It does leave me scratching my head though when I see the likes of Stoke (similar sized club) spending so much more on bringing in players than we ever did.
all on teh back of chairman willing to throw money away
or debts
by brendywendy » 01 Oct 2009 19:38
It does leave me scratching my head though when I see the likes of Stoke (similar sized club) spending so much more on bringing in players than we ever did.
by brendywendy » 01 Oct 2009 19:39
FiNeRaInArnie_Pie Exactly what the sensible amongst us have been saying all along.
that the club wasted in excess of 50 million on unproven players wages from the championship? Yep, all makes sense. This puts to bed all those comments suggesting we were " well run". What complete foolishness. Looks like the club believed the media hype and went waving the cheque book at the players willy nilly.
by Tony Le Mesmer » 01 Oct 2009 19:41
Ian RoyalTony Le Mesmer A couple of points/questions:
What did we spend a NET £10.6m on in transfers?
It says we lost £6.25m last year. But it doesnt mention the sale of Kitson/Shorey/Sonko.
Rosenior, Seol, Matejovsky, Kebe, Halford, Fae, Cisse, Bikey...
It does mention that we ran our wage budget at twice that of the last time in the champ, which might account for a similar loss despite those signings.
by Alivey » 01 Oct 2009 19:42
by Baines » 01 Oct 2009 19:42
by Arnie_Pie » 01 Oct 2009 19:42
Alivey once madejski goes we are f'd!!!! we are the next leeds
by andrew1957 » 01 Oct 2009 19:42
Ian Royalandrew1957brendywendy do you mean the average players who managed to somehow fluke 106 points record breaking championship total, followed by 8th place in the prem?
i have no idea why such rubbish players would be worth paying what amounts to low to average prem wages.
![]()
massive LOLs at those who believed the tabloid headline figures of prem league being worth 60-100 million a season-forgetting it included 3 seasons of parachute money etc
and massive LOLs at all those who insisted in underhand money grabbing by madejski, clawing back the money loaned, or using the club finances to pay for statues
i await the flood of apologies/conspiracy theories about dodgy accounting
...........................
You are entitled to your views but what I don't understand is why we paid something like £10M in wages in 2005/6 and then paid 30M per annum in wages to broadly the same players (with a few additions) in the PL. It has always seemed a bit mad to me that if a player receives say 500K per annum in the Championship that this immediately goes up massively as soon as they reach the PL - even though they are under a contract. Personally I think the wages should stay the same and say a 500K bonus should be paid each year you survive in the PL. That way the club's finances remain stable and the players are incentivised for success.
You may think it, but everyone in football would laugh their arses off at you. We're dealing with reality here, not what we'd all like.
by brendywendy » 01 Oct 2009 19:43
1871royals Interesting to read at the start of the 106 season we "heavily invested."
I remember reading Leroy was from SJM personal fortune. Of the top of my head the only other transfer fees we paid was to Cork and for Bryn. The other signings were freebies, obviously they would need signing on fee.
Even if Leroy was from the club, that means we spent about £1.2 million that season, hardly a "heavy investment."
Im sure a lot of other clubs in the championship spent a lot more that season.
IMO thats a big inaccuracy in these finances.
by Alivey » 01 Oct 2009 19:43
Arnie_PieAlivey once madejski goes we are f'd!!!! we are the next leeds
We got the A-rabs coming in chill![]()
by brendywendy » 01 Oct 2009 19:45
what I don't understand is why we paid something like £10M in wages in 2005/6 and then paid 30M per annum in wages to broadly the same players (with a few additions) in the PL
by Alivey » 01 Oct 2009 19:45
brendywendywhat I don't understand is why we paid something like £10M in wages in 2005/6 and then paid 30M per annum in wages to broadly the same players (with a few additions) in the PL
to keep the players, and motivate them,
they then went on to achieve an 8th place finish in th etop flight
so id say it seemed worth it
by Terminal Boardom » 01 Oct 2009 19:47
by Tony Le Mesmer » 01 Oct 2009 19:47
Arnie_PieTony Le MesmerMid Sussex Royal What about gate money, sponsorship etc etc?
It says taking into account all other income.
Id love to know what £7.4m on 'infrastructure' represents.
I believe there was a large chunk spent on 'media' stuff went we got promoted. Camera stands, media lounge, entertaining etc etc. Was part of the deal by all accounts.
by Ian Royal » 01 Oct 2009 19:48
by brendywendy » 01 Oct 2009 19:49
Royaleeandrew1957 From the OS - at last the financial statement.
It all makes sense apart from the massive PL wage bill. Why on earth were we paying so much in wages to average players. It does make you wonder how well run the club really is.
http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/NewsDet ... 11,00.html
Because we spunked money on shit like Sodje, Duberry, Bennett, Halls, De La Cruz, Fae, Halford and so forth.
by Y25 » 01 Oct 2009 19:50
by Royalee » 01 Oct 2009 19:50
by Alivey » 01 Oct 2009 19:51
by Ian Royal » 01 Oct 2009 19:52
Y25 I don't understand the £60M wage bill.
Even if a player is on £20,000 per week that's only £1M per annum.
Not one of the players I've seen in a Reading shirt should have been paid that.
by Tony Le Mesmer » 01 Oct 2009 19:52
Ian Royal Look I can post it all up for you if you want.
Rosenior was not a swap for Seol that's been widely acknowledged.
Seol - £1m / -£1m
Sodje £0.35m
Andersen £0.1m
Bennett £0.25m
Halford £2.5m / -£2.5m
Duberry £0.8m
Bikey £1m
Cisse £0.675m
Fae £2.5 - not sold until last season
Rosenior £1m
Matejovsky £1.42m
Kebe £0.55m
Total: £8.645m
It doesn't say NET by the way, it says that much was invested in transfers.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 128 guests