Coppell's latest backtrack

470 posts
User avatar
The whole year inn
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:49
Location: Fred West >>>> Brendan Rodgers

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by The whole year inn » 25 Jan 2008 21:57

Excellent.

So far we have had illiterate and sub-normal directed at anyone questioning Coppell's transfer policy

:)

User avatar
North Somerset Royal
Member
Posts: 936
Joined: 09 Apr 2007 03:58
Location: Stuck on M4

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by North Somerset Royal » 25 Jan 2008 22:21

Uke
North Somerset Royal Shareholders of companies in industry hold people to account. If anyone said at the start of each year that they would institute improvements but repeatedly year on year failed to deliver they would be out on their ear. As a long term supporter I regard myself as a stakeholder in RFC and I am fed up with Coppell, Hammond and the Chairman talking big when the transfer window is closed and then coming up with the same old feeble excuses when they fail to deliver.


Just how much of the club you feel you legally have a stake in as opposed to being a customer?

As a stakeholder perhaps all complaints about transfer activity should therefore be directed at you?

Unless of course you don't actually have a 'stake' at all


It is typical of people who know that their argument is weak that they take a pedantic approach to particular expressions. Having supported Reading since 1968 I have certainly paid over a lot of money and given support in other ways over the years. The important point is that if somone like me is getting fed up with the contradictory statements then they have a problem. However whilst in reality customers of any succesful enterprise are also stakeholders in the wider sense since you choose to take a more literal meaning I will cover the strict legal position. Anyone who is a ST holder has a stake in the club having paid over money in advance in return for the use of a seat and thereby entered into a contract . In the event that RFC Ltd went into liquidation before fulfilling the terms of the contract ST holders would be creditors. True it is a small stake but important nethertheless.

Tinrib
Member
Posts: 394
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:53
Location: Paranoimia

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Tinrib » 25 Jan 2008 22:33

The whole year inn Excellent.

So far we have had illiterate and sub-normal directed at anyone questioning Coppell's transfer policy

:)


Oh and dont forget the classic -' RFC fans = mugs' . (c.The whole year inn, 25 Jan 2008 12:23)

LOL

User avatar
The whole year inn
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:49
Location: Fred West >>>> Brendan Rodgers

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by The whole year inn » 26 Jan 2008 00:06

Tinrib
The whole year inn Excellent.

So far we have had illiterate and sub-normal directed at anyone questioning Coppell's transfer policy

:)


Oh and dont forget the classic -' RFC fans = mugs' . (c.The whole year inn, 25 Jan 2008 12:23)

LOL


It makes you mad when people question Coppell, doesn't it? You should get that seen to.

:mrgreen:

Still no viable response to anyone questioning Coppell's transfer policy, just digging up old posts.

Surely it would take just as long to type out viable response to the posts in question?

:mrgreen:

Tinrib
Member
Posts: 394
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:53
Location: Paranoimia

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Tinrib » 26 Jan 2008 00:25

The whole year inn
Tinrib
The whole year inn Excellent.

So far we have had illiterate and sub-normal directed at anyone questioning Coppell's transfer policy

:)


Oh and dont forget the classic -' RFC fans = mugs' . (c.The whole year inn, 25 Jan 2008 12:23)

LOL


It makes you mad when people question Coppell, doesn't it? You should get that seen to.

:mrgreen:

Still no viable response to anyone questioning Coppell's transfer policy, just digging up old posts.

Surely it would take just as long to type out viable response to the posts in question?

:mrgreen:



Just pointing out that you murked yourself...

LOL


User avatar
The whole year inn
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:49
Location: Fred West >>>> Brendan Rodgers

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by The whole year inn » 26 Jan 2008 00:51

ALOLcohoLOL

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11939
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by leon » 26 Jan 2008 01:05

The whole year inn ALOLcohoLOL


son, stay off the robitussin

User avatar
Royal Rother
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 17688
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 23:22
Location: The handsome bald fella with the blue eyes

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Royal Rother » 26 Jan 2008 01:14

Ideal
This post was made by Royal Rother who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.


I suggest everyone else do the same.


Now you've really gone and cooked my goose! :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
The whole year inn
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:49
Location: Fred West >>>> Brendan Rodgers

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by The whole year inn » 26 Jan 2008 02:39

cmonurz
Blue Blooded As for going with what they have maybe right now there is really little choice. They could keep bidding for players and not getting any joy with contract negotiations. Perhaps it is a pragmatic approach because if they are not going to get the right players - is there any point in risking undermining any of the players we already have?



“Ok, our initial offer is 25 magic beans per week, red petrol fully expensed. And a Reading FC Calendar with numbers assigned to the wrong players”


User avatar
The whole year inn
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 2474
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:49
Location: Fred West >>>> Brendan Rodgers

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by The whole year inn » 26 Jan 2008 02:54

So do our resident season ticket holders; those who attend home games and the vast majority of away games feel cheated that a hefty portion of their wage packet is being spent on watching the Championship winning side minus its two best midfielders?

Looking back at the clubs reason for the increased prices would leave a bad taste in my mouth personally.

User avatar
Son of Len
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 08 Sep 2007 05:54
Location: NE of Reading, PA

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Son of Len » 26 Jan 2008 07:04

Egad, trying to get through all these posts does drag on.

Seems to mean that the "Reading Way" includes signing players that:

a) are not overvalued;
b) are willing to come to "Little Reading"; and, maybe most important
c) are willing to fight for a spot in the team.

Points a and b have been beaten to death on the boards so I would like to discuss point c.

Take a look at Kowlewski, the Polish keeper who went to Lazio. My guess is that the staff would have been very happy to sign him. But he wasn't going to walk in and take the #1 job without proving himself in training. He went to Lazio where he is almost assured of walking into the job.

That tells me that if a player has the attitude that he deserves first string playing time just for signing with the team, our attitude is: good riddance. I've seen this alluded to in other threads dealing with Halford and Fae. Well, the same goes for everyone. They better have the attitude that they have to work their way into the team.

And if Kowalewski thought that Hahnemann might be too difficult of competition, that says a little something about Marcus. Heck, maybe by having the Pole over to train for a few days has lit a fire under Marcus. That's fine. The important thing is that nobody thinks their job will be given away to a record signing just because the guy cost more. Everybody has to continually work hard to get into, and then stay in the team.

There are myriad reasons to back off of previous statements. But the Kowalweski episode indicates that the staff know whose skills are deteriorating and are going after players who can improve the team. But only if they play the "Reading Way."

User avatar
Southbank Old Boy
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1954
Joined: 15 Aug 2006 18:42

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Southbank Old Boy » 26 Jan 2008 10:30

Uke
North Somerset Royal Shareholders of companies in industry hold people to account. If anyone said at the start of each year that they would institute improvements but repeatedly year on year failed to deliver they would be out on their ear. As a long term supporter I regard myself as a stakeholder in RFC and I am fed up with Coppell, Hammond and the Chairman talking big when the transfer window is closed and then coming up with the same old feeble excuses when they fail to deliver.


Just how much of the club you feel you legally have a stake in as opposed to being a customer?

As a stakeholder perhaps all complaints about transfer activity should therefore be directed at you?

Unless of course you don't actually have a 'stake' at all


It seems you might need to look up the difference between a shareholder and a stakeholder there Uke

The attitude that we are customers and not part of the club is one of the things that is starting to drive the "traditional fans" away from the game.

SSGTroyer
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 31 Aug 2007 18:47
Location: Illinois

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by SSGTroyer » 26 Jan 2008 10:51

Son of Len ...a player...better have the attitude that (he has) to work (his) way into the team.

...having the Pole over to train for a few days has lit a fire under Marcus...


SC is brilliant, isn't he? Never had any intent of bringing that Pole onto the side, he just knew Marcus -- knew he already had that attitude -- and knew what seeing a newbie on the training pitch would do to him.

We really didn't need Kowlewski, anyway. We've got a perfectly servicable (but not wold-class) #1, a solid backup, and a good prospect for a #3. No reason to bring in someone who's not Akinfeev-ish ...

... but if we've got the money we're told we have available, why not get such a player? More ambition seems to be needed ...


Daniella

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Daniella » 26 Jan 2008 11:40

Royal Rother
Yes, we really should look after tender souls such as West End Flash and Daniella. If we insult them too much they might be driven off the board and that would be a bloody tragedy.


Here's me thinking you were complaining to HNA about the same very point about west stand flash. You braindead plank. :lol:

User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 10314
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by RoyalBlue » 26 Jan 2008 12:08

Strange, only a few days ago I was 'defending' this forum suggesting that self-policing was generally working and that overall the level of debate was still pretty good.

However, seeing all the personal insults no being traded (they don't even deserve to be called 'the lowest form of debate') I'm beginning to think I was misguided in that view.

I can remember in the early days of HNA when someone would throw in a personal insult at a heated point during the debate and then have the good grace and confidence to come back on soon after and apologise.

User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 10314
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by RoyalBlue » 26 Jan 2008 12:14

RoyalBlue Strange, only a few days ago I was 'defending' this forum suggesting that self-policing was generally working and that overall the level of debate was still pretty good.

However, seeing all the personal insults no being traded (they don't even deserve to be called 'the lowest form of debate') I'm beginning to think I was misguided in that view.

I can remember in the early days of HNA when someone would throw in a personal insult at a heated point during the debate and then have the good grace and confidence to come back on soon after and apologise.


The introduction of the 'foe facility' is dumbing down of the highest degree, allowing people to chicken out of reading and then submitting a counter argument to something that has been said.

What's wrong with just having the balls to read everything and then ignoring or responding as you choose? Consciously deciding to ignore someone on a case by case basis sends out a much stronger message than using software to enable you to keep your head buried in the sand at all times.

User avatar
Uke
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12419
Joined: 17 Apr 2004 16:24
Location: Pretentious, Moi? @UkeRFC

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Uke » 26 Jan 2008 13:10

Southbank Old Boy
Uke
North Somerset Royal Shareholders of companies in industry hold people to account. If anyone said at the start of each year that they would institute improvements but repeatedly year on year failed to deliver they would be out on their ear. As a long term supporter I regard myself as a stakeholder in RFC and I am fed up with Coppell, Hammond and the Chairman talking big when the transfer window is closed and then coming up with the same old feeble excuses when they fail to deliver.


Just how much of the club you feel you legally have a stake in as opposed to being a customer?

As a stakeholder perhaps all complaints about transfer activity should therefore be directed at you?

Unless of course you don't actually have a 'stake' at all


It seems you might need to look up the difference between a shareholder and a stakeholder there Uke

The attitude that we are customers and not part of the club is one of the things that is starting to drive the "traditional fans" away from the game.


Nope, check again.

A stakeholder is someone whoowns a stake in the success of the project.

Unfortunately we are just customers. No matter what the government may suggest with pensions...
Last edited by Uke on 26 Jan 2008 13:16, edited 1 time in total.

readingbedding
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4396
Joined: 06 Dec 2005 21:10
Location: cutting them all away for four runs

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by readingbedding » 26 Jan 2008 13:12

RoyalBlue
RoyalBlue Strange, only a few days ago I was 'defending' this forum suggesting that self-policing was generally working and that overall the level of debate was still pretty good.

However, seeing all the personal insults no being traded (they don't even deserve to be called 'the lowest form of debate') I'm beginning to think I was misguided in that view.

I can remember in the early days of HNA when someone would throw in a personal insult at a heated point during the debate and then have the good grace and confidence to come back on soon after and apologise.


The introduction of the 'foe facility' is dumbing down of the highest degree, allowing people to chicken out of reading and then submitting a counter argument to something that has been said.

What's wrong with just having the balls to read everything and then ignoring or responding as you choose? Consciously deciding to ignore someone on a case by case basis sends out a much stronger message than using software to enable you to keep your head buried in the sand at all times.


I'm all for a nice chat and all that, but I have a couple of people's views that I don't want to read, I don't engage with them anyway and it's a good thing to have the opportunity not to read their point of view anymore.
Last edited by readingbedding on 26 Jan 2008 13:14, edited 1 time in total.

Daniella

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Daniella » 26 Jan 2008 13:13

RoyalBlue
RoyalBlue Strange, only a few days ago I was 'defending' this forum suggesting that self-policing was generally working and that overall the level of debate was still pretty good.

However, seeing all the personal insults no being traded (they don't even deserve to be called 'the lowest form of debate') I'm beginning to think I was misguided in that view.

I can remember in the early days of HNA when someone would throw in a personal insult at a heated point during the debate and then have the good grace and confidence to come back on soon after and apologise.


The introduction of the 'foe facility' is dumbing down of the highest degree, allowing people to chicken out of reading and then submitting a counter argument to something that has been said.

What's wrong with just having the balls to read everything and then ignoring or responding as you choose? Consciously deciding to ignore someone on a case by case basis sends out a much stronger message than using software to enable you to keep your head buried in the sand at all times.


Good post, its a bottlejobs way out. Cowardice.

User avatar
Uke
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12419
Joined: 17 Apr 2004 16:24
Location: Pretentious, Moi? @UkeRFC

Re: Coppell's latest backtrack

by Uke » 26 Jan 2008 13:14

North Somerset Royal
Uke
North Somerset Royal Shareholders of companies in industry hold people to account. If anyone said at the start of each year that they would institute improvements but repeatedly year on year failed to deliver they would be out on their ear. As a long term supporter I regard myself as a stakeholder in RFC and I am fed up with Coppell, Hammond and the Chairman talking big when the transfer window is closed and then coming up with the same old feeble excuses when they fail to deliver.


Just how much of the club you feel you legally have a stake in as opposed to being a customer?

As a stakeholder perhaps all complaints about transfer activity should therefore be directed at you?

Unless of course you don't actually have a 'stake' at all


It is typical of people who know that their argument is weak that they take a pedantic approach to particular expressions. Having supported Reading since 1968 I have certainly paid over a lot of money and given support in other ways over the years. The important point is that if somone like me is getting fed up with the contradictory statements then they have a problem. However whilst in reality customers of any succesful enterprise are also stakeholders in the wider sense since you choose to take a more literal meaning I will cover the strict legal position. Anyone who is a ST holder has a stake in the club having paid over money in advance in return for the use of a seat and thereby entered into a contract . In the event that RFC Ltd went into liquidation before fulfilling the terms of the contract ST holders would be creditors. True it is a small stake but important nethertheless.


Agree you have a contract with the club for them to provide seats for x matches per season.

However, there are no guarantees on the product they will serve up.

We can argue semantics but as an anti-semantic I won't.

Its just that the people on here demand the club deliver what they want. If its what they want they should write directly to the club, not just post on the noticeboard.

470 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

It is currently 04 Apr 2020 05:37