NH on Radio Berkshire

[winchester_royal]

So basically, we can only spend what we get in and even then, we don't spend it? So AZ has no money whatsoever to give to the manager to strengthen the team and realise his and the manager's ambitions of promotion?

Any business can only spend the money that they generate. There is a massive revenue drop when you get relegated, even with parachute payments, and because of that it's very hard to spend large amounts of money without first selling.

None of us are privy to the clubs management accounts, for all we know Anton has put money in just so we could do the business we ended up doing. As I said, we've generated considerably less in sales than we did last time we got relegated, as well as continuing to pay big wages to bring in the players that we did, not to mention the investment in the academy/training ground etc. I very much doubt we'd have been able to do all that without some investment on Anton's part.

But even if he didn't subsidise it, why should we expect him to? He's always said he'd look to continue to run the club as a business, he's never lied about his intentions and he's never made promises that he hasn't kept.

[winchester_royal]

Ah the severely flawed financial fair play plan sculpted by David Gill and other chief executives of the richest clubs to advantage them.

Quite.

[Extended-Phenotype]

The spending power of the buying club against the spending power of the selling club.

For instance if the club said Billy Sharps asking price was over the odds we compare our finances (above average) with Southamptons (well above average) then see how fair to the overall transfer market they are being (how similar players in similar situations have bee sold in recent days)

So if they asked for say 5 million from us for him it is over the odds as it is within their fair price range but not within ours. If they asked for 2 million that is a price in keeping with the overall transfer market and within the buying clubs price range. All depends on the quality of the player.

The higher the selling clubs financial power the lower (price) they can sell unwanted players. Trippier comes to mind.

In my head this all make perfect sense but I am having a lot of trouble putting it to paper :/

No, I getcha - you've explained it pretty fairly. It still boils down the the point that, "not paying over the odds" rather than praiseworthy revolutionary nous, is just saying "we will not pay more than we want to pay". It's meaningless. It could easily be far less than the true value of the player, as judged by the rest of the sport.

Literally any footballer available could be described as valued 'over the odds', if it's you who is setting the 'odds' in the first place. Which brings it full circle to: are our valuations realistic?

- We are looking at bringing in seven new brilliant players!
- Cool!
- At £4 each!
- What? Wait, surely we are talking millions here?
- Millions? For a footballer?! Ha, bit steep isn't it?
- You got 3m for Maps, though?
-
- Are you still there?
-

[Hoop Blah]

Having seen enough of both Blackman and Pogrebnyak I'd assume that Blackmans selection was in part down to the belief that, like Marriappa situation, Pogrebnyak would quite likely be moving on, or they just didn't show enough interest in pre-season to earn their place because they thought they were off.

Either way, this could be a new start for Pogrebnyak IF he wants to get back in the side and play at 100%.

[P!ssed Off]

Interviewer: Why didn't you sign a striker yesterday?
Hammond: I didn't sign a striker on Transfer Deadline Day because I will not be held to ransom by clubs for transfer fees.
Interviewer: Why didn't you sign a striker in the preceding 2 months instead then?
Hammond:

[mr_number]

Well, what they mean is that 'the odds' is the market rate for a player. For instance if they think that the going rate for a 10 goal a season striker is £20k a week, then they won't pay £30k a week. Fairly easy to grasp.

What their detractors would say is that they either a) have underestimated the market rate for the type of player we are going for or b) aren't actually willing to pay the market rate. But b) would just be a strategy bound to fail, so you have to assume it's either a), or that some players are asking above the market rate because they know that there are a load of desperate clubs around the fringes of the Prem, and that the Prem is currently swimming with money.

[Hoop Blah]

Just for the record I don't necessarily require a big signing for a striker.
I would rather have a hungry lower league striker with us and than a disinterested Pogrebnyak.

Possible targets:
Nakhi Wells Age: 23 (Bradford) Last Season: League 2 39 Games, 18 Goals; This Season: League 1 5 Games, 5 Goals
We couldn't afford him?

Will Grigg (Brentford) Age: 22 League 1 Last Season: 41 Games, 19 Goals, League 1; This Season: 4 Games, 2 Goals
Snapped up by Brentford on a free in the Summer. We couldn't compete with Brentford for a free transfer?

Sam Baldock (Bristol City) Age: 24 Championship Last Season: 24 Games, 10 Goals; This Season League 1 5 Games, 4 Goals
We couldn't afford him?

Paddy Madden (Yeovil Town) Age 23 League 1 Last Season: 35 Games, 22 Goals
So what Yeovil got promoted, we couldn't afford him or convince him to leave Yeovil?

None of these strikers would have improved our forward options?
An option that currently consists of ALF, an entirely disinterest Pog and Nick Blackman.
There are plenty of available strikers who are young, inexpensive, on our doorstep and would actually be willing to move to Reading. Why did we not target them instead of wasting our time pursuing Hooper, Austin and a random Nigerian fella based in Germany?

And before anyone says "We signed Nick Blackman last year and you complained", that was different. We signed a League 1 player when we were in the Premiership, for an inflated fee when at the time we needed much more and supposedly had money to spend.

I think the general jist is that we've been looking at players who'd come in and come into the team over and above Le Fondre and Blackman. Those listed would probably still be behind them and it may be that we see the youngsters coming through, or even Robson-Kanu, as better alternatives to those.

As mentioned elsewhere, if I were Adkins I'd be tempted to get Jay Bothroyd in as a player who's always been pretty good at leading the line at this kind of level. He might've dipped in form last season, but for Cardiff he was excellent in this league.

[ManchesterRoyals]

So why are we chasing Sissoko, surly he will be asking for a wage similar to Pog. Is he a better option because he's FREE

[Extended-Phenotype]

Well, what they mean is that 'the odds' is the market rate for a player. For instance if they think that the going rate for a 10 goal a season striker is £20k a week, then they won't pay £30k a week. Fairly easy to grasp.

What their detractors would say is that they either a) have underestimated the market rate for the type of player we are going for or b) aren't actually willing to pay the market rate. But b) would just be a strategy bound to fail, so you have to assume it's either a), or that some players are asking above the market rate because they know that there are a load of desperate clubs around the fringes of the Prem, and that the Prem is currently swimming with money.

But the market rate is set by supply and demand, not Reading football club. If every player RFC value at 20k is asking for 30k, then they have undervalued the market rate by 10k, or like you say, aren't willing to pay (or accept) the market rate to begin with.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Just for the record I don't necessarily require a big signing for a striker.
I would rather have a hungry lower league striker with us and than a disinterested Pogrebnyak.

Possible targets:
Nakhi Wells Age: 23 (Bradford) Last Season: League 2 39 Games, 18 Goals; This Season: League 1 5 Games, 5 Goals
We couldn't afford him?

Will Grigg (Brentford) Age: 22 League 1 Last Season: 41 Games, 19 Goals, League 1; This Season: 4 Games, 2 Goals
Snapped up by Brentford on a free in the Summer. We couldn't compete with Brentford for a free transfer?

Sam Baldock (Bristol City) Age: 24 Championship Last Season: 24 Games, 10 Goals; This Season League 1 5 Games, 4 Goals
We couldn't afford him?

Paddy Madden (Yeovil Town) Age 23 League 1 Last Season: 35 Games, 22 Goals
So what Yeovil got promoted, we couldn't afford him or convince him to leave Yeovil?

None of these strikers would have improved our forward options?
An option that currently consists of ALF, an entirely disinterest Pog and Nick Blackman.
There are plenty of available strikers who are young, inexpensive, on our doorstep and would actually be willing to move to Reading. Why did we not target them instead of wasting our time pursuing Hooper, Austin and a random Nigerian fella based in Germany?

And before anyone says "We signed Nick Blackman last year and you complained", that was different. We signed a League 1 player when we were in the Premiership, for an inflated fee when at the time we needed much more and supposedly had money to spend.

I think the general jist is that we've been looking at players who'd come in and come into the team over and above Le Fondre and Blackman. Those listed would probably still be behind them and it may be that we see the youngsters coming through, or even Robson-Kanu, as better alternatives to those.

As mentioned elsewhere, if I were Adkins I'd be tempted to get Jay Bothroyd in as a player who's always been pretty good at leading the line at this kind of level. He might've dipped in form last season, but for Cardiff he was excellent in this league.

I'd say there are probably about, lets see, 50 trillion players around the world that we could have gone for over and above Blackman. Seems we went for ones that didn't want to play for us or we either didn't want to pay for them. Didn't get 'em. Shrugged.

That's a fail in my book.

[Hoop Blah]

So why are we chasing Sissoko, surly he will be asking for a wage similar to Pog. Is he a better option because he's FREE

He isn't free, we just don't have to pay his ex-club anything.

It sounds like we've made him an offer and he's thinking it over whilst his agent no doubts looks for a bigger deal elsewhere. The reason we're chasing him is because we think he's better than what we've got and we can afford a certain amount for him to improve our side.

[Royal Lady]

So basically, we can only spend what we get in and even then, we don't spend it? So AZ has no money whatsoever to give to the manager to strengthen the team and realise his and the manager's ambitions of promotion?

Any business can only spend the money that they generate. There is a massive revenue drop when you get relegated, even with parachute payments, and because of that it's very hard to spend large amounts of money without first selling.

None of us are privy to the clubs management accounts, for all we know Anton has put money in just so we could do the business we ended up doing. As I said, we've generated considerably less in sales than we did last time we got relegated, as well as continuing to pay big wages to bring in the players that we did, not to mention the investment in the academy/training ground etc. I very much doubt we'd have been able to do all that without some investment on Anton's part.

But even if he didn't subsidise it, why should we expect him to? He's always said he'd look to continue to run the club as a business, he's never lied about his intentions and he's never made promises that he hasn't kept.

Well, I'll beg to differ at the end of the season or in 5 years time when we didn't buy in 7 players, we DID sell the players that we didn't HAVE to, we aren't Championship Winners and we're not firmly entrenched in the Premier League and fighting for a European place. Never made promises he hasn't kept!

[Extended-Phenotype]

So why are we chasing Sissoko, surly he will be asking for a wage similar to Pog. Is he a better option because he's FREE

He isn't free, we just don't have to pay his ex-club anything.

It sounds like we've made him an offer and he's thinking it over whilst his agent no doubts looks for a bigger deal elsewhere. The reason we're chasing him is because we think he's better than what we've got and we can afford a certain amount for him to improve our side.

Considering our parachute payments, rich owner and money for all the players we flogged, I'd say that's a f/ckbucket load of dosh we can chuck his way. Glad we spent deadline day having a casual chat with a bloke we didn't sign and then told everyone in the world about it.

[ManchesterRoyals]

So why are we chasing Sissoko, surly he will be asking for a wage similar to Pog. Is he a better option because he's FREE

He isn't free, we just don't have to pay his ex-club anything.



It sounds like we've made him an offer and he's thinking it over whilst his agent no doubts looks for a bigger deal elsewhere. The reason we're chasing him is because we think he's better than what we've got and we can afford a certain amount for him to improve our side.

A striker would improve our side, but we haven't got the money for one, but we can offer stupid wages for a cdm that to be honest we don't really need that just happens to be a free. Just saying

[Hoop Blah]

I'd say there are probably about, lets see, 50 trillion players around the world that we could have gone for over and above Blackman. Seems we went for ones that didn't want to play for us or we either didn't want to pay for them. Didn't get 'em. Shrugged.

That's a fail in my book.

We obviously went for certain targets yes. They didn't happen for whatever reasons.

I'd agree it's a failure in not strengthening our forward line. In fact I don't think I've seen anyone really say otherwise. The only debate seems to be whether it's a failure but we at least still have other avenues to address it and so it's not the end of the world or it's a failure and a hanging offence for all involved in not closing the deals over the last week.

I'm holding the former opinion.

[Hoop Blah]

Well, I'll beg to differ at the end of the season or in 5 years time when we didn't buy in 7 players, we DID sell the players that we didn't HAVE to, we aren't Championship Winners and we're not firmly entrenched in the Premier League and fighting for a European place. Never made promises he hasn't kept!

We did effectively HAVE to sell the players we did because it appears they wanted to play in the Premier League.

What promises has anyone made that haven't been kept?

[Extended-Phenotype]

I'd say there are probably about, lets see, 50 trillion players around the world that we could have gone for over and above Blackman. Seems we went for ones that didn't want to play for us or we either didn't want to pay for them. Didn't get 'em. Shrugged.

That's a fail in my book.

We obviously went for certain targets yes. They didn't happen for whatever reasons.

I'd agree it's a failure in not strengthening our forward line. In fact I don't think I've seen anyone really say otherwise. The only debate seems to be whether it's a failure but we at least still have other avenues to address it and so it's not the end of the world or it's a failure and a hanging offence for all involved in not closing the deals over the last week.

I'm holding the former opinion.

That's because the latter option is a straw man, tbf.

[winchester_royal]

So basically, we can only spend what we get in and even then, we don't spend it? So AZ has no money whatsoever to give to the manager to strengthen the team and realise his and the manager's ambitions of promotion?

Any business can only spend the money that they generate. There is a massive revenue drop when you get relegated, even with parachute payments, and because of that it's very hard to spend large amounts of money without first selling.

None of us are privy to the clubs management accounts, for all we know Anton has put money in just so we could do the business we ended up doing. As I said, we've generated considerably less in sales than we did last time we got relegated, as well as continuing to pay big wages to bring in the players that we did, not to mention the investment in the academy/training ground etc. I very much doubt we'd have been able to do all that without some investment on Anton's part.

But even if he didn't subsidise it, why should we expect him to? He's always said he'd look to continue to run the club as a business, he's never lied about his intentions and he's never made promises that he hasn't kept.

Well, I'll beg to differ at the end of the season or in 5 years time when we didn't buy in 7 players, we DID sell the players that we didn't HAVE to, we aren't Championship Winners and we're not firmly entrenched in the Premier League and fighting for a European place. Never made promises he hasn't kept!

Having to sell and choosing to sell are very different things.

So are promises and objectives.

[Royalclapper]

Pogs wages are at the far end of the 'over the odds' spectrum - you can work everything back from there.

[Hoop Blah]

I'd say there are probably about, lets see, 50 trillion players around the world that we could have gone for over and above Blackman. Seems we went for ones that didn't want to play for us or we either didn't want to pay for them. Didn't get 'em. Shrugged.

That's a fail in my book.

We obviously went for certain targets yes. They didn't happen for whatever reasons.

I'd agree it's a failure in not strengthening our forward line. In fact I don't think I've seen anyone really say otherwise. The only debate seems to be whether it's a failure but we at least still have other avenues to address it and so it's not the end of the world or it's a failure and a hanging offence for all involved in not closing the deals over the last week.

I'm holding the former opinion.

That's because the latter option is a straw man, tbf.

It's an exaggeration of those calling for the sacking of Hammond and questioning the intentions of the club, calling out all sorts of conspiracy theories and generally talking a load of crap over the last day or so.