London Irish. WHY???

[Stranded]

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???

They have a contract until 2026.

[Sun Tzu]

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.

What is the answer then ?

Wasps play at Wycombe, Sale play at Stockport so bigger clubs than Irish have moved to grounds on a par with EP.

A good number of Irish fans have at best mixed feelings about the Mad Stad - it's too big for them most of the time and a 12k capacity stadium would have been about right.

They needed somewhere to play, and Elm Park would have been as much an option.

At that would really have seen a problem with the playing surface !!

[Thaumagurist*]

Um, not really. It's just one of the RFC companies that owns the stadium. Nothing difficult to understand.

By the way, I didn't see you in Y20 last Saturday.

[Terminal Boardom]

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.

What is the answer then ?

Wasps play at Wycombe, Sale play at Stockport so bigger clubs than Irish have moved to grounds on a par with EP.

A good number of Irish fans have at best mixed feelings about the Mad Stad - it's too big for them most of the time and a 12k capacity stadium would have been about right.

They needed somewhere to play, and Elm Park would have been as much an option.

At that would really have seen a problem with the playing surface !!

I don't think that the off-pitch facilities at EP would have been anywhere near suitable. Beer??? Both Wycombe and Stockport have more seats than EP ever had.

[Sun Tzu]

Rugby fans seem to love standing though, The Cowshed at Gloucester has a fearsome reputation !

Would agree that the corporate facilities at EP would be somewhat lacking, although there was the Rendezvous which would have been much better than the current arangements for 'real' fans at the Mad Stad.

Beer could be supplied - they manage to sort St Patrick's Day out ok with tanker loads of Guiness

Not as squeeky clean as the Mad Stad but better than having nowhere to play.

[Thaumagurist*]

Um, not really. It's just one of the RFC companies that owns the stadium. Nothing difficult to understand.

By the way, I didn't see you in Y20 last Saturday.

But RFC don't own the stadium.

Actually... no... I really can't be bothered.

I didn't specifically say RFC. I said one of the RFC companies....

[Dirk Gently]

Um, not really. It's just one of the RFC companies that owns the stadium. Nothing difficult to understand.

By the way, I didn't see you in Y20 last Saturday.

But RFC don't own the stadium.

Actually... no... I really can't be bothered.

I didn't specifically say RFC. I said one of the RFC companies....

That's part of the confusion. A more accurate way of saying it would have been to say "one of the JM companies...."

[Hoop Blah]

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!).

It might not be a convincing argument, but the rugby helps us to afford the pitch in the first place. Without their share of the running costs we might not be able to look after it in the best interests of a football only pitch.

I don't like the rugby being played on it, but I don't think it is as counter productive to a good surface as seems to be the view of many. There are other pitches around the country where a dual use pitch stands up pretty well. It's just a timely excuse if you ask me.

[RoyalBird]

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!).

It might not be a convincing argument, but the rugby helps us to afford the pitch in the first place. Without their share of the running costs we might not be able to look after it in the best interests of a football only pitch.

I don't like the rugby being played on it, but I don't think it is as counter productive to a good surface as seems to be the view of many. There are other pitches around the country where a dual use pitch stands up pretty well. It's just a timely excuse if you ask me.

Agreed. It has only been this year that the pitch has been in a really bad state, and as Hoop Blah says, it's a timely excuse. There are just loads of different factors that can make the pitch better or worse. For example, this year there's been a huge amount of snow in Reading, probably the most in a season since we moved to the Mad Stad, which will ultimately have a factor. Personally I am a rugby fan and enjoy watching London Irish play there, plus it is a great site to host the annual St. Patrick's game, which has been hugely popular over the years. But to blame the pitch's condition on London Irish is just being plain ignorant of other factors that probably contribute to it more.

[Whistle]

On Sky last night I thought SSC and Murts were as clear as they diplomatically could be that the pitch was a negative factor.

When you're dealing with fine margins between success and failure having a pitch which doesn't favour our players and then provides our supporters with shitter football is a big factor.

Other pitches elsewhere may be able to sustain both sports but ours didn't in 1999 and doesn't now.

I don't know why on earth we take the chance of missing out on £30m Prem bonanza for the sake of half a mill contribution from the rugby. The only people it pleases are rugby supporters which isn't exactly RFC's main constituency. If we go up this daft contract should be re-negotiated - it might be worth buying the rugby the Kassam to play on - no-one uses that for football any more.

[Sun Tzu]

I don't know why on earth we take the chance of missing out on £30m Prem bonanza for the sake of half a mill contribution from the rugby. .

Are you forgetting that LI also pay us to use the ground ? It's not just the 50% towards the pitch upkeep....

[Whistle]

I don't know why on earth we take the chance of missing out on £30m Prem bonanza for the sake of half a mill contribution from the rugby. .

Are you forgetting that LI also pay us to use the ground ? It's not just the 50% towards the pitch upkeep....

You and I clearly have different information on what financial contribution (in terms of profit to RFC) the rugby makes. My information is that the total is c£500,000 pa. I don't think the figures are broken out separately in the accounts (you can understand why) so the only chance of getting a more definitive figure is to ask a direct question at the shareholders meeting.

[Stranded]

But has as been said a million times, we've had rugby here for years now and this is the first time that the pitch has been truly poor.

Rugby is the convenient target when there are many other factors that have contributed this year - particularly poor weather, reserve games.

[Muskrat]

But has as been said a million times, we've had rugby here for years now and this is the first time that the pitch has been truly poor.

Actually no it isn't. It's consistently been a poor playing surface since we moved to the stadium. As has been mentioned on here already, Kevin Keegan was quite scathing about it when we played Fulham in about 1999.

Also, the pitch has been relayed twice since we've been at the stadium. That's three new pitches since 1998, including the original one. The club don't do that for no reason.

Funnily enough, when we won the league it actually didn't seem so bad for some reason, I remember being on the pitch after the 5-0 against Derby and looking at it thinking it still had quite a lot of grass on it at the time, although not as much as it should have had probably. No idea of that's significant or not.

And by the way I've told you a million times not to exagerate.

[Royalshow]

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/NewsDet ... 13,00.html

This is the answer! It makes economic sense to have both football and rugby at the stadium but the pitch needs to maintained. The club should invest in these pitch lamps permanently as the return of a good surface more then equals the initial high purchase costs. Run them off the turbine!

[brendywendy]

surely if the pitch was bought with promises of standing up to a season of both football and rugby then it is downto the company supplying the picth to ensure it lives up to their promises


if this doesnt work then we should be putting the ruddy rent up for the irish

[Hoop Blah]

On Sky last night I thought SSC and Murts were as clear as they diplomatically could be that the pitch was a negative factor.

As I said before though, they're looking for every excuse they can to avoid admitting that the team has just been poor. It's great for them to point the finger at something else or to give a reason outside of their control for the bad form.

Just because they say it doesn't make it true.

[Sun Tzu]

surely if the pitch was bought with promises of standing up to a season of both football and rugby then it is downto the company supplying the picth to ensure it lives up to their promises

They'd need control of the weather and the root node whatevers.

It's also a fact that year one of a new pitch involves a lot of bedding in so it's more prone to problems (bit like expensive electrical goods always go wrong within a month of buying them or not at all.....)

[Muskrat]

On Sky last night I thought SSC and Murts were as clear as they diplomatically could be that the pitch was a negative factor.

As I said before though, they're looking for every excuse they can to avoid admitting that the team has just been poor. It's great for them to point the finger at something else or to give a reason outside of their control for the bad form.

Just because they say it doesn't make it true.

Then why not eliminate that excuse, eliminate the debate, the controversy, the finger pointing, the "reason beyond their control"? Wouldn't that allow us concentrate on playing good football on a good surface without the continual side issue about the pitch? Surely we would then be better able to identify and rectify any shortcomings in the team as well??

[Sun Tzu]

On Sky last night I thought SSC and Murts were as clear as they diplomatically could be that the pitch was a negative factor.

As I said before though, they're looking for every excuse they can to avoid admitting that the team has just been poor. It's great for them to point the finger at something else or to give a reason outside of their control for the bad form.

Just because they say it doesn't make it true.

Then why not eliminate that excuse, eliminate the debate, the controversy, the finger pointing, the "reason beyond their control"? Wouldn't that allow us concentrate on playing good football on a good surface without the continual side issue about the pitch? Surely we would then be better able to identify and rectify any shortcomings in the team as well??

Because no one has actually identified the reason for the poor state of the pitch ?

We could go to huge expense to wriggle out of the LI contract and find th epitch is no better.

Or we could attempt to control the weather....