London Irish. WHY???

[Thaumagurist*]

In reality RFC and RFC holdings are pretty much the same thing, but legally they are seperate.

That's what I was thinking....that RFC and RFC Holdings are the same thing and that they own the stadium!!!

[Dirk Gently]

Thanks Dirk. Presumably Reading have more favourable terms than LI.

Yep. And as one company owns the other any money RFC do pay is really just an accountancy exercise of moving money between accounts.

[Sun Tzu]

In reality RFC and RFC holdings are pretty much the same thing, but legally they are seperate.

That's what I was thinking....that RFC and RFC Holdings are the same thing and that they own the stadium!!!

No, it wasn't what you were thinking....

[Muskrat]

Steve Coppell on BBCRB:

"We suffer at the Madejski with the Rugby surface".

There you are - from the horses mouth.

[Sun Tzu]

Steve Coppell on BBCRB:

"We suffer at the Madejski with the Rugby surface".

There you are - from the horses mouth.

Not the first time he's commented about the rugby to be fair.

He's right we have suffered a little because for a while the pitch was less than ideal.

But other factors have been much more important - after all Irish were there in our best ever season.

[West Stand Man]

Not the first time he's commented about the rugby to be fair.

He's right we have suffered a little because for a while the pitch was less than ideal.

But other factors have been much more important - after all Irish were there in our best ever season.

How many times? Don't allow facts or the truth to get in the way of a poor argument.

[Terminal Boardom]

It still doesn't explain why it is called Reading FC Holdings. Logically, that's Reading FC holding something. Wasn't this actually designed to keep the stadium and hotel as separate businesses?

London Irish is not under this umbrella, surely.

What has logic got to do with it ?

Complete irrelevancy !

Obvioulsy when the set up was constructed it was with a reason, but that was before LI were on the scene. Lots of clubs have a similar set up - for a variety of reasons. For instance I believe Stamford Bridge is actually owned by a seperate company with hundreds of shareholders which was designed to stop the ground ever being sold off by a dodgy owner.

London Irish is not owned by RFC in any shape (obviously) but that doesn't mean it can't have a contract with the holding company.

In reality RFC and RFC holdings are pretty much the same thing, but legally they are seperate. It's hardly news though....

Shades of what exists in Southampton and also occurred with Chelsea and Fulham amongst others. I suppose it is a bit of an insurance policy to ensure that the club is not rendered homeless as at Brighton where the ground was sold off to clear debts.

[ankeny]

Reading playing on a good surface(You know,like the ones we use to have at Elm Park)can beat anyone has we have proved this season(Brum,Wolves ect).So why cant Madjeski tell the egg chasers to f off,sod their money.Playing Rugby on a football pitch just cuts it up and makes a passing game useless.Coppell knows this so why dont he come out and say it.The money we would get from he Prem would more then make up for the loss .

[Sun Tzu]

locked, deleted or moved ?

[seahawk10]

I am starting to agree with this. Fookin rugby.

[RoyalBlue]

locked, deleted or moved ?

Merged maybe. But why does it deserve to be locked or deleted?

I too agree that it would be nice to hear Coppell say it how it is about the pitch rather than beating about the bush and dropping hints like last night.

[Sun Tzu]

Still noticeable where the bare patches are on the Mad Stad ....

[Royal Lady]

locked, deleted or moved ?

[Archie's penalty]

locked, deleted or moved ?

Merged maybe. But why does it deserve to be locked or deleted?

I too agree that it would be nice to hear Coppell say it how it is about the pitch rather than beating about the bush and dropping hints like last night.

I think he was quite forthright for Coppell standards. His comment about the dew was quite poetic.

[Terminal Boardom]

Reading playing on a good surface(You know,like the ones we use to have at Elm Park)can beat anyone has we have proved this season(Brum,Wolves ect).So why cant Madjeski tell the egg chasers to f off,sod their money.Playing Rugby on a football pitch just cuts it up and makes a passing game useless.Coppell knows this so why dont he come out and say it.The money we would get from he Prem would more then make up for the loss .

Which is what I think I said a fair few weeks back.

The reason why SSC won't come outright and say what needs to be said? Be a bit like telling your boss that he hasn't got a s*indon clue.

[Terminal Boardom]

So, wtf can be done about it?

Rugby should be played on a rugby friendly pitch. The grass is generally longer than required for football. Is the football club, or Reading FC Holdings Ltd or whatever the holding company is called really that desperate for money? The Premiership would more than cover any shortfall. By having a decent playing surface we could attract better players and there may actually be better players wanting to play for us. After all, isn't that what we all want?

Better to have a decent pitch then there can be little excuse in performance dipping. You can't get away with blaming the surface.

If rugby has to stay, and judging by a few earlier posts, that could well be for some time to come, we need to get the best pitch available, apply the best techniques to manage it and have the best people to work on it. If the club is not prepared to address this then I think it sends a simple message to one and all about the ambitions of the football club.

I acknowledge the comments made regarding making better use of the facilities. But would the rugby have come to reading if we were still at Elm Park? I think we know the answer to that one.

[Thaumagurist*]

The Premiership would more than cover any shortfall.

LI's contract with us is over 7 seasons. Would we be in the Premiership every season during that period???

[Mid Sussex Royal]

Notice Dave Kitson also had a moan about our rugby pitch as well (in London lite tonight).

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the club think the pitch condition this season is a one off caused by heavy rain in Dec and too many games in a couple of weeks, and not to do with rugby.

Funny that most seasons (going back to keegan when at Fulham) opposition managers have moaned about the pitch.

Also look at Wigan, Watford etc.........

[Terminal Boardom]

The Premiership would more than cover any shortfall.

LI's contract with us is over 7 seasons. Would we be in the Premiership every season during that period???

As I added above "If rugby has to stay, and judging by a few earlier posts, that could well be for some time to come, we need to get the best pitch available, apply the best techniques to manage it and have the best people to work on it."

[RoyalBlue]

Notice Dave Kitson also had a moan about our rugby pitch as well (in London lite tonight).

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the club think the pitch condition this season is a one off caused by heavy rain in Dec and too many games in a couple of weeks, and not to do with rugby.

And there were no rugby games played on the pitch in those couple of weeks?!

Doesn't matter what the weather is like, the more a pitch is used, for whatever purpose, the greater the wear is going to be and the poorer the surface is likely to become.

I doubt that anyone could put forward a convincing argument that the pitch would not be in a better condition were rugby not played on it (unless, of course, they argue that without the rugby income we would not be able to afford grounds staff!).