Official RFC Clownovic Day. The protest thread

[Snowflake Royal]

What about if we literally can't afford to pay him off?

His contract runs to the end of the season. If we cannot afford to pay him off, we flat cannot afford to pay him.

The max a pay off should be is the rest of his contract, possibly settled for less. Why would we pay him more for being shit and to leave?

Same for his staff.

Can we afford to replace him? Well we've just lost Cabral, Puscas and Moore for Hein and Ince. There has to be a saving there.

So we probably can't get anyone expensive, but it doesn't mean we can't promote within or get someone cheap.

Perhaps we can't afford to pay him off now.

That seems spectacularly unlikely. And we could just continue to pay him as if he was still employed.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

His contract runs to the end of the season. If we cannot afford to pay him off, we flat cannot afford to pay him.

The max a pay off should be is the rest of his contract, possibly settled for less. Why would we pay him more for being shit and to leave?

Same for his staff.

Can we afford to replace him? Well we've just lost Cabral, Puscas and Moore for Hein and Ince. There has to be a saving there.

So we probably can't get anyone expensive, but it doesn't mean we can't promote within or get someone cheap.

Perhaps we can't afford to pay him off now.

That seems spectacularly unlikely. And we could just continue to pay him as if he was still employed.

Well no it doesn't though does it. Sacking him tomorrow would be a February invoice, whereas the savings on Moore, Rafael and Puscas, no matter how big or small, might not cover what it would cost to sack him during this month.

Continuing to pay him isn't the problem, because his weekly wage compared to the weekly wage savings made on Moore's, Rafael's and Puscas' (depending on how much we have saved there) wages will likely to a net positive for us, whereas it might not be for the month as a whole.

[Brogue]

maybe the saving we've made on the players out are going to go on offering new contract to some of the ooc players.

[Snowflake Royal]

Perhaps we can't afford to pay him off now.

That seems spectacularly unlikely. And we could just continue to pay him as if he was still employed.

Well no it doesn't though does it. Sacking him tomorrow would be a February invoice, whereas the savings on Moore, Rafael and Puscas, no matter how big or small, might not cover what it would cost to sack him during this month.

Continuing to pay him isn't the problem, because his weekly wage compared to the weekly wage savings made on Moore's, Rafael's and Puscas' (depending on how much we have saved there) wages will likely to a net positive for us, whereas it might not be for the month as a whole.

Our owner is also filthy rich, so a cash injection now to fund a pay off that is immediately paid off over the remaining contract would also be a piece of piss.

There is nothing financial or regulatory preventing is sacking him.

It's excuse making.

[Snowflake Royal]

maybe the saving we've made on the players out are going to go on offering new contract to some of the ooc players.

Would be our own choice to prioritise that over funding a replacement.

And that would be spent in the new contract period, not now.

[Brogue]

maybe the saving we've made on the players out are going to go on offering new contract to some of the ooc players.

Would be our own choice to prioritise that over funding a replacement.

agreed

[tidus_mi2]

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/foot ... y-22978815

Honestly reading that I'm very discouraged by this protest, it doesn't seem like there's really any direction or purpose to the protest.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

That seems spectacularly unlikely. And we could just continue to pay him as if he was still employed.

Well no it doesn't though does it. Sacking him tomorrow would be a February invoice, whereas the savings on Moore, Rafael and Puscas, no matter how big or small, might not cover what it would cost to sack him during this month.

Continuing to pay him isn't the problem, because his weekly wage compared to the weekly wage savings made on Moore's, Rafael's and Puscas' (depending on how much we have saved there) wages will likely to a net positive for us, whereas it might not be for the month as a whole.

Our owner is also filthy rich, so a cash injection now to fund a pay off that is immediately paid off over the remaining contract would also be a piece of piss.

There is nothing financial or regulatory preventing is sacking him.

It's excuse making.

I do not know the complex and structured EFL and Business Plan that we have agreed to and we are currently subject to. Given that one of the factors was our owner spending extravagant amounts of money that broke the rules in the first place, I can't imagine it will be just as simple as, let the owner put his money into the club to cover sacking someone.

I agree, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't going to be a big pay off for someone with less than 6 months to run on his contract and we will likely end up at a net positive given, for arguments sake, we were to sack him today and that cost us £350k but we actually save £500k on Moore's, Puscas' and Rafael's wages through to the summer.

One of the factors was "Sustainability". I would bet that a factor towards our Business Plan and embargo (to a lesser degree) will be centered around the club trying to be as sustainable as practically possible, by minimising owner input, which is fair game by the EFL's standards. If it was black and white, yes I could understand your point regarding that it might just be excuse making, but I do not think everything behind the scenes is that black and white unfortunately.

As has been rightly pointed out there as well, potentially the cut-backs on wages from departed players in January will influence our decision to offer players a contract they are more likely to agree to.

[Pepe the Horseman]

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/reading-fans-protest-coventry-city-22978815

Honestly reading that I'm very discouraged by this protest, it doesn't seem like there's really any direction or purpose to the protest.

We would try and clarify [to them] what we want - which is probably what they want - which is to see the club get back to a position where they're not overspending, moving in the right direction and everyone knows what the end goal is - whether it's promotion or stability or whatever it is.

Nice and succinct so should be easy to get the message across.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Well no it doesn't though does it. Sacking him tomorrow would be a February invoice, whereas the savings on Moore, Rafael and Puscas, no matter how big or small, might not cover what it would cost to sack him during this month.

Continuing to pay him isn't the problem, because his weekly wage compared to the weekly wage savings made on Moore's, Rafael's and Puscas' (depending on how much we have saved there) wages will likely to a net positive for us, whereas it might not be for the month as a whole.

Our owner is also filthy rich, so a cash injection now to fund a pay off that is immediately paid off over the remaining contract would also be a piece of piss.

There is nothing financial or regulatory preventing is sacking him.

It's excuse making.

I do not know the complex and structured EFL and Business Plan that we have agreed to and we are currently subject to. Given that one of the factors was our owner spending extravagant amounts of money that broke the rules in the first place, I can't imagine it will be just as simple as, let the owner put his money into the club to cover sacking someone.

I agree, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't going to be a big pay off for someone with less than 6 months to run on his contract and we will likely end up at a net positive given, for arguments sake, we were to sack him today and that cost us £350k but we actually save £500k on Moore's, Puscas' and Rafael's wages through to the summer.

One of the factors was "Sustainability". I would bet that a factor towards our Business Plan and embargo (to a lesser degree) will be centered around the club trying to be as sustainable as practically possible, by minimising owner input, which is fair game by the EFL's standards. If it was black and white, yes I could understand your point regarding that it might just be excuse making, but I do not think everything behind the scenes is that black and white unfortunately.

As has been rightly pointed out there as well, potentially the cut-backs on wages from departed players in January will influence our decision to offer players a contract they are more likely to agree to.

The cost of sacking him today would literally be the cost of his wages until the summer. Which we would obviously no longer have to pay.

[genome]

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/reading-fans-protest-coventry-city-22978815

Honestly reading that I'm very discouraged by this protest, it doesn't seem like there's really any direction or purpose to the protest.

We would try and clarify [to them] what we want - which is probably what they want - which is to see the club get back to a position where they're not overspending, moving in the right direction and everyone knows what the end goal is - whether it's promotion or stability or whatever it is.

Nice and succinct so should be easy to get the message across.

"What do we want?"
"Some vague concept of getting the club back to a position where we're not overspending, but still investing, but not underspending and moving backwards, but ultimately all moving in the right direction which is presumably up the table, with the end goal of promotion or stability or whatever"
"When do we want it?"
"Probably not until the FFP restrictions are lifted in 18 months, er, sorry, I mean now"

[Sanguine]

This somewhat sums up that a group of fans are going to protest and specifically call the manager a clown because we've lost a few games. It's pathetic. The problems at this club are about much more than Paunovic.

[Pepe the Horseman]

This somewhat sums up that a group of fans are going to protest and specifically call the manager a clown because we've lost a few games. It's pathetic. The problems at this club are about much more than Paunovic.

I don't think the clown thing is actually happening if that makes you feel better.

[Snowflake Royal]

This somewhat sums up that a group of fans are going to protest and specifically call the manager a clown because we've lost a few games. It's pathetic. The problems at this club are about much more than Paunovic.

You're rather understating the position.

We've lost more than half our games this season, had our worst ever FA Cup result and our worst home defeat since the war in the same week, are on a run of 2 wins in 16 having lost 5 league games in a row.

Few doesn't really cut it.

It's worse than Rodgers. It's worse than Stam, Gomes, Burns, Clarke, McDermott or Clement. It's not far off Bullivant.

[Millsy]

Are people talking as though we've saved on Moore's wage not realising we have Ince instead? What's his wage? Is it like for like swap? Is he on pennies? We're pissing in the wind.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Are people talking as though we've saved on Moore's wage not realising we have Ince instead? What's his wage? Is it like for like swap? Is he on pennies? We're pissing in the wind.

No.

[Sanguine]

This somewhat sums up that a group of fans are going to protest and specifically call the manager a clown because we've lost a few games. It's pathetic. The problems at this club are about much more than Paunovic.

You're rather understating the position.

We've lost more than half our games this season, had our worst ever FA Cup result and our worst home defeat since the war in the same week, are on a run of 2 wins in 16 having lost 5 league games in a row.

Few doesn't really cut it.

It's worse than Rodgers. It's worse than Stam, Gomes, Burns, Clarke, McDermott or Clement. It's not far off Bullivant.

Wins don't count now? This isn't the first time you've used selective stats recently to back up your views.

Paunovic has won 34% of his games in charge - this was 29% for Burns, 26% for Rodgers, 24% for Gomes and 23% for Clement. It is a similar success rate to Clarke and Adkins (both 36%) and Bowen (35%).

Tommy Burns oversaw 2 wins in 17 games from the start of his time in charge, Rodgers did 2 in 14, Gomes also had a run of 2 in 14, and so did Clement. Steve Clarke managed 2 wins in 19 games, split over his two seasons in charge. Adkins worst run was 3 in 16. You can check all these if you like.

Pretending Paunovic is in some way materially worse than all these managers is horseshit.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Our owner is also filthy rich, so a cash injection now to fund a pay off that is immediately paid off over the remaining contract would also be a piece of piss.

There is nothing financial or regulatory preventing is sacking him.

It's excuse making.

I do not know the complex and structured EFL and Business Plan that we have agreed to and we are currently subject to. Given that one of the factors was our owner spending extravagant amounts of money that broke the rules in the first place, I can't imagine it will be just as simple as, let the owner put his money into the club to cover sacking someone.

I agree, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't going to be a big pay off for someone with less than 6 months to run on his contract and we will likely end up at a net positive given, for arguments sake, we were to sack him today and that cost us £350k but we actually save £500k on Moore's, Puscas' and Rafael's wages through to the summer.

One of the factors was "Sustainability". I would bet that a factor towards our Business Plan and embargo (to a lesser degree) will be centered around the club trying to be as sustainable as practically possible, by minimising owner input, which is fair game by the EFL's standards. If it was black and white, yes I could understand your point regarding that it might just be excuse making, but I do not think everything behind the scenes is that black and white unfortunately.

As has been rightly pointed out there as well, potentially the cut-backs on wages from departed players in January will influence our decision to offer players a contract they are more likely to agree to.

The cost of sacking him today would literally be the cost of his wages until the summer. Which we would obviously no longer have to pay.

Which is exactly why I have said it might not be possible at this time, because it will be an invoice for February and a payment all at once.

Similar to how many of our deals are structured, we didn't give Inter Milan and Sheffield Wednesday a £7.5m and £5m cheque for George Puscas and Lucas Joao outright, we are paying for these deals over the course of their contracts. Ultimately, it didn't matter because we broke FFP regulations anyway, but that's something we have to factor in as well, so it might not be entirely possible right now.

The outcome is the same, but there are ways of getting there and sacking him, today, tomorrow, next week etc, might not be possible right now.

[Pepe the Horseman]

I do not know the complex and structured EFL and Business Plan that we have agreed to and we are currently subject to. Given that one of the factors was our owner spending extravagant amounts of money that broke the rules in the first place, I can't imagine it will be just as simple as, let the owner put his money into the club to cover sacking someone.

I agree, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't going to be a big pay off for someone with less than 6 months to run on his contract and we will likely end up at a net positive given, for arguments sake, we were to sack him today and that cost us £350k but we actually save £500k on Moore's, Puscas' and Rafael's wages through to the summer.

One of the factors was "Sustainability". I would bet that a factor towards our Business Plan and embargo (to a lesser degree) will be centered around the club trying to be as sustainable as practically possible, by minimising owner input, which is fair game by the EFL's standards. If it was black and white, yes I could understand your point regarding that it might just be excuse making, but I do not think everything behind the scenes is that black and white unfortunately.

As has been rightly pointed out there as well, potentially the cut-backs on wages from departed players in January will influence our decision to offer players a contract they are more likely to agree to.

The cost of sacking him today would literally be the cost of his wages until the summer. Which we would obviously no longer have to pay.

Which is exactly why I have said it might not be possible at this time, because it will be an invoice for February and a payment all at once.

Similar to how many of our deals are structured, we didn't give Inter Milan and Sheffield Wednesday a £7.5m and £5m cheque for George Puscas and Lucas Joao outright, we are paying for these deals over the course of their contracts. Ultimately, it didn't matter because we broke FFP regulations anyway, but that's something we have to factor in as well, so it might not be entirely possible right now.

The outcome is the same, but there are ways of getting there and sacking him, today, tomorrow, next week etc, might not be possible right now.

We could put him on gardening leave and the payments wouldn't change. Whatever way you look at it, FFP isn't stopping us from sacking him, but it might be making it difficult to find a suitable replacement.

[Snowflake Royal]

This somewhat sums up that a group of fans are going to protest and specifically call the manager a clown because we've lost a few games. It's pathetic. The problems at this club are about much more than Paunovic.

You're rather understating the position.

We've lost more than half our games this season, had our worst ever FA Cup result and our worst home defeat since the war in the same week, are on a run of 2 wins in 16 having lost 5 league games in a row.

Few doesn't really cut it.

It's worse than Rodgers. It's worse than Stam, Gomes, Burns, Clarke, McDermott or Clement. It's not far off Bullivant.

Wins don't count now? This isn't the first time you've used selective stats recently to back up your views.

Paunovic has won 34% of his games in charge - this was 29% for Burns, 26% for Rodgers, 24% for Gomes and 23% for Clement. It is a similar success rate to Clarke and Adkins (both 36%) and Bowen (35%).

Tommy Burns oversaw 2 wins in 17 games from the start of his time in charge, Rodgers did 2 in 14, Gomes also had a run of 2 in 14, and so did Clement. Steve Clarke managed 2 wins in 19 games, split over his two seasons in charge. Adkins worst run was 3 in 16. You can check all these if you like.

Pretending Paunovic is in some way materially worse than all these managers is horseshit.

Not compared to that loss rate.