We clearly are not signing anyone in January

[Wycombe Royal]

I thought for the past couple of years we've been in debt? How else do you account for the figures bandied about by the club about how we have to cut our cloth, season upon season?

This season alone, we've had £7 million for gylfi, plus a small bit of transfer fees, plus saved wages on those players and we've spent, what, £100k? Yet we can't afford any more players? Surely, we didn't actually PLAN to sell Gylfi at the beginning of this season and had already allocated the money on the debts we have incurred?

That is the result of relegation. Revenues fall far quicker than costs due to the length of contracts. It is how you manage that mismatch and RFC did it very well. They attempted to hold on to their better players for one season after relegation in an attempt to bounce straight back and came very close. Then they had to start getting rid of them all.

We could always have taken the Sheffield Utd approach and kept the higher earners for longer and made even bigger losses.

I'm beginning to realise that you just don't understand finances at all and that maybe you just shouldn't bother either. Have a nice afternoon.

We know that RFC is a Private Limited Company and you know better than most that Non-Public limited Companies can,shall we say,manipulate things to suit the shareholders who are also normally the owners as well and are not anweable to thousands of smaller shareholders.
I am sure that nobody on here believes there has ever been any wrongdoing but as simple fans we find it difficult to reconcile the nmassive amounts of income with the apparent black hole.
Also of course we do not know who received the massive remuneration sums that we see in the accounts.

We had ( regrettably) only those 2 seasons in The Premier League but had enormous income:-

2x £30,000,000 of Sky money
2x estimated £10,000,000 of gate receipts

After relegation we had:-

2 x £12,000,000 of Sky money
Income from transfers of £18,000,000 or so (just from Doyle,Hunt,Kitson and Shorey)

Therefore without taking account of extra income from:-
4 years of:-
Hotel income
London Irish money
FA Cup and League Cup bonuses
Sponsorship
Match day refreshments and corporate entertainment
Programme receipts (incl advertising)
Club shop receipts etc

So without those significant extras income has been gross at around £122,000,000 over 4 years.

The biggest outlay as the chairman tells us time and time again is wages but obviously now in our 3rd year at this level those wages will have decreased enormously with incoming players on much lower salaries and the higher earners all gone.
So this season we can anticipate about £7,000,000 from league gate receipts plus the Gylfi money of £7,000,000 plus significant amounts from the above ancilliary sources of income plus some TV revenue.

As a "well-run" club we obviously kept money in hand just in case lean years came along from the £122,000,000 or so of known income.
In my eyes it is a very poorly run business if that massive income (plus the significant ancilliaries)cannot cover expenditure on wages,transfer fees and the other items of expenditure involved in the day-to-day running of a football club.
Sky money was a guaranteed form of income ahead of each of those 4 seasons albeit at lower levels when salaries were reduced (as obviously our well-run club had relegation reductions included in contracts)following relegation but also much less was spent on incoming transfers.

Any guess at figures can be torn to shreds but I think this is what most fans see ,i.e. the revenue and expect our club to be able to manage on that revenue and not keep on pleading poverty and only able to bring in players that cost peanuts when little over a year ago we bought a player supposedly for £2,000,000.

Wages in the Premiership seasons was over £30m per season. We paid back an verdradft, we had a lrge amount of retained losses on the balance sheet, we made significant improvements to the infrastructure of the club, we did actaully spend money on brining players in, there are signing on fees for various players, agents gfees, etc, etc. It doesn't take long for all that moment to go.

As for going forward I owuld be surprised if our revenues, exclusive of transfer fees recieved, is higher than our cost base, hence why need to sell players to make up a shortfall. That is common across most football clubs, but for some reason Madejski gets criticsed for it. We have not had a single financial crisis since he took over the club 20 years ago and that included many seasons of him investing m,oney to avoid those situations. Now he has a club that with a player sale or two can fund itself and that, in my opinion, is the work of a very astute business man.

[Northern Git]

Wycombe - I'd have to say, knowing a number of Accountants, that you're not a very good one if you are not aware of "creative accounting" in which you can move money around in order to pay less tax etc.

None of it is illegal either.

That isn't what he was alluding to. And yes I do know all about creative accounting, both legal and illegal. The company I work for is famous for it (under a different name).

However I can assure you that NO money has been removed from RFC for Madejski to either spend on himself or invest elsewhere. If you want to believe he has then that is up to you, after all it is pantomime season.

Hi Wycombe, just out of interest, in light of your assurances, how would you square JM's public statement that he is able support his massive 'investment' (the largest ever by a single individual in the British print industry) because his other businesses are contributing? The Madejski specifically being named by him. Were you referring to RFC limited, Millenium Madejski Hotel ltd or the Holding company RFC PLC (or all three)?

Me? I would imagine/guess/speculate that such is the state of BGP that any loans, equipment purchases etc will have need some pretty hefty guarantees to back them up. JM is the only one in a position to do that, so possibly the assets of RFC PLC are being used as collateral?

Nothing wrong if so, and not accusing the Mad man of anything underhand. Would make RFC virtually unsalable tho'

[Wycombe Royal]

Wycombe - I'd have to say, knowing a number of Accountants, that you're not a very good one if you are not aware of "creative accounting" in which you can move money around in order to pay less tax etc.

None of it is illegal either.

That isn't what he was alluding to. And yes I do know all about creative accounting, both legal and illegal. The company I work for is famous for it (under a different name).

However I can assure you that NO money has been removed from RFC for Madejski to either spend on himself or invest elsewhere. If you want to believe he has then that is up to you, after all it is pantomime season.

Hi Wycombe, just out of interest, in light of your assurances, how would you square JM's public statement that he is able support his massive 'investment' (the largest ever by a single individual in the British print industry) because his other businesses are contributing? The Madejski specifically being named by him. Were you referring to RFC limited, Millenium Madejski Hotel ltd or the Holding company RFC PLC (or all three)?

Me? I would imagine/guess/speculate that such is the state of BGP that any loans, equipment purchases etc will have need some pretty hefty guarantees to back them up. JM is the only one in a position to do that, so possibly the assets of RFC PLC are being used as collateral?

Nothing wrong if so, and not accusing the Mad man of anything underhand. Would make RFC virtually unsalable tho'

So enlighten me, whaere has he said that the football club, or the holdings company is contributing to his investment in the printing business? All I have found is this:

So you can carry on funding the businesses that need funding?
Absolutely, yes. We’ve got many assets that are still producing revenue. Malaysian Motor Trader is one of them, this [Madejski Stadium] is another

It doesn't say the football club is contributing anything and it doesn't say what the Madejski Stadium is contributing to (although we know from the accounts that the hotel contributes to the football club).

And there is no way he would be using the club as collateral or guarantees for anything outside of the club.

[Northern Git]

Thanks for confirming Wycombe, got your mark now. Have a great Xmas

[BR2]

Wycombe,
Presumably the overdraft was repaid so that the chairman would be under less pressure from the banks regarding the printing business?
If so it could be argued that the football club was in fact subsiding other areas and that by repaying the bank we reduced the amount available for buying players which in turn means that as a club we are contracting rather than expanding our horizons.
That's fine because at the moment he owns the club and it just emphasises how irrelevant we fans are in the process other than chipping in our money to be members (with no say).
BTW please do not tell me that that the bank overdraft or loan had to be repaid-the hotel and ground are massive securities and I feel sure that it was a voluntary decision taken by our chairman.

[brendywendy]

I think the point is, that we'd rather he didn't make out WE (as in RFC) had a black hole of £12m or whatever he says it is, giving the impression that the club is still losing money, despite the transfer money/saving on wages of highest paid players/parachute payments received, and that it is because the money has been taken from the RFC side of his business to prop up one of his struggling businesses. It's his money I suppose, so he can do as he likes with it and transfer between businesses as he so wishes, but don't take us for fools that RFC are haemorraging money when, in reality, we're ok and will have to do without a new striker or whatever because, at the moment, his priorities lie with another of his businesses.

judging by your statement, you seem totally firm on the fact that hes taken 12 million out of RFC, and put it into his print business.
i am less so

[brendywendy]

Well I don't believe they gave future seasons much thought whilst in the Prem - otherwise why we were so badly off when we came back down - obv didn't plan for us to relegated at any point.

id say totally the opposite,its probably the main reason we didnt invest further in unsustainable fashion as espoused by the braindead bad accounting brigade.

[brendywendy]

I think the point is, that we'd rather he didn't make out WE (as in RFC) had a black hole of £12m or whatever he says it is, giving the impression that the club is still losing money, despite the transfer money/saving on wages of highest paid players/parachute payments received, and that it is because the money has been taken from the RFC side of his business to prop up one of his struggling businesses. It's his money I suppose, so he can do as he likes with it and transfer between businesses as he so wishes, but don't take us for fools that RFC are haemorraging money when, in reality, we're ok and will have to do without a new striker or whatever because, at the moment, his priorities lie with another of his businesses.

He has taken no money from the club to prop up any of his other businesses and the accounts will show that. The sooner people stop trotting out this line the better. He is investing money elsewhere but it isn't money the club has made.

Wycombe - do you believe everything you read on a balance sheet? ......Clever accounting and anything is possible....just ask the yanks about that!

however clever that accounting is, you wont be able to hide millions going out of our club into madejskis other businesses

[brendywendy]

I thought for the past couple of years we've been in debt? How else do you account for the figures bandied about by the club about how we have to cut our cloth, season upon season?

This season alone, we've had £7 million for gylfi, plus a small bit of transfer fees, plus saved wages on those players and we've spent, what, £100k? Yet we can't afford any more players? Surely, we didn't actually PLAN to sell Gylfi at the beginning of this season and had already allocated the money on the debts we have incurred?

4 million shortfall.
wages and fees for new/loan players.
plus theyve said there is money for players

[brendywendy]

I can't believe you are actually accusing Madjeski of taking money from RFC and putting it into his other businesses.

No amount of clever accounting could account for that sort of shortfall

The simple truth is that the club just doesn't make very much money and so will always be close to the line when it comes to balancing the budget.

i agree totally- except for the fact that the club makes minus amounts of money

[Wycombe Royal]

Wycombe,
Presumably the overdraft was repaid so that the chairman would be under less pressure from the banks regarding the printing business?
If so it could be argued that the football club was in fact subsiding other areas and that by repaying the bank we reduced the amount available for buying players which in turn means that as a club we are contracting rather than expanding our horizons.
That's fine because at the moment he owns the club and it just emphasises how irrelevant we fans are in the process other than chipping in our money to be members (with no say).
BTW please do not tell me that that the bank overdraft or loan had to be repaid-the hotel and ground are massive securities and I feel sure that it was a voluntary decision taken by our chairman.

The club said at the time that the bank asked them to repay it. Obviously we only have their word for it. As for your comments about paying it back so that the banks would put less pressure on regarding the print business makes the huge assumption that they use the same bank for both businesses. In my opinion that is unlikely.

[brendywendy]

I can't believe you are actually accusing Madjeski of taking money from RFC and putting it into his other businesses.

No amount of clever accounting could account for that sort of shortfall

The simple truth is that the club just doesn't make very much money and so will always be close to the line when it comes to balancing the budget.

The thing is, if we sell so many players yet we STILL have a shortfall, we're either TERRIBLY run or there's no smoke without fire as the accounts go. You don't see other clubs selling over £20 million of players since going down, bringing next to nobody in and still supposedly struggling financially. Our negotiated salaries, sponsors etc must be absolutely atrocious (Madejski's fault) or the money's coming out somewhere.

lol!

in the prem you are guaranteed all that money- and you pay players and staff acccordingly
when you come down and lose the parachute money you inevitably end up with -ve numbers.
its how you deal with it that marks you as a well run club or not.
i suggest comparing us to all the other teams that have come down to see where we sit in the league table of well run clubs.

[brendywendy]

We spent everything we had.

If that's true, which I doubt, we spunked it away on Stephen Hunt's wages of £25k a week, shit negotiation, Madejski's fault.

rewarded a very good player for achieving a long term high standard coupled with success as a club.

[brendywendy]

2x £30,000,000 of Sky money
2x estimated £10,000,000 of gate receipts

After relegation we had:-

2 x £12,000,000 of Sky money
Income from transfers of £18,000,000 or so (just from Doyle,Hunt,Kitson and Shorey)

wage bill in th eprem totals more than the 60 million TV money.
wage bill back in championship totals more than the parachute money.

[Royal Lady]

2x £30,000,000 of Sky money
2x estimated £10,000,000 of gate receipts

After relegation we had:-

2 x £12,000,000 of Sky money
Income from transfers of £18,000,000 or so (just from Doyle,Hunt,Kitson and Shorey)

wage bill in th eprem totals more than the 60 million TV money.
wage bill back in championship totals more than the parachute money.

With respect, we don't just have TV money and parachute money to rely on. You seem to forget about the income from transfers.

[Alan Partridge]

We spent everything we had.

If that's true, which I doubt, we spunked it away on Stephen Hunt's wages of £25k a week, shit negotiation, Madejski's fault.

rewarded a very good player for achieving a long term high standard coupled with success as a club.

LOL

[brendywendy]

Wycombe,
Presumably the overdraft was repaid so that the chairman would be under less pressure from the banks regarding the printing business?
If so it could be argued that the football club was in fact subsiding other areas and that by repaying the bank we reduced the amount available for buying players which in turn means that as a club we are contracting rather than expanding our horizons.
That's fine because at the moment he owns the club and it just emphasises how irrelevant we fans are in the process other than chipping in our money to be members (with no say).
BTW please do not tell me that that the bank overdraft or loan had to be repaid-the hotel and ground are massive securities and I feel sure that it was a voluntary decision taken by our chairman.

credit crunch?
the bank-in view of world credit problems reassessed the various loans in had out, and considered ours to be too risky-due to the nature of football as a business, and called it back as was its right.
the end

[brendywendy]

2x £30,000,000 of Sky money
2x estimated £10,000,000 of gate receipts

After relegation we had:-

2 x £12,000,000 of Sky money
Income from transfers of £18,000,000 or so (just from Doyle,Hunt,Kitson and Shorey)

wage bill in th eprem totals more than the 60 million TV money.
wage bill back in championship totals more than the parachute money.

With respect, we don't just have TV money and parachute money to rely on. You seem to forget about the income from transfers.

respek right back at ya.
my simple point was that 30 million a year and 12 million a year do not go far.
youll have top look at the accounts to see how player sales have affected the balance sheets.

[brendywendy]

If that's true, which I doubt, we spunked it away on Stephen Hunt's wages of £25k a week, shit negotiation, Madejski's fault.

rewarded a very good player for achieving a long term high standard coupled with success as a club.

LOL

imo thats mugging yourself off a bit there.

regardless of how much "we" hate the pygmy irish pikey for running out on us, and playing shit when we needed him, hes still clearly one of the best footballers weve seen at the club, hence why hes still in the prem(though hopefully not for very long)

although8i obviously agree that as soon as a player expresses a wish to leave our club he automatically becomes shit.

[BR2]

Wycombe,
Presumably the overdraft was repaid so that the chairman would be under less pressure from the banks regarding the printing business?
If so it could be argued that the football club was in fact subsiding other areas and that by repaying the bank we reduced the amount available for buying players which in turn means that as a club we are contracting rather than expanding our horizons.
That's fine because at the moment he owns the club and it just emphasises how irrelevant we fans are in the process other than chipping in our money to be members (with no say).
BTW please do not tell me that that the bank overdraft or loan had to be repaid-the hotel and ground are massive securities and I feel sure that it was a voluntary decision taken by our chairman.

credit crunch?
the bank-in view of world credit problems reassessed the various loans in had out, and considered ours to be too risky-due to the nature of football as a business, and called it back as was its right.
the end

Nonsense.
Fixed assets of the stadium
Assets of players
Regular income stream.
The type of company that banks were more than ready to lend to.
At that time our own bank was readily prepared to lend to our company and to many others and the world of commerce did not just stop.