Chairman Backing

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

fair enough we are all entitled to our opinion but it does stagger me how many people would prefer a board who just throw money as the team. Unless we have an owner who is super-rich I don't see how getting an owner who invests more in the team would make Reading more successful. I love Reading, but if i was to invest all of my money in the club i would still want a return..

I can fully understand people who'd rather have a chairman who is willing to put up a million or two of his own money a year to make the team better.

Less hard to understand are those who'd prefer to see us running up multi-million losses each year, in the quest for glory.

[Once were Biscuitmen]

Yes I could understand if a Poster had millions of pounds of their own money to donate to the club or if Mr M was refusing to sell to the Saudi royal family.

However as no body was willing to buy Crystal Palace last year- for effectively the price of taking on their (in footballing terms) relatively low debt- I think we can conclude that the list of people currently looking to acquire loss making championship football sides is pretty much non existent.

The, "fans don't care about debt as long as they are wining," argument contributes to my already significant doubts about the wisdom of fan ownership and democracy in general.

[brendywendy]

fair enough we are all entitled to our opinion but it does stagger me how many people would prefer a board who just throw money as the team. Unless we have an owner who is super-rich I don't see how getting an owner who invests more in the team would make Reading more successful. I love Reading, but if i was to invest all of my money in the club i would still want a return..

I can fully understand people who'd rather have a chairman who is willing to put up a million or two of his own money a year to make the team better.

Less hard to understand are those who'd prefer to see us running up multi-million losses each year, in the quest for glory.

im just not sure there are people queuing up to throw millions of their own money down the drain

[Terminal Boardom]

None of the above options imho.

What I would like to see is a return to sensible investment from the owner(s) and a more sympathetic and less patronising relationship with the supporters. Is this too much to ask?

[brendywendy]

are they unsympathetic and patronising?

[Duke the Dog]

Slightly off topic, but until a club actually goes under and disappears completely, with the cause being financial issues, then fans will always want the cash to be splashed as there never seems to be a dire consequence once all the money has gone. Remember Newport and Aldershot and (I know not quite the same) Wimbledon.

Cardiff, Palace and Portsmouth have all got away with it, even Leeds. Chelsea, Fulham, Blackburn and now Man City (and to a lesser extent Wolves) all have benevolent chairmen/owners with deep (bottomless in some cases!) pockets which I think is the example we probably all dream of. Give us loads of money, oh, and don't expect any of it back!

BUT, we have little or no history, have a very small (in relative terms) fanbase and a low profile. Who would want to buy Reading and waste millions of pounds (admittedly we're a lot more attractive now than in, say, 1991).

So, I'm on the fence here. Yup Mad is a tight-wad (but has NEVER claimed to be anything else), but he's got us from that tin-shack and 3-4k crowds to where we are now!

[Always_Royal]

Slightly off topic, but until a club actually goes under and disappears completely, with the cause being financial issues, then fans will always want the cash to be splashed as there never seems to be a dire consequence once all the money has gone. Remember Newport and Aldershot and (I know not quite the same) Wimbledon.

Cardiff, Palace and Portsmouth have all got away with it, even Leeds. Chelsea, Fulham, Blackburn and now Man City (and to a lesser extent Wolves) all have benevolent chairmen/owners with deep (bottomless in some cases!) pockets which I think is the example we probably all dream of. Give us loads of money, oh, and don't expect any of it back!

BUT, we have little or no history, have a very small (in relative terms) fanbase and a low profile. Who would want to buy Reading and waste millions of pounds (admittedly we're a lot more attractive now than in, say, 1991).

So, I'm on the fence here. Yup Mad is a tight-wad (but has NEVER claimed to be anything else), but he's got us from that tin-shack and 3-4k crowds to where we are now!

Good post, as is often the case it is better the devil you know...

[brendywendy]

fair enough we are all entitled to our opinion but it does stagger me how many people would prefer a board who just throw money as the team. Unless we have an owner who is super-rich I don't see how getting an owner who invests more in the team would make Reading more successful. I love Reading, but if i was to invest all of my money in the club i would still want a return..

I can fully understand people who'd rather have a chairman who is willing to put up a million or two of his own money a year to make the team better.

Less hard to understand are those who'd prefer to see us running up multi-million losses each year, in the quest for glory.

i undrstand people wanting the chairman to do it

have a little trouble understanding why the chairman would want to though

[TFF]

Chelsea, Fulham, Blackburn and now Man City (and to a lesser extent Wolves) all have benevolent chairmen/owners with deep (bottomless in some cases!) pockets which I think is the example we probably all dream of. Give us loads of money, oh, and don't expect any of it back!

I wouldn't want to be associated with a team that did a Chelsea or Man City. All far too grubby.

I'm not sure I could walk away but I'd hate myself for going. What Madejski and Coppell achieved was beautiful and something that I will forever be proud of.

[facaldaqui]

Chelsea, Fulham, Blackburn and now Man City (and to a lesser extent Wolves) all have benevolent chairmen/owners with deep (bottomless in some cases!) pockets which I think is the example we probably all dream of. Give us loads of money, oh, and don't expect any of it back!

I wouldn't want to be associated with a team that did a Chelsea or Man City. All far too grubby.

I'm not sure I could walk away but I'd hate myself for going. What Madejski and Coppell achieved was beautiful and something that I will forever be proud of.

I could never stop supporting Reading, even if we had rogues running it who didn't pay their debts (Portsmouth), foreign bastards who fleeced their own people (Abramovich, Shinawatra), pornographers (West Ham). But I would feel uncomfortable--and if we bought success through debt and then collapsed, the success would turn in retrospect to ashes in my mouth.

[facaldaqui]

I like the way this poll is panning out. As so often on this board, the polls show that the views of the vociferous few do not reflect those of the quieter many.

Mind you, as usual with polls, the questions are too loaded. Just because I am generally reconciled to the Madejski way of doing things does not mean "he's doing what I want for the team". Obviously, in an ideal world I'd like him to fund some slightly better players.

[brendywendy]

amen

[facaldaqui]

And as an aside, just to back-up my point from earlier on this thread about how the game is changing, I just read that the tickets for the UEFA Champions League Final, which will be held at Wembley this year, are going to run " £300, £225 and £150 plus a £26 "administration fee" ". That is just plain fcuking crazy!!!

An expert on the news the other day said that the actual cost of ticket transactions is a matter of pence; so the whole admin cost thing is a racket. Mounts up horribly if a family buys tickets for something such as a holiday. It's mainly the rich that will go to the UEFA cup final; or those who've been corporately bunged.

[Terminal Boardom]

are they unsympathetic and patronising?

http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=104032&sid=2d6aefb09d9c556511192eab2bb491a2

HTH

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

And as an aside, just to back-up my point from earlier on this thread about how the game is changing, I just read that the tickets for the UEFA Champions League Final, which will be held at Wembley this year, are going to run " £300, £225 and £150 plus a £26 "administration fee" ". That is just plain fcuking crazy!!!

An expert on the news the other day said that the actual cost of ticket transactions is a matter of pence; so the whole admin cost thing is a racket. Mounts up horribly if a family buys tickets for something such as a holiday. It's mainly the rich that will go to the UEFA cup final; or those who've been corporately bunged.

The prices are almost identical to last year, except in pounds rather than euro, and it does appear there is a cheaper ticket at about £90 available, but that will only be offered to fans of the competing clubs.

The £26 administration fee is a joke though.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

fair enough we are all entitled to our opinion but it does stagger me how many people would prefer a board who just throw money as the team. Unless we have an owner who is super-rich I don't see how getting an owner who invests more in the team would make Reading more successful. I love Reading, but if i was to invest all of my money in the club i would still want a return..

I can fully understand people who'd rather have a chairman who is willing to put up a million or two of his own money a year to make the team better.

Less hard to understand are those who'd prefer to see us running up multi-million losses each year, in the quest for glory.

i undrstand people wanting the chairman to do it

have a little trouble understanding why the chairman would want to though

Well, yes. Sadly we now live in a world where people think clubs spending way beyond their means is the way clubs should be doing things, and chairman should be pumping millions of their own money in each year.

[FiNeRaIn]

Agreed, luckily for us thats not the debate here. Most of us want some of the clubs money spent on players, not the chairmans. For starters some of the 7 million for sig, or the other 20 odd million on players sales( more than any other club in the football league and half the prem) that we've received for players sales since we went down, thats well within our means. So luckily your statement doesn't apply here.

[loyalroyaldaz]

If the team at the top can get several thousand people to be concerned enough about ownership to form an entirely new club, and you still think we ought to strive toward that at all costs, good luck to you.

Prostak, its just my opinionm, but lets not forget that i am not the one who is always stating our ambition to compete in the top flight so bring a friend with you to the next game am i ? nor am i the one trying to yet again take the piss out of the season ticket holders with this latest renewel bollox under the banner of "Showing your Allegience". Come on Sir John, do us a favour, move on and enjoy your no doubt free korma from one of the many Reading FC endorsed curry houses around the town now.

what a total bastard, knocking 20 quid off the price.money grabbing tosser..........

ST last year £375, this year £375, where is the £20 off ???????
Oh yes, if you dont renew it riddiculously early so we can bank the dosh and then sell a few then we will charge you £20 more !
Take yer rose tinted specs off

[madstadblues]

I can fully understand the arguments from us fans regarding investment in the team and a perceived lack of ambition to get the premiership, missed opportunites, fees from players evaporating. However my observations are:

1) There is an economic crisis which is effecting us all and means there is less money available
2) Sell the club then - RFC aren't a very attractive proposition to buy due to lack of debt and the need for hard cash to purchase us
3) (and this is the big point where I have every sympathy with Mr M) When we were last in the premiership there was more than one game where we didn't sell out. I would feel pretty let down if I had invested a lot of money to provide the town of Reading with a premiership team (which is what everybody seems to be focused on) and we can't fill the stadium when were there.

I am sure there will be some valid views as to why this is tosh but hey ho!

[Royal Rother]

Agreed, luckily for us thats not the debate here. Most of us want some of the clubs money spent on players, not the chairmans. For starters some of the 7 million for sig, or the other 20 odd million on players sales( more than any other club in the football league and half the prem) that we've received for players sales since we went down, thats well within our means. So luckily your statement doesn't apply here.

As long as we still owe JM circa £20m on a virtually interest free loan, (which I believe is the case is it not?), it seems a little hard to justify your view (if I read it right) that the money from sale of players is the club's money.