Lee Hendrie on trial at Reading FC

[jollyjiminy]

This makes no sense, first McDermott says he was played out of position on the wings and how he is a very good central midfielder, and now he says we don't want him because we have players in central midfield.

I think there's more to this.

I don't see why Brian McD's comments are difficult to understand - BD is saying that Hendrie is no better (and I would guess considerably worse) than the options we've already got in the middle, whereas he was hoping that Hendrie could perform the more advanced central role. So we've still got a Sigurdsson-shaped gap. However, on the plus side, we've made it pretty clear that we can afford to take someone on loan.

[Svlad Cjelli]

For all we know Hendrie wanted too much money. Stupid of him as he's in no position tao make such demands, but he is a footballer, after all.

That might explain the initial enthusiasm followed by his sudden release.

[Royal Lady]

^ I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

“He really wants it and he was great in training, but I just felt for us that we had players who could play in his position.

So why bring him in on trial?

...because that's kind of the point of a trial - to have a look at a player and see if he's worth taking on. He was clearly good, just not good enough.

[Millsy]

It's hard enough sticking ones neck out and taking a player on.

But I suspect it's even harder to take someone on trial and have the balls to admit he's no better after all and turn him away.

I feel confident with BM's decisions tbh.

[RoyalBlue]

“He really wants it and he was great in training, but I just felt for us that we had players who could play in his position.

So why bring him in on trial? He was great in training and did very well by all accounts in the behind closed doors game, so what exactly didn't we like?

“At the right club, with the right manager and right set-up he can still do a job in the Championship. I’m sure of that.

"They don't know what they're doing!"

Never mind losing The Sig folks, just look at the great player we have on trial!

Still, I'm sure they still managed to fool a few people into thinking they had a plan for covering the loss of Gylfi! I wonder what cunning plan Baldrick will come up with now.

[floyd__streete]

After the huge amount we have spent this summer on Harte and Khiz my guess is that he was just too expensive for us.

[sheshnu]

This last couple of pages has been absolute proof (if any were still needed) that there are posters among us who will criticise the club whatever they do or don't do.

Ah well, you just carry on if you think it makes you sound clever.

[WestCoast Life]

It was a polite way of saying "he was shite, Kingsley would have been a better option"

[Chillitsphil]

If you bring a player in on trial it is because he might not be good enough. They're hardly going to announce that is why are they.

[under the tin]

This last couple of pages has been absolute proof (if any were still needed) that there are posters among us who will criticise the club whatever they do or don't do.

Ah well, you just carry on if you think it makes you sound clever.

And equally, I have found it to prove that there are also those who refuse to believe that the chairman's sh1t stinks, everything he does is magic, (due copywrite due to The Police), and the club is heading in the right direction.
Some of us beg to differ.
Deal with it.

[facaldaqui]

“He really wants it and he was great in training, but I just felt for us that we had players who could play in his position.

So why bring him in on trial? He was great in training and did very well by all accounts in the behind closed doors game, so what exactly didn't we like?

“At the right club, with the right manager and right set-up he can still do a job in the Championship. I’m sure of that.

The last sentence is just Brian being nice. It may be that Brian brought Hendrie on trial just in case he might be his old self, which was a talented footballer. If he had been, he would be better than what we have in midfield. If it became clear on the field that he had declined to a lower level, then that would be a reason for Brian to say he doesn't want Hendrie because we have better players in the position. There's not necessarily a contradiction; and what have we lost by giving Hendrie a runout? Nothing.

[loyalroyal4life]

I think Mcderm would rather just get someone in on loan instead of Hendrie.

Fair play, hope it is someone half decent. Can Danny rose not play in the pocket or is he an out and out winger? Would have been a nice signing for us

[Hoop Blah]

Tommy Smith would've done too, but we can't afford these players can we?

[Svlad Cjelli]

And equally, I have found it to prove that there are also those who refuse to believe that the chairman's sh1t stinks, everything he does is magic, (due copywrite due to The Police), and the club is heading in the right direction.
Some of us beg to differ.
Deal with it.

What's most amazing is that some people think the the chairman is anywhere near decisions like this or has the slightest thing to do with them.

[Royal With Cheese]

And equally, I have found it to prove that there are also those who refuse to believe that the chairman's sh1t stinks, everything he does is magic, (due copywrite due to The Police), and the club is heading in the right direction.
Some of us beg to differ.
Deal with it.

What's most amazing is that some people think the the chairman is anywhere near decisions like this or has the slightest thing to do with them.

Not wanting to add fuel to the conspiracy theorists fire but surely that's exactly what Madejski would want you to think?

For a man with such a hands on attitude to the club I can hardly see him finding out about transfers via hob nob.

[rabidbee]

It was worth taking a look at him yes, but it was a bit naive to think that a player that's been bombed out frequently over the last few years was going to be the answer for us...

So it was worth looking at him or not?

[rabidbee]

It certainly doesn't make sense bringing him in on trial with a view to a permanent deal when McDermott says we already have enough players that can play in that position. Odd.

Until McD saw him on trial, how could he really judge whether Hendrie was better than what we already have? If he had proved himself a better option, I suspect he would have actually been comparatively cheap - he's the one in need of a contract, after all.

Why does everyone always assume that there must be more to a story? We took a look at a player, because we lost nothing by doing it and potentially something to gain; in the end, we decided to explore different options instead. It's like taking a car for a test drive, and deciding that you do want a people carrier after all.

[rabidbee]

What's most amazing is that some people think the the chairman is anywhere near decisions like this or has the slightest thing to do with them.

Not wanting to add fuel to the conspiracy theorists fire but surely that's exactly what Madejski would want you to think?

For a man with such a hands on attitude to the club I can hardly see him finding out about transfers via hob nob.

It would still seem odd that a man who has appointed a first team manager, a director of football and a chief executive would then get involved in the nitty gritty of whether or not a trialist should be offered a contract. Presumably Hammond goes to Howe and/or Madejski once he and McDermott have decided whether or not they want to offer a contract to a player. Even then, one assumes that Hammond is given some kind of budget each season, and discusses potential targets with McDermott before the start of the season; I can't imagine that Hendrie's wage demands would have required special pleading by Hammond for extra funds, which would suggest that Hammond would only have needed to get the deal rubber stamped.

[Hoop Blah]

It was worth taking a look at him yes, but it was a bit naive to think that a player that's been bombed out frequently over the last few years was going to be the answer for us...

So it was worth looking at him or not?

There was no harm in it but at the same time it was always unlikely to be answer to our apparent problem because he hasn't been deemed good enough elsewhere.

The odd bit is the quote saying we had players who can already play in his position. So why bother looking at him, or why not just come out and say he wasn't better than what we already have instead of making out we don't actually need that kind of player.