Fans Forum with Ince and Bowen next Thursday

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Potentially. Was just highlighting that even getting what looks like a suboptimal deal might actually be useful.
Puscas here for another year and not actually playing but taking a salary or Puscas gone and enough head room to bring in a huge lump to anchor the defence ?

I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be. I'm not going into the specifics because we don't know, the only thing we can assume at the moment is we've got a deal that isn't right for us for one reason or another.

Personally, I'd rather we move Puscas on for the best deal that we can get, bring Sarr in and see what is left. If the scenario is that we were left with Puscas, we wouldn't be helpless as that still leaves us with another forward in the squad who is useful and we can try and negotiate deals without paying anything towards wages on loan deals. Obviously a lot harder and not ideal mind you.

Why assume there is a deal that isn’t right for us ?
We can’t force deals through without willing partners.

Ok forget the "we", I'll just go with I'm assuming that we've received offers that aren't right for us. It might not be the case however.

[Nameless]

I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be. I'm not going into the specifics because we don't know, the only thing we can assume at the moment is we've got a deal that isn't right for us for one reason or another.

Personally, I'd rather we move Puscas on for the best deal that we can get, bring Sarr in and see what is left. If the scenario is that we were left with Puscas, we wouldn't be helpless as that still leaves us with another forward in the squad who is useful and we can try and negotiate deals without paying anything towards wages on loan deals. Obviously a lot harder and not ideal mind you.

Why assume there is a deal that isn’t right for us ?
We can’t force deals through without willing partners.

Ok forget the "we", I'll just go with I'm assuming that we've received offers that aren't right for us. It might not be the case however.

We may have received offers that we are happy with. Doesn’t mean we can do a deal though, there are more than 2 parties in a transfer.

[Hound]

Can only imagine the outrage if we were unable to bring in another player because we sold Puscas on the wrong terms. Terrible mismanagement etc

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Why assume there is a deal that isn’t right for us ?
We can’t force deals through without willing partners.

Ok forget the "we", I'll just go with I'm assuming that we've received offers that aren't right for us. It might not be the case however.

We may have received offers that we are happy with. Doesn’t mean we can do a deal though, there are more than 2 parties in a transfer.

Yep agree with the last part - just my opinion though.

[Nameless]

Can only imagine the outrage if we were unable to bring in another player because we sold Puscas on the wrong terms. Terrible mismanagement etc

Pretty much whatever happens someone will grumble. There’s a lot that is worth a grumble, but there was lots of grumbling when SJM was running the show. It’s the nature of being a fan, we could run the club better than the owner, we could pick the team better than the manager and we could play better than the players.
I really hope the players sit around after training and pick the support to pieces. ‘ What was that song they were singing, words made no sense’, ‘pathetic effort in the second half, only 5 of them singing’, ‘ how come they haven’t got a song for Kelvin yet, how hard can it be’

[Sutekh]

STAR's first Fans’ Forum of season is with special guests manager Paul Ince and Head of Football Operations Mark Bowen.

It’s on Thursday 11 August in the Princess Suite, SCL Stadium, starting at 7pm. It's free entry but it is a STAR members only event, You can join on the evening at the door - or of course online or at STAR Base on home match days.

We're working hard to provide a remote webinar style access for STAR members who can't get to the stadium for this event.

If you've got a question for our guests that you'd like asked please email it to chair@star-reading.org

Thanks STAR for putting this together, especially good to have Mark Bowen give some of his time to attend as his overall stewardship of footballing matters allows for some interesting questions to be asked that the manager isn’t best positioned so to answer. Please invite Mark to any further forums especially during this time of “rebuilding”.

One moan though, so you can investigate and check it through for future “broadcasts”. I was watching on Zoom and the interview with Paul and Alex was dreadful with sound breaking up and a lot of what they said being like they had a shagpile carpet wrapped round their heads. Don’t know if the issue was down to the bandwidth/volume of attendees, the audio equipment being poorly positioned or just not being up to handling more than one person at a time. I don’t think it was my end of the technology as it was working perfectly with Paula’s talk at the start and then again when Mark was being interviewed.

[Sutekh]

We may well be paying him but if he isn't registered, his wages likely don't count towards the squad budget. Looks like we just need proof that Puscas or someone is on the way out for the registration to happen. Frustrating if it's true that the EFL switched their stance from allowing the signing and then us balancing the books to the other way round but completely understandable and correct really.

Shows we really need to get the last couple of big spenders out asap, if we want to add more strength in depth.

Given we've had several offers on the table for Puscas and haven't accepted them, I find it hard to blame the FL for not trusting us, given our track record.

From what I've heard recently, it's Puscas turning down the moves because he doesn't want a drop in wages, rather than the club not accepting offers.

And I remain to be convinced that FFP (supposedly a good thing in principle) is fit for purpose as it is currently being applied. It still seems unfair that if EFL clubs spend beyond their means (in the eyes of the EFL), in a bid to get to the EPL ,they get hammered the way we and others have been, yet clubs relegated from the EPL can spend way beyond their true means (courtesy of parachute payments) in a bid to get back up. In most cases they succeed too.

Where owners have money that they're prepared to spend on their clubs, then maybe that should be permitted to do so. However, that could be conditional upon them paying funds into a fund administered by the EFL to cover the full cost of any player contracts that they commit to, over and above those that the EFL consider are within the club's daily means. That way the club finances would be protected from any such liabilities in the event that an owner walked away.

Alternatively get radical and really level the playing field by operating financial controls and restrictions across the league in the way that MLS do (hopefully with slightly easier to understand rules and procedures!).

+1, it still needs further review and change. The suggestion above is as good as any and it may even things a little more. Biggest issue is parachute payments where relegated clubs are essentially being rewarded for failure. Still a fan of every player contract in every division having a clause setting out wage reductions if that club is relegated.

Another thought, can a club go into admin after running up debts everywhere and yet still be within FFP rules so after coming out of admin they can emerge with new owners and carry on with no restrictions or limitations?

[Stranded]

With parachute payments apparently going away in the near future to be replaced by merit payments (and likely give clubs more money), then it may be time to change FFP to put more risk on the owners in the way that RB suggests.

Do like the idea that the owner has to legally cover any values over what the club afford, I guess you would also have to allow them to take out a certain percentage of profit to make it attractive to those who may want to invest.

[blythspartan]

So sounds like the Sarr deal puts us over the wage limit until we ship someone out

Puscas should go freeing that up but shows were pretty much at the limit of where we can be

Does this mean that if we can’t shift one of Puscas or Moore we can’t sign anymore players? If so, that’s a bit worrying given our current injury situation.

[Snowflake Royal]

Can only imagine the outrage if we were unable to bring in another player because we sold Puscas on the wrong terms. Terrible mismanagement etc

Can't see it, at least from anyone worth listening to. We all know we're somewhat over a barrel.

We were disappointed in losing Olise for £8m but we accepted it. Disappointed in losing Swift, Laurent, Rino etc at the end of their contract but accepted it.

[Hound]

Can only imagine the outrage if we were unable to bring in another player because we sold Puscas on the wrong terms. Terrible mismanagement etc

Can't see it, at least from anyone worth listening to. We all know we're somewhat over a barrel.

We were disappointed in losing Olise for £8m but we accepted it. Disappointed in losing Swift, Laurent, Rino etc at the end of their contract but accepted it.

Had no choice in any of those though.

[Snowflake Royal]

We may well be paying him but if he isn't registered, his wages likely don't count towards the squad budget. Looks like we just need proof that Puscas or someone is on the way out for the registration to happen. Frustrating if it's true that the EFL switched their stance from allowing the signing and then us balancing the books to the other way round but completely understandable and correct really.

Shows we really need to get the last couple of big spenders out asap, if we want to add more strength in depth.

Given we've had several offers on the table for Puscas and haven't accepted them, I find it hard to blame the FL for not trusting us, given our track record.

From what I've heard recently, it's Puscas turning down the moves because he doesn't want a drop in wages, rather than the club not accepting offers.

If that's true, the if the club were a bit more open this sort of confusion could easily be avoided. All the information I've seen is that we haven’t reached agreements with the other clubs. If we have, we should be stating that we've agreed a deal and it's then on Puscas to agree terms. It certainly used to happen.

It seems pretty strange to me in this world of endless tapping up that a club would make a bid for a player without first having a pretty good idea they're interested in the move and a contract could be reached.

If we've been accepting the deals and Puscas turning them down then absolutely fair enough. But that's certainly not been what anyone else has been arguing is happening.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Can only imagine the outrage if we were unable to bring in another player because we sold Puscas on the wrong terms. Terrible mismanagement etc

Can't see it, at least from anyone worth listening to. We all know we're somewhat over a barrel.

We were disappointed in losing Olise for £8m but we accepted it. Disappointed in losing Swift, Laurent, Rino etc at the end of their contract but accepted it.

True, I wouldn't be disappointed to see Puscas go but if we end up "losing out" on what we could get, I'd be disappointed, especially given our current situation. Time moves on so you do eventually get over it, but still at the time and the situation we are in, if we did move Puscas on for a deal that would mean we couldn't sign Sarr (or any other player), that would be a really, really poor deal for the club.

[Snowflake Royal]

Can only imagine the outrage if we were unable to bring in another player because we sold Puscas on the wrong terms. Terrible mismanagement etc

Can't see it, at least from anyone worth listening to. We all know we're somewhat over a barrel.

We were disappointed in losing Olise for £8m but we accepted it. Disappointed in losing Swift, Laurent, Rino etc at the end of their contract but accepted it.

True, I wouldn't be disappointed to see Puscas go but if we end up "losing out" on what we could get, I'd be disappointed, especially given our current situation. Time moves on so you do eventually get over it, but still at the time and the situation we are in, if we did move Puscas on for a deal that would mean we couldn't sign Sarr (or any other player), that would be a really, really poor deal for the club.

Agree there's not a lot of point in accepting a deal that doesn’t actually benefit us.

But it again comes back to proper planning and management of the situation. If you haven't got a done deal, don't sign a replacement or try to sign someone else where his leaving is required.

Factor him staying into your plans, and have plans set up that you can put in motion when he does go.

There's a decent player there we could benefit from playing. If we use him correctly, so its not like him staying was worthless to us when it came to planning for the season.

If we weren't sure we could shift Puscas, maybe we should have planned to use him, not signed Long, and used the Long money to sign Sarr instead.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Can't see it, at least from anyone worth listening to. We all know we're somewhat over a barrel.

We were disappointed in losing Olise for £8m but we accepted it. Disappointed in losing Swift, Laurent, Rino etc at the end of their contract but accepted it.

True, I wouldn't be disappointed to see Puscas go but if we end up "losing out" on what we could get, I'd be disappointed, especially given our current situation. Time moves on so you do eventually get over it, but still at the time and the situation we are in, if we did move Puscas on for a deal that would mean we couldn't sign Sarr (or any other player), that would be a really, really poor deal for the club.

Agree there's not a lot of point in accepting a deal that doesn’t actually benefit us.

But it again comes back to proper planning and management of the situation. If you haven't got a done deal, don't sign a replacement or try to sign someone else where his leaving is required.

Factor him staying into your plans, and have plans set up that you can put in motion when he does go.

There's a decent player there we could benefit from playing. If we use him correctly, so its not like him staying was worthless to us when it came to planning for the season.

If we weren't sure we could shift Puscas, maybe we should have planned to use him, not signed Long, and used the Long money to sign Sarr instead.

I do think that was taken into account before anyway and I do think we need 3 forwards anyway, so Joao, Long, Puscas would be good enough for the season with Meite capable of playing there as well.

I do think we are anticipating him to leave and/or we were expecting the EFL to approve the Sarr deal, I do think that was planned and not just done out of nothing.

[Snowflake Royal]

True, I wouldn't be disappointed to see Puscas go but if we end up "losing out" on what we could get, I'd be disappointed, especially given our current situation. Time moves on so you do eventually get over it, but still at the time and the situation we are in, if we did move Puscas on for a deal that would mean we couldn't sign Sarr (or any other player), that would be a really, really poor deal for the club.

Agree there's not a lot of point in accepting a deal that doesn’t actually benefit us.

But it again comes back to proper planning and management of the situation. If you haven't got a done deal, don't sign a replacement or try to sign someone else where his leaving is required.

Factor him staying into your plans, and have plans set up that you can put in motion when he does go.

There's a decent player there we could benefit from playing. If we use him correctly, so its not like him staying was worthless to us when it came to planning for the season.

If we weren't sure we could shift Puscas, maybe we should have planned to use him, not signed Long, and used the Long money to sign Sarr instead.

I do think that was taken into account before anyway and I do think we need 3 forwards anyway, so Joao, Long, Puscas would be good enough for the season with Meite capable of playing there as well.

I do think we are anticipating him to leave and/or we were expecting the EFL to approve the Sarr deal, I do think that was planned and not just done out of nothing.

Not nothing, but clearly more hope than certainty.

[STAR Liaison]

Thanks to those who attended in person or by zoom. Yes, we did have some tech issues on zoom, sorry about that. Tricky to make these things work as hybrid live and zoom events.

We're not doing a 'transcript' this time - you have to be there for the full monty - but there is a report on the STAR website https://star-reading.org/news/fans-foru ... the-corner - plus, obviously what posters have already said on the thread.

[blythspartan]

Maybe we should forget about Sarr and start looking at cheaper options, which don’t involve us having to offload Puscas or Moore.

[Hound]

Maybe we should forget about Sarr and start looking at cheaper options, which don’t involve us having to offload Puscas or Moore.

They’d prob be crap though

No doubts we can shift Puscas - it’s about getting as close to what we want for him as poss

[Nameless]

Maybe we should forget about Sarr and start looking at cheaper options, which don’t involve us having to offload Puscas or Moore.

The inference is we have signed Sarr already, but we can’t register him. It seems odd as it looks like we were allowed to sign Loum afterwards. Perhaps we were given the option of one but not both ?
I think Puscas is definitely going, it’s just a question of when. And when he goes Sarr will be approved.