by cmonurz » 17 Jun 2008 09:45
by brendywendy » 17 Jun 2008 10:01
papereyesbrendywendypapereyes He is right though.
What is most damning is the five, six players that have been record signings. Other than short term successes with Lita and Convey, they have all been a bit poor. This coming at a time when we needed players to come in and improve the first team squad.
i dont know if lined up side by side there would be a huge ammount of difference in the two lists
but that is by the by.
seol was a short term success too
'greed about the the record signings
maybe what we need to do is make one horrendous cock up signing at ten million
then we wont have to worry about record signings for a good decade-leaving us to sign who we want without worrying about the "curse of the record signing"
Seol, Lita and Convey debatable. Just because Seol moved on, doesn't mean he was that successful here. Just because he was a fantastic dribbler and not all that bad a player, also, does not mean he was successful here. Convey has had one fantastic season then been out injured. That does not mean he was succesful here. Lita's Premiership career defines hit and miss.
They're not bad players, it's not a case of me 'hating' them. I just don't think you could ever describe the three of them as truly successful signings. Now, given they were all(or was Convey merely joint?) record signings, this isn't good reading, is it?
Its just that since we looked like going up, we have had 5 transfer windows and failed to bring in anyone, bar Duberry and maybe Matejovsky, who has really improved the side. That is 5 missed opportunities. Given that we went down, is there any point pretending that this isn't the case? Is the next, logical, step then to look at why this is the case?
by Sarah Star » 17 Jun 2008 10:04
by brendywendy » 17 Jun 2008 10:05
howser Preeictions ?? We will sell our most valuable assets and make a few millions maybe 12-15 and buy unkonown foreign guys coz they are cheap to buy and pay and use the alleged better academy coz they are cheap to pay.............................thus sums up Reading at the moment.............do anything as long as it is cheap !
by papereyes » 17 Jun 2008 10:09
brendywendy
id put bikey and rosenior in there aswell as improvements to the team
but i am aware that i may not be in the majority with my assessment of liam
Rodger the Rabbit Of course we needed probably one more player, but even then there we no guarantees.
by brendywendy » 17 Jun 2008 10:13
by papereyes » 17 Jun 2008 10:16
brendywendy i disagree with the bikey comments
thought he never let us down
always looked good enough, sometimes awesome, and one of the biggest failings of coppell all season was not putting him in , and keeping him there sooner than he eventually did
i kinda agree that the rest are works in progress-im hoping that liam, cisse etc will really step up this season-but it is just hope
Bikey's good but hasn't had an extended run in the side in about two years
by Roger the Rabbit » 17 Jun 2008 10:17
papereyesRodger the Rabbit Of course we needed probably one more player, but even then there we no guarantees.
I've just cut out the important bit, where you said you agreed with me. The rest was just window-dressing, wasn't it?
by papereyes » 17 Jun 2008 10:18
Roger the RabbitpapereyesRodger the Rabbit Of course we needed probably one more player, but even then there we no guarantees.
I've just cut out the important bit, where you said you agreed with me. The rest was just window-dressing, wasn't it?
I don;t think buying Mateyovsky was just window dressing, although clearly you don;t consider him of any significance !
The fact that even the highest profile manager with an unlimited budget is not guaranteed success is also hardly window dressing !
by brendywendy » 17 Jun 2008 10:36
papereyesbrendywendy i disagree with the bikey comments
thought he never let us down
always looked good enough, sometimes awesome, and one of the biggest failings of coppell all season was not putting him in , and keeping him there sooner than he eventually did
i kinda agree that the rest are works in progress-im hoping that liam, cisse etc will really step up this season-but it is just hope
which is basically what I just said, so how in the name of all that is holy can you disagree with it?Bikey's good but hasn't had an extended run in the side in about two years
by papereyes » 17 Jun 2008 10:41
i meant i dont judge that as bikey being not good enough
Bikey's good but hasn't had an extended run in the side in about two years
by brendywendy » 17 Jun 2008 10:55
by Vision » 17 Jun 2008 11:26
Alan Partridge and being SHOCKING in the transfer market. Coppell had 1 fantastic summer in terms of recruitment, Reading went up. Apart from that, his bad signings FAR outweigh his good ones.
papereyes Seol, Lita and Convey debatable. Just because Seol moved on, doesn't mean he was that successful here. Just because he was a fantastic dribbler and not all that bad a player, also, does not mean he was successful here. Convey has had one fantastic season then been out injured. That does not mean he was succesful here. Lita's Premiership career defines hit and miss.
They're not bad players, it's not a case of me 'hating' them. I just don't think you could ever describe the three of them as truly successful signings. Now, given they were all(or was Convey merely joint?) record signings, this isn't good reading, is it?
papereyes Its just that since we looked like going up, we have had 5 transfer windows and failed to bring in anyone, bar Duberry and maybe Matejovsky, who has really improved the side. That is 5 missed opportunities. Given that we went down, is there any point pretending that this isn't the case? Is the next, logical, step then to look at why this is the case?
by papereyes » 17 Jun 2008 11:33
by Hoop Blah » 17 Jun 2008 12:22
papereyes Just as a clarification, my point with 'record signings' is that, rightly or wrongly, they are going to be seen as players who should come in and directly challenge for a first team spot.
But I agree with most of your third point.
by Roger the Rabbit » 17 Jun 2008 12:33
papereyes
Nope, that you agreed that we needed more players, but the rest of your post was an irrelevence to make it seem like you had something valid and important to say.
Which you still don't seem to ...
by papereyes » 17 Jun 2008 13:54
Roger the Rabbitpapereyes
Nope, that you agreed that we needed more players, but the rest of your post was an irrelevence to make it seem like you had something valid and important to say.
Which you still don't seem to ...
I wouldn't flatter yourself that any of this is 'important' !!
If you disagree with my comment it also doesn't make it invalid.
by Roger the Rabbit » 17 Jun 2008 15:14
papereyes
No, the important thing about your Scolari comment was that it was irrelevent. But, again, thanks for taking the time to add it to your post.
by brendywendy » 17 Jun 2008 15:15
Roger the Rabbitpapereyes
No, the important thing about your Scolari comment was that it was irrelevent. But, again, thanks for taking the time to add it to your post.
You seem to confuse your inability to take comments on board with 'irrelevance'
never mind, I'm sure neither of us will lose sleep over the lack of real dialogue. I'll comfort myself with the knowledge that any irrelevance in my posts has been more than offset by the pointlessness of your follow ups.
Is an irrelevant smiley compulsory on these sort of tangents ?
by papereyes » 17 Jun 2008 15:18
Rodger the Rabbitpapereyes
No, the important thing about your Scolari comment was that it was irrelevent. But, again, thanks for taking the time to add it to your post.
You seem to confuse your inability to take comments on board with 'irrelevance'
Users browsing this forum: Royals and Racers and 124 guests