London Irish. WHY???

[West Stand Man]

You get bizarre situations like at Leicester where you have the Walkers and Welford Rd within spitting distance of each other. The Walkers is the perfect size for Tigers, whereas their own ground is too small. Yet they couldn't agree a way of sharing and building one top notch stadium. Part of the issue was primacy of tenure - but that should have been resolvable.
I can understand to some extent Liverpool and Everton fans not wanting to share a ground (even then if Milan and Inter can do it....) but the Leicester situation is just stupid IMHO.

Too true. Ground share seems to work well in Italy, so the argument about Liverpool and Everton not wanting to share a top rate stadium makes them both look very childish.

[Terminal Boardom]

You get bizarre situations like at Leicester where you have the Walkers and Welford Rd within spitting distance of each other. The Walkers is the perfect size for Tigers, whereas their own ground is too small. Yet they couldn't agree a way of sharing and building one top notch stadium. Part of the issue was primacy of tenure - but that should have been resolvable.
I can understand to some extent Liverpool and Everton fans not wanting to share a ground (even then if Milan and Inter can do it....) but the Leicester situation is just stupid IMHO.

The Lecester situaton is quite unusual where the rugby club is as popular, if not more successful, than the football club. The only other example that springs to mind is Northampton. I choose to discount Gloucester as that is clearly a rugby town as is Bath.

Too true. Ground share seems to work well in Italy, so the argument about Liverpool and Everton not wanting to share a top rate stadium makes them both look very childish.

I think the word we are looking for is "parochial"

[Sun Tzu]

The Lecester situaton is quite unusual where the rugby club is as popular, if not more successful, than the football club. The only other example that springs to mind is Northampton. I choose to discount Gloucester as that is clearly a rugby town as is Bath.

Cardiff ?
Swansea ?

Already a groundshare at Swansea and one planned for Cardiff !

Currently rugby is more successful in Reading than the football and not far off it in Newcastle, Bristol also don;t have a top flight football club whereas they just about do have a top rugby club....

[Terminal Boardom]

[quote="Sun Tzu"]
Already a groundshare at Swansea and one planned for Cardiff !

And how is Swansea's pitch standing up to the wear and tear bearing in mind how new the stadium is? Admittedly, the "climate" in south west Wales is considerably different to that of central southern England. Curious how they cope. Interestingly, rugby is the religion of Wales and their approach to the round ball game is very much an afterthought. Rugby would then be the major party as can be seen by the playing area of the Liberty Stadium - ie deeper in goal area and the like.

[Sun Tzu]

Already a groundshare at Swansea and one planned for Cardiff !

And how is Swansea's pitch standing up to the wear and tear bearing in mind how new the stadium is? Admittedly, the "climate" in south west Wales is considerably different to that of central southern England. Curious how they cope. Interestingly, rugby is the religion of Wales and their approach to the round ball game is very much an afterthought. Rugby would then be the major party as can be seen by the playing area of the Liberty Stadium - ie deeper in goal area and the like.

I know it's a Desso like ours but not a lot beyond that.

The Liberty Stadium has quite a lot on it about the pitch.

I think it's a genuine ground share though, the stadium was a joint venture with the local council rather than funded by one club or the other

[Terminal Boardom]

I think it's a genuine ground share though, the stadium was a joint venture with the local council rather than funded by one club or the other

So more in common with Huddersfield rather than Reading, Wycombe or Watford.

Makes me wonder what has gone so tits up at Stockport.

[Muskrat]

"Sun Tzu
Currently rugby is more successful in Reading than the football and not far off it in Newcastle, Bristol also don;t have a top flight football club whereas they just about do have a top rugby club....

Er, by what measure exactly? Certainly not by the measure of their support. They get about 12,000 for the"big" teams and about 8,000 for the lesser teams, sometimes less than that. The only time that they get a crowd above 20,000 is for their annual St Patricks Day "celebration" and most people are there for the "Craic" and not the Rugby anyway..

Whereas Reading, who don't even play in the top tier of their sport, average about 19,000...

[West Stand Man]

"Sun Tzu
Currently rugby is more successful in Reading than the football and not far off it in Newcastle, Bristol also don;t have a top flight football club whereas they just about do have a top rugby club....

Er, by what measure exactly? Certainly not by the measure of their support. They get about 12,000 for the"big" teams and about 8,000 for the lesser teams, sometimes less than that. The only time that they get a crowd above 20,000 is for their annual St Patricks Day "celebration" and most people are there for the "Craic" and not the Rugby anyway..

Whereas Reading, who don't even play in the top tier of their sport, average about 19,000...

Well, by the measure that they are in the top league, play in Europe and have a team of mostly top class internationals. In terms of on pitch success I think it is hard to see LI as anything but more successful than RFC at the moment. Are they a bigger business - arguable.

[Sun Tzu]

Thanks for that WSM, some pretty clear cut measures which show LI are currently a more successful sports team than we are....

Even in terms of support you could probably argue a case that they are at least on a par with us, given that rugby as a sport has a smaller fan base than football. We get around 1/3 of the attendance that the top football team gets, LI are probably around the same level in relative terms.

But where it matters - sporting success - they are unarguably ahead of us currently.

[Southbank Old Boy]

The dome is just a giant polytunel so would be easy to move,

Apart from the playing surface of course !

The Dome was supplied by a Canadian company IIRC and they had to send a crew over to install it

Didnt it cost close on to a 1M to build too? I would hardly think something that expensive to build would be easy to pick up and move!

[Terminal Boardom]

Didnt it cost close on to a 1M to build too? I would hardly think something that expensive to build would be easy to pick up and move!

We ARE talking Reading FC here aren't we?

This has been one of the beter threads that I have seen on here in quite a log while. For once there has been a good selection of well thought out arguement and counter-arguement. There have even been times recently when I have been wondering just what idea generation goes on within the hallowed walls of RFC.

Thanks to one and all

[Muskrat]

"Sun Tzu
Currently rugby is more successful in Reading than the football and not far off it in Newcastle, Bristol also don;t have a top flight football club whereas they just about do have a top rugby club....

Er, by what measure exactly? Certainly not by the measure of their support. They get about 12,000 for the"big" teams and about 8,000 for the lesser teams, sometimes less than that. The only time that they get a crowd above 20,000 is for their annual St Patricks Day "celebration" and most people are there for the "Craic" and not the Rugby anyway..

Whereas Reading, who don't even play in the top tier of their sport, average about 19,000...

Well, by the measure that they are in the top league, play in Europe and have a team of mostly top class internationals. In terms of on pitch success I think it is hard to see LI as anything but more successful than RFC at the moment. Are they a bigger business - arguable.

Blimey using those criteria, Reading Hockey Club would be classed as being more successful.

I'm sorry but this argument just doesn't bear any kind of scrutiny, let alone a close one. They are in the top league of a much smaller sport, play in front of a fraction of the crowds that the football does despite being in their Premier League (their crowds for European ties are pitiful - about 5-6000), and as there is a much smaller pool of players to choose from, they are bound to have more internationals than Reading (although didn't we have about 17 away on international duty this week including youth and U-21)?

What next - Reading Rockets are more successful??

[rfcjoe]

K'off London Irish and your shitty sport!

[Sun Tzu]

Blimey using those criteria, Reading Hockey Club would be classed as being more successful.

I'm sorry but this argument just doesn't bear any kind of scrutiny, let alone a close one.

But your criteria is a completely arbitrary one, and using it the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race teams are more successful than Man Utd, the Australian cricket team and Pittsburgh Steelers....

Attendances can't be the sole criteria for judging sporting success surely ?

How about looking at a mix (look at attendances, league standing, player status, TV coverage, national press coverage...)

Probably knocks put RHC and RR but LI have a massive claim to be more successful currently than RFC....

[Stranded]

Rugby is a growing sport in this country, the Premiership is on for it's biggest average gate this year at just over 11,200 - which to my mind is pretty impressive.

The game has the ability to attact large numbers when marketed correctly, Harlequins had 50k turn up for a league game this year and that will be more next year.

LI are one of the top clubs in the country and will qualify for the top Euro competition next year (they are in the Challenge Cup this year which is not really taken that seriously until the latter stages) - when they were in that last time they had 22k for one game and 18k for a few others. There was over 16k for the game against the Ospreys this year.

Support is growing for them in Reading as more and more people go and then do return. Having them at the Madjeski makes sense to me and to many other people - and a lot of them like myself go regularly to both the rugby and the football.

[Muskrat]

Rugby is a growing sport in this country, the Premiership is on for it's biggest average gate this year at just over 11,200 - which to my mind is pretty impressive.

Whoopi-do!

So if you find 11,200 impressive in a Premier League, no doubt you'd be equally impressed to learn that the Championship is the fourth most watched league in Europe with average crowds of 17,022 in 2007/8 and behind only the English Premier League, the Bundeliga and La Liga in Spain (and before everybody screams SOURCE!!! - http://www.football-league.co.uk/static ... 701,00.pdf).

So with Readings average crowd about 2,000 higher than that, I'd say that's a good measure of success.

Quite frankly I'd take any of the measures suggested such as player status, TV coverage and national press coverage and be pretty certain that we'd come out above LI on all of them. The league standing one is a bit of an anomoly. Say Newcastle got relegated this year, which is a distinct possibility. Using the logic presented, LI would automatically leapfrog them and become "more successful", even though the Toon would probably still be playing in front of 52,000 fans every week in the Championship. Somehow I think not.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Rugby Union has done well to come from being an amateur code to where it is now in about 13/14 years, but to say that LI are bigger and more successful than Reading is quite frankly, laughable.

[Sun Tzu]

to say that LI are bigger and more successful than Reading is quite frankly, laughable.

It's not though.

They are CURRENTLY more succesful by any sporting criteria.

You have no arguement againstthat...

[Muskrat]

Hang on a minute.

Your original statement was that "Currently Rugby is more successful in Reading than football", which is demonstrably untrue.

So now you want to change the measure to "CURRENTLY more successful by any sporting criteira". Well isn't one sporting criteria how many people want to spend their hard earned cash, in a recession, to watch a game of football / rugby? If so then your argument is defeated yet again is it not? Or is the hard earned cash of the avarage Joe of no consequence?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Rugby is a growing sport in this country, the Premiership is on for it's biggest average gate this year at just over 11,200 - which to my mind is pretty impressive.

Whoopi-do!

So if you find 11,200 impressive in a Premier League, no doubt you'd be equally impressed to learn that the Championship is the fourth most watched league in Europe with average crowds of 17,022 in 2007/8 and behind only the English Premier League, the Bundeliga and La Liga in Spain (and before everybody screams SOURCE!!! - http://www.football-league.co.uk/static ... 701,00.pdf).

It's only 4th best if you count aggregate crowds arather than average. Serie A's average was 6000 higher than the championship last year, and Bundesliga 2 also had a higher average.

Quite frankly I'd take any of the measures suggested such as player status, TV coverage and national press coverage and be pretty certain that we'd come out above LI on all of them. The league standing one is a bit of an anomoly. Say Newcastle got relegated this year, which is a distinct possibility. Using the logic presented, LI would automatically leapfrog them and become "more successful", even though the Toon would probably still be playing in front of 52,000 fans every week in the Championship. Somehow I think not.

Typically London Irish seem so be about 6th best in a country which only has a dozen or so professional clubs. Getting a fair way up Everest in more of an achievement than getting to the top of Snowdon.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Rugby Union has done well to come from being an amateur code to where it is now in about 13/14 years, but to say that LI are bigger and more successful than Reading is quite frankly, laughable.

I'm not sure that anyone actually said LI are bigger, although the claim that their support is as good as ours is at best curious. Bracknell Bees do well, considering the size of the town and Ice Hockey's niche sport status, to get 1500 to their games, but that doesn't make them well supported.

[Sun Tzu]

Your original statement was that "Currently Rugby is more successful in Reading than football", which is demonstrably untrue.

No it's not. You haven't even tried to prove it untrue ! I think you need to rethink your approach here.

So now you want to change the measure to "CURRENTLY more successful by any sporting criteira". Well isn't one sporting criteria how many people want to spend their hard earned cash, in a recession, to watch a game of football / rugby? If so then your argument is defeated yet again is it not? Or is the hard earned cash of the avarage Joe of no consequence?

Agreed, one criteria might be income. Although that's a business rather than sporting criteria. It's not the only one, and not the most important one I would suggest. I'm interested that you consider Leeds Utd to be currently more successful than Wigan and Newcastle to be more successful than Liverpool !

You need to accept that there are multiple ways in which LI are currently more successful than RFC. The clearest least debateable is where each sit in their respective leagues structures. The fact that there are also some ways in which the reverse is true is undeniable but doesn;t disprove the original claim I made.