Another 6 point, points deduction incoming

[Millsy]

Silly Q but will ask it anyway.

Reading the blurb on the website it seems like we have behaved very well indeed and there was literally nothing else we could have done, yet we're still hit with 6points.

So why did we bother at all as soon as it became clear we'd never manage it? Would it be more than 6 if we hadn't tried? Or was it 6+/- a further 6?

They would have hit us with the 6 suspended from last season, and then started a NEW investigation which would likely lead to further sanctions later on. Pretty much what happened to Wigan a couple of weeks ago - they got a 3 point deduction, but are now being investigated again, whcih could lead to further deductions next season.

Ah ok got it thanks.

[Mr Angry]

Can someone put up the letter that Bowen has written that has been mentioned a few times, or at least, point to where it can be found please?

[Jagermesiter1871]

Can someone put up the letter that Bowen has written that has been mentioned a few times, or at least, point to where it can be found please?

Its on the official website.

[Mr Angry]

Can someone put up the letter that Bowen has written that has been mentioned a few times, or at least, point to where it can be found please?

Its on the official website.

Cheers.

[morganb]

What was the asset being sold to the owner?

Ian Royal, but they'd initially used that clip of him in his younger day before he became a bitter and twisted old chap. Once Mr Dai saw what he had become he pulled out of the transaction.

[Snowflake Royal]

Silly Q but will ask it anyway.

Reading the blurb on the website it seems like we have behaved very well indeed and there was literally nothing else we could have done, yet we're still hit with 6points.

So why did we bother at all as soon as it became clear we'd never manage it? Would it be more than 6 if we hadn't tried? Or was it 6+/- a further 6?

The breach is because our plan included player sales we didn't deliver. We literally couldn't just give up and do whatever we want anyway because all signings and contracts had to be approved by the FL. And if they hadn't been and we did just go crazy and spend again, we'd have breached FFP again and got at least another 9 points.

[Snowflake Royal]

What was the asset being sold to the owner?

Ian Royal, but they'd initially used that clip of him in his younger day before he became a bitter and twisted old chap. Once Mr Dai saw what he had become he pulled out of the transaction.

You know that clip isn't me right? I still didn't have hair back then, and I'm not that young.

[The Royal Forester]

Silly Q but will ask it anyway.

Reading the blurb on the website it seems like we have behaved very well indeed and there was literally nothing else we could have done, yet we're still hit with 6points.

So why did we bother at all as soon as it became clear we'd never manage it? Would it be more than 6 if we hadn't tried? Or was it 6+/- a further 6?

The breach is because our plan included player sales we didn't deliver. We literally couldn't just give up and do whatever we want anyway because all signings and contracts had to be approved by the FL. And if they hadn't been and we did just go crazy and spend again, we'd have breached FFP again and got at least another 9 points.

I do not see how we can be made to sell players. No one is going to buy a crocked player (Moore) or a player who is out of form and/or overpaaid (insert a player of your choice here). Who knows we may have had offers for some players, but maybe that player turned the move down as he would have had to take a pay cut. The player is entitled to turn down any move he does not want. and sit out his contract he and the club agreed to in the first place.

[Ascotexgunner]

Silly Q but will ask it anyway.

Reading the blurb on the website it seems like we have behaved very well indeed and there was literally nothing else we could have done, yet we're still hit with 6points.

So why did we bother at all as soon as it became clear we'd never manage it? Would it be more than 6 if we hadn't tried? Or was it 6+/- a further 6?

The breach is because our plan included player sales we didn't deliver. We literally couldn't just give up and do whatever we want anyway because all signings and contracts had to be approved by the FL. And if they hadn't been and we did just go crazy and spend again, we'd have breached FFP again and got at least another 9 points.

I thought I'd heard on BBCRB say we had fallen foul of agent payments and being left with a big bill that had screwed us. I might have misheard though.

[Elm Park Kid]

Silly Q but will ask it anyway.

Reading the blurb on the website it seems like we have behaved very well indeed and there was literally nothing else we could have done, yet we're still hit with 6points.

So why did we bother at all as soon as it became clear we'd never manage it? Would it be more than 6 if we hadn't tried? Or was it 6+/- a further 6?

The breach is because our plan included player sales we didn't deliver. We literally couldn't just give up and do whatever we want anyway because all signings and contracts had to be approved by the FL. And if they hadn't been and we did just go crazy and spend again, we'd have breached FFP again and got at least another 9 points.

I do not see how we can be made to sell players. No one is going to buy a crocked player (Moore) or a player who is out of form and/or overpaaid (insert a player of your choice here). Who knows we may have had offers for some players, but maybe that player turned the move down as he would have had to take a pay cut. The player is entitled to turn down any move he does not want. and sit out his contract he and the club agreed to in the first place.

But that is what the club agreed to. Presumably we could have told them last year that there was minimal opportunities to raise funds from player sales and that we would instead agree to have a lower wage bill. But we choose to bring in 13 new players and gamble that we could sell players. That was our choice, and it backfired.

[Clyde1998]

The breach is because our plan included player sales we didn't deliver. We literally couldn't just give up and do whatever we want anyway because all signings and contracts had to be approved by the FL. And if they hadn't been and we did just go crazy and spend again, we'd have breached FFP again and got at least another 9 points.

I do not see how we can be made to sell players. No one is going to buy a crocked player (Moore) or a player who is out of form and/or overpaaid (insert a player of your choice here). Who knows we may have had offers for some players, but maybe that player turned the move down as he would have had to take a pay cut. The player is entitled to turn down any move he does not want. and sit out his contract he and the club agreed to in the first place.

But that is what the club agreed to. Presumably we could have told them last year that there was minimal opportunities to raise funds from player sales and that we would instead agree to have a lower wage bill. But we choose to bring in 13 new players and gamble that we could sell players. That was our choice, and it backfired.

I think you're failing to consider where we could be if we hadn't signed some of these players. The 'penalty' could be significantly worse than six points had we not signed players like Ince, Guiness-Walker or Mbengue and been playing youth players who aren't ready for this level instead - we could be completely cut adrift right now, as opposed to being a point above the drop zone.

And that's accepting the wages of the players we signed are what led to us being over that limit in the first place. We don't know the wages of the players we signed; eight new first team players on ~£2k per week is just over half of what we're purportedly paying someone like Moore each week. I believe we couldn't've signed Sarr, Mbengue or Carroll had we not been able to loan out Puscas.

Even had we not brought any players in, there's a decent chance we may not have complied with the business plan and we'd likely be in a worse league position.

[Snowflake Royal]

Silly Q but will ask it anyway.

Reading the blurb on the website it seems like we have behaved very well indeed and there was literally nothing else we could have done, yet we're still hit with 6points.

So why did we bother at all as soon as it became clear we'd never manage it? Would it be more than 6 if we hadn't tried? Or was it 6+/- a further 6?

The breach is because our plan included player sales we didn't deliver. We literally couldn't just give up and do whatever we want anyway because all signings and contracts had to be approved by the FL. And if they hadn't been and we did just go crazy and spend again, we'd have breached FFP again and got at least another 9 points.

I do not see how we can be made to sell players. No one is going to buy a crocked player (Moore) or a player who is out of form and/or overpaaid (insert a player of your choice here). Who knows we may have had offers for some players, but maybe that player turned the move down as he would have had to take a pay cut. The player is entitled to turn down any move he does not want. and sit out his contract he and the club agreed to in the first place.

The plan we agreed to so we could have 6 points suspended rather than flat applied as 12 involved a commitment to meet x income through player sales. Presumably to bridge a spending gap. We failed to deliver that commitment.

We didn't exactly appear to be trying very hard to sell anyone except Puscas which fell through. In fact it was said on here repeatedly that Bowen and the club said there was no point selling anyone as we wouldn't be able to use that money for signings.

We may not havd been blessed with options, but we had some. And if we bet the plan on shifting Puscas or Moore, it's poor planning.

[RG30]

Now the ruling has been published with the written reasons, surely Peterborough will feel they have a legal case to bring against the club having submitted a business case the club had little chance of adhering too.

[Snowflake Royal]

I do not see how we can be made to sell players. No one is going to buy a crocked player (Moore) or a player who is out of form and/or overpaaid (insert a player of your choice here). Who knows we may have had offers for some players, but maybe that player turned the move down as he would have had to take a pay cut. The player is entitled to turn down any move he does not want. and sit out his contract he and the club agreed to in the first place.

But that is what the club agreed to. Presumably we could have told them last year that there was minimal opportunities to raise funds from player sales and that we would instead agree to have a lower wage bill. But we choose to bring in 13 new players and gamble that we could sell players. That was our choice, and it backfired.

I think you're failing to consider where we could be if we hadn't signed some of these players. The 'penalty' could be significantly worse than six points had we not signed players like Ince, Guiness-Walker or Mbengue and been playing youth players who aren't ready for this level instead - we could be completely cut adrift right now, as opposed to being a point above the drop zone.

And that's accepting the wages of the players we signed are what led to us being over that limit in the first place. We don't know the wages of the players we signed; eight new first team players on ~£2k per week is just over half of what we're purportedly paying someone like Moore each week. I believe we couldn't've signed Sarr, Mbengue or Carroll had we not been able to loan out Puscas.

Even had we not brought any players in, there's a decent chance we may not have complied with the business plan and we'd likely be in a worse league position.

Let's be clear here.

Our signings included Dann a CB, who was not good and has barely kicked a ball.
Sarr, a CB who missed half the season and is not good.
Bouzanis, a keeper who has played a few league games a youth keeper could cover.
Long and Carroll, did we really need both? Long has been surprisingly good given his age, but could Ehibhatiomhan not have run about just as much, and it's not like Long scored many. Carroll has encouraged us to play a direct style with no thought to supporting him and we've barely ever crossed to him in the box.
Rahman, been rubbish and we already had NGW, McIntyre and Abrefa
Casadei, did we really need to bring him in with Fornah sat on the bench?
Was this the season to sign Clarke and Craig to be on the periphery of the first team?

We could easily have gone for a lower wage budget... lower enough, we'll never know, but definitely we could have comfortably signed fewer players.

There really wasn't the need to make 13 signings.

[Royal_jimmy]

Ah here we go:

I. The Club is relying on a ‘related party transaction’ in its P&S Submissions by seeking to include profit from a proposed sale of an investment to an entity controlled by the Club’s owner. This sale was not completed at the time of the Club’s P&S submissions on 1 March 2023. This is a breach of the original Agreed Decision, which makes clear that Reading needs to be P&S compliant without relying on player sales or related party transactions conducted after 1 March 2023. The Club has agreed it would not be compliant without the proposed transaction.

II. The Club has not generated profit required from player sales in line with the budget which formed part of the original Agreed Decision.

Part 1 seems a bit harsh given that is essentially OK for all other clubs but if we agreed to it.

Part 2 is stupid from the club to put themselves in where they needed to generate profit from sales and even more so from not selling Joao (for example) when they had the chance to.

So essentially the ruling appears to have been, which I don't think was ever clear, is you can't run at a loss then sell a player on June 1st 2023 to cover the loss, or sell something to the owner to cover it - and we have breached that bit of the agreement although we will not breach P&S.

So what are we selling this time? Do we have anything left to sell as a club?

A budget will have to be agreed for next year to keep within P&S but we are no longer under an embargo and can trade normally as long as we keep with in P&S - there does not appear to be any future sanction beyond that that could come for breaching the upper threshold again.

Well done to everyone at the club who decided it was pointless selling any players, like Joao who Ince doesn’t fancy and hasn't played much, because it wouldn't make any difference. Well it certainly appears to have.

Just think, we could have saved £200k on Dann's contract, £200k on Bouzanis, got a £1m for Joao and saved £750k on his wages...

Looks like the club was really banking on selling Puscas and completely failed.

Far from.convinced by the lessons have been learnt guff. But at least its done now. Although I think we probably are in terms of the Championship now as well.

£1m for João! Seriously we could have got at least £3m for him last summer

[Stranded]

Ah here we go:



Part 1 seems a bit harsh given that is essentially OK for all other clubs but if we agreed to it.

Part 2 is stupid from the club to put themselves in where they needed to generate profit from sales and even more so from not selling Joao (for example) when they had the chance to.

So essentially the ruling appears to have been, which I don't think was ever clear, is you can't run at a loss then sell a player on June 1st 2023 to cover the loss, or sell something to the owner to cover it - and we have breached that bit of the agreement although we will not breach P&S.

So what are we selling this time? Do we have anything left to sell as a club?

A budget will have to be agreed for next year to keep within P&S but we are no longer under an embargo and can trade normally as long as we keep with in P&S - there does not appear to be any future sanction beyond that that could come for breaching the upper threshold again.

Well done to everyone at the club who decided it was pointless selling any players, like Joao who Ince doesn’t fancy and hasn't played much, because it wouldn't make any difference. Well it certainly appears to have.

Just think, we could have saved £200k on Dann's contract, £200k on Bouzanis, got a £1m for Joao and saved £750k on his wages...

Looks like the club was really banking on selling Puscas and completely failed.

Far from.convinced by the lessons have been learnt guff. But at least its done now. Although I think we probably are in terms of the Championship now as well.

£1m for João! Seriously we could have got at least £3m for him last summer

If someone had offered 3m, the club would have taken it - 1m probably not but based on everything out in the public domain, I don't think anyone even bid.

[Hound]

Our wage bill is already considerably smaller than every other team I believe. And that with the millstone of Moore and to a lesser extent Joao, ejaria and co

Any less and it would have been those crocks plus youth team players. The EFL must also have known we’d struggle to sell players when they created the plan

It was a business plan designed to see us get relegated as Ince said earlier in the year

Yes in hindsight we may not have signed Dann, Bouzanis etc, but injuries elsewhere and they may have had to have been mainstays

We broke the plan hence we get the extra 6 points. But suggestions we should have got 12 (3 more than Derby??) and the fact that teams can break the rules far more than we did without punishment (as long as you succeed and get promoted) will never sit right with me. Basically bullying a club who had some idiot ceo and clueless owner come in and spend a large if not ridiculous amount of money in an attempt to compete with parachute payments 4 years ago. It sucks

[Royal_jimmy]

At least we won't be embargoed! getting Moore, Joao and Puscas out of the door will help save costs and free up headroom to bring in some younger and hungry players. Would love to get Ejaria offloaded too. I'd like to keep Meite if we can though. Joao I'd happily keep but he won't stick around nor take a pay cut.

[Stranded]

But that is what the club agreed to. Presumably we could have told them last year that there was minimal opportunities to raise funds from player sales and that we would instead agree to have a lower wage bill. But we choose to bring in 13 new players and gamble that we could sell players. That was our choice, and it backfired.

I think you're failing to consider where we could be if we hadn't signed some of these players. The 'penalty' could be significantly worse than six points had we not signed players like Ince, Guiness-Walker or Mbengue and been playing youth players who aren't ready for this level instead - we could be completely cut adrift right now, as opposed to being a point above the drop zone.

And that's accepting the wages of the players we signed are what led to us being over that limit in the first place. We don't know the wages of the players we signed; eight new first team players on ~£2k per week is just over half of what we're purportedly paying someone like Moore each week. I believe we couldn't've signed Sarr, Mbengue or Carroll had we not been able to loan out Puscas.

Even had we not brought any players in, there's a decent chance we may not have complied with the business plan and we'd likely be in a worse league position.

Let's be clear here.

Our signings included Dann a CB, who was not good and has barely kicked a ball.
Sarr, a CB who missed half the season and is not good.
Bouzanis, a keeper who has played a few league games a youth keeper could cover.
Long and Carroll, did we really need both? Long has been surprisingly good given his age, but could Ehibhatiomhan not have run about just as much, and it's not like Long scored many. Carroll has encouraged us to play a direct style with no thought to supporting him and we've barely ever crossed to him in the box.
Rahman, been rubbish and we already had NGW, McIntyre and Abrefa
Casadei, did we really need to bring him in with Fornah sat on the bench?
Was this the season to sign Clarke and Craig to be on the periphery of the first team?

We could easily have gone for a lower wage budget... lower enough, we'll never know, but definitely we could have comfortably signed fewer players.

There really wasn't the need to make 13 signings.

Given the number of injuries we've had this year not only to new but exisiting players, I think having any less than the number of players we have had would have been tantamount to giving up the ghost. I'm all for getting youngsters into the first team but we may well have been looking at having to play with 6 or so academy players in place.

We can argue all day long about the quality of some of the signings but most carried a "oh, I get that vibe to them" for example, Bouzanis was a cheap but experienced goalie who was happy to take a small wage and challenge for #1. The alternative to not bringing him in was taking a risk that if Lumley got a bad injury, then we would be looking at going most of the season with CBC and Andersson as our senior goalies - not ideal though can see why that may appeal.

Having Bouzanis in also means we would have an experienced lower league keeper if the worst happened, whose wage doesn't count across the L1 cap.

[Elm Park Kid]

I do not see how we can be made to sell players. No one is going to buy a crocked player (Moore) or a player who is out of form and/or overpaaid (insert a player of your choice here). Who knows we may have had offers for some players, but maybe that player turned the move down as he would have had to take a pay cut. The player is entitled to turn down any move he does not want. and sit out his contract he and the club agreed to in the first place.

But that is what the club agreed to. Presumably we could have told them last year that there was minimal opportunities to raise funds from player sales and that we would instead agree to have a lower wage bill. But we choose to bring in 13 new players and gamble that we could sell players. That was our choice, and it backfired.

I think you're failing to consider where we could be if we hadn't signed some of these players. The 'penalty' could be significantly worse than six points had we not signed players like Ince, Guiness-Walker or Mbengue and been playing youth players who aren't ready for this level instead - we could be completely cut adrift right now, as opposed to being a point above the drop zone.

And that's accepting the wages of the players we signed are what led to us being over that limit in the first place. We don't know the wages of the players we signed; eight new first team players on ~£2k per week is just over half of what we're purportedly paying someone like Moore each week. I believe we couldn't've signed Sarr, Mbengue or Carroll had we not been able to loan out Puscas.

Even had we not brought any players in, there's a decent chance we may not have complied with the business plan and we'd likely be in a worse league position.

Well - that's another argument. Whether it was better to just have the points deductions and new players, rather than try to get by on the bare bones. Presumably though if we were upfront with the EFL from the start that player sales weren't possible then they would have probably given us less strict overall target - we only failed the business plan because we agreed to a value that we couldn't then meet.

Overall I think this is all probably what we deserve. It will send a message to other clubs thinking of doing the same as us that it's a dicey road.