Loans,loans and more loans

[Victor Meldrew]

On the one hand we have RTGs creaming themselves because the club has repaid either fully or in part loans made by our owner and on the other hand they are getting excited at the prospect of the club being loaned players,i.e we don't own them we are just borrowing (just as we did with money).

As said on another post I had hoped that the club,based on last season's strong finish (during a recession)would now be building a side( as we come out of recession) and take advantage of all that McD built last season after the faltering attempts of Rodgers to rebuild.

Unfortunately the club has obviously taken a decision NOT to rebuild and having sold our best player for enough capital to build a reasonable Div1 side we are banking our survival hopes at this level on the famous RFC saying of "We'll go with what we have got"made before we ended up getting relegated from The Premier League.

We have to accept the sale of Gylfi-nothing we can do about it-but it is difficult to accept that rebuilding can take place by bringing in some geriatrics and one loan signing.
"But we can still make more loan signings" has been spouted by RTGs and others and my point is that you cannot BUILD a team based on loan signings-that's what Div2 sides do in an attempt just to survive.
Reading FC is surely about more than just survival isn't it?

I have no argument with the loan signing of Kish because at the end of the season we can probably get him for nothing and he is under 30.
What I don't like is the Bertrand type of signing where we bring him on as a player and then just let him go back leaving a massive gap that has now needed two signings to fill.
So with the 25 man squad limit being effective within the Premier League I don't want us to bring in some youngster from Chelsea or Arsenal unless there is a very real chance of signing him at the end of the season.

IIRC the 2005 squad didn't have any loan players in it or did it?
Also apart from Marcus the average age,including Little,can't have been much more than about 25 and that is what I would like to see more of in our squad-players with a good 7 or 8 years left and there must be money left over from the Gylfi windfall to fund 2 or 3 such players and for us to get back to the ethos that Platypuss reminded us of elsewhere that the RFC way was to recruit hungry and ambitious young players.
Those players preferably should not be borrowed from other clubs but belong to us so that once again we can build a side that makes us look upwards rather than downwards.

Do others agree or are they happy that loans will possibly be our biggest investment this season?

[Yellowcoat]

Have a look at the recent list of all transfers and note how few changed hands for money apart to some wealthy clubs (I admit some are undisclosed). Most are indeed loans!. It seems to me that the majority of clubs are now becoming aware of the financial climate unlike a number of our fans who are living in the past and need to get out into the real world.

[Terminal Boardom]

I totally agree. Hereford got promoted a few years ago purely because they had a clutch of loan signings. The following season? They got relegated as they could not afford to strengthen.

The loan system merely papers over the cracks for the clubs taking on loanees. For the parent club, they win both ways. 1, a player gets proper match action. 2, wages are reduced.

I would like to see the loan system scrapped and only used when there is a clear and obvious shortage of available players. Goalkeepers do not count as this is a specialist position.

Also, return to 3 subs on the bench and only 2 to be used. This would reduce costs as squads would not need to be so large.

[Stranded]

Loans probably will be our main outlay but with the new rules in the PL more loans will now be try before you buy which is fine.

I'm probably be called naive but I think there is some more money to spend (not tons) but we've not rushed in to panic buys - I think Harte was possibly coming anyway - so loans now with a view to potential signing in Jan seems like the best way forward for us now.

[andrew1957]

On the one hand we have RTGs creaming themselves because the club has repaid either fully or in part loans made by our owner and on the other hand they are getting excited at the prospect of the club being loaned players,i.e we don't own them we are just borrowing (just as we did with money).

As said on another post I had hoped that the club,based on last season's strong finish (during a recession)would now be building a side( as we come out of recession) and take advantage of all that McD built last season after the faltering attempts of Rodgers to rebuild.

Unfortunately the club has obviously taken a decision NOT to rebuild and having sold our best player for enough capital to build a reasonable Div1 side we are banking our survival hopes at this level on the famous RFC saying of "We'll go with what we have got"made before we ended up getting relegated from The Premier League.

We have to accept the sale of Gylfi-nothing we can do about it-but it is difficult to accept that rebuilding can take place by bringing in some geriatrics and one loan signing.
"But we can still make more loan signings" has been spouted by RTGs and others and my point is that you cannot BUILD a team based on loan signings-that's what Div2 sides do in an attempt just to survive.
Reading FC is surely about more than just survival isn't it?

I have no argument with the loan signing of Kish because at the end of the season we can probably get him for nothing and he is under 30.
What I don't like is the Bertrand type of signing where we bring him on as a player and then just let him go back leaving a massive gap that has now needed two signings to fill.
So with the 25 man squad limit being effective within the Premier League I don't want us to bring in some youngster from Chelsea or Arsenal unless there is a very real chance of signing him at the end of the season.

IIRC the 2005 squad didn't have any loan players in it or did it?
Also apart from Marcus the average age,including Little,can't have been much more than about 25 and that is what I would like to see more of in our squad-players with a good 7 or 8 years left and there must be money left over from the Gylfi windfall to fund 2 o3 such players and for us to get back to the ethos that Platypuss reminded us of elsewhere that the RFC way was to recruit hungry and ambitious young players.
Those players preferably should not be borrowed from other clubs but belong to us so that once again we can build a side that makes us look upwards rather than downwards.

Do others agree or are they happy that loans will possibly be our biggest investment this season?

For the record 25 players appeared for us in 2005/6 of which 22 were contacted and there were three loan players - Obinna, Baradji and Dobson but they only made 6/1 and 1 sub appearances respectively - none started a game.

To be fair as I have pointed out before we had a threadbare squad that season and only did well because there were very few injuries. We have probably had as many injuries already this season than the whole of that season.

Other than that I largely agree with you - we should have used this opportunity to build more for the future.

[Arch]

I have a suspicion that the club got a lot more for Gylfi than they were expecting, and while they may have had some targets lined up in the event of a sale (note remarks about a bid for a forward) those targets were predicated on a smaller amount of available money. If that's right, it would be rash to rush into a permanent purchase of anyone we hadn't considered. As Finerain (no RTG) eloquently argued yesterday, it would be wrong to judge this transfer window on what happened after Gylfi was sold. The real test will be January, and yes, there's a good chance that the windfall will have been quietly forgotten. Meanwhile, the Zurab move makes excellent sense for the reasons you've given, while Harte and Hendrie are really red herrings, being moves that are cheap and harmless but not anything to do with the direction of the club. A loan of (for example) Cox with a view to purchasing in January would make a lot of sense, especially if the club had not been prepared to afford such a move until it realized how much the Gylfi sale was bringing. Bleat any you like about well-run clubs being prepared for anything, but I do believe this will have come as a surprise to all concerned.

[Samrfc01]

I think we had a realisitc chance of signing Bertrand tbf
He would have come if not given the chance at Chelsea
the only reason he didnt was because we got Williams because we didn't wanna wait around.

Oh yeah and we didnt have the money

[PEARCEY]

I have a suspicion that the club got a lot more for Gylfi than they were expecting, and while they may have had some targets lined up in the event of a sale (note remarks about a bid for a forward) those targets were predicated on a smaller amount of available money. If that's right, it would be rash to rush into a permanent purchase of anyone we hadn't considered. As Finerain (no RTG) eloquently argued yesterday, it would be wrong to judge this transfer window on what happened after Gylfi was sold. The real test will be January, and yes, there's a good chance that the windfall will have been quietly forgotten. Meanwhile, the Zurab move makes excellent sense for the reasons you've given, while Harte and Hendrie are really red herrings, being moves that are cheap and harmless but not anything to do with the direction of the club. A loan of (for example) Cox with a view to purchasing in January would make a lot of sense, especially if the club had not been prepared to afford such a move until it realized how much the Gylfi sale was bringing. Bleat any you like about well-run clubs being prepared for anything, but I do believe this will have come as a surprise to all concerned.

Can't argue with any of that...but I'm really not convinced money will be made available in January. Lets hope some funds will be released...otherwise there will be a mass regurgitation of the past few days on here.

[Victor Meldrew]

Have a look at the recent list of all transfers and note how few changed hands for money apart to some wealthy clubs (I admit some are undisclosed). Most are indeed loans!. It seems to me that the majority of clubs are now becoming aware of the financial climate unlike a number of our fans who are living in the past and need to get out into the real world.

Have just seen on Sky Sports that £345,000,000 has been spent by Premier League clubs in this latest window.
I am well aware that (regrettably) we are no longer a Premier League club but it would be wrong to say money is not being spent and in our league clubs like QPR,Bristol City and Ipswich have all spent millions and their wealthy owners are operating in the same recession as our wealthy owner so I wonder why they have supposedly been reckless (all of them very successful businessmen) when they have had nowhere near £7 million in incoming transfer fees.
That is a side issue-I just don't think that borrowing players is the way to progress.

[Arch]

I have a suspicion that the club got a lot more for Gylfi than they were expecting, and while they may have had some targets lined up in the event of a sale (note remarks about a bid for a forward) those targets were predicated on a smaller amount of available money. If that's right, it would be rash to rush into a permanent purchase of anyone we hadn't considered. As Finerain (no RTG) eloquently argued yesterday, it would be wrong to judge this transfer window on what happened after Gylfi was sold. The real test will be January, and yes, there's a good chance that the windfall will have been quietly forgotten. Meanwhile, the Zurab move makes excellent sense for the reasons you've given, while Harte and Hendrie are really red herrings, being moves that are cheap and harmless but not anything to do with the direction of the club. A loan of (for example) Cox with a view to purchasing in January would make a lot of sense, especially if the club had not been prepared to afford such a move until it realized how much the Gylfi sale was bringing. Bleat any you like about well-run clubs being prepared for anything, but I do believe this will have come as a surprise to all concerned.

Can't argue with any of that...but I'm really not convinced money will be made available in January. Lets hope some funds will be released...otherwise there will be a mass regurgitation of the past few days on here.

Even by some of us urging patience.

[sheshnu]

Also apart from Marcus the average age,including Little,can't have been much more than about 25 and that is what I would like to see more of in our squad-players with a good 7 or 8 years left and there must be money left over from the Gylfi windfall to fund 2 or 3 such players and for us to get back to the ethos that Platypuss reminded us of elsewhere that the RFC way was to recruit hungry and ambitious young players.

The average age of the team that started at Leicester was about 24.5; it was lower at the end of the match after Gunnarsson had been replaced by Antonio. Most signings Reading have made over the last 18 months have been fairly young - I can only assume that they are ambitious too. Mills, Cummings, Williams, Tabb, added to exciting young academy players like Church, Sigurdsson, Karacan, Pearce and the rest. McDermott has added to that with a couple of experienced defenders, and we have a few players in what could probably be called their 'prime' like McAnuff, Howard, Khizanishvili; and the two old Icelanders who combined have probably been her longer than everybody else combined and I'm guessing will be used as 'squad' players a bit more this season (now we have the option!).

So basically I don't think we are seeing the same thing when we look at the squad if you think there is no youth and it is full of ageing loanees (which is the impression I get).

[Victor Meldrew]

Arch,
Surely the club had been expecting an approach for Gylfi even if the amount is higher than the eventual amount?
If so plans should have been in place.
I know of (and know) a current Premier League manager who has a massive book of players and is ready to plunge as soon as one transfer takes place and as far as I know other managers operate in the same way.
As for the January window that is half way through the season and it is asking a lot for the club to bring in immediately gelling players to produce the same sort of second half as last season.
My view is that most of the planning should be done in the summer and I feel sure that Gylfi leaving would have been very high on the list of probabilities.

[loyalroyal4life]

luke moore will do for us next week

[Arch]

Arch,
Surely the club had been expecting an approach for Gylfi even if the amount is higher than the eventual amount?
If so plans should have been in place.
I know of (and know) a current Premier League manager who has a massive book of players and is ready to plunge as soon as one transfer takes place and as far as I know other managers operate in the same way.
As for the January window that is half way through the season and it is asking a lot for the club to bring in immediately gelling players to produce the same sort of second half as last season.
My view is that most of the planning should be done in the summer and I feel sure that Gylfi leaving would have been very high on the list of probabilities.

I don't think that's incompatible with what I wrote. Having a list of targets is a country mile form having a seven-figure transfer deal lined up. You couldn't arrange the latter without good evidence you could follow through.

[andrew1957]

We have a squad of 26 or so players now and as we are where we are I think that it makes sense to give them a chance rather than make a few loan signings just to appease the fans. We may as well give Antonio, Davies and Taylor a go. After all most on here had barely heard of Siggy just over 12 months ago and he turned out to be a great success.

I think we should give our current squad a chance and "buy" in January if we need to. I do not think we should have sold Siggy and I won't be appeased by a loan signing so NO loans please.

[sheshnu]

... apart from Khizanishvili.

the club had no choice but to release Sigurdsson by the way, in case you hadn't picked that up from reading the comments around here.

[Samrfc01]

I think we should loan a striker and thats it

and we should have a realistic chance of being able to sign him aswell

but apart from that then no more

[Victor Meldrew]

Arch,
Surely the club had been expecting an approach for Gylfi even if the amount is higher than the eventual amount?
If so plans should have been in place.
I know of (and know) a current Premier League manager who has a massive book of players and is ready to plunge as soon as one transfer takes place and as far as I know other managers operate in the same way.
As for the January window that is half way through the season and it is asking a lot for the club to bring in immediately gelling players to produce the same sort of second half as last season.
My view is that most of the planning should be done in the summer and I feel sure that Gylfi leaving would have been very high on the list of probabilities.

I don't think that's incompatible with what I wrote. Having a list of targets is a country mile form having a seven-figure transfer deal lined up. You couldn't arrange the latter without good evidence you could follow through.

Interesting that you said that january would be the time for assessment.
This is said every time after lack of activity in the summer months.
I just wish the club would do more during the summer than get rid of over £1million worth of players PLUS Gylfi and just bring in a freebie left-back,another left-back one month later well past his sale-by date,then a trialist.
As a BTWJust a reminder about age-until the last government changed the rules the retirement age for professional footballers was 35 for them to access their penion fund.
I still haven't seen a good argument FOR loan signings.

[sheshnu]

I still haven't seen a good argument FOR loan signings.

They help our young players get league experience, from which they can go on and score 20 goals in their debut season for Reading. More experienced players can help out clubs lower down the leagues when they are surplus to requirements at their 'parent' club. And then possibly become fans' favourites and sign for the club permanently that summer.

Just two hypothetical situations off the top of my head where loan signings could be seen as beneficial for just about everybody involved.

[Victor Meldrew]

I can see the argument for the lending clubs-we have now received good money for Henry and Gylfi but for OUR club I don't see the advantage of borrowing players.
In theory it gives a club the opportunity to weigh up a prospective long-term acquisition but the gamble is as great as splashing out cash to buy.
If the player does well the likelihood is that any asking price will go up,especially if it is a young player.

Incidentally I don't think the loan system really helps our football in England.
There are far too many professional levels in our game and as in other countries I think that no more than the top two levels should be fully professional and the loan system only prolongs the agony for the smaller clubs as they are propped up by players that are there only for the short term.