Despondent

[Stranded]

why wait 135 years, build a big shiney new stadium, spend a fair few quid on players and when you finally reach your goal try and do it on the cheap. it totally beggars belief that RFC (JM) are not prepared to finish what they have started. totally understand what the club has achieved and the main reason (again JM) but for pitys sake finish the job off john or sell up.

So you would want Madejski to buy players that Coppell doesn't want?Again it is forgotten that the funds ARE available, Coppell chose not to use them.

did i mention i wanted anyone to buy unwanted players you twat, what i said was we should finish what we have started. i.e. spend the necessary to take the team / club to the next level, not sit back and watch a part completed project fail at the final hurdle.

i am sure some funds are available but none of us has any idea how much do we? i for one thought we would be ok without sidwell and i said so on here, i was wrong as we clearly miss him in midfield, makes £40k a week look mnoneyu well spent doesnt it.

Just out of interest, what is your definition of finishing the job and when do you want it finished by?

[Wycombe Royal]

why wait 135 years, build a big shiney new stadium, spend a fair few quid on players and when you finally reach your goal try and do it on the cheap. it totally beggars belief that RFC (JM) are not prepared to finish what they have started. totally understand what the club has achieved and the main reason (again JM) but for pitys sake finish the job off john or sell up.

So you would want Madejski to buy players that Coppell doesn't want?Again it is forgotten that the funds ARE available, Coppell chose not to use them.

did i mention i wanted anyone to buy unwanted players you twat, what i said was we should finish what we have started. i.e. spend the necessary to take the team / club to the next level, not sit back and watch a part completed project fail at the final hurdle.

i am sure some funds are available but none of us has any idea how much do we? i for one thought we would be ok without sidwell and i said so on here, i was wrong as we clearly miss him in midfield, makes £40k a week look mnoneyu well spent doesnt it.

Eloquent as ever. Is there any need for the insults?

You were blaming the non-spending on Madejski (note the JM in brackets in your comments), all I did was point out that he has made the funds available (it is true we don't know how much but we have made £4m+ bids for players) and that Coppell has stated on numerous occasions that he wanted to give those players who achieved so much last season the channce to prove themselves again. As it happens he has now stated he will spend in January - whether he does remains to be seen.

[sucatraps]

I happen to believe that footballers get what they deserve and the market will stand in wages, but it is pretty clear that paying too much for poor returns is the begining of the end for many clubs and it also encourages players to get ideas above their abilities and true value. JM has always tried to keep a degree of sanity in the club by balancing the books, it means we have to take a longer view and expect some players to move for improved pay. Sounds a lot like normal life to me!

[RoyalBlue]

why wait 135 years, build a big shiney new stadium, spend a fair few quid on players and when you finally reach your goal try and do it on the cheap. it totally beggars belief that RFC (JM) are not prepared to finish what they have started. totally understand what the club has achieved and the main reason (again JM) but for pitys sake finish the job off john or sell up.

So you would want Madejski to buy players that Coppell doesn't want?Again it is forgotten that the funds ARE available, Coppell chose not to use them.

It's very easy to say that funds are available for signings but again the question about wage levels is conveniently forgotten.

Coppell didn't want to bring players in on 'big money' for fear of upsetting the existing players. Could well be that the only players who would be better than those we have already got earn/want 'big money'. Therefore Coppell decided not to sign anyone.

Could it be that the worries about upsetting our existing players might be resolved by paying them a more realistic PL wage? Might doing so free Coppell up to spend the money supposedly available for transfer fees and sign some quality additions without upsetting the current squad?

[bcubed]

We didn't deserve to lose?

Since Kitson came back we have 1 tactic, lump the ball up the park for Kitson to flick on

The passing flowing football, ball on the deck,out wide with pace we have played the last two years has gone

The team gave up at 1-1 when we should have gone on to win. Too many were happy for a point.

What frustrates me even more is Coppell saw that, he admitted it in his interview MOTD but he chose not to change things till we were behind again. He got lucky last week leaving the change till late, this week it didn't work.

the reason we lost is becuase we didnt settle for the point, and went on to try and win it
and most people neutral types believe we were unlucky not to get something out of it, many saying we played the better attacking football, and that their two later goals just papered over the cracks

and we are still 12th

Well said BW, totally agree

I couldn't see any other side winning it after we scored, but was a bit concerned at out very attacking approach. But as we don't seem to be able to play any differently, it's hard to criticise.

Fulham's second was totally against the run of play - this sort of thing happens often in football.
Sometimes you don't get the rewards your attacking play deserves. I'm not saying we were brilliant or without fault, but let's keep things in perspectiove, we weren't that bad either.

[sucatraps]

Existing squad to share a performance based bonus, that is not available to new signings, who presumably will be on higher wages, if they are an improvement on existing squad? Afterall you can't have it both ways

[floyd__streete]

Yeah, But we are still better than -

Fulham
Birmingham
Sunderland
Middlesbrough
Tottenham
Wigan
Bolton
Derby

Fulham 3-1 Reading
Sunderland 2-1 Reading
Bolton 3-0 Reading

[Stranded]

Yeah, But we are still better than -

Fulham
Birmingham
Sunderland
Middlesbrough
Tottenham
Wigan
Bolton
Derby

Fulham 3-1 Reading
Sunderland 2-1 Reading
Bolton 3-0 Reading

And all still behind us in the division.

As I've said before there's a huge skew toward home results this year, if we fail to beat all of those 3 at home I'd be worried but until then as long as we keep ahead of them then that's fine with me.

[Archie's penalty]

We didn't deserve to lose?

Since Kitson came back we have 1 tactic, lump the ball up the park for Kitson to flick on

The passing flowing football, ball on the deck,out wide with pace we have played the last two years has gone

The team gave up at 1-1 when we should have gone on to win. Too many were happy for a point.

What frustrates me even more is Coppell saw that, he admitted it in his interview MOTD but he chose not to change things till we were behind again. He got lucky last week leaving the change till late, this week it didn't work.

the reason we lost is becuase we didnt settle for the point, and went on to try and win it
and most people neutral types believe we were unlucky not to get something out of it, many saying we played the better attacking football, and that their two later goals just papered over the cracks

and we are still 12th

Well said BW, totally agree

I couldn't see any other side winning it after we scored, but was a bit concerned at out very attacking approach. But as we don't seem to be able to play any differently, it's hard to criticise.

Fulham's second was totally against the run of play - this sort of thing happens often in football.
Sometimes you don't get the rewards your attacking play deserves. I'm not saying we were brilliant or without fault, but let's keep things in perspectiove, we weren't that bad either.

I second that agreement.

[Northern Git]

We have the heaviest away defeat in the league this season – 4-7 v Pompey

Take issue with that:

Liverpool 6-0 Derby County
Arsenal 5-0 Derby County

for starters

That depends on how you look at it.

Conceeding 7 is worse than letting in 5 or 6. But I agree scoring 4 is better than not scoring at all.

How would a bookie look at it? 4-7 worse or better than 0-6?

[Wycombe Royal]

why wait 135 years, build a big shiney new stadium, spend a fair few quid on players and when you finally reach your goal try and do it on the cheap. it totally beggars belief that RFC (JM) are not prepared to finish what they have started. totally understand what the club has achieved and the main reason (again JM) but for pitys sake finish the job off john or sell up.

So you would want Madejski to buy players that Coppell doesn't want?Again it is forgotten that the funds ARE available, Coppell chose not to use them.

It's very easy to say that funds are available for signings but again the question about wage levels is conveniently forgotten.

Coppell didn't want to bring players in on 'big money' for fear of upsetting the existing players. Could well be that the only players who would be better than those we have already got earn/want 'big money'. Therefore Coppell decided not to sign anyone.

Could it be that the worries about upsetting our existing players might be resolved by paying them a more realistic PL wage? Might doing so free Coppell up to spend the money supposedly available for transfer fees and sign some quality additions without upsetting the current squad?

Very fair points and I can't really disagree with any of it. Wage levels are a key issue for us where transfers are concerned. However I think Coppell may be being a little over sensitive to the players on this one. At all clubs you have higher earners and lower earners - it is a fact of life. We don't want players on £50k per week, but if we sign someone for a few million it just goes with the territory that their wages will be significantly higher than the rest of the squad and I'm sure the players understand that. If they don't then they are in the wrong profession.

[brendywendy]

sometimes i dispair at the sheer gayness of these boards

Please don't use the language of the under 8s. (I tend to think you were making some good points. But then you went and spoilt it all with a pathetic phrase like that. Oh, and its despair.)

ok


Gayer

at least my post had a point, other than pointless pedantry

[brendywendy]

We have the heaviest away defeat in the league this season – 4-7 v Pompey

Take issue with that:

Liverpool 6-0 Derby County
Arsenal 5-0 Derby County

for starters

That depends on how you look at it.

Conceeding 7 is worse than letting in 5 or 6. But I agree scoring 4 is better than not scoring at all.

How would a bookie look at it? 4-7 worse or better than 0-6?

th ebookie wouldnt make any judgement about better or worse
but the odds of a 7-4 are bigger than a 6-0 generally

[Yorkshire Royal]

What a bunch of homos...

[brendywendy]

What a bunch of homos...

could you please refrain from using the language of the under 8s.

[Man Friday]

Excuse my tiresome pedantry but I feel I must correct you (again). In my day, "homosexual" was an adult term; "omo", "poofter", et al, were the terms used by the under 8s. Today's equivalent term used by the under 8s (not sure your age) is "gayer". (Well, I've never heard an adult use it anyway.)

[Royal Lady]

I note that no-one else has commented on the fact that Fulham were missing 9 (was it?) players through injury or suspension. Again, I'll remind you that their left back at 18 years old was making his first appearance in the Prem. If we couldn't beat that Fulham team, we're going to struggle against the likes of Bolton and Wigan too. Yes we're 12th, but losing to Arsenal next Monday and a few more tough games coming up could see us sliding back down to bottom 3 or 4. Yet, the team we put out to start on Saturday had the same players as last year, with the exception of Duberry (and not Sidwell obviously). What does this tell us? Either over the last few months a lot of our players have found that age is beginning to tell, or, they're just not up for it like they were last year? I really don't know to be honest. I still can't see us bringing in anyone of note in January and that worries me most.

[seahawk10]

What does this tell us? Either over the last few months a lot of our players have found that age is beginning to tell, or, they're just not up for it like they were last year? I really don't know to be honest. I still can't see us bringing in anyone of note in January and that worries me most.

I think we have been unlucky as well. Obviously we have had some real stinkers this year, but last year we get at least a draw in the Fulham game. We were not overmatched by FFC, we just didn't convert some of the chances we had. This year we just aren't getting the one or two small bounces that seemed to come our way last year.

As I have said in a previous post, if it comes down to a relegation battle, then so be it. I am still confident that we will be comfortably mid-table when all is said and done.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

why wait 135 years, build a big shiney new stadium, spend a fair few quid on players and when you finally reach your goal try and do it on the cheap. it totally beggars belief that RFC (JM) are not prepared to finish what they have started. totally understand what the club has achieved and the main reason (again JM) but for pitys sake finish the job off john or sell up.

So you would want Madejski to buy players that Coppell doesn't want?Again it is forgotten that the funds ARE available, Coppell chose not to use them.

It's very easy to say that funds are available for signings but again the question about wage levels is conveniently forgotten.

Coppell didn't want to bring players in on 'big money' for fear of upsetting the existing players. Could well be that the only players who would be better than those we have already got earn/want 'big money'. Therefore Coppell decided not to sign anyone.

Could it be that the worries about upsetting our existing players might be resolved by paying them a more realistic PL wage? Might doing so free Coppell up to spend the money supposedly available for transfer fees and sign some quality additions without upsetting the current squad?

Very fair points and I can't really disagree with any of it. Wage levels are a key issue for us where transfers are concerned. However I think Coppell may be being a little over sensitive to the players on this one. At all clubs you have higher earners and lower earners - it is a fact of life. We don't want players on £50k per week, but if we sign someone for a few million it just goes with the territory that their wages will be significantly higher than the rest of the squad and I'm sure the players understand that. If they don't then they are in the wrong profession.

When they say transfer funds are available. They do mean wages to. Coppell and Hammond are not stupid. The Chairman hasn't tricked them into thinking money is there when it isn't. I'm sure they are aware of the relationship between transfers and wages. Coppell had the money for transfers and wages and for reason beyond us all did not spend it. If he doesn't want to sign player on more money for fear of upsetting players, then he's not a good enough man manager. No excuses, Coppell needs to learn how to spend money and spend it well....

[ripleyroyal]

All I can say after reading all this doom and gloom is this...at least this isn't a Derby County forum! A Derby bus driver jokingly said he wouldn't let me on the bus coz I was wearing my Reading beanie (with pride) "coz we had beaten them the other week"....to which I replyed "I could have any team on my hat and we would have probably beaten you at some point recently!!" There, now I hope that raises the level a bit. Stop being so blo*dy gloomy!