by melonhead » 23 Feb 2012 14:51
by ZacNaloen » 23 Feb 2012 14:53
by Libertine » 23 Feb 2012 15:10
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 23 Feb 2012 15:13
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 23 Feb 2012 15:14
by ZacNaloen » 23 Feb 2012 15:20
by winchester_royal » 23 Feb 2012 15:23
Harpers So Solid Crew I am a bit confused, JM says that TSI are not going to throw money at the club, yet JM says that someone with deep pockets needed to take over so the club can move ahead to a place where JM cannot take us. Surely that will involve putting money into the club?
by Libertine » 23 Feb 2012 15:24
by glenroyal » 23 Feb 2012 15:30
winchester_royalHarpers So Solid Crew I am a bit confused, JM says that TSI are not going to throw money at the club, yet JM says that someone with deep pockets needed to take over so the club can move ahead to a place where JM cannot take us. Surely that will involve putting money into the club?
I think Madejski sees there being a difference between 'throwing money at a club', and investing prudently and wisely.
One way will inevitably lead to a club crashing and burning, whereas the other should (hopefully) lead to sustainable growth.
by glenroyal » 23 Feb 2012 15:32
melonhead when theer is definite news, we release it, when there isnt, we dont.
and looking at how wolves have done their business this week, i can see and accept that ours is the correct way of doing things.
but some people are never happy, and see conspiracy round every corner
by facaldaqui » 23 Feb 2012 15:33
by Hoop Blah » 23 Feb 2012 15:34
melonhead when theer is definite news, we release it, when there isnt, we dont.
and looking at how wolves have done their business this week, i can see and accept that ours is the correct way of doing things.
but some people are never happy, and see conspiracy round every corner
by mr_number » 23 Feb 2012 15:48
by ZacNaloen » 23 Feb 2012 16:00
by melonhead » 23 Feb 2012 16:11
Harpers So Solid Crew I am a bit confused, JM says that TSI are not going to throw money at the club, yet JM says that someone with deep pockets needed to take over so the club can move ahead to a place where JM cannot take us. Surely that will involve putting money into the club?
by melonhead » 23 Feb 2012 16:15
Hoop Blahmelonhead when theer is definite news, we release it, when there isnt, we dont.
and looking at how wolves have done their business this week, i can see and accept that ours is the correct way of doing things.
but some people are never happy, and see conspiracy round every corner
Not a conspiracy, just a cynicism and spot of realism over some of the spin being put on it.
I'm happy with the outcome but I just think that the way it was handled could've been a bit more sympathetic and considerate to the fans.
by Friday's Legacy » 23 Feb 2012 16:23
Harpers So Solid Crew I am a bit confused, JM says that TSI are not going to throw money at the club, yet JM says that someone with deep pockets needed to take over so the club can move ahead to a place where JM cannot take us. Surely that will involve putting money into the club?
by exileinleeds » 23 Feb 2012 16:49
Friday's LegacyHarpers So Solid Crew I am a bit confused, JM says that TSI are not going to throw money at the club, yet JM says that someone with deep pockets needed to take over so the club can move ahead to a place where JM cannot take us. Surely that will involve putting money into the club?
they have deeper pockets than john madejski. this time when we get back to the premier league we wont be penny pinching, but at the same time we wont spent stupid amounts of money to stay there. i expect instead of spending £2.5m on someone, we'll spend more like £4-5m on someone, but not £8-9m... certainly not until we are established any way. stoke are a good model, and i believe samuelson has mentioned that.
by under the tin » 23 Feb 2012 16:59
facaldaqui Clearly they are prepared to run the club at a loss, a bigger loss than Madejski can sustain.
facaldaqui But that's not to say they will be throwing that money away, because if they could get Reading established in the premier league, the company will be worth a lot more than they paid for it. That's when the apparent disjunct between proclaimed prudence and apparent willingness to take losses would pay off on an investment level.
by Hampshire Royal » 23 Feb 2012 17:59
Users browsing this forum: Orion1871, WestYorksRoyal and 318 guests