Not Hard to see progress for the forseeable future

[Alan Partridge]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Baines]

I think that it would be useful to have this debate on a third thread.

Perhaps Snowball could lend his statistical genius to the stadium expansion/non-expansion discussion.

[Woodcote Royal]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

My 1500 posts to your 7000.............................I wonder where the search for any wasted bandwidth will begin.

[Schards#2]

LOL @ Woodcote. Even today, he's only ever a Schards#2 post away from boiling point.

[Woodcote Royal]

You wish.

1500 posts compared to 2500 says everything about my need to respond to the majority of your blinkered nonsense and you are now the only poster I keep on ignore for most of the time.

But, OK, I must confess that this brilliant thread and your pathetic attempts to defend yourself, were just too good to miss

[Platypuss]

A plague o' both your houses

[rabidbee]

I bite my thumb at you, sir!

[Forbury Lion]

It's funny, I was thinking last night how a neutral at the match might consider the football on display dull and ununspiring.

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed myself. Nice one Seahawk although, according to floyde_street, you're not allowed an opinion as you don't go to matches.

F_S is a fool then. Is he basically saying if you dont live in the UK you cant support Reading?

No, he's saying you can't have an opinion on something if your not a part of it, that goes for UK based people who don't go to matches as well as those who chose to live overseas (like that chap who claimed to be a life long Reading fan despite not going to a game for 20 years because he chose to move to Australia because he thought the UK was a shit hole, he still got some sympathetic fool at the Evening Post to get him a ticket for the Reading v Man Utd game in return for printing his sob story, probably be back again when we next play Man Utd to confirm his place as a regular attendee ).

To witness something first hand does qualify your opinion more than if you just hear someone elses opinion on the radio commentary or in the press.

[Woodcote Royal]

A plague o' both your houses

Only having my say on this thread, which probably amounts to less than several others and a mere fraction when compared to 1 or 2.

[Sun Tzu]

To witness something first hand does qualify your opinion more than if you just hear someone elses opinion on the radio commentary or in the press.

Well I'm not convinced by that entirely.

There are plenty of people on here and elsewhere who may have seen things but their analysis of what actually happened is pretty flawed and there are others who haven't seen things first hand yet seem to be able to make extremely pertinent comments about them. It's interesting that there are plenty of US based fans whose comments are almost always on the mark ....

[Ian Royal]

To witness something first hand does qualify your opinion more than if you just hear someone elses opinion on the radio commentary or in the press.

I'd rate getting your opinion from a professional commentating at the time, over a spod you know very little about, who was in the crowd, posting hours later.

Yes the person posting has a better source of information, but that doesn't make THEM inherantly more reliable. It makes their source more reliable. Asking someone to accept their view is actually WORSE as a reliable source, than listening to the radio. Afterall a commentator is there at the time as well and is reporting, semi-impartially as events unfold.


Whilst the source of your information is important, it is the person providing the view which is more important IMO. I do get to games during a season, and I have a fairly good idea of who generally agrees with my analysis of those games, and who doesn't. So I know who to consider more reliable when I've only heard a game and not actually been.

[Alan Partridge]

To witness something first hand does qualify your opinion more than if you just hear someone elses opinion on the radio commentary or in the press.

Well I'm not convinced by that entirely.

There are plenty of people on here and elsewhere who may have seen things but their analysis of what actually happened is pretty flawed and there are others who haven't seen things first hand yet seem to be able to make extremely pertinent comments about them. It's interesting that there are plenty of US based fans whose comments are almost always on the mark ....

Which in hindsight and the bigger picture yes they are right, it's always easy to form the opinion of 'we are 2nd, coppell great job etc' when you don't fork out money every week watching it. Result comes in, still in the top 2, want to be financially well off for years etc etc As you say it is all spot on in the much bigger picture, but if yo've actually gone to the game,might be miles away seen them get thumped then it's more understandable for the occasional out of proportion rant.

From my own personal opinion I'd sooner read an opinion from someone at the matches, even if it's an opinion I might not agree with or is a bit OTT than someone's that has seen precisely nothing of 98% of the games.

[Sun Tzu]

From my own personal opinion I'd sooner read an opinion from someone at the matches, even if it's an opinion I might not agree with or is a bit OTT than someone's that has seen precisely nothing of 98% of the games.

Or how about a bit of both ?

I often find the fans who see things from a distance are a lot more observant than those caught up in the heat of the moment (and who perhaps actually spent the whole game looking at the opposing fans or through a cloud created by a few shandies on the train or who openly go for the laugh rather than to analyse performances....)

There are those posters who you can tend to rely on for a fairly sensible view point whether they have been at a game or not (and whether you actually agree with them or not) , and then there are those who you can file under 'thanks, but no thanks'.

It needs a cross section, but I'd still argue that simply having been physically present at a game doesn't necessarily give the poster a more valid opinion than someone with other sources....

[Alan Partridge]

From my own personal opinion I'd sooner read an opinion from someone at the matches, even if it's an opinion I might not agree with or is a bit OTT than someone's that has seen precisely nothing of 98% of the games.

Or how about a bit of both ?

I often find the fans who see things from a distance are a lot more observant than those caught up in the heat of the moment (and who perhaps actually spent the whole game looking at the opposing fans or through a cloud created by a few shandies on the train or who openly go for the laugh rather than to analyse performances....)

There are those posters who you can tend to rely on for a fairly sensible view point whether they have been at a game or not (and whether you actually agree with them or not) , and then there are those who you can file under 'thanks, but no thanks'.

It needs a cross section, but I'd still argue that simply having been physically present at a game doesn't necessarily give the poster a more valid opinion than someone with other sources....

I agree with the certain posters bit. I think it's because the posters match reviews that i usually read as an accurate account i know would have been at the game. But yep point taken in that not ALL of the posters who have been there give a good report or an accurate one.

[Murts-is-Lej]

Sorry to get back to the point but...
If we replaced all our leavers (like Sonko, Kitson, Fae, even Hunt perhaps?) with even more expensive joiners then we'd very quickly disappear into the same black hole as Leeds and Southampton. I for one consider progress to be an ever-improving ability to develop youngsters (like Pearce) and not-yet-made-its (like NHunt) while occasionally (or even better regularly) having a bit of fun in the Prem while we're at it. We will always sell our best players eventually because it will be a long time before we can refuse stupid sums of money if someone is willing to throw it at us.

Eventually Sir Mad (or his Arab mate) will be brave enough to build the bigger stadium which will eventually give us a bit more money to spend. However, we'll only ever need it for those years when we are in the Prem (just ask Forest ). It's a bit like the investment in the training ground - it attracts a more ambitious sort of player who needs to be persuaded we're trying to make progress.

I'm happy with slow & steady over many years, even if it looks like a reverse to some over the short term (2-3 years).

[Sun Tzu]

We actually replaced all those who left with someone who cost more than we had originally paid for them (if you can untangle that)

Armstrong cost a lot more than we paid for Shorey
Hunt cost a lot more than we paid for Kitson
Cisse cost a lot more than we paid for Sidwell
Duberry cost a lot more than we paid for Sonko

Which is a slightly different angle to it. And considering all those players left to move to a higher division I'm not sure we could have expected to spend more on their replacements than we received for them.

[Royal Lady]

But, conversely, had we been trying to sign those four players we replaced, we'd be paying more than for the four we did bring in to replace them. Of course the likes of Shorey and Kitson et al were cheaper when we bought them, it was years ago for a start.

[seahawk10]

Some good points made on this thread despite the bickering back and forth. I am happy to grant the point that my opinions are not worth as much as the opinions of someone who goes to all the matches and watched the team in person week in and week out. That won't stop me from posting mind you, but I understand where schards, floyd, royal lady and the rest are coming from when they say this.

Let's just get promoted and deal with how to stay in the Prem after that.

[Ian Royal]

But, conversely, had we been trying to sign those four players we replaced, we'd be paying more than for the four we did bring in to replace them. Of course the likes of Shorey and Kitson et al were cheaper when we bought them, it was years ago for a start.

But we'd have been buying Premier League ready players (assuming we could have attreacted them, which is doubtful seeing as they all went to Premier League clubs. Two of them Champions League contenders. Your point makes no sense to me.

[Sun Tzu]

But, conversely, had we been trying to sign those four players we replaced, we'd be paying more than for the four we did bring in to replace them. Of course the likes of Shorey and Kitson et al were cheaper when we bought them, it was years ago for a start.

Not sure how we could have signed them as we were selling them....

The point being that in probably 3 of the 4 cases we made a huge profit on a player and replaced them with some of equal ability for less money.

Not sure what is wrong with that !