Latest club accounts

[Bandini]

My apologies, I thought that you were looking at the club over a period of time to see how we were managed rather than just a snapshot as at the present time.

[Hoop Blah]

I'm looking at roughly the last 10 years, the relevant ones.

Our turnover and standing in the game is now of a solid top half Championship club. Don't you agree?

Edit: Just to be clear, our turnover pre-promotion was £12.3m. Last season it was £18.3m. When Forest finished 3rd a couple of seasons ago their turnover was £14m, in 2009, their first back after promotion it was £12m, the season before in League 1 it was £7.6m. We're now up their with these clubs in terms of resources.

[Bandini]

Your second line seems to contradict your first.

I don't really know what the figures are over the past few years for the clubs with which you want to compare us tbh. I'd be happy to see them of course.

[Hoop Blah]

Not sure where the contradiction is. I'm saying we're not over performing and trainblazing a new efficient way of spending. I'm saying that we're plodding along at about the right point that our standing permits.

If you mean the 2 seasons we out performed ours means being within the c. 10 years then perhaps thats an element of contradiction yes, but in terms of being this level and not just little old Reading the traditional third tier makeweights I don't think it does.

As you asked, heres another few example turnovers for you from so called 'big Championship clubs', plus Bristol City.

Derby County (these inc parachute payments): 2010 = £29.7m, 2009 = £31.2m, 2008 = £48.5m The latter two years being a million two more than us but we conversly generated £51.5m in 2008

Ipswich (same years): £15.6m, £14.6m, £15.8m, 2007 = £10.5m, 2006 = £10.6m (so £2m less than us)

Bristol City: 2011 = £9.6m, 2010 = £9.4m, 2009 = £8.7m, 2008 = £9.8

Leeds (just to prove some are bigger than us!): 2010 = £27.4m, 2009 = £23.4m, 2008 = £23.2m

In my opinion our capacity to earn money is bang inline with these typical tier 2 clubs. My point is more along the lines that we could use that money a little bit wiser at times, although I totally accept that we've performed well over this period, just as other clubs have during the same time in order to outperform us (not those listed above of course).

[Bandini]

"Last 10 years" line 1 vs "now", line 2

Aren't we doing better than all of those clubs anyway?

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

The trouble is is the accounts, do all clubs use the same accounting system? Otherwise all this debate is pointless, we already know that income/expenses rarely include all the figures due to amorphing etc. Which can be hidden away, so where Ipswich PAY £5m for a player it does not appear in the annual spent column.


Is this what happens when clubs are run like a business perhaps, simple/basic accounts go out of the window, and few can understand the figures.

[Ian Royal]

My main problem with this is Dirk's assertions we get the "maximum" value/efficiency for our money. Which:
a) implies we do better than, or as well as, absolutely everyone else, and
b) we couldn't possibly do better than we do.

a) is an overly strong assertion without detailed evidence for every club to support it and b) is patently absurd given we've spent money on a long list of failures. It may be a shorter list than most... or even all. And it may be a list involving less expenditure than most, or even all. But there's no way we've got "maximum" value for money. Or "Maximum" efficiency of spending. Saying that implies we are faultless, whether intended or not.

Mostly, we play it correctly, admirably and with integrity. There is probably room for a little more risk in our spending. And we could probably do with a slightly less bloated squad with a touch more quality in it. We could also do with being a bit more ruthless in off-loading the failures.

E-P: Wages are proven to be a better indicator of success than transfer fees. That's because good players cost in wages, but don't necessarily cost in transfer fees. Youth systems, lower league snatching for development and spotting an undervalued, unsettled, unhappy bargain all give you the opportunity to bring in players who are, or will be very good, without spending big.

You don't have to manage transfers with a one season fixation. And that's where our strength is over a lot of other clubs. We plan for our transfers several years ahead. Not just in terms of watching players develop so know who to buy, but in being able to pick up cheap players who will be ready in to play in two year's time.

And TBH, can anyone really say our hit rate with those is significantly less than other club's hit rates with signings for the now? It's probably going to be a bit lower, but then that's paid for by the cost being a lot lower.

What would be nice to see is a couple of tables for final position + net transfer spending, gross transfer spending and wage bill. Even for just one or two seasons. At the moment most of us aren't going off anything tangible, but a bit of a he said, she said guesswork.

[Hoop Blah]

"Last 10 years" line 1 vs "now", line 2

Aren't we doing better than all of those clubs anyway?

Relative to a 140 year history the last 5-10 years is pretty much now in my book. Apologies if my generalisations caused confusion.

Better than those yeah, although when you include the parachute payments our income is a lot higher for the last few years. Basically I picked them to show where we roughly sit in the order of things (versus those obvious established tier two clubs with the history you implied we lacked) and to steer clear of selecting clubs to prove my point and appear to be 'selective' in my choices.

If you compare our Championship turnover/success to Swansea, Cardiff, Wolves, Preston for a while, Birmingham or a host of low turnover sides who've survived and challenged similar to us then we're not out performing.

I'm not suggesting we're getting it miles wrong by the way, just that we're not quite leading the way as might be suggested.

[melonhead]

None of what any of you say alters the fact that PAYING HIGHER WAGES is an equal, alternative, comparable strategy to spending money in the transfer market.

They are TWO independent factors in a financial strategy, one is NOT a substitute for the other.

You pay good wages to good players. Yes, you can put a bit extra aside for better wages and reduce your transfer chest, but the fact remains that, without good players in the first place, it’s not an alternative strategy to buying good players.

The article is saying that higher wages is a bigger factor in success than transfer spend, and it’s nonsensical. If you are paying higher wages, you already have good players and the likelihood is a big transfer will be on high wages! The point couldn’t be more saturated in bullshit if you staked it to the field floor and put Exlax in the trough.

PS. I'm not trying to insist on more being spent on transfers. I'm just fed up with these "independent" articles being soaked in clumsy logic excusing policy. Explain the accounts, and leave it there.

its not his opinion- he clearlysays theres been some research done, this is it, so it would sem our policy fits with that

[FiNeRaIn]

In terms of how much ticket income and sponsorship money a club can attract, I think it does.

Christ...what absolute nonsense. We have a significant sponsership deal with Waitrose and are high up the average league attendances for our division. We also charge above average ticket prices and still maintain that support. We have some season tickets more expensive than areas of Old Trafford.

[melonhead]

I've not spoken to a lot of ex players about their time here and I take every little bit of comment from players and managers with a truck load of salt. I've very rarely heard a player be negative about a former club and at the end of the day we've been relatively successful.

Anyone who's played competitive sport knows that a successful dressing room/club is usually one that is looked back on with fondness.

Reading is probably looked at as a good way to run a club by many, but so few follow the model that I think you're possibly over playing the significance of that praise.

i think you can tell by the way that many ex players- those whoverecently left, and those gone for a while still come back to visit- pop into the dressing room on matchdays or to the training ground. i rarely ever hear about that at other clubs.


although ill concede that may just be because i dont care or read about them

[melonhead]

there is a set level of wages across each club and each league. Everyone, including agents knows the "level" for each player and you can't economise on

Exactly, and if the other clubs stopped gambling financially like they do now, that level would be lower, and we might not be running at a loss.
It is entirely unfair that we should be forced to compete with other clubs that are basicly just running pyramid schemes.

Just to reiterate, in 2009, when Wolves won the league after we bottled the second half of the season, they were spending about £9m a year less than us on wages. Preston were spending something like £15m less than us and also made the play-offs and Burnley, who went up, £12m less than us. When Swansea finished 7th to our 9th in 2010 they were spending £11m less than us on wages.

It's how we're spending the money not how much of it that seems to be the issue (and not only for us of course, Derby spend a lot of money to be bottom half of the table every season!). That's why I struggle with this concept of being so efficient with the money we spend.

1 season, when we still had parachute payments, and chose to gamble by keeping our best players here for another year on decent wages is not the greatest example imo



also- this is the kind of gamble people are wishing us to make every year,
and its failure is probably why we dont

[melonhead]

We have some season tickets more expensive than areas of Old Trafford.

even if that is true- they have income so vast they could afford to discount seats for local people that we never could

[melonhead]

My main problem with this is Dirk's assertions we get the "maximum" value/efficiency for our money. Which:
a) implies we do better than, or as well as, absolutely everyone else, and
b) we couldn't possibly do better than we do.

is it him saying those things or you interpreting them?


i thought he was just saying we do very well, thankyou very much

[Svlad Cjelli]

My main problem with this is Dirk's assertions we get the "maximum" value/efficiency for our money. Which:
a) implies we do better than, or as well as, absolutely everyone else, and
b) we couldn't possibly do better than we do.

is it him saying those things or you interpreting them?


i thought he was just saying we do very well, thankyou very much

It is the interpretation. I'm not saying we do better than everyone else, since that would be patently ludicrous when you have teams like Blackpool where everything comes together in one season once in a blue moon.

But we certainly consistently aim to get the maximum efficiency for our money, and we consistently perform better than teams paying a lot more money and don't get out-performed by teams paying less, except on the odd-such occasion mentioned above.

When I have time I'll put some stats together and publish this

[FiNeRaIn]

We have some season tickets more expensive than areas of Old Trafford.

even if that is true- they have income so vast they could afford to discount seats for local people that we never could

Luckily we aren't competing against them.

But the resources on offer to us in terms of sponsorship + gates are well on par if not greater than many of our competitors so this argument is a dud.

[Extended-Phenotype]

its not his opinion- he clearlysays theres been some research done, this is it, so it would sem our policy fits with that

I didn’t say it was his opinion. I said it was clumsy logic. The research has drawn a specious conclusion from disparate data.

[melonhead]

i dont think it has- i think you are assuming/implying a stronger conclusion that the research itself shows

[melonhead]

even if that is true- they have income so vast they could afford to discount seats for local people that we never could

Luckily we aren't competing against them.

But the resources on offer to us in terms of sponsorship + gates are well on par if not greater than many of our competitors so this argument is a dud.

i didnt bring them up

[Hoop Blah]

Just to reiterate, in 2009, when Wolves won the league after we bottled the second half of the season, they were spending about £9m a year less than us on wages. Preston were spending something like £15m less than us and also made the play-offs and Burnley, who went up, £12m less than us. When Swansea finished 7th to our 9th in 2010 they were spending £11m less than us on wages.

It's how we're spending the money not how much of it that seems to be the issue (and not only for us of course, Derby spend a lot of money to be bottom half of the table every season!). That's why I struggle with this concept of being so efficient with the money we spend.

1 season, when we still had parachute payments, and chose to gamble by keeping our best players here for another year on decent wages is not the greatest example imo

also- this is the kind of gamble people are wishing us to make every year,
and its failure is probably why we dont

It isn't just one season though, have you not read anything of what I've posted (silly question I know!).

The following season it was even more of the case that others got a better return (ie league position) on their investment (wages). The parachute payment element doesn't really change things too much in my mind. It's still income we had to spend and we were still outperformed by other clubs spending less. Last year was much the same from what I can estimate (I know Norwich didn't spend more than pennies more than us, and I doubt Swansea would've trebled their wage bill. QPR may have increased theirs a bit, but by a third? I'm guessing maybe close but probably not).

I'm not saying we haven't gambled, or that we haven't spent a competitive amount. I'm just pointing out that I don't think we are this great efficient spender of money that's been suggested (ie we don't do better than other clubs at turning £'s into points, promotions and trophies).