Rejects

[ManchesterCanary 0]

Any chance of a signing who is not a reject...??

[AJ 1,358]

why sign anyone when you can clone andy hughes another 10 times?!

[Yellow Rages 0]

Fact of football ..................Most players you sign will be labeled as rejects by the selling clubs fans.

Sadly, they have been right this season.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="ManchesterCanary"]Any chance of a signing who is not a reject...??[/quote]

Totally agree.  We would not want another "reject" like Huckerby who was unwanted by Man City.

 

[K Lo 246]

I think many of us knew that Huckerby was a great player even though things weren''t right for him at Man C. He had done magnificantly at Cov. & Forest. Additionally, on a loan, he was less of a risk than an initial outright purchase.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Well, yeah, obviously. But Saint Canary''s point is well made that Huckerby was actually a "reject" in terms of the fact that he wasn''t needed at Man City and therefore his obvious skill and ability shows what a pointless and misleading label it is to bandy about. 

[Saint Canary 0]

It''s interesting mcd''s perm that no-one also seems to notice that the players we signed weren''t actually rejects.  Reading didn''t exactly want to sell Hughes.  Cardiff couldn''t afford Thorne''s wages and Wigan wanted Jarrett to stay.

Maybe we should be looking to sign more rejects....

[streakey 0]

Over the years Norwich have been lucky with rejects Ted Mcdougal ,Robert Fleck,Ian Crook but to name a few.Delia brought Huckerby in but Worthless has gathered rejected rejects and the results are plain for everyone to see each saturday on the pitch.None of them look to be silk purses.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="K Lo"]I think many of us knew that Huckerby was a great player even though things weren''t right for him at Man C. He had done magnificantly at Cov. & Forest. Additionally, on a loan, he was less of a risk than an initial outright purchase.[/quote]Ok - you want more!Phil Mulryne, Paul McVeigh, Earnshaw(sort of), Doherty and looking back Peters, Robins, Needergard, Nielsen, Edworthy etc etc etc.I know the counter argument comes in on the likes of Heckingbottam, McGovern etc etc etc but that is football for you.

[Dionysus 0]

It''s worth looking at who the players are rejected by too. I don''t mind  us signing players that have been rejected by mid/upper table Premiership clubs as many of them excel at this level. But to sign players that are rejected by clubs on a par with us or below is asking for trouble. And I don''t care what anyone says, Hughes was a Reading reject. £500000 is hardly a price you put on a player that you desperately want to keep.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Dionysus"]It''s worth looking at who the players are rejected by too. I don''t mind  us signing players that have been rejected by mid/upper table Premiership clubs as many of them excel at this level. But to sign players that are rejected by clubs on a par with us or below is asking for trouble. And I don''t care what anyone says, Hughes was a Reading reject. £500000 is hardly a price you put on a player that you desperately want to keep.[/quote]

Adam Drury cost less than that.  Does that mean that the Posh didn''t want to keep him?

[Dionysus 0]

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

[quote user="Dionysus"]It''s worth looking at who the players are rejected by too. I don''t mind  us signing players that have been rejected by mid/upper table Premiership clubs as many of them excel at this level. But to sign players that are rejected by clubs on a par with us or below is asking for trouble. And I don''t care what anyone says, Hughes was a Reading reject. £500000 is hardly a price you put on a player that you desperately want to keep.[/quote]

Adam Drury cost less than that.  Does that mean that the Posh didn''t want to keep him?

[/quote]

No but Peterborough probably needed the money a lot more than Reading did. If Reading really wanted to keep him they could have afforded to turn down anything but stupid money. In fact, they probably felt that £500,000 was stupid money for Andy Hughes.

Anyway, this thread is about us not signing rejects. How many rejects that we''ve purchased from clubs on a par or below us have paid off?

[JC 0]

Huckerby was a reject from a top flight club, and he was and is not good enough to  play at that level, otherwise he would be.  So yes he was a reject and trying to compare him to Andy Hughes etc is ridiculous. He was a reject on a totally different level, ie, not good enough for a team with a sustainable place in the top league.  So no it is not pointless or misleading it is about having the common sense to read the label within the correct context.

 

[JC 0]

Ok enough is enough.  Is anybody here seriously suggesting that Andy Hughes would have figured in Reading''s plans this season if they had kept him?  Does anybody wish to stand up and say that he would have commanded a position in midfield and driven them to the title? 

Reading could not believe their luck, so chanced their luck, its that simple.  They knew Worthington was short of players and cash heavy, and that as usual he was leaving it late in the pre-season to do his deals.  They preyed on his flaws, and got a lot more than anybody else would ever have paid.

To compare the deal of Drury to Hughes is simplistic, he was a youngster, unproven at this level, Hughes allegedly isn''t.

 

 

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

[quote user="Dionysus"]It''s worth looking at who the players are rejected by too. I don''t mind  us signing players that have been rejected by mid/upper table Premiership clubs as many of them excel at this level. But to sign players that are rejected by clubs on a par with us or below is asking for trouble. And I don''t care what anyone says, Hughes was a Reading reject. £500000 is hardly a price you put on a player that you desperately want to keep.[/quote]

Adam Drury cost less than that.  Does that mean that the Posh didn''t want to keep him?

[/quote]

[Mark .Y. 375]

[quote user="JC"]

Ok enough is enough.  Is anybody here seriously suggesting that Andy Hughes would have figured in Reading''s plans this season if they had kept him?  Does anybody wish to stand up and say that he would have commanded a position in midfield and driven them to the title? 

Reading could not believe their luck, so chanced their luck, its that simple.  They knew Worthington was short of players and cash heavy, and that as usual he was leaving it late in the pre-season to do his deals.  They preyed on his flaws, and got a lot more than anybody else would ever have paid.

To compare the deal of Drury to Hughes is simplistic, he was a youngster, unproven at this level, Hughes allegedly isn''t.

 

 

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

[quote user="Dionysus"]It''s worth looking at who the players are rejected by too. I don''t mind  us signing players that have been rejected by mid/upper table Premiership clubs as many of them excel at this level. But to sign players that are rejected by clubs on a par with us or below is asking for trouble. And I don''t care what anyone says, Hughes was a Reading reject. £500000 is hardly a price you put on a player that you desperately want to keep.[/quote]

Adam Drury cost less than that.  Does that mean that the Posh didn''t want to keep him?

[/quote][/quote]

 

I''m pretty sure that is true JC, if I remember correctly Coppell went out and bought a midfield player from Millwall for about £135,000 a day or two after us signing Hughes. Can''t remember who he is/was but I guess it was just as a squad player I.E. like for like but gaining a third of the money spent on Leroy Lita straight back into the kitty.

Mark .Y.

 

 

[sheded 0]

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

[quote user="ManchesterCanary"]Any chance of a signing who is not a reject...??[/quote]

Totally agree.  We would not want another "reject" like Huckerby who was unwanted by Man City.

 

[/quote]

I was NOT Mancity who wanted to sell Hucks , it was purely the wish of Keegan  !  he knew he should have used Hucks  in the first team ,  when all his multi million "prem" purchases  fell on their faces , and the club plunged headlong into the relegation zone , but such was his incompetance and vanity  , he couldn`t go public , and admit  he`d been wrong  about Hucks .

Keegan  was a crap manager  , who  near ruined Mancity ,  needless to say he did his usual party trick  when it all goes tits up .......  scarpered !!  and bleeding good riddance  !!

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="JC"]

Ok enough is enough.  Is anybody here seriously suggesting that Andy Hughes would have figured in Reading''s plans this season if they had kept him?  Does anybody wish to stand up and say that he would have commanded a position in midfield and driven them to the title? 

Reading could not believe their luck, so chanced their luck, its that simple.  They knew Worthington was short of players and cash heavy, and that as usual he was leaving it late in the pre-season to do his deals.  They preyed on his flaws, and got a lot more than anybody else would ever have paid.

To compare the deal of Drury to Hughes is simplistic, he was a youngster, unproven at this level, Hughes allegedly isn''t.[/quote]

How can anyone say he could have "commanded" a place in Reading''s side this year but it''s fair to say he may well have done considering in four seasons he averaged 42 games a year starting almost every one of them.  Can you say he definatily would not have got in the side? 

For people saying £500k is not a high fee for a player you want to keep, you have to bear in mind that he only had 1 year left to run on his contract so he could have left for nothing a year later.  Reading also turned down our first offer.

I''m not saying he is great player just that he was not a reject at the time.