The Over - Confidence thread

[Archie's penalty]

After winning 2-1 against Dagenham, come on lets have it all on one thread

Tenacious, youngsters all played well, N Hunt and Long industrious,S Hunt seemlessly fitted in, Hahnemann decisive, Harper a colossus, Kelly not a little boy lost

We are facing a title winning and cup winning season.....

Or will we all remain sensible and realistic?

I prefer sensible and realistic, such as:

Coppell doesn't have a clue
Kebe isn't fit for League 2
Hunt is rubbish
Long ball is all we're good at
Our subs aren't up to it
We're in danger of going down
All our dreams are shattered.

Me too...

I really do hope we stuff Plymouth. Am not counting my chickens though...

[papereyes]

This thread could become as symbolic of the 08/09 campaign as last season's similarly named effort was .

Reading this month's edition of When Saturday Comes - the only football mag worth buying - I just came across a comment in an article which in some way reflects people's opinions towards RFC at the moment (and perhaps and shows that it isn't just Reading fans who are 'fickle' towards club management):

"The rest of us, with our accelerated culture and abbreviated attention spans, grow increasingly itchy when nothing very much happens to our clubs for a year or two. No matter if we're punching above our weight; never mind if the manager is still the one who got us promoted to this level - one season of mid-table eventlessness and he's looking at the chop".

Growing itchy? Our transfer dealings - lack of ambition shown therein thus far, already 5 days into the new season - are enough to bring you out in a rash. But we may have discussed this before and don't even start me on the p*ss-poor standard of football we are doling out these days

I think its the differences between what the club has said ("The next Arsenal" for one phrase) and what it has done that grate with me. Add to that a sense that we don't have a game plan on the pitch or in the transfer market.

I could take a transitional season if there was some level of honesty about it. I could take relegation last season had we actually given some effort into fighting it. So it isn't the results, it is the way we're going about achieving them.

And, given how the club has grown over the last 5 years and given its base now, I don't think challenging for promotion from this division is punching above our weight. Yes, in the 80s and in the 70s and in the 60s, we were a significantly smaller club but, like it or not, that has very little relevence on where we are now.

[Royal Rother]

To go back to the original point, I would take a team that consisted of, Williams, Parkinson, Caskey, Rougier, Butler, Cureton (just to give a few) over the clueless shower we have before us right now.

Would you really? I wouldn't.

Some interesting well made points on this thread and not an awful lot that can be argued with when they remain sensible and realistic (unlike the above ) but I do think judgement is being made far too quickly on what this squad can achieve.

As I said pre-Forest, we have a squad that is capable of going straight back up but as a huge amount of sport is played in the mind, if they aren't right then no amount of skill can compensate.

I do have a feeling of deja vu myself - at the end of 2004/5 I decided Coppell had to go as he seemed incapable of motivating the players, of getting them to play entertaining football that I would look forward to seeing, and of getting together a promotion team.

As papereyes often mentions, a couple of signings later and he has formed a record-breaking team playing amazing football.

I doubt that transformation happened just by chance - it was due to a lot of factors but (probably) the most important was Coppell himself. The point was that it happened almost at the click of your fingers. End of 2004/5 = Rubbish, start of 2005/6 = Superb.

Coppell is not a flash-in-the-pan manager, he is a steady-Eddie, so I believe it is logical to believe in Coppell's ability to do that again. One permanent and 2 loan signings (plus Bikey back) might just do the trick.

If he has not learned from the mistakes of last year when not enough new faces were brought in (he says he has) and sticks with what we've got, good enough though it should be, he probably needs to get the old Sports Psychologist company back in place quick (whatever the cost!) - as I said, it's played in the mind.....

[papereyes]

As papereyes often mentions, a couple of signings later and he has formed a record-breaking team playing amazing football.

I don't think my point is quite that any two signings made the difference. Just what happened to be the right signings turning what appeared to be a directionless mob into something that had shape and structure.

There's probably 101, 1001 other reasons, to be fair.

[Alan Partridge]

This has turned into a serious thread, oh well.

[Big Ern]

- as I said, it's played in the mind.....

Are you suggesting we sign Paul McKenna?

Although we're probably end up with Kenny Craig

[andrew1957]

I think I could understand the tide of negativity if we had lost to Forest and lost in the cup as well.

But we came out of a difficult first game and got a draw and then on Tuesday selected a team with several young players - went away to a team that had won 6-0 in their previous game and won.

Even in 05/06 many away games were tight affairs that resulted in narrow wins or draws - the fast flowing passing football was mainly at the Mad Stad. I would expect the same again this year if we are to do well. Most away games are about getting a result.

Why cannot some of you at least give the team 5 home games and see how they do before writing them off so early.

[Royal Rother]

As papereyes often mentions, a couple of signings later and he has formed a record-breaking team playing amazing football.

I don't think my point is quite that any two signings made the difference. Just what happened to be the right signings turning what appeared to be a directionless mob into something that had shape and structure.

It stands to reason they were the right signings!

And it stands to reason that if he's done it once he can do it again. The thing is we had gone 18 months of largely uninspiring football in 2003/4 and 2004/5 before he made the right moves in the transfer market.

Maybe the fairest criticism of him is that he's just a bit slow to react sometimes - a bit too thoughtful. Still, rather that than the opposite in my book.

[SCIAG]

Compare us to what Birmingham have done in the Summer, they've strengthened their squad with PROVEN players - phillips, carsley and even taken on Quincy Owiso (or however you spell his name) on loan from Arsenal, but have still kept most of their attacking options (Larson, McFadden, Jerome).

If Coppell is so highly respected in football by other managers then why do we never get loan signings/fringe players from the big 4 (esp. from Sir Alex & Arse). Even Burnley (or Barnsley always get them mixed up!!) have managed to sign the exciting ex Man Utd prospect of Chris Eagles.

Firstly, they haven't signed Quincy Owusu-Abaye on loan from Arsenal, they got him from some continental team who permantly signed him from Arsenal. And it's Larsson [/spacey]

Why haven't we signed any players on loan from big clubs? I can answer this for you: they're no better than our current players. The only players I would like to see on loan from them (realistically ofc, I'd love to get Gallas on loan but that isn't happening) are Fabio of ManUre and Armand Traore of Arsenal, both left backs. Perhaps we could add a CM as a short term measure- Michael Woods, Rodrigo Possebon, Plessis and Aaron Ramsey are all possibilities- but there aren't many young CMs who can tackle at the big four- exceptions being Possebon and Plessis, and even they aren't really tacklers.

[papereyes]

I think I could understand the tide of negativity if we had lost to Forest and lost in the cup as well.

But we came out of a difficult first game and got a draw and then on Tuesday selected a team with several young players - went away to a team that had won 6-0 in their previous game and won.

Even in 05/06 many away games were tight affairs that resulted in narrow wins or draws - the fast flowing passing football was mainly at the Mad Stad. I would expect the same again this year if we are to do well. Most away games are about getting a result.

Why cannot some of you at least give the team 5 home games and see how they do before writing them off so early.

And when we're still not gelling after 5, should it become 10? Maybe 15? 20? Give them all the time they need, right?

I get your point but this line of argument gets the 'judgement point' rolled back and rolled back until it becomes "Oh, I was wrong, but let's forget about that, let's move on"

And a football club cannot act like that. It has to move forwards. Nothing that the club has done this summer has suggested that it has done that. And I think that's why the stilted performances are getting less leeway from some sections of the support.

And it stands to reason that if he's done it once he can do it again. The thing is we had gone 18 months of largely uninspiring football in 2003/4 and 2004/5 before he made the right moves in the transfer market.

But, to some extent, the right players had been brought in before then. Kitson and Convey stand out - with Convey being given a year to get up to speed. Did we sign any "young and hungry" players in the last two seasons that have been brought up to the required level?

Just building the one squad was never going to be enough. We had to develop the next squad, the one who would push on from 05/06, from the moment we got promotion in 2006.

[Agent Balti]

To go back to the original point, I would take a team that consisted of, Williams, Parkinson, Caskey, Rougier, Butler, Cureton (just to give a few) over the clueless shower we have before us right now.

Would you really? I wouldn't.

Definitely. Seems like people are quite happy to paint themselves corner and say anything to back themselves up.

If, for arguments sake, You heard a story of club that trailed a blaze in record style to get to their Holy Grail, then 3 seasons later were a complete shadow of their former selves, from top to bottom - That would be a sad state of affairs. How that is 'acceptable' I really can't fathom. How it can't be 'seen', I can't fathom. The facts are all there, right before you...but still everything is just dandy...of course it is.

[Royal Rother]

But, to some extent, the right players had been brought in before then. Kitson and Convey stand out - with Convey being given a year to get up to speed. Did we sign any "young and hungry" players in the last two seasons that have been brought up to the required level?

Just building the one squad was never going to be enough. We had to develop the next squad, the one who would push on from 05/06, from the moment we got promotion in 2006.

The recent signings have not had a full year yet to get up to the required level have they? Give it a couple more months....

Thing is, the whole drive of Madejski over recent years has been for the club to reach a position of financial self-sufficiency and one has to imagine that has been achieved to a significant extent.

That might conflict with many supporters own plans for the club which would have seen investment in the team (sufficient to remain in the PL) as being the key to financial security, but then it's not their money is it? (To those who bought a ST, no, it's still not your money at stake.)

A large part of the long-term plan / vision for the club has been committed to the Academy. It might be argued that in the last 2 seasons we have got closer to self-sufficiency in that regard as well. It's slow going for sure, but I think that has always been the, to my eyes, very commendable plan and we seem to be getting closer to some degree of harvest from the long-observed green shoots. (If only Coppell would give them a proper bloody chance - but that's a-whole-nother discussion....

If the upcoming recession hits football as hard as many observers think it will, then Madejski's financial prudency over the past couple of years might just end up being the single-most inspired business strategy he's ever implemented... (Agent Balti style exaggeration? Perhaps.)

[Hoop Blah]

Thing is, the whole drive of Madejski over recent years has been for the club to reach a position of financial self-sufficiency and one has to imagine that has been achieved to a significant extent.

That might conflict with many supporters own plans for the club which would have seen investment in the team (sufficient to remain in the PL) as being the key to financial security, but then it's not their money is it? (To those who bought a ST, no, it's still not your money at stake.)

I've no problem with the club being self sufficient, but even taking into account debt repayments the club made a £6m profit during our first season in the Premiership.

That £6m should've been reinvested in the playing staff to give us a better chance of staying up. That £6m was would've been enough for a half decent free transfer commanding £20k a week and one £3-4m pound signing on £20k a week to make a significant impact on our squad.

[papereyes]

Or maybe one or two players who would not be expected to make an impact straight away but are brought through the side to improve it this season?

I think Halford was meant to be a signing like that. Just because he didn't work does not mean the strategy is terminally flawed.

[Royal Rother]

That £6m should've been reinvested in the playing staff to give us a better chance of staying up. That £6m was would've been enough for a half decent free transfer commanding £20k a week and one £3-4m pound signing on £20k a week to make a significant impact on our squad.

Debt repayments would not have an impact on the £6m profit. Only the interest on loans is treated as a cost of the business, not the capital repayments.

[Hoop Blah]

That £6m should've been reinvested in the playing staff to give us a better chance of staying up. That £6m was would've been enough for a half decent free transfer commanding £20k a week and one £3-4m pound signing on £20k a week to make a significant impact on our squad.

Debt repayments would not have an impact on the £6m profit. Only the interest on loans is treated as a cost of the business, not the capital repayments.

You've lost me. Are you saying we made £6m profit but we didn't really because that actually went in loan repayments?

[Royal Rother]

So, you start up a business and you take out a loan of £10,000. You trade for a year and your sales are £50,000, costs are £30,000; those costs include interest on the loan amounting to £1000. You therefore make a profit of £20,000. During that year because you did well you decided to repay the loan in full. You can do that because you made a profit and so have surplus funds, otherwise termed as good cash flow. Why would you want to keep the loan in place if you don't need it anymore. The loan costs money in interest charges so if you don't need it, you may well decide to just pay it off.

The profit is still £20,000.

RFC's trading profit is calculated in a similar fashion. The loan repayments (if they were made) are not a cost of the business so would not have an impact on the profit made.

What it does do of course, is enable the business to make more money next year because it no longer has to pay (possibly exorbitant rates of) interest in future years.

Wouldn't you pay off a loan early if cash flow allows and it means you made more money in the future? (Interest earned on deposit being far less than interest charged on loans...)

Beer intake might mean this is not the most eloquent reply, but I tried...

[Southbank Old Boy]

We only managed to get 36 points and that was our problem. We should never have been settling for a side that only looked like scraping to 36 points as that puts you at the mercy of any slight upturn in form from one of the other strugglers.

the problem, in part, was that we didn't settle for a side that looked like getting 36 points. At Christmas we had 22 points and although it was fair to assume we wouldn't breeze through the remaining games, it wasn't exactly obvious that we'd only pick up 14 points after Boxing Day. Had relegation seemed more of a threat we might have been a little less complacent.

Performances, apart from a select few, showed otherwise.

The Nov/Dec/January form was more than a pretty good gauge of how the rest of the season was likely. Coppell said it himself at the time and ahs since admitted he thought we'd be in trouble after the West Ham home game in September

[glass half full]

So, you start up a business and you take out a loan of £10,000. You trade for a year and your sales are £50,000, costs are £30,000; those costs include interest on the loan amounting to £1000. You therefore make a profit of £20,000. During that year because you did well you decided to repay the loan in full. You can do that because you made a profit and so have surplus funds, otherwise termed as good cash flow. Why would you want to keep the loan in place if you don't need it anymore. The loan costs money in interest charges so if you don't need it, you may well decide to just pay it off.

The profit is still £20,000.

RFC's trading profit is calculated in a similar fashion. The loan repayments (if they were made) are not a cost of the business so would not have an impact on the profit made.

What it does do of course, is enable the business to make more money next year because it no longer has to pay (possibly exorbitant rates of) interest in future years.

Wouldn't you pay off a loan early if cash flow allows and it means you made more money in the future? (Interest earned on deposit being far less than interest charged on loans...)

Beer intake might mean this is not the most eloquent reply, but I tried...

[glass half full]

You speak a lot of sense, Rother.

Unfortunately, sharks like Bates can get away with putting Leeds into administration, paying back a ridiculously low sum to people who may be owed, picking up a ludicrously low penalty of the deduction of 10 points instead of being forced to restatrt in the lower leagues.

The world of professional football is mad, mad, mad.