Howe - we can be bigger than Arsenal

[Huntley & Palmer]

Because unless some ridiculously rich bloke buys us, then you need to be winning a Champions League spot season upon season and also domestic trophies. When was the last time someone outside the top four won a trophy? Everton, Boro and Blackburn was it in the last seven years?. The gap is ever widening and shows no sign of stopping

[SpaceCruiser]

Yes, you're assuming that the richer get richer and therefore their power cannot be challenged. But surely empires can fall. What will happen when Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger eventually retires? And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4. And Liverpool haven't won the league for over a decade, but may well do so again in the near future.

[Jerry St Clair]

I wish Nigel Howe would stop referring to MY football club as a "brand".

What else would you like to refer to it as?

Er......a club?

[Huntley & Palmer]

Yes, you're assuming that the richer get richer and therefore their power cannot be challenged. But surely empires can fall. What will happen when Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger eventually retires? And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4. And Liverpool haven't won the league for over a decade, but may well do so again in the near future.

These clubs generate the biggest revenues in Europe, all four are in the top eleven richest clubs in Europe according to Forbes. The only reason that Liverpool aren't higher is due to the lack of a decent commercial department to export their brand everywhere, this will change with the new owners. Unless the money dries up or lots of billionaires get bored, then nothing will change.

[Wycombe Royal]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

[SpaceCruiser]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

[Stranded]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

Abramovich buys Chelsea in Summer prior to 2003/04 season, Ranieri fired end of 2003/04 season after rumours since the buy-out that he would be replaced - doesn't really prove much.

[Wycombe Royal]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.

Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.

[SpaceCruiser]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.

Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.

But did he win anything?

I take Stranded's point that Abramovich sacked him a year after taking over the club, but Chelsea weren't exactly poor before that, were they and already had a pool of quality players to select from?

[Wycombe Royal]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.

Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.

But did he win anything?

That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.

[SpaceCruiser]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.

Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.

But did he win anything?

That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.

When we were talking about the top 4, I thought it was taken to mean the 4 biggest teams and to be in that group you need to have won a few things. Correct? If so, then I haven't moved any goalposts.

[Wycombe Royal]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.

Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.

But did he win anything?

That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.

When we were talking about the top 4, I thought it was taken to mean the 4 biggest teams and to be in that group you need to have won a few things. Correct? If so, then I haven't moved any goalposts.

To me, being a top 4 club, means being in the top 4 of the Premier League. What if only 2 clubs have won any trophies? Does that mean there are only 2 clubs in the top 4?

[SpaceCruiser]

And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.

Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.

Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.

They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.

Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.

But did he win anything?

That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.

When we were talking about the top 4, I thought it was taken to mean the 4 biggest teams and to be in that group you need to have won a few things. Correct? If so, then I haven't moved any goalposts.

To me, being a top 4 club, means being in the top 4 of the Premier League. What if only 2 clubs have won any trophies? Does that mean there are only 2 clubs in the top 4?

Now you're being silly.

[Harps stay sharp]

Ok Arsenal have got a history in the top flight. But in the mid seventies IIRC they had to fight relegation twice in successive years. As was pointed out, their average gate was only 20-25,000 in the late 80' early 90's. Its only been since the formation of the Premier League and the TV Money that has seen them grow to where they are today.

If Reading can develop themselves as a brand then the future is bright. The trouble is educating the fans who are unwilling to embrace change and hark back to the old days at Elm Park.

I am sure there are Arsenal fans who have voiced the same concerns and who would still like to be in an antiquated stadium fighting relegation battles.

Whether people accept it or not football has changed and personally I think it's great we have forward thinking people at the club!

[Katie Marsden]

Reading will never be as big as Arsenal unless our ground holds 60,000 and we fill it, we've won at least 10 titles, win numerous FA Cups and have competed in the Champions League for over a decade.

Even then Arsenal would have to go two or three steps backwards for Reading to even be considered in the same bracket. Look at Chelsea, they've won loads in the last few years and no one could consider them a bigger club than Arsenal.

It's not gonna happen.

Infact Howes comments are even more laughable than Chelsea claiming to be bigger than Manchester United by 2012.

I hope Arsenal fans don't see this thread because they'd be pissing themselves at some of the deluded comments posted in it.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Because unless some ridiculously rich bloke buys us, then you need to be winning a Champions League spot season upon season and also domestic trophies. When was the last time someone outside the top four won a trophy? Everton, Boro and Blackburn was it in the last seven years?. The gap is ever widening and shows no sign of stopping

if you count the league & FA Cup, then this year will see all 24 of those trophies in 12 seasons going to the big 4.

[reading_lad]

Reading will never be as big as Arsenal unless our ground holds 60,000 and we fill it, we've won at least 10 titles, win numerous FA Cups and have competed in the Champions League for over a decade.

Even then Arsenal would have to go two or three steps backwards for Reading to even be considered in the same bracket. Look at Chelsea, they've won loads in the last few years and no one could consider them a bigger club than Arsenal.

It's not gonna happen.

Infact Howes comments are even more laughable than Chelsea claiming to be bigger than Manchester United by 2012.

I hope Arsenal fans don't see this thread because they'd be pissing themselves at some of the deluded comments posted in it.

One of the only people speaking any sense on this thread.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Catchment area is all well and good, and I don't question we'll sell out 5 or 6 games a season but for fans to turn up on a regular basis to watch the likes of Wigan and Blackburn who with the greatest respect have the lure factor is asking too much.

I doubt any of the big clubs would get full houses for all of the "lesser" games either if it wasn't for season tickets.


People round here do like the big games though. Taking 45000 to Wembley for the simod cup final proved that. I do believe that if we had the capacity we could smash our 33,000 record crowd by a fair margin for the bigger games each year.

What we could average every year is less clear, but getting beyond 30,000 in the near future is asking a fair bit.

[Mr Angry]

At worst, it shows Howe is thinking big; at best, it can be seen as a statement of intent.

Why are people slagging him of for saying it? If he came out and said "we hope we can avoid relegation for the next 10 years" he - and the club - would have been accused of lacking ambition; sometimes there are "fans" only too happy to criticise ANYTHING the club says.

He also hasn't put a timeline on when this may (or may not) occur; in the 30's Huddersfield was a huge club. In the 50's Wolves, Blackpool and Bolton were. In the 60's Burnley were, in the 70's Leeds and Derby were, in the 80's Forest were....in other words, what may have sounded mad in the 80's to a Forest fan (that, for example, Chelsea would within 20 years be far bigger and more succesful than they whilst they were in the 3rd tier of league football) came to pass - and so it could again.

[Behindu]

Reading will never be as big as Arsenal unless our ground holds 60,000 and we fill it, we've won at least 10 titles, win numerous FA Cups and have competed in the Champions League for over a decade.

Although Arsenal haven;t yet had a full season with a 60k ground - so presumably it's really easy to get to be a 'big' club. As soon as we have a 38k ground we become as 'big' as Spurs ?

And We won;t be as big as Bury until we have won a couple of FA Cups, or as big as Huddersfield until we have won 3 successive League titles ?

I do see your point, but I don't think it is quite the point Howe was making....