Madejski's comments to BBC Radio Berkshire

[Man Friday]

It's easy to spend someone else's money.

And fun too.

Not when it has to be repaid.

[Royal Rother]

They are the 'inescapable facts' that Madejski is happy for the supporters to hear. What we don't know is whether Coppell was happy with the peanuts that Madejski was prepared to make available for wages. If they would only attract clapped out monkeys, maybe Coppell had no option but to be happy with the players he had got.

As for your assertion that there would have been significant activity in the transfer market had we stayed up, just what makes you so sure that would have happened when Madejski keeps banging on about obscene wage levels, not being held to ransome over transfer fees, etc. etc?

The middle way is the route to take and, until Madejski is prepared to take it, we are likely to experience far more frustration than success.

You might enjoy trying to do things the Madejski way. But I am fed up with his stubborn insistence that he can single-handedly buck the economics of the game and still compete effectively at the highest levels. It's not fun and it's not realistic. Coppell worked the miracle once, to expect him to keep repeating that feat is like expecting to scoop up the lottery jackpot on a regular basis.

Possibly one of the best posts ever - concise and absolutely spot-on. It just got better and better culminating in the last paragraph and, in particular, the last sentence.

Miracle? Bullshit.

Winning the lottery is exclusively down to luck. Oh, although let's not forget that the more you spend, the better the chance of winning. (See a parallel?)

Winning the Championship with a record points haul, having spent comparitively very little on the squad, had sod all to do with luck.

[Southbank Old Boy]

Miracle? Bullshit.

Winning the lottery is exclusively down to luck. Oh, although let's not forget that the more you spend, the better the chance of winning. (See a parallel?)

Winning the Championship with a record points haul, having spent comparitively very little on the squad, had sod all to do with luck.

Did he mention luck then?

[Royal Rother]

Well, what do you think creates a lottery winner then?

[T.R.O.L.I.]

I find buying a ticket always helps.

[Royal Rother]

I find buying a ticket always helps.

It's never worked for me.

[West Stand Man]

Miracle? Bullshit.

Winning the lottery is exclusively down to luck. Oh, although let's not forget that the more you spend, the better the chance of winning. (See a parallel?)

Winning the Championship with a record points haul, having spent comparitively very little on the squad, had sod all to do with luck.

The weakness in your argument is where you link the increase in spending to the increase in likelihood of success. The probability of winning the lottery is so low that it would take a disproportionately high increase in spending to produce a realistic increase in win probability. Thus your argument is actually supporting JM's, apparent, line that we can't afford the expenditure required to achieve major success.

Mind you, your post is a bit mixed up isn't it? You firstly intimate that increased spending produces results and then state that our success in winning the CCC last time round was not based on a big spend? Maybe I am missing the point?

[RoyalBlue]

They are the 'inescapable facts' that Madejski is happy for the supporters to hear. What we don't know is whether Coppell was happy with the peanuts that Madejski was prepared to make available for wages. If they would only attract clapped out monkeys, maybe Coppell had no option but to be happy with the players he had got.

As for your assertion that there would have been significant activity in the transfer market had we stayed up, just what makes you so sure that would have happened when Madejski keeps banging on about obscene wage levels, not being held to ransome over transfer fees, etc. etc?

The middle way is the route to take and, until Madejski is prepared to take it, we are likely to experience far more frustration than success.

You might enjoy trying to do things the Madejski way. But I am fed up with his stubborn insistence that he can single-handedly buck the economics of the game and still compete effectively at the highest levels. It's not fun and it's not realistic. Coppell worked the miracle once, to expect him to keep repeating that feat is like expecting to scoop up the lottery jackpot on a regular basis.

Possibly one of the best posts ever - concise and absolutely spot-on. It just got better and better culminating in the last paragraph and, in particular, the last sentence.

Miracle? Bullshit.

Winning the lottery is exclusively down to luck. Oh, although let's not forget that the more you spend, the better the chance of winning. (See a parallel?)

Winning the Championship with a record points haul, having spent comparitively very little on the squad, had sod all to do with luck.

It was a 'miracle' (IMO) achieved by exceptionally hard work and elements of good luck - IIRC we didn't have too many significant injuries during that season so luck did have a part to play.

Anyway, my example was not meant to relate to luck but exclusively to unrealistic expectations hence the use of the work 'expecting' and the absence of the word 'luck'!!

Regardless of the reasons, it is unrealistic to expect to scoop the lottery on a regular basis and equally it is unrealistic to expect Coppell to repeat his feat (miracle or not) of last time on the cheap.

BTW, if you want another parallel, then maybe the middle way/third route desired by people like OSB and I should be compared to buying premium bonds! A calculated gamble, pretty good prize, odds of winning increase with decent expenditure, but without the risk of losing everything!

[Southbank Old Boy]

Well, what do you think creates a lottery winner then?

Well there are ways of reducing the odds, a bit like building a squad I suppose.

The simile using the lottery wasn't saying it was lucky, it was saying it was highly unlikely.

[papereyes]

The probability of winning the lottery is so low that it would take a disproportionately high increase in spending to produce a realistic increase in win probability.

No, it would remain proportionate.

Spend twice as much, twice as much chance of winning
Spend ten times as much, ten times as much chance of winning (to a reasonable estimate - that your increase in spending is small compared to the total number of tickets sold)

As for all of this:

Surely there's a middle way? Or is it simply easier to defend the Reading way as the be all and end all and tar any other approach with economic stupidity akin to Leeds? I know we've been highly successful (but actually about as succesful as Wigan or, dare I say it, Hull) in the past but somewhere we have to realise that we could have survived last season with either a harmonious, motivated squad or a touch of extra investment over the two years in the Premiership in key areas where we lost key players to transfer, injury or their own jumped up attitudes.

[Royal Rother]

somewhere we have to realise that we COULD* have survived last season with either a harmonious, motivated squad or a touch of extra investment over the two years in the Premiership

EVERYBODY realises that. I haven't seen anyone suggest that survival wouldn't have been more likely with further investment in the squad.

However, what is absolutely certain is that we WOULD have survived if the squad we had had beaten Derby 7-0 on the last day or taken 1 single point more from the previous 37 games.

*Apologies, my emphasis...

[papereyes]

But we didn't and, in the first instance, probably wouldn't have and, in the second, given that we struggled for a good 25+ of our games, narrowed our chances doing that.

Even if we had stayed up, we would still have struggled last season and would still have needed to bring in players of a suitable calibre for this season. I think that's also a very key point. Survival in a league is a matter of finishing fourth bottom. To have matters more or less in your own hands is a different task and one we failed at. When you have a sizeable group of fans declaring that we'll be fine, there's three worse teams, you know you're in for a long and hard struggle.

EVERYBODY realises that.

Given some of the threads on this board we've had since Derby away, I actually doubt that.

[papereyes]

Oh, and, if anything, football is stochastic. You can give yourself a better chance - and that doesn't necessarily need vast amounts of money - but, in the end, you can't quite predict what's going to happen. Over 38 games, you can make a rough prediction as enough random events will average out.

Not quite sure a simple lottery analogy actually holds up. But this is the team board. This is where black can actually be white.

[West Stand Man]

[
No, it would remain proportionate.

Spend twice as much, twice as much chance of winning
Spend ten times as much, ten times as much chance of winning (to a reasonable estimate - that your increase in spending is small compared to the total number of tickets sold)

As for all of this:

Surely there's a middle way? Or is it simply easier to defend the Reading way as the be all and end all and tar any other approach with economic stupidity akin to Leeds? I know we've been highly successful (but actually about as succesful as Wigan or, dare I say it, Hull) in the past but somewhere we have to realise that we could have survived last season with either a harmonious, motivated squad or a touch of extra investment over the two years in the Premiership in key areas where we lost key players to transfer, injury or their own jumped up attitudes.

You really don't get it do you.

The odds of winning the lottery are minute. doubling my outlay makes the odds - still minute. I could spend thousands on tickets and still have a minute chance of success.

And, the total number of tickets sold is pretty irrelevant. The chances of winning are not affected by ticket sales as the numbers drawn are totally independent of the the ticket sales - hence why a roll over can occur. The only impact that the sales have is that if someone else has chosen your numbers you both win - but half the amount.

[kwik-silva]

somewhere we have to realise that we COULD* have survived last season with either a harmonious, motivated squad or a touch of extra investment over the two years in the Premiership

EVERYBODY realises that. I haven't seen anyone suggest that survival wouldn't have been more likely with further investment in the squad.

However, what is absolutely certain is that we WOULD have survived if the squad we had had beaten Derby 7-0 on the last day or taken 1 single point more from the previous 37 games.

*Apologies, my emphasis...

Why are we still talking about relegation?? FWIW, I agree with RR and the 1 single point should've been the Fulham game at home but thats long gone...

[Son of Len]

There is no way I am reading 25 pages of this! I went through the first 7-8 pages and I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the players' risk?

The potential for a career-ending injury is always present and the vast majority of these guys are not really well-positioned to be financial analysts, doctors and lawyers. Basically, in a few years the players need to make a lifetime's worth of salary. Then they go back to stocking shelves. It's not like they have a good job at the biscuit factory to return to.

The entire economic system of football is crazy and geared to chairmen looting their clubs through transfer fees. Wages are the last thing a chairman cares about, but that will have to change sometime. Probably when the clubs are run with fiscal transparency LOL.

[FiNeRaIn]

[d.

However, what is absolutely certain is that we WOULD have survived if the squad we had had beaten Derby 7-0 on the last day or taken 1 single point more from the previous 37 games.

*Apologies, my emphasis...

But we didn't, because the squad was of poor quality and wasn't good enough. With investment in it, we WOULD of got that 1 extra point.

[The 17 Bus]

I had Sky sports news on this morning, and they said that Maloney signed a 4 year deal worth £2.5million to play for Celtic, sounds like wages for players in Scotland are not all that, so about 600k a year, or 12k a week, have to assume he was only on similar at Villa.

[Southbank Old Boy]

I had Sky sports news on this morning, and they said that Maloney signed a 4 year deal worth £2.5million to play for Celtic, sounds like wages for players in Scotland are not all that, so about 600k a year, or 12k a week, have to assume he was only on similar at Villa.

In general I think the average player isn't on half as much as most people seem to think.

12k is below average though, and that can only be because he came from Scotland. It would be interesting to know what the likes of Shorey, Kitson, or the squad/fringe players at Villa, Bolton, Fulham, Boro etc are on.

[The 17 Bus]

I would think Kitson and Shorey would be on around 20/25k a week tops.

I would also think that Shorey was on lower wages at RFC than a lot of the players as he did not sign new longer contract