if we won the play offs in 95

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

we didn't lose them - we sold them. They wanted to play premiership football and offers from the premiership came in, and we decided to take the money.

Had we been in the premiership they might just have been more inclined to want to stay, and we'd have been less keen on selling them.

From what I understand at least 1 player was leaving whether we won the playoffs or not.
We didn't 'decide' to sell the likes of Shaka and Scott Taylor, they decided to go and we had very little choice. We weren't keen on selling anyone !

Even if we had gone up we would have found it very tough to keep players, we would just not have had the resources to pay wages anything like enough to compete and other clubs would have snapped them up.

we had every choice. We just don't sell the player. the most likely player to want to go regardless was Scott Taylor after his "altercation" with Jimmy Quinn, but of the three he was the most replaceable.

[Ian Royal]

we didn't lose them - we sold them. They wanted to play premiership football and offers from the premiership came in, and we decided to take the money.

Had we been in the premiership they might just have been more inclined to want to stay, and we'd have been less keen on selling them.

From what I understand at least 1 player was leaving whether we won the playoffs or not.
We didn't 'decide' to sell the likes of Shaka and Scott Taylor, they decided to go and we had very little choice. We weren't keen on selling anyone !

Even if we had gone up we would have found it very tough to keep players, we would just not have had the resources to pay wages anything like enough to compete and other clubs would have snapped them up.

we had every choice. We just don't sell the player. the most likely player to want to go regardless was Scott Taylor after his "altercation" with Jimmy Quinn, but of the three he was the most replaceable.

I'm sorry it may technically be that simple, but do you really think there would be any point in refusing to let a player go should they want to. Hardly going to motivate them to perform for you is it.

Also with all the extra costs and from what it sounds, not a whole lot of extra revenue, we'd have been even more desperate for the cash.

[Bucks Dave]

I can only think of one example where a small club (which we then were) with a truly crap stadium with a ground capacity of 12,000, small squad and fan base and limited income survived for more than a season in the top division and that's Wimbledon.

I went to my first Reading match in 1962 so am not really a gloryhunter as the dimwit on this thread charged. It's because I have supported this club for such a long time that I want it's long term health. Not a one season wonder for gloryhunters which could have hurt us for years to come. Do you really think Madejski is clueless when he points out how damaging it could have been?

It's all a matter of opinion since noone can really tell but the balance of probability is for disaster when you list the other clubs and their falls.

[Katie Marsden]

How can anyone say not going up, then spending the next 5 years getting beaten on a regular basis was a good thing? Those that say that are probably fans that weren't around back then and only started supporting the club in 2002.

Some clueless halfwits about.

At the very worst the club would have been relegated and made a lot more money than we did from staying down, kept the best players and been in Division One when the new ground opened. That would really have been a disaster and set the club back years.

Talk of it being for the best does nothing except highlight the small time attitude people have. The same was said about missing out on Europe.

What would you know, you don't even support Reading... And most of the people saying it would have been bad are exactly those that have been around since then.

When I said the desire wouldn't have been there as much, I mean with the fans, who play a big big part in motivating the team. Obviously regardless we'd have all wanted to get to the prem, but without coming so close and having your hopes dashed with about 5 mins to go it would not have been the all consuming burning desire that it had been.

You talk some sh1t.

The fans played no part in promotion.

Football games, titles, promotions etc are won on the pitch.

[RG30]

I can only think of one example where a small club (which we then were) with a truly crap stadium with a ground capacity of 12,000, small squad and fan base and limited income survived for more than a season in the top division and that's Wimbledon.

I went to my first Reading match in 1962 so am not really a gloryhunter as the dimwit on this thread charged. It's because I have supported this club for such a long time that I want it's long term health. Not a one season wonder for gloryhunters which could have hurt us for years to come. Do you really think Madejski is clueless when he points out how damaging it could have been?

It's all a matter of opinion since noone can really tell but the balance of probability is for disaster when you list the other clubs and their falls.

As someone previously mentioned on this thread, you could add Southampton to that catergory simply on the grounds of revenue generated with 15,000 squashed in at the Dell. Puts into context what a good job was done to keep them at this level for so many years.

[Behindu]

we had every choice. We just don't sell the player. the most likely player to want to go regardless was Scott Taylor after his "altercation" with Jimmy Quinn, but of the three he was the most replaceable.

No we didn't. And Scotty was not the one who had decided to go anyway.

It's a nice thought that we could have told the players they were staying come what may but whilst we can probably do that now in those days we had pretty much no chance - massive debts, low wages, no infrastructure. We did pretty well to not constantly cash in on players but the real world beckoned...

[Victor Meldrew]

I can only think of one example where a small club (which we then were) with a truly crap stadium with a ground capacity of 12,000, small squad and fan base and limited income survived for more than a season in the top division and that's Wimbledon.

I went to my first Reading match in 1962 so am not really a gloryhunter as the dimwit on this thread charged. It's because I have supported this club for such a long time that I want it's long term health. Not a one season wonder for gloryhunters which could have hurt us for years to come. Do you really think Madejski is clueless when he points out how damaging it could have been?

It's all a matter of opinion since noone can really tell but the balance of probability is for disaster when you list the other clubs and their falls.

As someone previously mentioned on this thread, you could add Southampton to that catergory simply on the grounds of revenue generated with 15,000 squashed in at the Dell. Puts into context what a good job was done to keep them at this level for so many years.

Add in Pompey as well if you like.
As we have seen with Blackburn a wealthy chairman could actually bring a Premiership title to a small town club.
We had a wealthy chairman so we might have survived.
All hypothetical of course and no harm in debating when we are inbetween seasons and suffering from withdrawal symptons after such an incredible year.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

we had every choice. We just don't sell the player. the most likely player to want to go regardless was Scott Taylor after his "altercation" with Jimmy Quinn, but of the three he was the most replaceable.

No we didn't. And Scotty was not the one who had decided to go anyway.

It's a nice thought that we could have told the players they were staying come what may but whilst we can probably do that now in those days we had pretty much no chance - massive debts, low wages, no infrastructure. We did pretty well to not constantly cash in on players but the real world beckoned...

why would we have had "massive debts" in 95? We didn't buy any players for more than about 20p, spent nothing on the ground and paid low wages. Hardly crippling.

We had no choice because we didn't go up. You have no idea how players might have reacted if we had gone up.

[papereyes]

I can only think of one example where a small club (which we then were) with a truly crap stadium with a ground capacity of 12,000, small squad and fan base and limited income survived for more than a season in the top division and that's Wimbledon.

I went to my first Reading match in 1962 so am not really a gloryhunter as the dimwit on this thread charged. It's because I have supported this club for such a long time that I want it's long term health. Not a one season wonder for gloryhunters which could have hurt us for years to come. Do you really think Madejski is clueless when he points out how damaging it could have been?

It's all a matter of opinion since noone can really tell but the balance of probability is for disaster when you list the other clubs and their falls.

As someone previously mentioned on this thread, you could add Southampton to that catergory simply on the grounds of revenue generated with 15,000 squashed in at the Dell. Puts into context what a good job was done to keep them at this level for so many years.

Add in Pompey as well if you like..

Pompey only got up and stayed up when Mandaric took over and pumped in a lot of money. Players like Merson and Prosinecki would not have been cheap, also spent money (if only in terms of wages) on players like Sheringham, Stone, Sherwood, Stefanovic.

[Behindu]

why would we have had "massive debts" in 95? We didn't buy any players for more than about 20p, spent nothing on the ground and paid low wages. Hardly crippling.

We had no choice because we didn't go up. You have no idea how players might have reacted if we had gone up.

Maybe we'll just have to disagree about our history, but our debt didn;t start with building the Mad Stad. Ask Roger Smee (or indeed JM). We've been in parlous state for years - hence it's taken JM so long to sort it.

Neither of us know for sure how players would have reacted, but I'm fairly happy to stand by my position that promotion wouldhave been seen by many as a stepping stone to a bigger pay day at another club, and we'd have been in no position to refuse them their move.

It's just a debating position and I'm happy to let you take you rline - as long as you are happy for me to disagree with you !

[papereyes]

why would we have had "massive debts" in 95? We didn't buy any players for more than about 20p, spent nothing on the ground and paid low wages. Hardly crippling.

We had no choice because we didn't go up. You have no idea how players might have reacted if we had gone up.

Maybe we'll just have to disagree about our history, but our debt didn;t start with building the Mad Stad. Ask Roger Smee (or indeed JM). We've been in parlous state for years - hence it's taken JM so long to sort it.

Neither of us know for sure how players would have reacted, but I'm fairly happy to stand by my position that promotion wouldhave been seen by many as a stepping stone to a bigger pay day at another club, and we'd have been in no position to refuse them their move.

It's just a debating position and I'm happy to let you take you rline - as long as you are happy for me to disagree with you !

I don't think many would have gone that summer - maybe one or two - but assuming an immediate relegation, the idea that many would have stayed the following summer is a bit .

At best, we'd have had the money to build upon that season, but so many clubs have failed to do that without massive investment from outside, that the clubs slowly-but-surely approach of recent years was a necessity to ensure that any failures did not have a catastrophic effect.

Given the state of our infrastructure, for want of a better word, I don't think we'd have made all that much money in our season in the sun, either. A slightly higher profile, but that's hardly done wonders for Swindon, Barnsley, Bradford ...