by Royal Rother » 16 Feb 2011 12:52
by westongeezer » 16 Feb 2011 12:55
westongeezerdonface This board is full of spoilt babies. We are currently playing way above our historical level. Any team of our size is almost inevitably going to go backwards after finishing eighth in the top tier of one of the largest and most monied leagues in the world. The fact that we have to sell players to stay afloat suggests to me that spanking 20 million quid on Robert Earnshaw is not going to be a successful long term strategy.
Promotion was a blip. Let's hope that our extended stay in the nosebleed section of the English leagues isn't.
+1
by specialjon » 16 Feb 2011 12:56
by handbags_harris » 16 Feb 2011 13:04
Royal Rother Somebody quoted Royal Blue above so I ended up reading the guy's ignorant rubbish for a change...
My blood pressure couldn't stand reading that drivel again, but can someone tell me, did he really use oxf*rd CARDIFF as an example we should be following?
by Muskrat » 16 Feb 2011 13:25
Wimb More to the point Doncaster have spent £1 million over 2 years..... we spent more then that buying Mills from them
by Maguire » 16 Feb 2011 13:27
by Wimb » 16 Feb 2011 13:28
MuskratWimb More to the point Doncaster have spent £1 million over 2 years..... we spent more then that buying Mills from them
Is that true though? Billy Sharp alone cost them £1.15m last summer.
by Muskrat » 16 Feb 2011 13:36
PistolPete :cry: Ok, so Doyle, Hunt, Bikey, Kitson, Shorey, Sigurdsson, Sonko etc etc have been sold and not properly replaced.
However, we are on a sound financial footing and young Reading born players are getting experience in a mid table championship team.
Bear in mind that Rodgers was sacked after only a short time in charge and the chief scout was appointed - a move also sanctioned by Madejski.
So, DO YOU BACK THE CHAIRMAN???
15/02/2011
by floyd__streete » 16 Feb 2011 13:38
donface We are currently playing way above our historical level.
by brendywendy » 16 Feb 2011 13:46
by floyd__streete » 16 Feb 2011 13:47
brendywendy so we are achieving what we should do then?
by Maguire » 16 Feb 2011 13:48
by brendywendy » 16 Feb 2011 13:49
by floyd__streete » 16 Feb 2011 13:51
brendywendy not in those terms no. but if you are going to look at what weve spent/sold we are floyd.imo
by brendywendy » 16 Feb 2011 13:55
by westendgirl » 16 Feb 2011 16:03
RoyalBluedonface It's very easy to spend other people's money, isn't it.
He doesn't have to spend his own money. He could seek others with money to join him on the board.
by RoyalBlue » 16 Feb 2011 18:11
westendgirlRoyalBluedonface It's very easy to spend other people's money, isn't it.
He doesn't have to spend his own money. He could seek others with money to join him on the board.
Which bit of others with money is not other people's money?
You have such an anti-Madejski attitude that you can come out with such wonderful comments
by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 16 Feb 2011 18:32
RoyalBlue Yes, new investors are 'other people's money' but they would be investing because they wanted to spend/invest their money not because I was doing it for them. Is that really too difficult a distinction for you and others to understand?
As for loans, once again those lending the money are doing so because they want to not because I am spending their money for them!
by readingbedding » 16 Feb 2011 18:32
by Ian Royal » 16 Feb 2011 18:49
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], secks and 379 guests