fed them.

Now shut up and be thankful you're not a Wycombe or Stockport fan.

[Platypuss]

BBC gossip page:

Chelsea boss Carlo Ancelotti is ready to let defender Michael Mancienne join newly-promoted Wolves on a 12-month loan deal. (Various)

[Schards#2]

If we are overspending in a season where we had a £10 million transfer surplus and an £11 million parachute payment, that would suggest that in subsequent seasons, unless we sell £21 million of players we won't be buying anyone.

That is the strangest definition of "going for broke" I have ever heard and demonstrates, as if it were necessary, why it's hard to see progress for the forseeable future. The new manager needs to be a miracle worker given the tools at his disposal.

[loyalroyal4life]

BBC gossip page:

Chelsea boss Carlo Ancelotti is ready to let defender Michael Mancienne join newly-promoted Wolves on a 12-month loan deal. (Various)

was always going to be the case really. Guess we will have to look elsewhere.


Wolves targeting Mancienne loan

Wolves chief executive Jez Moxey is confident of finalising a season-long loan deal for Chelsea defender Michael Mancienne.


The Premier new boys are already thought to have had a £4million rejected for the 21-year-old earlier in the summer but Blues manager Carlo Ancelotti is supposedly more receptive to a loan move.

The England Under-21 international has already had a short stint at Molineux having spent three months of last season at the then Championship club.

The youngster's performances were so impressive that England manager Fabio Capello even called him up for the friendly against Germany in November.

"I don't think Chelsea will allow him to leave on a permanent basis," Moxey said.

"We've not necessarily finished our business. We haven't used a loan yet so they are available to us."

[loyalroyal4life]

Good old Buck keeps stirring it up!!!

Watford have reacted angrily to Brendan Rodgers' comments that striker Tommy Smith wants to join Reading.

Former Hornets boss Rodgers is keen to take Smith to Reading, but his old club have rejected a 'derisory' offer from their Championship rivals.

A £1.8million bid from Sheffield United has been accepted by Watford, but Rodgers claims the 29-year-old would prefer a move to the Madejski Stadium.

"He wants to be here," Rodgers told the Reading Evening Post. "He's a player that has turned down a number of moves.

"There were a number of other offers for Tommy and then one big one came in (from Sheffield United).

"He doesn't have to go anywhere unless he wants to. But there's been good communication.

"Nick Hammond's been having good communication with the chairman there and hopefully, I'm not sure how quickly, there will be some sort of resolution on it."

Disappointment
However, Watford chairman Jimmy Russo has responded to Rodgers' comments and admits to being 'disturbed' by what the Reading manager has had to say.

Russo told the club's official website: "It is with disappointment that I have read Brendan Rodgers' comments regarding our player Tommy Smith.

"I am somewhat disturbed as to how Brendan knows Tommy's future intentions.

"His comments are not very respectful to the fans and the staff at Watford Football Club and he must not forget that Watford gave him his first managerial opportunity

"Reading have failed to meet our valuation of the player in question, in fact last week I labelled the bid 'derisory'."

[Hoop Blah]

Regarding the 'going for broke' comment from JM, I'm sure this relates to our gamble on maintaing the squad we came down with as much as possible and keeping the wage bill higher than perhaps we felt was prudent.

I don't think it has much relation to the transfer budget available because we're constantly told that there isn't really a budget for that side of things.

We had the reported 40% wage cut across the board but we didn't offload as many players as we might've done, and went so far as giving Doyle and Hunt new contracts to up their wages and keep them in the short term. I'm 90% certain that that's the extent of the 'going for broke.'

I'm still confident that Rodgers has a reasonable amount of money behind him to make the changes to the squad that he wants, otherwise I think he probably would've stayed at Watford for at least another 6 months or so instead of jumping ship so quickly.

[Platypuss]

OS confirms a "significant" sell-on for Cox.

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10306~1717537,00.html

[Alan Partridge]

Good news, it can sit with the other £17million.

[Arch]

Good old Buck keeps stirring it up!!!

Watford have reacted angrily to Brendan Rodgers' comments that striker Tommy Smith wants to join Reading.

Former Hornets boss Rodgers is keen to take Smith to Reading, but his old club have rejected a 'derisory' offer from their Championship rivals.

A £1.8million bid from Sheffield United has been accepted by Watford, but Rodgers claims the 29-year-old would prefer a move to the Madejski Stadium.

"He wants to be here," Rodgers told the Reading Evening Post. "He's a player that has turned down a number of moves.

"There were a number of other offers for Tommy and then one big one came in (from Sheffield United).

"He doesn't have to go anywhere unless he wants to. But there's been good communication.

"Nick Hammond's been having good communication with the chairman there and hopefully, I'm not sure how quickly, there will be some sort of resolution on it."

Disappointment
However, Watford chairman Jimmy Russo has responded to Rodgers' comments and admits to being 'disturbed' by what the Reading manager has had to say.

Russo told the club's official website: "It is with disappointment that I have read Brendan Rodgers' comments regarding our player Tommy Smith.

"I am somewhat disturbed as to how Brendan knows Tommy's future intentions.

"His comments are not very respectful to the fans and the staff at Watford Football Club and he must not forget that Watford gave him his first managerial opportunity

"Reading have failed to meet our valuation of the player in question, in fact last week I labelled the bid 'derisory'."

Not good. Not good at all.

[brendywendy]

If we are overspending in a season where we had a £10 million transfer surplus and an £11 million parachute payment, that would suggest that in subsequent seasons, unless we sell £21 million of players we won't be buying anyone.

That is the strangest definition of "going for broke" I have ever heard and demonstrates, as if it were necessary, why it's hard to see progress for the forseeable future. The new manager needs to be a miracle worker given the tools at his disposal.

not again!

[RoyalBlue]

Regarding the 'going for broke' comment from JM, I'm sure this relates to our gamble on maintaing the squad we came down with as much as possible and keeping the wage bill higher than perhaps we felt was prudent.

I don't think it has much relation to the transfer budget available because we're constantly told that there isn't really a budget for that side of things.

I know we are constantly told that but anyone who believes it must be a bit of a mug.

Are we really expected to believe that a business man as successful as JM would run any form of business without having a budget or at least budgeting for potentially significant outgoings? I really don't think he could get away with constantly telling us that he wants RFC to run like a proper business, only to throw the business 'rule book' out of the window!

I would wager that JM very definitely does decide on a transfer budget each season for RFC. That does not mean that he tells the manager the (real) figure, that even if the manager knows the figure that he will be allowed to spend it or conversely that JM couldn't be convinced to go above budget in the right (in his view) circumstances.

[FiNeRaIn]

Good news, it can sit with the other £17million.

+1

We'll get someone in for 300k from league one and JM will step into the limelight claiming " sign of the clubs ambition". Same old.

[Rawlie19]

Good news, it can sit with the other £17million.

+1

We'll get someone in for 300k from league one and JM will step into the limelight claiming " sign of the clubs ambition". Same old.

To be fair he hasn't said that since we were promoted, and he won't say it with a signing that doesn't break the clubs record transfer fee. Get of the guys back ffs.

[Ian Royal]

Good news, it can sit with the other £17million.

Maybe one day we won't be in millions of pounds of debt if we carry on doing this. My God! A football club run in the black. What a shocking thought.

I'm not sure how £17m can be just sitting around when the club is in debt.


And Royalblue. I rather suspect we don't havea transfer budget, as is well documented, but that we are comfortable that we can manuever our finances to make any realistic money for a good player worth it available.

I can't see it being divided up into separate parcels waiting to be spent. It all comes from the same place. Our loans and overdraft.

[Northern Git]

Regarding the 'going for broke' comment from JM, I'm sure this relates to our gamble on maintaing the squad we came down with as much as possible and keeping the wage bill higher than perhaps we felt was prudent.

I don't think it has much relation to the transfer budget available because we're constantly told that there isn't really a budget for that side of things.

I know we are constantly told that but anyone who believes it must be a bit of a mug.

Are we really expected to believe that a business man as successful as JM would run any form of business without having a budget or at least budgeting for potentially significant outgoings? I really don't think he could get away with constantly telling us that he wants RFC to run like a proper business, only to throw the business 'rule book' out of the window!

I would wager that JM very definitely does decide on a transfer budget each season for RFC. That does not mean that he tells the manager the (real) figure, that even if the manager knows the figure that he will be allowed to spend it or conversely that JM couldn't be convinced to go above budget in the right (in his view) circumstances.

If you look at the way he has run his printing business over the last 18 months you will see exactly that! He has become the laughing stock of the industry with his constant spouting of 'mine is the only sustainable business model' whilst at the same time running up losses in the millions and selling print under cost.

[The whole year inn]

Rodgers is apparently closing in on Cork, Mancienne and Bertrand according to the chronicle.

If we can get these 3 and Smith then we'll be in a very strong position IMHO.

If we get those 4 we'll be champions.

No offence, but your prediction record is as bad as it gets.

[gazzer, loyal royal]

Rodgers is apparently closing in on Cork, Mancienne and Bertrand according to the chronicle.

If we can get these 3 and Smith then we'll be in a very strong position IMHO.

If we get those 4 we'll be champions.

No offence, but your prediction record is as bad as it gets.

are wolves close on a deal for Mancienne?