Latest club accounts

[Hoop Blah]

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.

[Hoop Blah]

I think we've had massive value for money - look at the below measures :

- cost of our team compared to where we've been finishing in the league
- number of expensive mistakes that haven't performed
- profits made on players when sold
- money spent on players that haven't worked out

Quantify those in relation to everyone else in the league then because apart from profit on players sold I'm struggling to see where we're so much better than the rest (not saying that we're not, just that I can't see it at the moment).

[Svlad Cjelli]

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.

I've already highlighted that year as one of the three aberration years where we screwed up completely - we overspent and got things horribly wrong. We blew most of our parachute money in a gamble which was most un-Reading like which failed miserably.

[Extended-Phenotype]

The vast majority, certainly. Except for the small numbers who left under a cloud (fewer than your list) just about everyone who has been here speaks glowingly of how much they loved being at the club and how well the club looked after them and how well they do things. Surely even the fiercest critics of the club recognise that the way the players act as a unit and the way everyone from top to bottom is part of the "team" exists and has some extra value that money can't buy.

The thing that astounds me so much is that across football the way Reading do things is so much admired and envied, and seen as "best-practice" and the future for the game, but its own supporters deride it and want Reading to do things the way that other clubs do them, but we can only lose out that way because that plays to our weaknesses not our strengths.

The football world is moving closer to the Reading way, and not the other way round.

I don’t think anyone is deriding it (on this thread I am merely questioning the logic of the conclusion of the accounts article).

I think people are rightly concerned sometimes, that players we’ve nurtured are flogged off too readily and their replacements are often of worrying quality.

You paint it as a picture of either/or, but the reality is our sound footing and consistency in the table could easily accommodate a signing of more proven ability without tearing up our rulebook on nurturing talent and forming a unit.

Again, it often feels that rational expectation of a little more ambition in the transfer market when required, can only be discredited by exaggerating the point and catastrophising the consequences.

To be honest, the argument often feels more about club defenders VS club attackers. All I want is a creative midfielder, to hell with the stupid Montague and Capulet wall-pissing contest.

[Svlad Cjelli]

You paint it as a picture of either/or, but the reality is our sound footing and consistency in the table could easily accommodate a signing of more proven ability without tearing up our rulebook on nurturing talent and forming a unit.

You're forgetting that all the players at a club are inter-related, rather than existing in isolation. They all know the "level" of everyone else, and changing it for one player affects everyone else - breaking the wage structure for a new star means that all the other players' agents will be at door soon asking for an increase.

Because amongst many players they don't care how much they earn in actual terms - they only care how much they earn compared to other players. The arms race amongst Rooney/Lampard/Gerrard etc isn'tabiout earning a set sum - it's about earning more than others, and that happens inside clubs too.

[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.

And which division were we in before that? Do you think that might have had anything to do with the wage structure in place that year?

Yes, but the club had contractual reductions in wage in place to counter that but didn't.

We didn't go up and so didn't get that value for money.

I've already highlighted that year as one of the three aberration years where we screwed up completely - we overspent and got things horribly wrong. We blew most of our parachute money in a gamble which was most un-Reading like which failed miserably.

What about the other years Dirk? 2010 was just Rodgers fault? Last season was just glory in failure? My point is that we get no better return than others. Recent results would suggest that's about right. Teams will always have good and bad seasons of course but I just can't see the proof that we're more efficient than the rest.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I think we've had massive value for money - look at the below measures :

- cost of our team compared to where we've been finishing in the league
- number of expensive mistakes that haven't performed
- profits made on players when sold
- money spent on players that haven't worked out

Quantify those in relation to everyone else in the league then because apart from profit on players sold I'm struggling to see where we're so much better than the rest (not saying that we're not, just that I can't see it at the moment).

I haven't got time to sit and quantify it all - the bottom three are self-evident to me, though, and the first one can be shown once all clubs' figures are in. It certainly applied last year where we finished above teams playing much more than us and with no teams paying less finishing above us.

[Hoop Blah]

Which teams paying lots more than us did we did finish above?

I'd say 'Boro probably would be one. Hull another perhaps? Pompey likely but I'm not so sure as they don't file accounts I can access.

Swansea would've been paying less than us. Norwich paid about the same, give or take £50k here or there. QPR will be interesting to see though. They've not been big spenders over the last 3 or 4 years so I'm not sure they'd have topped our £18.3m last season.

[Wimb]

I've got lost in all of this,

Hoop what exactly is the point that you're trying to make?

[Hoop Blah]

Basically I'm challenging the idea that we're so efficient with the money we spend, and, as a by product of that that we're this club who are so great to work for. I believe the reality is that we waste as much money as the rest of the football world.

The accounts show that we're pretty competive at the top of the wage spenders in this league, and indeed we're one of the better performing clubs on the pitch, but I just think we're not out performing everyone in the way the club (Dirk) would like us to believe.

[Wimb]

Basically I'm challenging the idea that we're so efficient with the money we spend, and, as a by product of that that we're this club who are so great to work for. I believe the reality is that we waste as much money as the rest of the football world.

The accounts show that we're pretty competive at the top of the wage spenders in this league, and indeed we're one of the better performing clubs on the pitch, but I just think we're not out performing everyone in the way the club (Dirk) would like us to believe.

Fair play, I don't think anyone thinks the club is immune to mistakes, lord knows we made enough in the Burns era and we're probably still paying the price for those string of flops now.

We're also not out performing EVERY club out there but we're one of the better clubs for not only putting out a competitive team but remaining within a 'safe' financial zone.

[Hoop Blah]

That's a reasonable summary, but the argument being presented is that we're getting 'more for our buck' than the rest and I just don't see that being the case.

We're by no means doing badly, but we're also not out performing most when you consider the money we've spent and the return on it. I'd love it to be true, but I'm realistic enough to put us in with the majority not as this ideal for everyone to emulate.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and we are so much better than the majority, I'm just asking for some proof to convince me.

[Bandini]

We're a small club which has spent the past 10 years either challenging for the play-offs or automatic promotion from tier 2, or in the Premier League without getting in debt, other than to the chairman. That seems like good evidence of out-performing to me.

[Svlad Cjelli]

That's a reasonable summary, but the argument being presented is that we're getting 'more for our buck' than the rest and I just don't see that being the case.

We're by no means doing badly, but we're also not out performing most when you consider the money we've spent and the return on it. I'd love it to be true, but I'm realistic enough to put us in with the majority not as this ideal for everyone to emulate.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and we are so much better than the majority, I'm just asking for some proof to convince me.

No-one's saying that we outperfrom every team, every year - but every year we finish higher than other clubs who spend more and in a higher position than our spending suggests we should (with the exception of the 3 years mentioned when we did things a different way).

[Hoop Blah]

We're a small club which has spent the past 10 years either challenging for the play-offs or automatic promotion from tier 2, or in the Premier League without getting in debt, other than to the chairman. That seems like good evidence of out-performing to me.

Small? By what definition?

Our turnover in the Championship is and pretty much always has been, pretty average for a Championship club. Sure the likes of Newcastle or Leeds might have more resources but generally we're right up there with the rest.

[Hoop Blah]

That's a reasonable summary, but the argument being presented is that we're getting 'more for our buck' than the rest and I just don't see that being the case.

We're by no means doing badly, but we're also not out performing most when you consider the money we've spent and the return on it. I'd love it to be true, but I'm realistic enough to put us in with the majority not as this ideal for everyone to emulate.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and we are so much better than the majority, I'm just asking for some proof to convince me.

No-one's saying that we outperfrom every team, every year - but every year we finish higher than other clubs who spend more and in a higher position than our spending suggests we should (with the exception of the 3 years mentioned when we did things a different way).

When? Who?

I'm sure there are a few examples where other clubs get it wrong for whatever reasons but I just don't see any evidence of this (apart from 2005-06 when our wage bill was only £12.5m and we walked the league and then obviously the following year).

[Bandini]

In that we are traditionally a third tier club, which has only relatively recently had serious ambitions above that level.

[Hoop Blah]

Does that really have any impact on how well we're run or the resources we have available to us though?

Our traditional place in the pyramid has been completely changed by Madejski so I don't see it as really relevant. We're no longer a small club punching above our weight. We're a solid Championship club by almost any definition.

[Bandini]

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

[Hoop Blah]

Yet our revenue is well up there in the top half of the Championship (even without the Premier parachute payments).

Ipswich, Leicester, Forest, Sheffield Utd, Watford, Derby, Wolves and Cardiff all turned over less than us in the Championship than us recently (minus the parachute payments)yet have 'richer football history' than us.

I don't think we can really hide behind being little old Reading anymore.