Talk:Reading F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football The article on Reading F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Reading F.C. was supported by the football article improvement drive, a weekly collaboration to improve football (soccer)-related articles to featured article status.

Contents

[edit] Wearing Home Strip Away rumour

Have found an article [1] which appears to give the background for this rumour, which does seem to be feasible. However, can't find any other sources, and don't want to insert an unfounded rumour about a rumour without any other citations. Anyone know if the article is correct? MartinRe 17:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. I'm sure the "not changing kit" rumour was around before 92/93, though I have no proof. I do remember listening to 6-0-6 on the way home from that game, on which Danny Baker was ranting on about us making Brighton change their kit, and I can remember thinking that we had the right to do it (at the time I believed the rumour). But that may be my memory playing tricks.
Another explanation I've heard is that it was an April Fool's Day joke in one of the local papers and took off from there. Deadlock 11:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I heard it because Reading play in Royal Berkshire, so are the Royal team and it gove the preference. I heard something about Preston aswell.
Jimmmmmmmmm 19:08 24 March 2006
I'm hardly an impartial observer, given that I wrote the article in question, and I'm not going to be much help because I can't remember exactly what prompted me to include the paragraph about the Brighton game. What I can say is that it was based on a conversation I had rather than a theory I derived myself.
Also, I had not heard the legend before 1992 (which counts for little in pre-www days as I was living 200 miles away). And finally, in any event the article does not claim to be definitive on the issue, using the phrase "it appears".

[edit] Current first team squad

In my opinion, this section should be deleted, as the information changes too quickly. I forsee it being very difficult to keep up to date. --Lancevortex 09:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, with the notable exception of keeping the point about no. 13, I hadn't heard that before. An encyclopaedia isn't really the place I'd go to find out current football squads. MartinRe 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the first team squad information seems to be a standard thing for the football club wiki pages - for example see Arsenal and Man U. This being an easily editable resource allows for information to change on it as it happens. As long as the squad list is dated it should not be a problem. The No. 13 thing is cool, and a citeable reference make it more believeable for those not in the know. --Doctor Moley 00:34, 01 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The fans

Fans are on official squad list, but not actually "playing" on field and not register in the FA list. Matt86hk talk 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabulation of lists

The managerial history and notable players should not be in tables. They are lists and should be formatted as such. Using tables makes editing the lists much more fiddly, especially for newbies. --Lancevortex 09:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Williams and Hopkins as caretakers

Adie Williams and Jeff Hopkins were part of the four player caretaker managerial team that took over after McGhee walked out, but they stepped down after a few weeks when Quinn and Gooding got the job permanently. I'm not sure exactly when that happened, but it certainly wasn't as late as May 1997. Deadlock 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most Capped Player

I have reverted to Jimmy Quinn, and added the caveat (while at Reading). Quinn actually got 48 full NI caps in total, and most of Convey's have been earned before he joined Reading. Deadlock 17:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Club records

The Reading Evening post have stated that Reading now hold the record for longest unbeaten run in a season for the second flight. (Previous holders being Liverpool with 28 in the 2nd division in 1893/93)[2] The reading claim was mentioned in the print version of [3]. Is this worth an addition, and, if so, what's the best way to phrase it?

Worth adding, but best to wait until the run is over, I think. -- Deadlock 17:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Hopefully it will be a while yet. :) MartinRe 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tried to tidy up the just inserted records as follows:

  • like the FA Cup record. - what record?
  • without conceeding a goal, of 1103 minutes, verified, (goalkeeper was Steve Death, was unclear on first reading)
  • score 5 goals and lose - not really notable.
  • longest run unbeaten in the second tier - see above.
  • finished second in the 2nd tier, and not go up. - mentioned in previous paragraph. MartinRe 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Reading have the most failed attempts at winning the FA Cup. RFC entered the competition at the same time as Notts County, but County have won it and RFC haven't. Odd sort of record, certainly.
Apparently in 1895-96 Liverpool went the first five games undefeated. Coupled with their 28-game run in 1893-94 that makes 33 in the second tier (they spent 94-95 in Div 1). Some people are now claiming that 33 games is the longest unbeaten run in the second tier, so I've changed the wording slightly. Hopefully it can be reverted in a couple of weeks. Deadlock 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the paper (Reading Post) to hand, but I read yesterday that if Reading got promoted today (which they did) that would be a record for the promotion in the fewest amount of games (40). Anyone else have the paper or another reference for this? Roll on sunderlands 105pts record :) MartinRe 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool did it in fewer than 28 games back in 1894, so 40 can't be the overall record :-) It might well be the record for a 46-game season; though I'm pretty sure Notts County did it in 40 games as well a few seasons back. Deadlock 14:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think notts county were also mentioned in the same article, but I'm unsure how many games were in the season in that case. (more games means 40 games is soonest on a %age basis) Also, I don't know if the fastest referred to earliest date or # of games. I'm sure at the end of the season something definitive wll be published about which records were beaten this year. Might be worth grouping records achieved in this season together, if there's enough of them. Also, semi-related, is it worth separating the league honours into "1st/2nd tier/cup" to make it clear at what level the result were at? (similar to Sunderland_afc#Honours) Regards, MartinRe 14:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


[Can't see anywhere else to put this] There's a couple of sentences in the records section that read "This is because Reading and Notts County were the first of the football clubs that exist today to enter the competition, in 1876-77, and they have both lost one game per season since, apart from in 1894 when Notts County won the cup. In that same year's competition, Reading became the only team to have ever fielded a convict and went on to lose 18-0 to Preston North End, who were so worried about the lack of grip on Reading's quagmire of a pitch, that they played with nails hammered into their boots!"

Reading first entered the FA Cup in 1877/78, whilst the 1893/94 Preston-Reading match was played at Preston so there's at least two things wrong there. It was Reading who tried to get the PNE game called off because of the state of the pitch. When the match was played, the Preston players used studs of some sort whilst Reading's did not - however, the hobnail story rings a bell that I can't place and I think it might refer to a match played in Reading, probably in the Caversham Cricket Ground era. And while we're here the "convict" was a soldier who had been confined to barracks, which isn't quite the same.

I've had a go at re-writing the paragraph from the article (cited above), because I thought it was a little convoluted. Hope nobody minds. Cheers! --Alex Craven 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record added by 146.176.61.103

146.176.61.103 added "Only side to win All Football league's apart from the Premiership in English football". I was about to edit this into proper English, but I'm not sure if this record is actually correct. Does anyone know if RFC are the only club to have done this? --Lancevortex 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really right, although it depends a bit on definitions.
Wolves have won Divisions 1, 2, 3, 3N and 4 (all before 1992 and the introduction of the Premiership). Burnley have managed 1, 2, 3 and 4. Both Luton and Millwall won Divisions 2, 3S and 4 before 1992 and sine then have won the third tier (which at the time was effectively Division 3). -- The Cube 17:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

On 26/08/06, it was mentioned on BBC Berks that Reading and Wigan were the first clubs to have played each other in all four divisions. Does anybody know how to verify this, and is it worth adding to the page? --Alex Craven 04:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This link proves they have played each other in all 4 divisions: http://www.reading-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=294585. Of course, it doesn't prove that no other teams have done the same thing. Marky-Son 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I removed the link to vital football added by 86.142.48.164, as it didn't appear to be suitable (the simple list of clubs in VitalFootball didn't help, it made it look like advertising). 86.142.48.164 responded by blanking the rest of the external links, so am restoring these. Please add any comments on whether the insertion/removal of the original link was/was not correct here. Cheers, MartinRe 20:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Records - Clarification request

Club records are one of two types:

  1. Record is "best X" that the club achieved
  2. Club achieved "best X" on record.

Obviously all records of type (2) also imply (1), but records of type (1) do not imply (2). The problem with the current wording is that it is not clear what type of record is meant. For example, "Best win" means record for a Reading team, but "Longest unbeaten run" is record for all teams, but how is an unfamiliar reader supposed to know that it's not the other way around? Any suggestions on what would be the best way to make this disctinction clearer? Possibly list all records of type 1, with a footnote for those that are also of type 2? Break them down into club records and national records a la Arsenal F.C. records? Ideas? MartinRe 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I split the records into two sections to see how it looks, and it seems okay to me, so I've went ahead and updated it, please feel free to revert/change if a better layout is found. MartinRe 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks okay to me! Now we just have to hope people stop posting "non-records" as has been the case recently... -- Robwingfield 18:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium Capacity

I received a season ticket renewal letter today from RFC. I quote:- "...our capacity of 24,054 is one of the smallest in the Premiership..." I've been trying to get hold of an accurate figure for ages; I knew it wasn't 24,200 as a lot of seats were removed when they put a scoreboard in. --Deadlock 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the figure should remain quoted at 24,200 as per the website for the moment until they offically confirm it. Quoting from your own renewal letter is borderline WP:OR, and looks very similar to the example case set out in WP:V#Verifiability.2C_not_truth which has problems with verifibility. Regards, MartinRe 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you should change it to 24,054 - might have done so myself had I not just seen this Talk page for the first time. There was a point when the club announced that the capacity was reduced to 24,105. Since the stadium has opened, the changes I can remember are:
(a) introduction of two gangways in South Stand,
(b) insertion of extra seats above the previous top row coupled with removal of some at the top of each aisle, and
(c) removal of seats for larger scoreboard.
I've also heard suggestions that there will be an attempt to get a few extra seats in by August 2006 - only thing I can think of is the removal of the gangway in the South-West corner (with use of netting presumably for any FA Cup tie where the away side needs the whole end).
[Above from The Cube on 6/5/2006, but I don't have an account.]
You missed (d), the addition of seats in the corners of the West Stand (the "Megablock").
The 24,054 capacity is also listed in the very glossy and logo-festooned "2006/2007 Supporters' Guide", available from the club ticket office. Since it's from the ticket office there's a vague possibility it's correct, BUT I've also had a reply to my email to the club webmaster asking about this issue. He says he believes the capacity to be 24,225, and the web site has been updated with this figure. So, I'm changing it to 24,225 - it's the most easily verifyable official figure available, though I'm not convinced it's correct. --Deadlock 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The website now says 24,045. One day all the sources will agree (possibly next season, if the expansion happens!). Deadlock 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The attendance for the Manchester City game on 11/9/2006 suggests that the true capacity is somewhere around the 24,225 mark, although I feel sure that this will continue to be a mystery. I think I spotted another small change as well - there used to be a camera position at the top of the lower West in the centre, and (from the other side of the pitch) it looked to me as if that area was now all seats. Can anyone confirm? The Cube 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I can confirm that last change now. Some nice new shiny blue seats where the camera position used to be. The Cube 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premiership title triumph

What fans will be expecting a Premiership title, isn't this overly optimistic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky-Son (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

It's called being a supporter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.1.56.36 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC).
Either way, what the fans think shouldn't be included here. Mark272 14:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record transfer fees

I agree that this should be in here, but is it right to include as a record an element of the fee that may never be paid (as has been included for Seol)? Also, the fee we paid for Martin Butler eventually reached £850,000 but I never saw that quoted as a record, with the £800,000 for Carl Asaba remaining in all lists until the signing of Leroy Lita.--The Cube 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown-importance

Why is this article in Unknown-importance football articles is there a page discussing the importance. I would say the article is important as this team are in the English Premiership which is watched all round the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.245.252.204 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's because the article hasn't yet been formally assessed by WP:FOOTBALL, not that people don't know whether it's important or not. robwingfield «T•C» 11:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReading_F.C._ae0e.html"