Richardson out

[Snowflake Royal]

….or maybe just conveniently missed out by those with their pre-conceived agendas?

There will be a part of that, a bit like politics, someone votes for X party and everything that party does is defended and pardoned yet party Y do something and the person goes crazy (yet if their party did it, it would be ok)

My personal POV is that I’m very unbiased and uninterested really. I’m no massive LEAM fan but also I felt we needed a change and it’s far too early to judge him too few games and the same players. Also, we are years away from being an attractive proposition to managers, yes we have a good ground, a good location and an academy but let’s be honest our premier league days are so far behind us, even being a team challenging in the championship are years ago we are where we are and we are what we are. Some are biased (partly understandable if you support a team) but if we supported a different league one club, very few of us would look at Reading and think oh yeah decent attractive club that’s going places.

Give him time and we can see.

It's the only sensible way SDR.

Regardless of whether you like or rate the appointment you've got to give it time and remember the mess he's unpicking.

It's toxic to be anything other than cautiously supportive right now, even if there are concerns and complaints.

[South Coast Royal]

Just on the point of contracts given.
With the owner seemingly reluctant to pay transfer fees that might mean he is reluctant to pay signing-on fees as well.
If that is the case then the length of the contract becomes the main issue for the player and so a longer contract could be what puts us in the frame as the best choice of club option.

Unfortunately with long contracts for old boys, as seen in the past, they become liabilities both financially and in terms of injuries so in the long run offering longer contracts rather than money up front can be a false economy.
Maybe the owner really isn't interested in the longer term and had been hoping for some success on the pitch and sell for a quick profit; after all he wasn't around at Wycombe for very long.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Just on the point of contracts given.
With the owner seemingly reluctant to pay transfer fees that might mean he is reluctant to pay signing-on fees as well.
If that is the case then the length of the contract becomes the main issue for the player and so a longer contract could be what puts us in the frame as the best choice of club option.

Unfortunately with long contracts for old boys, as seen in the past, they become liabilities both financially and in terms of injuries so in the long run offering longer contracts rather than money up front can be a false economy.
Maybe the owner really isn't interested in the longer term and had been hoping for some success on the pitch and sell for a quick profit; after all he wasn't around at Wycombe for very long.

I wonder if this is true. We don't see the financial mess inherited behind closed doors, but potentially his plan was to clean up off the pitch and sell to someone more ambitious who is willing to pay a bit more. Though that plan won't work if we go down. And it's contrary to his stated ambition. I think he's brash and boastful but I don't think he's a liar.

[West F]

Not going to be sacked.

Couhig stated that Richardson was his choice to manage Reading when he first started the process of buying out Dai Yongge. Richardson has been patiently waiting in the wings for this to happen post takeover. The problem that Uncle Bob had, was that Noel had narrowly missed out on the play-offs and had a long standing affiliation with the club and its supporters. It would have been almost impossible for him to sack Noel and put Richardson in place before the start of the season.
Richardson is Couhig’s man. He cannot allow him to fail as this reflects on his own judgement. From what I know and see of Couhig, he does not like being wrong. The whole appointment saga of Richardson and his ‘coach load’ of staff was obviously worked out far in advance of any reactive decision made following some sporadic ‘sacked in the morning’ chants. You could see a situation where they had to sack Noel, not because performances were bad. But, because performances were improving.
They didn’t employ and contract the current coaching team in record time due to their efficiency. They did it weeks beforehand. Everyone needs to realise that Uncle Bob is a successful and wealthy attorney at law. For him to say he is not a ‘strategic guy’ is frankly absurd. We, as a fan base are the jury. We need to be swayed.

[Hound]

I don’t mind LR; but tbh don’t really read or listen to his interviews a lot. Does baffle me why people pick these interviews apart so much and become ‘outraged’ by one small comment here or there

If any of us were shoved in front of a camera after a poor performance I’m sure we’d also say things we probably shouldn’t have done either. Who cares tbh. Only thing I give a toss about is if the team are playing well and getting results (which last two games we haven’t)

[Snowflake Royal]

I don’t mind LR; but tbh don’t really read or listen to his interviews a lot. Does baffle me why people pick these interviews apart so much and become ‘outraged’ by one small comment here or there

If any of us were shoved in front of a camera after a poor performance I’m sure we’d also say things we probably shouldn’t have done either. Who cares tbh. Only thing I give a toss about is if the team are playing well and getting results (which last two games we haven’t)

This.

The vast majority of interviews are trite repetitive nonsense. And that's just the questions, let alone the answers. You get more depth in a saharan puddle.

[The Royal Forester]

If I am correct these stats are correct for League matches only

Noel's last five games / Leam's first five games
Wins 1/ 2
Draws 3 / 1
Loss 1/ 2
Clean sheets 1/ 2
Fail to score 0/ 2
Points 6/ 7
Goals for 5/ 6
Goals against 4/ 5
Total shots 77/ 53
On target 24/ 22

I am not saying Noel should not have been sacked-that happens all the time in football- or that Leam should be given the big E- too early for that- but asking the question was it worth the change for so little difference in the outcome? Considering we are now paying for two managers (or have paid Noel a lump sum), the increase in coaching staff wages, Leam has had plenty of training time, with all the "downtime" we have had, I don't think so. Do you?

[Stranded]

It's almost as if, and bear with me here, if there are structural issues with a squad that has been playing poorly, it may - just may need more than just a new manager to improve things. It will involve amending the squad again to try and get the balance right. Naturally confidence will hardly be high at this stage, so, whether we like it or not, we are a) waiting for January and b) should not be expecting any more than staying in this division (at a basic level 9th or 20th doesn't matter, but you want to finish as high as possible) so that a manager who is to be backed has time to form a squad he needs.

It's shit and it needs more money but if LR was the man they also wanted, it is close to stupidity to have allowed another guy to build a squad.

[Clyde1998]

Just on the point of contracts given.
With the owner seemingly reluctant to pay transfer fees that might mean he is reluctant to pay signing-on fees as well.
If that is the case then the length of the contract becomes the main issue for the player and so a longer contract could be what puts us in the frame as the best choice of club option.

Unfortunately with long contracts for old boys, as seen in the past, they become liabilities both financially and in terms of injuries so in the long run offering longer contracts rather than money up front can be a false economy.
Maybe the owner really isn't interested in the longer term and had been hoping for some success on the pitch and sell for a quick profit; after all he wasn't around at Wycombe for very long.

I wonder if this is true. We don't see the financial mess inherited behind closed doors, but potentially his plan was to clean up off the pitch and sell to someone more ambitious who is willing to pay a bit more. Though that plan won't work if we go down. And it's contrary to his stated ambition. I think he's brash and boastful but I don't think he's a liar.

Realistically, the only way he'll make money on us would be by selling after promotion to the Championship - due to the increase in the value of the club as an asset. He apparently bought the club (including the stadium and training ground) for ~£30m and will have put a decent amount of money in to the club since purchasing it (sounds like the situation behind the scenes was worse than anticipated).

I do wonder how much better the day-to-day financial situation is though, as a result of the expanded playing squad. It could be the increased commercial focus has covered that cost increase (assuming there has been an increase). We're obviously not in any direct risk of going under now, but that's because we've got an ownership structure covering the costs without any (obvious) issues.

Did Couhig simply see us as an undervalued asset due to the ownership situation and thought he could turn it around with minimal effort? I really can't see someone in their mid-70s being overly focused on the long-term future of the club, nor planning to be involved for much longer than a few years, so I'd say his plan was to clean up the finances and shift the club on to the next owner (perhaps that's one of the new investors).

[Clyde1998]

Not going to be sacked.

Couhig stated that Richardson was his choice to manage Reading when he first started the process of buying out Dai Yongge. Richardson has been patiently waiting in the wings for this to happen post takeover. The problem that Uncle Bob had, was that Noel had narrowly missed out on the play-offs and had a long standing affiliation with the club and its supporters. It would have been almost impossible for him to sack Noel and put Richardson in place before the start of the season.
Richardson is Couhig’s man. He cannot allow him to fail as this reflects on his own judgement. From what I know and see of Couhig, he does not like being wrong. The whole appointment saga of Richardson and his ‘coach load’ of staff was obviously worked out far in advance of any reactive decision made following some sporadic ‘sacked in the morning’ chants. You could see a situation where they had to sack Noel, not because performances were bad. But, because performances were improving.
They didn’t employ and contract the current coaching team in record time due to their efficiency. They did it weeks beforehand. Everyone needs to realise that Uncle Bob is a successful and wealthy attorney at law. For him to say he is not a ‘strategic guy’ is frankly absurd. We, as a fan base are the jury. We need to be swayed.

I don't think anyone seriously believes he'll be sacked - at least any time soon. Sacking a manager after five or six games would just be stupidity, unless there's something serious going on behind the scenes.

Couhig making an impromptu visit ahead of the Northampton game was, in hindsight, him planning on sacking Hunt and probably completing negotiations with Richardson. The win in that game simply delayed the inevitable, which is probably why things moved so quickly following the Doncaster draw.

[tmesis]

Not going to be sacked.

Couhig stated that Richardson was his choice to manage Reading when he first started the process of buying out Dai Yongge. Richardson has been patiently waiting in the wings for this to happen post takeover.

It would be interesting to know what was so appealling about him.

On one hand, a kind of succession planning, thinking about who could come in if a manager or player leaves, is a promising sign of being prepared rather than just reacting, but I can't see too much that would make him an obvious 1st choice target.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I don't think LR should be sacked, nor do I think he will be.

But he has been extremely disappointing and lacking in any sort of redirection. I really don't see the point in someone new coming in and doing little different. Some people, probably smarter than I, have pointed out some subtle changes to our shape, a little bit more dynamism between in and out of possession, and between games depending on opponent. I'll take their word for it, but whatever changes there may be, they haven't resulted in changes to our statistical limpness, or our experiential dullness. And regardless, what has not changed are the same old problems.

Players who have proven their inability continue to find a place in the starting line-up. Players who have long not worked in the position they've been forced into, continue to be forced into those positions. Substitutions which have long been utilitarian and unadventurous, continue to be utilitarian and unadventurous. The same player mistakes continue to be made. The same lack of confidence endures. The same lack of creativity persists.

While I'm a realist who did not expect us to change our form overnight, I expected to see a fresh system and fresh approach, that buoyed the players with new-found energy; perhaps it would stutter and stall as things fell into place, but it would be clear to all a new era had begun. We haven't seen any of that. And it makes you wonder what the whole point of sacking Hunt was. Hunt could have produced tweaked-Hunt performances. We sacked him presumably because even tweaked-Hunt performances wouldn't have been good enough. Yet here we are, for the most part, dancing the same dance, no doubt poorer for the effort of sacking a club legend to replace him with an AI generated copy and paste manager whose portrait sadly doesn't look out of place with the string of identikit, boring, bland managers we've had since sacking McDermott.

It's just so boringly us.

[Snowflake Royal]

I don't think LR should be sacked, nor do I think he will be.

But he has been extremely disappointing and lacking in any sort of redirection. I really don't see the point in someone new coming in and doing little different. Some people, probably smarter than I, have pointed out some subtle changes to our shape, a little bit more dynamism between in and out of possession, and between games depending on opponent. I'll take their word for it, but whatever changes there may be, they haven't resulted in changes to our statistical limpness, or our experiential dullness. And regardless, what has not changed are the same old problems.

Players who have proven their inability continue to find a place in the starting line-up. Players who have long not worked in the position they've been forced into, continue to be forced into those positions. Substitutions which have long been utilitarian and unadventurous, continue to be utilitarian and unadventurous. The same player mistakes continue to be made. The same lack of confidence endures. The same lack of creativity persists.

While I'm a realist who did not expect us to change our form overnight, I expected to see a fresh system and fresh approach, that buoyed the players with new-found energy; perhaps it would stutter and stall as things fell into place, but it would be clear to all a new era had begun. We haven't seen any of that. And it makes you wonder what the whole point of sacking Hunt was. Hunt could have produced tweaked-Hunt performances. We sacked him presumably because even tweaked-Hunt performances wouldn't have been good enough. Yet here we are, for the most part, dancing the same dance, no doubt poorer for the effort of sacking a club legend to replace him with an AI generated copy and paste manager whose portrait sadly doesn't look out of place with the string of identikit, boring, bland managers we've had since sacking McDermott.

It's just so boringly us.

The one thing you can say about Richardson is at least he has experience in the league as a manager.

When was the last time we could say that? Hunt - no, Selles - no (handful of PL games), Ince - not for almost a decade, Paunovic - no, Bowen - no, Gomes - no, Clement - a little, Stam - no, McDermott - yes.

So he's really quite a departure from our long list of bland inexperienced managers.

[Hound]

From the bits I’ve seen of his Wigan team - it was direct, lots of crosses, big centre forwards, set pieces….couldnt be any further away from the side we have. We have mini wingers who can’t cross, a 5ft7inch CF who wins 0.2 aerial duals a game, a power puff CAM and one decent sized forward player who gets bullied by any big CB

Certainly questions could be asked on our recruitment and his appointment but I think it’s difficult to judge him until we’ve been through a few windows, or January at the very least

It doesn’t look like we’re currently a system he wants to play with the profile of player he wants to have

[West F]

It's almost as if, and bear with me here, if there are structural issues with a squad that has been playing poorly, it may - just may need more than just a new manager to improve things. It will involve amending the squad again to try and get the balance right. Naturally confidence will hardly be high at this stage, so, whether we like it or not, we are a) waiting for January and b) should not be expecting any more than staying in this division (at a basic level 9th or 20th doesn't matter, but you want to finish as high as possible) so that a manager who is to be backed has time to form a squad he needs.

It's shit and it needs more money but if LR was the man they also wanted, it is close to stupidity to have allowed another guy to build a squad.

Not if you give him a shit squad that costs nothing and gets him sacked. That would be the very opposite of stupid.

[Stranded]

It's almost as if, and bear with me here, if there are structural issues with a squad that has been playing poorly, it may - just may need more than just a new manager to improve things. It will involve amending the squad again to try and get the balance right. Naturally confidence will hardly be high at this stage, so, whether we like it or not, we are a) waiting for January and b) should not be expecting any more than staying in this division (at a basic level 9th or 20th doesn't matter, but you want to finish as high as possible) so that a manager who is to be backed has time to form a squad he needs.

It's shit and it needs more money but if LR was the man they also wanted, it is close to stupidity to have allowed another guy to build a squad.

Not if you give him a shit squad that costs nothing and gets him sacked. That would be the very opposite of stupid.

Well, it's even more stupid isn't it? They aren't playing for free.

Give no money to a guy you don't want to build a squad not good enough - give out 2 year deals to most meaning you are leaving the new guy stuck with a bloated squad of players not good enough and/or not wanted by "your man".

Then proceed to spunk more money up the wall in January trying to fix the mess the guy you never really wanted made.