Jump to content

Kaspars Gorkss - Update: Signs for Reading


Nexstar

Recommended Posts

Not really..

On another thread there was suggestion that QPR while interested in Puncheon were only prepared to take him on loan. Now whether that had any bearing in the deal for Gorkss is speculative, but one might suggest that the length of time talking around this deal might have included discussions on both Puncheon and Gorkss.

Whatever Warnocks ramblings are usually akin to a petulant child anyway, and of course £900,000 is a lot of money for a defender wanting a 3 year deal who has twice been regarded not good enough for the Prem.

It was a swap deal and not a loan.

 

Not taking Gorkss ruined any chance of getting rid of getting rid of Puncheon to QPR as were in for SWP now.

 

Gorkss was not deemed not good enough by Blackpool, QPR paid a release fee of £250k at the start of the season that Blackpool went up. Hes only left now because we have loads of money to spend. Ian Evett was deemed good enough for the Prem and Gorkss is far better than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just backs up that we decided against him. We obviously wanted to be in a position to sign him, or to be seen to be in a position to sign him, but decided against it.

 

That's certainly one interpretation of events.

 

Another might be that we couldn't agree on the fee with QPR or personal terms with the player (or agents fees).

 

Another might be that we dithered and got gazumped.

 

Another might be that we had him on the back burner until we looked at other options.

 

Any of these are just as plausible and the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of them.

 

We don't know whether we missed out on Gorkss or whether we decided against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly one interpretation of events.

 

Another might be that we couldn't agree on the fee with QPR or personal terms with the player (or agents fees).

 

Another might be that we dithered and got gazumped.

 

Another might be that we had him on the back burner until we looked at other options.

 

Any of these are just as plausible and the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of them.

 

We don't know whether we missed out on Gorkss or whether we decided against him.

 

All possible.

 

I would be surprised if those mentioned are the only CB's we have been looking at though. Up till now we have signed players from positions above where we are that can go on to do a job now and at a higher level. Gorks and Fontaine dont say to me that they follow in the same theme. Can do a job at this level but could easily become surpless at the next level.

 

I think someone will turn up un-announced from a top teir italian, dutch, french or german club that is proven at a higher level but finding it hard to get a switch straight to the prem. The delay's on Gorkss and Fontaine will have been due to waiting for the 1st choice CB. As long as that one doesnt fall through then it doesnt matter about the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All possible.

 

I would be surprised if those mentioned are the only CB's we have been looking at though. Up till now we have signed players from positions above where we are that can go on to do a job now and at a higher level. Gorks and Fontaine dont say to me that they follow in the same theme. Can do a job at this level but could easily become surpless at the next level.

 

I think someone will turn up un-announced from a top teir italian, dutch, french or german club that is proven at a higher level but finding it hard to get a switch straight to the prem. The delay's on Gorkss and Fontaine will have been due to waiting for the 1st choice CB. As long as that one doesnt fall through then it doesnt matter about the rest.

 

That just doesn't tally with Fontaine coming down to sign but then there being complications with the medical. We just wouldn't have come up with some elaborate plan to pretend to sign someone right up until their medical before sending them back purely because we were waiting for a top player from Italy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a swap deal and not a loan.

 

Not taking Gorkss ruined any chance of getting rid of getting rid of Puncheon to QPR as were in for SWP now.

 

Gorkss was not deemed not good enough by Blackpool, QPR paid a release fee of £250k at the start of the season that Blackpool went up. Hes only left now because we have loads of money to spend. Ian Evett was deemed good enough for the Prem and Gorkss is far better than him.

 

Was the proposal a straight swap or Gorkss + cash for Puncheon ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just doesn't tally with Fontaine coming down to sign but then there being complications with the medical. We just wouldn't have come up with some elaborate plan to pretend to sign someone right up until their medical before sending them back purely because we were waiting for a top player from Italy.

 

Who's to say had he passed the medical we still would of signed him? Did sharp get as far as a medical?

 

I don't know the facts so just adding an opinion or a possible option.

 

I think the publicity on gorkss and Fontaine would of been enough for the club to lose interest as they like deals to be kept quiet. As soon as it's public the price and demands tend to change. Warnock spouted off a while back about puncheon and then the gorkss rumours started. That was prob enough for NC to have doubts in it's self.

 

As far as another target is concerned, that's just guess work but I would be less surprised if someone like I mentioned turned up out of the blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's to say had he passed the medical we still would of signed him? Did sharp get as far as a medical?

 

I don't know the facts so just adding an opinion or a possible option.

 

I think the publicity on gorkss and Fontaine would of been enough for the club to lose interest as they like deals to be kept quiet. As soon as it's public the price and demands tend to change. Warnock spouted off a while back about puncheon and then the gorkss rumours started. That was prob enough for NC to have doubts in it's self.

 

As far as another target is concerned, that's just guess work but I would be less surprised if someone like I mentioned turned up out of the blue.

 

I'm sorry but that's rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the proposal a straight swap or Gorkss + cash for Puncheon ?

 

Straight swap, Gorkss went for 900k but Im sure Saints must have changed the goal posts at the last minute and wanted more money or kept on trying to delay it.

 

Its a real shame for Saints, he would have done well.

 

QPRs fans thoughts on the move.

http://qprdot.org/viewtopic.php?t=55709&sid=25106860477f4157a2a98d41ae6410dc

http://www.wearetherangersboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111817

 

Virtually everyone is sorry to see him go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but Im sure Saints must have changed the goal posts at the last minute and wanted more money or kept on trying to delay it.

 

You're sure? Well case closed then. Far be it from me to defend Cortese, but the impending buyout at your place put the kaibosh on all incoming transfers for weeks, so could it not be conceivable that QPR were the cause of the delays in the Puncheon deal that then affected the Gorkss move? Far easier to believe every word that come out of Colin's mouth I suppose. Edited by Chez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly one interpretation of events.

 

Another might be that we couldn't agree on the fee with QPR or personal terms with the player (or agents fees).

 

Another might be that we dithered and got gazumped.

 

Another might be that we had him on the back burner until we looked at other options.

 

Any of these are just as plausible and the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of them.

 

We don't know whether we missed out on Gorkss or whether we decided against him.

 

Interesting you mention the dithered and gaxumped theory as I have just heard a little snippet from someone inside the club that NA & NC have had a little bust up over this transfer. Apparantly NA really wanted the lad and NC delyaed tying the deal up as he was away on holiday and reading jumped in a beat us to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but that's rubbish.

 

No it's an opinion or as I stated several times possible options on what could be the case. The fact that none of us actually know the facts and it seems more people believe the other teams fan (flyer) like he is on QPR's board or something (no offence flyer, just sayin) says to me that any theory we can create could equally be as true.

 

There have been rumours in the past of possible deals that got no-where as soon as player/club spoke to the press. So it's not completely out of the question to dare think the publicity is unwelcome to NC and as such he loses some interest is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting you mention the dithered and gaxumped theory as I have just heard a little snippet from someone inside the club that NA & NC have had a little bust up over this transfer. Apparantly NA really wanted the lad and NC delyaed tying the deal up as he was away on holiday and reading jumped in a beat us to it.

 

I'm sure that's true. I myself have been on holiday and found it impossible to work, what with mobile phones and the internet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting you mention the dithered and gaxumped theory as I have just heard a little snippet from someone inside the club that NA & NC have had a little bust up over this transfer. Apparantly NA really wanted the lad and NC delyaed tying the deal up as he was away on holiday and reading jumped in a beat us to it.

 

http://www.westlondonsport.com/qpr/warnock-slams-saints-over-gorkss-deal/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's an opinion or as I stated several times possible options on what could be the case. The fact that none of us actually know the facts and it seems more people believe the other teams fan (flyer) like he is on QPR's board or something (no offence flyer, just sayin) says to me that any theory we can create could equally be as true.

 

There have been rumours in the past of possible deals that got no-where as soon as player/club spoke to the press. So it's not completely out of the question to dare think the publicity is unwelcome to NC and as such he loses some interest is it?

We have signed plenty of players who have been widely reported beforehand. Nc would have to be some sort of idiot to pull out because of that and there is no evidence for it. Thats why it is rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a big loss and it also adds quality to another team in our league who are going to be pushing for promotion. He played most of QPR's games last season. I just hope we have as good defender lined up to sign!!!

 

Ditto. I fear this is a 'signing' we have lost out on and will regret.

 

I'm not convinced by Warnock laying the 3week delay on us,as I expect the Puncheon issue had a bearing at their end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's signed for Reading, let's move on. This doesn't worry me in the slightest as recent history dictates we'll sign someone of quality there anyway. We'l sign someone better and someone who can play at a higher level, something which Gorkss is unable to do according to managers that keep letting him go when they reach the prem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straight swap, Gorkss went for 900k but Im sure Saints must have changed the goal posts at the last minute and wanted more money or kept on trying to delay it.

 

Its a real shame for Saints, he would have done well.

 

QPRs fans thoughts on the move.

http://qprdot.org/viewtopic.php?t=55709&sid=25106860477f4157a2a98d41ae6410dc

http://www.wearetherangersboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111817

 

Virtually everyone is sorry to see him go.

 

It is far more likely at the beginning the problem was Saints not prepared to move the goal posts. Puncheon was available as a straight purchase but QPR did not agree on the price. Throw Gorkss into the picture and all sorts of variations muddy the water.

 

But if Saints viewed Gorkss as a must have, this deal would have been done very quickly. More than likely Gorkss would have been adequate but not essential, hence what occurred. Greater talent is going to become available when the window closes and the loan options from the Premier are available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if Saints viewed Gorkss as a must have, this deal would have been done very quickly.

 

A valid opinion, but it is just as possible that we did dither, stall or cock it up. We have previous for pontificating over transfers, for better or worse.

 

We don't know either way, so it can only be your opinion that if we really wanted him it would have been done quickly.

 

Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. Ultimately we may have been playing hardball and not prepared to pay what QPR or Gorkss wanted, which is legitimate, but there is also the possibility that we did misjudge the situation (particularly with the Fontaine deal breaking down).

 

The "loss" of Gorkss and/or Fontaine will be judged as we progress through the season.

 

If we get someone else in, or Seabourne develops in to a great centre half, then all will be forgotten. No new faces and some injuries or loss of form may bring out some different viewpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorkks himself told someone it was all agreed and we pulled out FFS. No need for all the half-brained altetnative theories.

 

If we pulled the deal must have been for a good reason. Probably someone much better in the pipeline. I expect we will be taken by surprise on 31st August !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we pulled the deal must have been for a good reason. Probably someone much better in the pipeline. I expect we will be taken by surprise on 31st August !

 

Which discounts Fontaine and Robinson in my view. Either that or we don't have someone better in the pipeline,and are starting our search again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by up and away viewpost-right.png

But if Saints viewed Gorkss as a must have, this deal would have been done very quickly.

 

A valid opinion, but it is just as possible that we did dither, stall or cock it up. We have previous for pontificating over transfers, for better or worse.

 

We don't know either way, so it can only be your opinion that if we really wanted him it would have been done quickly.

 

Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. Ultimately we may have been playing hardball and not prepared to pay what QPR or Gorkss wanted, which is legitimate, but there is also the possibility that we did misjudge the situation (particularly with the Fontaine deal breaking down).

 

The "loss" of Gorkss and/or Fontaine will be judged as we progress through the season.

 

If we get someone else in, or Seabourne develops in to a great centre half, then all will be forgotten. No new faces and some injuries or loss of form may bring out some different viewpoints.

 

We have a lot of additional information we can factor in with recent transfers. We look at the market, value the player then stick to the limit we placed upon that player. That does not mean we won't pay over and above as demonstrated with Danny Fox. Equally with Cork, we laid down the offer and had to be patient for him to make up his mind.

 

With Gorkss we could have made a straight forward approach to QPR, but by all accounts we never did this. I don't believe for one minute of the reported friction between NA and NC, they just do not operate like that. Even with NC away on holiday that would only be delayed if he wished it so, otherwise a 5 minute conversation and someone else would have done the neccessary. Adkins stock is so high with Cortese at present, if NA had put Gorkss down as a must have, all the stops would have been pulled out. Gorkss came into this equation because QPR baulked at the Puncheon price and Warnock wanted shot of him.

 

With Jamel that is an odd one, but the reason he gave for pulling out has nothing to do with Saints. Saints cannot block in any manner a sell on to his original club. That's totally bound up in contract with his previous club and something EUFA or FIFA would enforce irrespectively. With that sort of attitude we dodged a bullet there, when you look at what the team commitment has produced so far.

 

Fontaine is another odd one and something got thrown up at Saints when he was here. Most would not rate Fontaine as a stellar signing, but posibly a small improvement on what we currently have. If his injury were to mean he would not be fully up to pace for a month say, it may be well more prudent to use a good loan rather than buy? Our policy is a preference for buying rather than loans, but when the candidate is not that outstanding, then things can change.

 

It's obvious we are in the market for a good striker whom we are prepared to pay several million and a centre back. With Jamel it shows we are prepared to pay a good wedge but prepared to settle for less if the market is not coming up with the quality, as shown with Fontaine. If you are accepting the Fontaines of this world as a second choice, they need to tick every box to make that work. Someone with greater talent would be given more leeway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
The Gorkss deal falling through really hurt our promotion aspirations.

 

You could argue it cost us the title, even if we'd signed him and sent him on loan to some Bolivian side that would have weakened Reading significantly. The fact he can't get in ahead of midget Mariappa or even the appallingly limited Alex Pearce is a sad indictment of his abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})