Hard to see any progress for the forseeable future

[Mr Angry]

I still think it is funny that the very same people who state that we have no ambition are the same people who are so vehemently against a stadium expansion!

I guess its tough to introduce logic into arguments.

And as for stating that 24,000 was fine for the majority of home games when we were in the Prem - how can anyone state that? We only had about 24,000 seats available; if we had 34,000 or 44,000 seast available and only averaged 24,000 I can understand the premise that 24,000 was enough.

Arsenal fans were voicing concerns when the Emirates was being built that there would be empty seats; now they are complaining that the capacity wasn't made at 75,000!!

[Schards#2]

[Schards#2]

I still think it is funny that the very same people who state that we have no ambition are the same people who are so vehemently against a stadium expansion!

I guess its tough to introduce logic into arguments.

And as for stating that 24,000 was fine for the majority of home games when we were in the Prem - how can anyone state that? We only had about 24,000 seats available; if we had 34,000 or 44,000 seast available and only averaged 24,000 I can understand the premise that 24,000 was enough.

Arsenal fans were voicing concerns when the Emirates was being built that there would be empty seats; now they are complaining that the capacity wasn't made at 75,000!!

Are you Nigel Howe? Listen....READING ARE NOT ARSENAL AND NEVER WILL BE

It is hard to introduce logic into arguments on here. You talk about players being sold in January, managers leaving at the end of the season and the LONG TERM effects of madejski wanting to sell and people try and rebutt it by saying "well we won last week" as if that in any way addresses the problems raised. But i'll persevere.

[Silver Fox]

Now that Schards has again been proven right on the expansion, shouldn't this be in Club Policies

[Hampshire Royal]

You're absolutely right, Schards, we're not Arsenal! Mr Angry introduced a lot of logic into this debate by saying that the Arsenal fans were saying that building th Emirates with a 60,000(?) capacity would leave empty seats, whereas the reality is that many of them feel that it's not big enough. While it's true we will never be a club like Arsenal and will never (or very rarely) fill a 60,000 seat stadium, it is patently obvious that, had we stayed up we woul have regularly filled a 30,000 seat stadium, and 38,000 is not beyond the realms of possibility. When we left EP, some people were saying that 11,000 was enough and 24,000 would leave loads of empty seats. Indeed it was when we were in the third tier, but in 05/06 we started to fill the stadium most weeks (at least with home fans) and in our PL years we regularly filled it.

It IS a sign of ambition to spend money on expanding the stadium, more so than spending money on transient things like players. JM has said for a number of years that he is looking to sell (after all, he's not getting any younger) but he has also said that he only wants to sell to someone who can take the club forward. I'd rather be Reading than West Ham at the moment. Players come and go, and yes there is a real danger that some of our best players may go in January. This is by no means certain, and I believe that Coppell will replace them with good replacements like Armstrong and NHunt. The youth will continue to develop and will come to the fore even more, surely this is better than spending money like Spurs.

[Vision]

I don't agree with Schards about the stadium expansion but do feel that it is very premature to hail our current position as a success.After the one-shot-on-target game at Forest,the weedy capitulation at Charlton and the poor effort at Ipswich I can't just wipe those performances from the memory bank as if they didn't happen-they did and they happened within the past 8 weeks,i.e in living memory..

And this is the sort of thing that puzzles me at times. All through those games you describe we were playing at home and taking teams to the cleaners and yet people gloss over that in order to concentrate on the negative. You say you can't wipe away the memory of those bad away performances yet have totally ignored the exceptional home form. Likewise on the other side of the coin , those home results don't disguise the fact that our away form up until the Wolves game was poor. Seems to me people are just looking to find anything they want to prove their already entrenched point of view whilst conveniently ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

There was a post a few days ago where (discussing our form prior to the Wolves victory) our Home form was described as "decent" ( Home results 2-0, 4-2, 6-0, 4-0 ) whilst away form was "diabolical"( Away results 0-0, 2-4, 0-2, 2-2 ). Simple truth is we've yet to be outside of a Play-Off spot after we've played the equal number of Home games to Away games.

Equally it demonstrates to me that any talk of Schards being proved right or wrong is pretty irrelevant.

As we were the highest placed of the relegated clubs at the end of last season then it could be argued and no doubt would that unless we top the division then we have regressed.

Equally it could be argued that any sustained promotion challenge whilst reducing our overall debt and putting us on a secure financial footing would be an indicator of progress especially if we are blooding more of our own youngsters into the bargain.

Its a shame in a way because the original post has actually triggered off some decent discussion which is the whole point afterall. Its just a shame really that its been generally swamped by some of the insane point scoring between certain factions on here. Its very occasionally entertaining but for the most part a bit embarrassing in truth particularly when im just as guilty of all of the above myself at times.

[Royal Rother]

No you're not.

On this thread such a contradiction must be the catalyst for a full scale slanging match, so come on Vision, do your worst!

[Schards#2]

As ever, Vision talks a lot of sense as, in terms of the initial post, a lot of this discussion is irrelevent.

You can argue that Madejski want to sell and being unable to find a buyer doesn't impact on the team long term.

You can argue that either Coppell won't leave or that his leaving won't impact on the team.

You can argue that we won't lose players in January or, if we do, it won't weaken the squad as we'll bring in able replacenments.

All valid responses to the original post. What is not a valid response to the original post is to point at a handful if good results as if that disproves the initial concerns, or posted purile pictures. Like the poster itself, it's not big and it's not clever.

[Hampshire Royal]

Or, as a dyslexic might write, it's not clever and it's not furry.

[Mr Angry]

I still think it is funny that the very same people who state that we have no ambition are the same people who are so vehemently against a stadium expansion!

I guess its tough to introduce logic into arguments.

And as for stating that 24,000 was fine for the majority of home games when we were in the Prem - how can anyone state that? We only had about 24,000 seats available; if we had 34,000 or 44,000 seast available and only averaged 24,000 I can understand the premise that 24,000 was enough.

Arsenal fans were voicing concerns when the Emirates was being built that there would be empty seats; now they are complaining that the capacity wasn't made at 75,000!!

Are you Nigel Howe? Listen....READING ARE NOT ARSENAL AND NEVER WILL BE

It is hard to introduce logic into arguments on here. You talk about players being sold in January, managers leaving at the end of the season and the LONG TERM effects of madejski wanting to sell and people try and rebutt it by saying "well we won last week" as if that in any way addresses the problems raised. But i'll persevere.

Schards - firstly, I'm not Woodcote, so please don't screech at me.

I have never suggested we are or ever will be an Arsenal; I was making the point that similar fears to yours were being expressed by fans of another club about a stadium's size and those fears have proved unfounded. True, you can say that thats because its Arsenal, but i suspect if you look at the average gates of all clubs that have moved into larger stadia in the last 15 years pretty well all of them would have registered increased averages. I believe that there is imperical proof that if you increase the capacity of a stadium (or build a newer, bigger stadium) gates will increase. For us as a club to progress in the future we WILL have to expand the stadium; the argument as to wether it should be immediately or at some point in the future is a moot one, but there cannot be serious argument that it should never happen.

As for your position, you are merely expressing your OPINION that..."players being sold in January, managers leaving at the end of the season and the LONG TERM effects of madejski wanting to sell" means that there is no sign of progress; I, and a large number of other posters on here have rebutted that argument by pointing out other things that are happening that point to a different conclussion, but you seem to disregard those arguments and instead prefer to focus on those that see winning 3-0 away to the then League leaders is evidence of progress as incorrect as they aren't addressing the problems you have raised.

[Thaumagurist*]

people try and rebutt it by saying "well we won last week" as if that in any way addresses the problems raised. But i'll persevere.

But you did say:

I think we need to get used to mid table championship football at the very best until there is a sea change at this club.

so supporting Reading's going to be a whole lot duller and uninspiring than in recent years

Therefore you thought we weren't going to progress very well in this league this season......

[brendywendy]

Apart from Woodcote Royal, I don't think anyone has directed any personal abuse at them.

I'm sorry Victor, but although your defence of Schards is commendable, please look at his responses to anyone who dares to have a different opinion to his and then ask yourself who started the abuse.

Could you point out a single post by me that is critical of another poster that was not in response to criticism of me by that poster?

I find some of the debate on here remarkable, people seem unable to cope with something maintaining a different opinion to them. They end up either resorting to abuse (Woodcote/Yellowcoat/Hampshire Royal) or just completely inventing things I have said (Spacecruiser). If people can't actually argue the point without having to resort to such rubbish then maybe there's some merit to it.

I'm sure there are many valid reasons why posters don't attend matches but, whatever the reason, surely even they can see that their opinions on the quality of the team and its players carry less weight than those who actually see them in action.

not talking about criticism, which i agree many on here fail to deal with.
however, regarding abuse, and childish name calling-you give as good as you get, and often not just in retaliation.
for either side to get personal just because there is disagreement is daft
can we all just stop this now, its really gay.

[Hampshire Royal]

Fcuk off Big-Nose.

[brendywendy]

Please make allowances for Schard's lack of vision



but feel free to take his money

Just to remind us what the funny pic was....

that doesnt look that offensive to me

childish, pointles, and vaguely amusing is about it

[brendywendy]

I don't agree with Schards about the stadium expansion but do feel that it is very premature to hail our current position as a success.After the one-shot-on-target game at Forest,the weedy capitulation at Charlton and the poor effort at Ipswich I can't just wipe those performances from the memory bank as if they didn't happen-they did and they happened within the past 8 weeks,i.e in living memory..

And this is the sort of thing that puzzles me at times. All through those games you describe we were playing at home and taking teams to the cleaners and yet people gloss over that in order to concentrate on the negative. You say you can't wipe away the memory of those bad away performances yet have totally ignored the exceptional home form. Likewise on the other side of the coin , those home results don't disguise the fact that our away form up until the Wolves game was poor. Seems to me people are just looking to find anything they want to prove their already entrenched point of view whilst conveniently ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

There was a post a few days ago where (discussing our form prior to the Wolves victory) our Home form was described as "decent" ( Home results 2-0, 4-2, 6-0, 4-0 ) whilst away form was "diabolical"( Away results 0-0, 2-4, 0-2, 2-2 ). Simple truth is we've yet to be outside of a Play-Off spot after we've played the equal number of Home games to Away games.
Equally it demonstrates to me that any talk of Schards being proved right or wrong is pretty irrelevant.

As we were the highest placed of the relegated clubs at the end of last season then it could be argued and no doubt would that unless we top the division then we have regressed.

Equally it could be argued that any sustained promotion challenge whilst reducing our overall debt and putting us on a secure financial footing would be an indicator of progress especially if we are blooding more of our own youngsters into the bargain.

Its a shame in a way because the original post has actually triggered off some decent discussion which is the whole point afterall. Its just a shame really that its been generally swamped by some of the insane point scoring between certain factions on here. Its very occasionally entertaining but for the most part a bit embarrassing in truth particularly when im just as guilty of all of the above myself at times.

100% AGREE with all of that

vision the voice of reason, posts so i dont have to

well, apart from the +1 obviously

[Royal Lady]

OK, maybe "offensive" was too strong a word, but either way, it was uncalled for and unnecessary - plus it was completely wrong as he doesn't have his head up his @rris.

[brendywendy]

Fcuk off Big-Nose.

LOL

now thats much better

[Hampshire Royal]

OK, maybe "offensive" was too strong a word, but either way, it was uncalled for and unnecessary - plus it was completely wrong as he doesn't have his head up his @rris.

Of course he doesn't, 'cos if he had his head up his @rse how could he talk out of it?

(Tee Hee)

[Yellowcoat]

What I find offensive is that Schards & RL like to portray themselves as Mr & Mrs 'Reading' to the negative clique whilst continuing to criticise those really responsible for taking the club forward over the last few years. An example in the quote from Schards provided by RL:
[as the fundamentals regarding the chairman, manager and senior players don't change. If we go up it will be in spite of these obsticles.(sic)

[Royal Lady]

Oh change the record you boring old git. Just admit that forwhatever reason you have a problem with women and football. You're always niggling at everything I say on here.

It's a sad day if you can't express your opinions about the team you support, whether they be good or bad.