Hob Nob Anyone?

Didn't we have a sell on clause? hew went for £1.5M rising to a possible £1.9M

Generally, it's very well known that the sell on clause is 40%. You don't seem to pay much attention to Football, do you?

General Football

Terminal Boardom wrote:General Football

Possibly club policies on account of the sell on clause.

Possibly The Team if we were to discuss the period when Cox was a Reading player

Maybe Anything Else if this turns into a debate about which board posts belong on

Possibly Classifieds if Simon Cox is being sold.

The lesson to be learned with Simon Cox regarding our future young talents is this.

Never sell a young, up coming talented player like Cox to a useless club like Swindon. Send him out there on a season long loan. If he bangs in the goals and has a great season like Cox just had, you can draft him into the Royals first team.

If he doesn't have an outstanding season but shows plenty of promise, send him out for a second season long loan and see what happens again. Only then after 2 season long loans if he doesn't perform then you can release the lad.

That should be the club policy for dealing with prodigal young talents.

Top Flight wrote:The lesson to be learned with Simon Cox regarding our future young talents is this.

Never sell a young, up coming talented player like Cox to a useless club like Swindon. Send him out there on a season long loan. If he bangs in the goals and has a great season like Cox just had, you can draft him into the Royals first team.

If he doesn't have an outstanding season but shows plenty of promise, send him out for a second season long loan and see what happens again. Only then after 2 season long loans if he doesn't perform then you can release the lad.

That should be the club policy for dealing with prodigal young talents.

He'd been on loan.

I believe either he wanted a permanent move if he wasn't going to be playing at Reading, or Swindon wanted the move permanent and not another loan, understandably. POssibly it was both.

The lesson learnt from Cox is, it's not always possible to bring through very talented players. Some times they have to step down to step up. If that happens make sure you've got a good deal on the transfer so you can benefit from any big future sale. Which we did.

Everyone mentions this sell on clause, but I have yet to see anything on the OS or in the papers?

Exactly. Why does the Swindon say this:

"We would expect to get the whole £1.9m. It would have been nice to get a bit more, if a Premier League club had come in for him, it could have been more, but I think it represents fair value."

Everyone says it's 'common knowledge' that we have a 40% sign-on. These are the same people that come up with the sh*te rumours all the time on Hob Nob. Truth is, nobody except the Reading hierachy know.

The 40% is 99% certain.

You are reading too much into the opening sentence. They would hope that the total fee (incl add-ons) will end up being payable. The arrangement with RFC is totally separate from the context being discussed there.

Top Flight wrote:The lesson to be learned with Simon Cox regarding our future young talents is this.

Never sell a young, up coming talented player like Cox to a useless club like Swindon. Send him out there on a season long loan. If he bangs in the goals and has a great season like Cox just had, you can draft him into the Royals first team.

If he doesn't have an outstanding season but shows plenty of promise, send him out for a second season long loan and see what happens again. Only then after 2 season long loans if he doesn't perform then you can release the lad.

That should be the club policy for dealing with prodigal young talents.

Works for me. Perhaps Ian Royal should try and read this a bit more carefully. If in 2 years the kid doesn't deliver then offski. Not 100% foolproof but better than what we currently have.

Terminal Boardom wrote:

Top Flight wrote:The lesson to be learned with Simon Cox regarding our future young talents is this.

Never sell a young, up coming talented player like Cox to a useless club like Swindon. Send him out there on a season long loan. If he bangs in the goals and has a great season like Cox just had, you can draft him into the Royals first team.

If he doesn't have an outstanding season but shows plenty of promise, send him out for a second season long loan and see what happens again. Only then after 2 season long loans if he doesn't perform then you can release the lad.

That should be the club policy for dealing with prodigal young talents.

Works for me. Perhaps Ian Royal should try and read this a bit more carefully. If in 2 years the kid doesn't deliver then offski. Not 100% foolproof but better than what we currently have.

[insert - 'had']

John Peel wrote:Exactly. Why does the Swindon say this:

"We would expect to get the whole £1.9m.

I'd say that's more in reference to the £1.5m + add-ons - Swindon are obviously confident that WBA will get promoted and trigger the extra 400k.

Platypuss wrote:

John Peel wrote:Exactly. Why does the Swindon say this:

"We would expect to get the whole £1.9m.

I'd say that's more in reference to the £1.5m + add-ons - Swindon are obviously confident that WBA will get promoted and trigger the extra 400k.

So if, at the end of March we're not in promotion contention but WBA are, might it be worth throwing our game with them to ensure more of the money (assuming we're on 40% of the top-ups, too).

Terminal Boardom wrote:

Top Flight wrote:The lesson to be learned with Simon Cox regarding our future young talents is this.

Never sell a young, up coming talented player like Cox to a useless club like Swindon. Send him out there on a season long loan. If he bangs in the goals and has a great season like Cox just had, you can draft him into the Royals first team.

If he doesn't have an outstanding season but shows plenty of promise, send him out for a second season long loan and see what happens again. Only then after 2 season long loans if he doesn't perform then you can release the lad.

That should be the club policy for dealing with prodigal young talents.

Works for me. Perhaps Ian Royal should try and read this a bit more carefully. If in 2 years the kid doesn't deliver then offski. Not 100% foolproof but better than what we currently have.

IR's take on the situation is spot on.

Cox had had his couple of seasons out on loan. He'd also done quite well too. The problem was that he was faced with Coppell's favoured players ahead of him in the pecking order and Coppell being reluctant to try something else even though we'd started to struggle at the time.

Cox wanted to get a chance but realised he wasn't going to get it. Rightly he probably realised that it was a crucial point in his development and that he needed to be playing. He also said at the time how he didn't want to go out on loan again because you never feel quite as established or as much a part of things going on as a loan player.

It came down to two options, getting a chance to prove his worth and continue to develop at Reading (which he realised wasn't going to happen) or make a permenant move to club where he would get first team football and kick start his career.

I agree with the sentiment of the idea from Top Flight, but that's essentially what we did with Cox. He just didn't get the chance to break into the first team so had to look elsewhere.

Platypuss wrote:

John Peel wrote:Exactly. Why does the Swindon say this:

"We would expect to get the whole £1.9m.

I'd say that's more in reference to the £1.5m + add-ons - Swindon are obviously confident that WBA will get promoted and trigger the extra 400k.

Confirmed on the OS that we'll be getting a "significant" sell-on fee.

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/NewsDet ... 37,00.html

On the one hand, Cox didn't get two seasons on loan - quite a short amount of loan time before he moved on in fact. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether there's much of a lesson for the club, since with other youth players we have loaned them out for a full season or two - Karacan, Henry, Hamer, Gylfi, Hal, Church. It's not "The Reading way", as people like to scoff, to take perfectly good talent and abandon it without giving it a proper chance. Which makes me think there was something unusual about this case.

What I mean't was that he'd spent two years (seasons that should be I suppose) going out on loan and getting games, goals and good reviews.

Not a massive amount of games admittedly, but enough to have made a good impression wherever he went.

Hoop Blah wrote:What I mean't was that he'd spent two years (seasons that should be I suppose) going out on loan and getting games, goals and good reviews.

Again, much the same as Henry, Church, Robson Kanu, Sigurdsson, Karacan etc. which, as they haven't moved on despite a lack of 1st team action, suggests there was something different about Cox's case.

Royal Rother wrote:

Hoop Blah wrote:What I mean't was that he'd spent two years (seasons that should be I suppose) going out on loan and getting games, goals and good reviews.

Again, much the same as Henry, Church, Robson Kanu, Sigurdsson, Karacan etc. which, as they haven't moved on despite a lack of 1st team action, suggests there was something different about Cox's case.

Yup, they are content to wait their turn. He wasn't.

The unusual thing in this case, lest we forget, is that he left around the time we made the Premiership. He wasnt ready for that then in the opinion of SSC, and decided that rather than play in the stiffs he would go and get competitive action elsewhere. Fair play to him, he has made it back to CCC level on the back of two great seasons. Is he good enough now for the PL? He didnt go there on this occaision, so others clearly think not as well. Only time will tell. The club have been very fair to him by letting him go, and he has grabbed the chance.