Baldock

[Easy 10]

I think in hindsight I'd rather have Vydra for a season that CMS for four seasons. Bargain when you look at it like that...

I think in hindsight I'd rather have chlamydia for a season than CMS for four seasons, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. So we're told.

 

[Bozza]

And what is the cost of failure ?

Paying a £2m rental fee for a player that won't even be yours in a few months is all well and good if he bags you 25 goals and fires you straight up into the PL...but its a hell of a gamble. And so far, he's got 1 in 8 (against us...sigh)

I disagree - it's not one hell of a gamble at all. Buying a striker from overseas who has never played in England for £2m + 4 years wages is one hell of a gamble. 'Renting' a striker who has averaged 20 goals a season in his last two Championship campaigns to me represents far less of a gamble. It may still go wrong, but I don't think it's "a hell of a gamble".

That's not to say that I believe the Albion should have done it or similar, but I can see the logic in what Reading have done.

 

[Simster]

I disagree - it's not one hell of a gamble at all. Buying a striker from overseas who has never played in England for £2m + 4 years wages is one hell of a gamble. 'Renting' a striker who has averaged 20 goals a season in his last two Championship campaigns to me represents far less of a gamble. It may still go wrong, but I don't think it's "a hell of a gamble".

That's not to say that I believe the Albion should have done it or similar, but I can see the logic in what Reading have done.

I would say that if you are going go down the loan player route, then this is certainly the way to do it, as opposed to 3 or 4 bang average loanees over the course of the season. A single player on loan for a season is unlikely to negatively impact team morale, unlike several uncommitted players not good enough for their parent club or only interested in regaining match fitness on short term deals.

Vydra is a decent player and proven to score goals at this level. The worst thing that can happen is that Reading are out of pocket by £2m and are still in this division at the end of the season. On the other hand, he could yet prove to be the reason why they are promoted. Jury is out, but like you say, I can well see the logic.

 

[Triggaaar]

Dugarry was utter bobbins

But still a striker right?

Henry was a winger at that time

Ok, didn't remember that. He scored a few didn't he?

Trezeguet was a youngster who'd played in the World Youth Championships only a year earlier.

He was 20, that's 2 years older than when Owen scored the best ever English goal against Argentina. And so France chose to play youngsters, that doesn't mean they had no strikers.

So they won a World Cup without really having a proven top quality striker.

Yes, I agree there. But players don't have to be proven. Owen wasn't proven (by WC standards), Gazza wasn't proven pre '90.

Its preferable to have a 20-goal a season forward obviously, but not essential.

Yep, agreed. At the moment we're doing it without a top striker, but most of us don't think we can maintain that until the end.

 

[Triggaaar]

If we coud find a Kevin Phillips, Peter Ward or Jimmy Greaves as a back up sub after 60 mins if needed problem solved.

I'm sure I've missed part of the conversation, but the idea of Jimmy Greaves as a back-up sub is hilarious.

 

[Easy 10]

I disagree - it's not one hell of a gamble at all. Buying a striker from overseas who has never played in England for £2m + 4 years wages is one hell of a gamble. 'Renting' a striker who has averaged 20 goals a season in his last two Championship campaigns to me represents far less of a gamble. It may still go wrong, but I don't think it's "a hell of a gamble".

That's not to say that I believe the Albion should have done it or similar, but I can see the logic in what Reading have done.

But come May, after spending £2m on him + wages, he's not their player. No chance of any resale value, so that's £2m just written off. If you've gone up then great, no problem. almost any fee can be justified if you reach the PL. If you haven't though, I think that's a hefty gamble with nothing at the end of it.

 

[Simster]

But come May, after spending £2m on him + wages, he's not their player. No chance of any resale value, so that's £2m just written off. If you've gone up then great, no problem. almost any fee can be justified if you reach the PL. If you haven't though, I think that's a hefty gamble with nothing at the end of it.

But if you buy a player and he doesn't perform, then his net worth is likely to fall too. Andy Carroll, as a glaring example (because the numbers are astronomical), cost Liverpool £35m. Predictably, he wasn't all that good. They sold him to West Ham two years later for £15m.

Had Liverpool simply been able to borrow him for £5m a season, that clearly would have been preferable.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

The point is I reckon that if he does well the wages and fee go up for the next season. Further we do not know his wages but my guess is that they are substantial already.

I am sure he has abilities but in playing on loan somewhere I doubt if his abilities are much different to what we have got already.

On the whole our strikers are contributing to the team effort significantly but not scoring notably. I think a feature of this season is that we have a TEAM and the sum can be greater than its parts.

 

[BensGrandad]

I'm sure I've missed part of the conversation, but the idea of Jimmy Greaves as a back-up sub is hilarious.

They are examples of the type of player we need somebody who does nothing in a game but put the ball in the net when the opportunity arises. If they were older then they would be used as a sub, if they were young they would be beyond our pockets.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

But come May, after spending £2m on him + wages, he's not their player. No chance of any resale value, so that's £2m just written off. If you've gone up then great, no problem. almost any fee can be justified if you reach the PL. If you haven't though, I think that's a hefty gamble with nothing at the end of it.

But there's nothing at the end of any contract. What would his market value be for a permanent transfer on a three-year deal? £6m? So Reading are paying the same pro rata without risking a loss of form with age over years two and three. Plus he can't run his contract down in the final year. I think we'll see a lot more of this type of thing.

 

[Easy 10]

But if you buy a player and he doesn't perform, then his net worth is likely to fall too. Andy Carroll, as a glaring example (because the numbers are astronomical), cost Liverpool £35m. Predictably, he wasn't all that good. They sold him to West Ham two years later for £15m.

Had Liverpool simply been able to borrow him for £5m a season, that clearly would have been preferable.

Well, Carroll is a bit of a basket case of an, example as Liverpool got absolutely RINSED by Newcastle cos they were (a) in a desperate panic to sign someone, anyone, just before the window closed and (b) still flush with the £50m-odd they'd just got for Torres. Of course any players value can decrease as well as go up if it doesn't work out, but on the whole you'd back your judgement to strike a decent (realistic) price and look to at least recoup your outlay if/when he moves on.

The Vydra deal though, that's a guaranteed £2m writeoff for a single season that will ONLY prove to be good business if they go up. Quite a long shot, but if the owners aren't bothered about writing off £2m then that's their lookout I suppose. Maybe they'll bring a song out about it.

 

[Bozza]

But come May, after spending £2m on him + wages, he's not their player. No chance of any resale value, so that's £2m just written off. If you've gone up then great, no problem. almost any fee can be justified if you reach the PL. If you haven't though, I think that's a hefty gamble with nothing at the end of it.

Given the prices of decent Championship strikers, he must be worth c£8m. On a straight line basis over a 4 year contract that's £2m a year. If suggest the way footballers go, it's more likely to be something like £3.5m + £2.5m + £1.5m +£1m.

I'm not saying it's outstanding business but I certainly don't think it's awful as you suggest.

 

[BensGrandad]

Wasnt this discussed and much the same said about us when we lost in the play off had we kept Murray and paid what he wanted we would have got automatic promotion.

 

[Westdene Wonder]

Find this rather strange tbh.
We are unbeaten after 16 games, joint top, in and around the 4 teams in this league everyone expected to be taking the top 4 places. Hamed and Baldock so far although clearly not prolific add a lot to how we currently play. The transfer window opens in 7 weeks time. Why waste money on a loan signing for 7 weeks? Rosenier can clearly cover left back. Anyone thinking otherwise clearly has not watched the past couple of games. As for a striker, who are people thinking? Everyone decent is playing or tied u on loans or is not match fit. Unless Baldock is out for a period then we wait till January sign a player we want and push on from there

We have enough points already to keep clear of the relegation area and as soon as our injured list improves there is no need to fork out for another striker,waiting for the team to really take the game to our opponents at home,this will improve attendances

 

[Simster]

Well, Carroll is a bit of a basket case of an, example as Liverpool got absolutely RINSED by Newcastle cos they were (a) in a desperate panic to sign someone, anyone, just before the window closed and (b) still flush with the £50m-odd they'd just got for Torres. Of course any players value can decrease as well as go up if it doesn't work out, but on the whole you'd back your judgement to strike a decent (realistic) price and look to at least recoup your outlay if/when he moves on.

The Vydra deal though, that's a guaranteed £2m writeoff for a single season that will ONLY prove to be good business if they go up. Quite a long shot, but if the owners aren't bothered about writing off £2m then that's their lookout I suppose. Maybe they'll bring a song out about it.

We paid £2.5m for Craig McKail Smith over three years and I think he was the club's highest earner. The first season he was fine - not a world beater but overall after that season we had reason to think he might kick on. He didn't. He was below average in year 2 (worth £1m tops by then), and then both injured and complete pony on his return in year 3.

I don't even think our experience with CMS was particularly unusual. The one-year Vydra deal looks a decent punt compared to this. Reading limit their risk to one year, with a decent potential upside if they are promoted. Meanwhile, Watford shift a high earner off their books, and if he proves them wrong, they see his transfer value rise.

 

[Easy 10]

But there's nothing at the end of any contract. What would his market value be for a permanent transfer on a three-year deal? £6m? So Reading are paying the same pro rata without risking a loss of form with age over years two and three. Plus he can't run his contract down in the final year. I think we'll see a lot more of this type of thing.

Which is a fair point, but hiring/borrowing a player for a season for that kind of money up front...I'm just not sure I'd be comfortable with it. We're seeing the benefit this season of investing in the squad rather than investing in loans, and long may that continue.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Given the prices of decent Championship strikers, he must be worth c£8m. On a straight line basis over a 4 year contract that's £2m a year. If suggest the way footballers go, it's more likely to be something like £3.5m + £2.5m + £1.5m +£1m.

I'm not saying it's outstanding business but I certainly don't think it's awful as you suggest.

Do loan players make as much effort as player under contract? Vydra looks poor value for money, at the moment, considering he's only scored one goal.

 

[BensGrandad]

Do loan players make as much effort as player under contract? Vydra looks poor value for money, at the moment, considering he's only scored one goal.

I think they would if the option of a permenant move to the club was on the cards.

 

[Triggaaar]

Given the prices of decent Championship strikers, he must be worth c£8m. On a straight line basis over a 4 year contract that's £2m a year. If suggest the way footballers go, it's more likely to be something like £3.5m + £2.5m + £1.5m +£1m.

I'm not saying it's outstanding business but I certainly don't think it's awful as you suggest.

He's only 23, no one would expect to buy him £8 (your figures add up to £8.5 BTW) and let his contract run down, so a significant part of that £8m would be his resale value. Like Blackburn paid £8m for Rhodes, but they could make a profit on that if they wanted, meaning he's costing nothing more than wages.

I don't even think our experience with CMS was particularly unusual. The one-year Vydra deal looks a decent punt compared to this.

Buying me for £500k would be a decent punt compared to the CMS deal, so not the best base for comparison.

 

[Surrey Phil]

Any chance of getting back to the original thread about Baldock. Any news on his injury?