Out of Contract 2022

[paultheroyal]

Laurent as captain could just tip the balance. Make it happen.

[NathStPaul]

Earn 25k a week for 3 years at a better side?

or

Be captain of a struggling side on 10k a week?

Pretty easy decision for him, he's off. Reading supporters need to just accept that.

[Stranded]

Earn 25k a week for 3 years at a better side?

or

Be captain of a struggling side on 10k a week?

Pretty easy decision for him, he's off. Reading supporters need to just accept that.

I fully expect him to be off, surprised that there still seems to be conversation ongoing though. Suggests it is not as clear cut as you think - perhaps there isn't currently a bumper deal out there at a club/location he (and his family) is willing to move too.

[NathStPaul]

Earn 25k a week for 3 years at a better side?

or

Be captain of a struggling side on 10k a week?

Pretty easy decision for him, he's off. Reading supporters need to just accept that.

I fully expect him to be off, surprised that there still seems to be conversation ongoing though. Suggests it is not as clear cut as you think - perhaps there isn't currently a bumper deal out there at a club/location he (and his family) is willing to move too.

I'll be delighted if I am wrong purely because I don't think we could get a player of his level in to replace him.

If I had to guess I'd say he has a few offers on the table which aren't paying what he wants so is just holding out. I also had a thought earlier about if we are allowed to guarantee improved deals once we are out of financial restrictions. Example being we could tie down Laurent to a two year deal for an initial 10k a week but that is improved should we come out of restrictions next summer.

[Stranded]

Earn 25k a week for 3 years at a better side?

or

Be captain of a struggling side on 10k a week?

Pretty easy decision for him, he's off. Reading supporters need to just accept that.

I fully expect him to be off, surprised that there still seems to be conversation ongoing though. Suggests it is not as clear cut as you think - perhaps there isn't currently a bumper deal out there at a club/location he (and his family) is willing to move too.

I'll be delighted if I am wrong purely because I don't think we could get a player of his level in to replace him.

If I had to guess I'd say he has a few offers on the table which aren't paying what he wants so is just holding out. I also had a thought earlier about if we are allowed to guarantee improved deals once we are out of financial restrictions. Example being we could tie down Laurent to a two year deal for an initial 10k a week but that is improved should we come out of restrictions next summer.

Even if we couldn't, it wouldn't take a genius to discuss with a player to say - sign this 2 year deal for 10k pw - we will sign a new 2 year deal with you next summer for 16k pw then at the end of the first 2 years (or before if a good bid comes in), we will let you go for <insert value>.

[Elm Park Kid]

I fully expect him to be off, surprised that there still seems to be conversation ongoing though. Suggests it is not as clear cut as you think - perhaps there isn't currently a bumper deal out there at a club/location he (and his family) is willing to move too.

I'll be delighted if I am wrong purely because I don't think we could get a player of his level in to replace him.

If I had to guess I'd say he has a few offers on the table which aren't paying what he wants so is just holding out. I also had a thought earlier about if we are allowed to guarantee improved deals once we are out of financial restrictions. Example being we could tie down Laurent to a two year deal for an initial 10k a week but that is improved should we come out of restrictions next summer.

Even if we couldn't, it wouldn't take a genius to discuss with a player to say - sign this 2 year deal for 10k pw - we will sign a new 2 year deal with you next summer for 16k pw then at the end of the first 2 years (or before if a good bid comes in), we will let you go for <insert value>.

The player isn't going to just take our word that we'll offer him a new contract at a higher salary next year. Especially as it might not be within the club's power to make that decision.

[Nameless]

I'll be delighted if I am wrong purely because I don't think we could get a player of his level in to replace him.

If I had to guess I'd say he has a few offers on the table which aren't paying what he wants so is just holding out. I also had a thought earlier about if we are allowed to guarantee improved deals once we are out of financial restrictions. Example being we could tie down Laurent to a two year deal for an initial 10k a week but that is improved should we come out of restrictions next summer.

Even if we couldn't, it wouldn't take a genius to discuss with a player to say - sign this 2 year deal for 10k pw - we will sign a new 2 year deal with you next summer for 16k pw then at the end of the first 2 years (or before if a good bid comes in), we will let you go for <insert value>.

The player isn't going to just take our word that we'll offer him a new contract at a higher salary next year. Especially as it might not be within the club's power to make that decision.

And it would be a blatant attempt to circumnavigate the restrictions we are under. The restrictions are not a punishment, they are a business plan designed to get us back within the rules. Trying to find ways to get round them would be looked on very harshly by the league.
Best we could probably do is offer a contract for 2 years with a 1 year break clause which would come into effect if we weren’t able to offer a specified increase.

[Hound]

Even if we couldn't, it wouldn't take a genius to discuss with a player to say - sign this 2 year deal for 10k pw - we will sign a new 2 year deal with you next summer for 16k pw then at the end of the first 2 years (or before if a good bid comes in), we will let you go for <insert value>.

The player isn't going to just take our word that we'll offer him a new contract at a higher salary next year. Especially as it might not be within the club's power to make that decision.

And it would be a blatant attempt to circumnavigate the restrictions we are under. The restrictions are not a punishment, they are a business plan designed to get us back within the rules. Trying to find ways to get round them would be looked on very harshly by the league.
Best we could probably do is offer a contract for 2 years with a 1 year break clause which would come into effect if we weren’t able to offer a specified increase.

Is that completely true? It’s difficult to argue there isn’t a degree of punishment in there (along with the 6 point penalty)

I don’t really know how it goes against any rules if we have no restrictions the season after to give an increased salary next season baked into the contract tbh

Wouldn’t want to see us doing it a lot but I see no issue with a few players under this type of scheme

[blythspartan]

Not really about out of contract but I understand that we can’t sign the CB from Gillingham as he’s under 24 and was offered a contract by the Gills, and as such, they want a fee for him.

Could we still sign him and not pay a fee and let the fee get decided by a tribunal at a later date? Or is it a 100% no as it is effectively a transfer fee and we’re not allowed to pay any fees this season? I am sure I have seen tribunals rumble on for a year or two but maybe I am wrong.

[URZZZZ]

A summary from the @jonathanl50 piece above:

- Yiadom and Holmes "expected" to sign new deals this week
- #readingfc "hopeful" of a new deal for Azeez
- Hoilett now offered a contract
- Laurent still in talks
- Rino hasn't decided
- Morro won't be offered a contract

https://t.co/kv8mc2ag3X

Hope Hoilett returns, blew hot and cold but gives us something different

Slightly concerned with the rumour of Baba returning and Yiadom, Holmes and Dann on new contracts (potential of Moore back too in the first team) that we’re going to end up with the same defence that shipped so many goals last season. Morrison has been a good player for us but think it’s the right decision based on that

[gazzer, loyal royal]

Club are hopeful that if Yiadom signs this will tip Laurent to sign too.

Pisa still interested in Puscas but know we are short on cash so negotiating still.

[Nameless]

The player isn't going to just take our word that we'll offer him a new contract at a higher salary next year. Especially as it might not be within the club's power to make that decision.

And it would be a blatant attempt to circumnavigate the restrictions we are under. The restrictions are not a punishment, they are a business plan designed to get us back within the rules. Trying to find ways to get round them would be looked on very harshly by the league.
Best we could probably do is offer a contract for 2 years with a 1 year break clause which would come into effect if we weren’t able to offer a specified increase.

Is that completely true? It’s difficult to argue there isn’t a degree of punishment in there (along with the 6 point penalty)

I don’t really know how it goes against any rules if we have no restrictions the season after to give an increased salary next season baked into the contract tbh

Wouldn’t want to see us doing it a lot but I see no issue with a few players under this type of scheme

I think it's pretty reasonable to say there is punishment on the one hand (the points) and the requirement to bring ourselves back within the rules on the other.
I think there is a restriction in the agreement on making financial commitments beyond the period of the agreed settlement. If we were allowed to just back end big contracts it would be a way of avoiding the current restrictions. if we fail to achieve FFP compliance but have a load of big pre agreed contracts kicking in we could be worse off than when we started !

[Stranded]

Not really about out of contract but I understand that we can’t sign the CB from Gillingham as he’s under 24 and was offered a contract by the Gills, and as such, they want a fee for him.

Could we still sign him and not pay a fee and let the fee get decided by a tribunal at a later date? Or is it a 100% no as it is effectively a transfer fee and we’re not allowed to pay any fees this season? I am sure I have seen tribunals rumble on for a year or two but maybe I am wrong.

Not these tribunals they are pretty quick and are the reason we will have walked away. We will have likely tried to do a deal with no money down and X to pay next year or even no fee but 60% sell on etc. Gills probably wanted cash now, tribunal will have given them something likely a couple of hundred thousand plus add ons, so not a risk we could take.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

And it would be a blatant attempt to circumnavigate the restrictions we are under. The restrictions are not a punishment, they are a business plan designed to get us back within the rules. Trying to find ways to get round them would be looked on very harshly by the league.
Best we could probably do is offer a contract for 2 years with a 1 year break clause which would come into effect if we weren’t able to offer a specified increase.

Is that completely true? It’s difficult to argue there isn’t a degree of punishment in there (along with the 6 point penalty)

I don’t really know how it goes against any rules if we have no restrictions the season after to give an increased salary next season baked into the contract tbh

Wouldn’t want to see us doing it a lot but I see no issue with a few players under this type of scheme

I think it's pretty reasonable to say there is punishment on the one hand (the points) and the requirement to bring ourselves back within the rules on the other.
I think there is a restriction in the agreement on making financial commitments beyond the period of the agreed settlement. If we were allowed to just back end big contracts it would be a way of avoiding the current restrictions. if we fail to achieve FFP compliance but have a load of big pre agreed contracts kicking in we could be worse off than when we started !

Following on from this, it might be wrong, but can we still only offer players a one year deal for this season as well?

They can't babysit us forever, if we want to have big pre-agreed contracts outside of our restrictions next season, surely that's our decision? I could understand why the EFL would say no now, but if that's the risk we want to take again, it's on the clubs head to do so is it not? Obviously I wouldn't want it to be the case but I don't see why we shouldn't be able to offer players what we want after the end of this season.

[Hound]

Is that completely true? It’s difficult to argue there isn’t a degree of punishment in there (along with the 6 point penalty)

I don’t really know how it goes against any rules if we have no restrictions the season after to give an increased salary next season baked into the contract tbh

Wouldn’t want to see us doing it a lot but I see no issue with a few players under this type of scheme

I think it's pretty reasonable to say there is punishment on the one hand (the points) and the requirement to bring ourselves back within the rules on the other.
I think there is a restriction in the agreement on making financial commitments beyond the period of the agreed settlement. If we were allowed to just back end big contracts it would be a way of avoiding the current restrictions. if we fail to achieve FFP compliance but have a load of big pre agreed contracts kicking in we could be worse off than when we started !

Following on from this, it might be wrong, but can we still only offer players a one year deal for this season as well?

They can't babysit us forever, if we want to have big pre-agreed contracts outside of our restrictions next season, surely that's our decision? I could understand why the EFL would say no now, but if that's the risk we want to take again, it's on the clubs head to do so is it not? Obviously I wouldn't want it to be the case but I don't see why we shouldn't be able to offer players what we want after the end of this season.

Yeah mentioned this previously and ties in. Don’t see how only being allowed to offer new players any more than a 1 year deal is anything other than a punishment as it makes our ability to sign anyone massively restricted

If we’re within this years wage bill should be allowed to do what we want imo

[Nameless]

Is that completely true? It’s difficult to argue there isn’t a degree of punishment in there (along with the 6 point penalty)

I don’t really know how it goes against any rules if we have no restrictions the season after to give an increased salary next season baked into the contract tbh

Wouldn’t want to see us doing it a lot but I see no issue with a few players under this type of scheme

I think it's pretty reasonable to say there is punishment on the one hand (the points) and the requirement to bring ourselves back within the rules on the other.
I think there is a restriction in the agreement on making financial commitments beyond the period of the agreed settlement. If we were allowed to just back end big contracts it would be a way of avoiding the current restrictions. if we fail to achieve FFP compliance but have a load of big pre agreed contracts kicking in we could be worse off than when we started !

Following on from this, it might be wrong, but can we still only offer players a one year deal for this season as well?

They can't babysit us forever, if we want to have big pre-agreed contracts outside of our restrictions next season, surely that's our decision? I could understand why the EFL would say no now, but if that's the risk we want to take again, it's on the clubs head to do so is it not? Obviously I wouldn't want it to be the case but I don't see why we shouldn't be able to offer players what we want after the end of this season.

We'll never be able to offer 'what we want'. we have to have learned our lesson and just offer what we can afford. The first part of that is achieving an FFP comlpliant set of accounts. An attitude that says 'at the end of the season we'll just do what we want' will probably see us in massive trouble....

[Coppells Lost Coat]

Are we the only club in the league under these restrictions? If we are restricted to only one year deals then next year we could possibly have every player OOC which seems just a tad unfair.
Feel like it gives everyone a competitive edge over us in every circumstance. I know its the rod we made for our own back but we must be allowed to be competitive to at least retain our players that are OOC. It is basically punishing us by allowing every club to circle and turn heads.
If we are not allowed to have clauses written in contracts, for example if player A makes 15 appearances on June 30th 2023 and Reading remain in Championship, he will be offered a new deal. If we cant sell our future to players then there is absolutely nothing we can offer a player that makes them want to stay.

[Hound]

I think it's pretty reasonable to say there is punishment on the one hand (the points) and the requirement to bring ourselves back within the rules on the other.
I think there is a restriction in the agreement on making financial commitments beyond the period of the agreed settlement. If we were allowed to just back end big contracts it would be a way of avoiding the current restrictions. if we fail to achieve FFP compliance but have a load of big pre agreed contracts kicking in we could be worse off than when we started !

Following on from this, it might be wrong, but can we still only offer players a one year deal for this season as well?

They can't babysit us forever, if we want to have big pre-agreed contracts outside of our restrictions next season, surely that's our decision? I could understand why the EFL would say no now, but if that's the risk we want to take again, it's on the clubs head to do so is it not? Obviously I wouldn't want it to be the case but I don't see why we shouldn't be able to offer players what we want after the end of this season.

We'll never be able to offer 'what we want'. we have to have learned our lesson and just offer what we can afford. The first part of that is achieving an FFP comlpliant set of accounts. An attitude that says 'at the end of the season we'll just do what we want' will probably see us in massive trouble....

I get it’s not what we should be doing, but I imagine we are able to, as long as we comply and play nicely this season

[Hound]

Are we the only club in the league under these restrictions? If we are restricted to only one year deals then next year we could possibly have every player OOC which seems just a tad unfair.
Feel like it gives everyone a competitive edge over us in every circumstance. I know its the rod we made for our own back but we must be allowed to be competitive to at least retain our players that are OOC. It is basically punishing us by allowing every club to circle and turn heads.
If we are not allowed to have clauses written in contracts, for example if player A makes 15 appearances on June 30th 2023 and Reading remain in Championship, he will be offered a new deal. If we cant sell our future to players then there is absolutely nothing we can offer a player that makes them want to stay.

Yep

Guess it makes re-signing some of the players v impt. Also puts them in a better bargaining position as well

[Nameless]

It wouldn’t surprise me if we could offer more than 1 year deals, it would be the guarantees of huge pay rises in year 2 that would’ve the issue. There is nothing to say that we can afford to double someone’s pay next season. Our budget this year is what we can afford next year as well….