SJM interview with BBC

[leicsRoyal]

Some of the comments in this and other threads make me laugh. I read things like we are over achieving, one person in this thread suggesting we have done so since 2002!! Tell me how do you propose to be successful and continue to grow as a club if its not to keep pushing forward and achieving more each year?

That sort of comment is what stops people and organisations from getting to the top, "well done people we have done really well, but you can relax now and take your foot of the gas because, I mean really we have done far better than we should have, so who gives a stuff if we balls it up from here!!".

What a load of crap!!

Agreed Drew, but some people want too much too soon at any cost!

[Z175]

Its quite interesting that the finance debate is kicking off again for the summer. Especially as from a quick scan of the above sample the majority seem pro-Madejski, whereas after the Sig went the majority were certainly anti- Madejski.

Sadly the facts are the majority of Championship clubs are running deeper and deeper into debt and Sir John unfortunately has no more cash to cover this. Therefore we need to seel players to cover the wagebill. We are watching the Sig money in action when we see our squad succeed in this league.

Only the idiots suspect SJM is taking money out of the club, and only the clinically insane believe its in our interests to be taken over by an Usmanov or the estate of the late Sheikh Osama.

But what I will criticise is this. We have been very very lucky to be a position where player sales could fund the club. When we got relegated we still had some valuable assets in Kitson, Doyle, Shorey and even Bikey, Cisse etc. Then the class of Sigurddson and Brian's skill has enabled us to again bring in lots of cash and still grab a playoff spot.

IF we hadn't had such a good young side and Brian had not been a miracle worker, who would have covered the deficit? As we look at Sheff Utd falling into League 1, its hard not been to worry slightly about what happens when we can't sell players.

Yet presumably we would have had to trim to the bone. Not in class, but in numbers. We actually have a 22 man squad, arguably even more. I think only QPR can match us for having this many championship level players. If we hadn't sold the Sig, we would have no Harte, no Kishinishvilli, no Howard, probably no Leigertwood, no Manset, maybe no McAnuff and maybe no Federici. Therefore if we stay down, the options this summer will be either to get rid of half the squad and hopefully keep everyone fit, or sell the likes of Long or Kebe+Feds to cover another McDermott inspired playoff push.

I'm relatively disinterested about watching us in the prem next season. But considering it will fund the team for 5 years then it makes it all the more necessary. Looking at the amounts Cardiff and Forest have "invested" then at least two, if not three of these teams may find it hard for the next few years.

[Z175]

Some of the comments in this and other threads make me laugh. I read things like we are over achieving, one person in this thread suggesting we have done so since 2002!! Tell me how do you propose to be successful and continue to grow as a club if its not to keep pushing forward and achieving more each year?

That sort of comment is what stops people and organisations from getting to the top, "well done people we have done really well, but you can relax now and take your foot of the gas because, I mean really we have done far better than we should have, so who gives a stuff if we balls it up from here!!".

What a load of crap!!

Agreed Drew, but some people want too much too soon at any cost!

This mentality makes businesses go bust or takeover the world. Its how capitalism works and why it is successful, but at a football club you can't go bankrupt and then try the same risks at another one, unless you're Peter Ridsdale.

[Arnie_Pie]

He has absolulely no interest in taking this club forward in football terms but will agree to the sale of players to benefit John Madejski.

You sir, are an idiot. I tell you what he has no interest in, this club going down the toilet. Nothing else.

[Svlad Cjelli]

A football club is not a normal business - no-oneever asked to have their ashes scattered outside Tesco or Sainsburys.

In an ideal world a club owner *ought* to be custodian of the club for its supporters and its community (both of which will be there long after any owner has moved on) - but in this less-than ideal world the majority of club owners are in it either for personal kudos or under a mistaken belief that they can make money from it.

(Although JM can do the latter when he sells up, of course).

[Snowball]

Its quite interesting that the finance debate is kicking off again for the summer. Especially as from a quick scan of the above sample the majority seem pro-Madejski, whereas after the Sig went the majority were certainly anti- Madejski.

Sadly the facts are the majority of Championship clubs are running deeper and deeper into debt and Sir John unfortunately has no more cash to cover this. Therefore we need to seel players to cover the wagebill. We are watching the Sig money in action when we see our squad succeed in this league.

Only the idiots suspect SJM is taking money out of the club, and only the clinically insane believe its in our interests to be taken over by an Usmanov or the estate of the late Sheikh Osama.

But what I will criticise is this. We have been very very lucky to be a position where player sales could fund the club. When we got relegated we still had some valuable assets in Kitson, Doyle, Shorey and even Bikey, Cisse etc. Then the class of Sigurddson and Brian's skill has enabled us to again bring in lots of cash and still grab a playoff spot.

IF we hadn't had such a good young side and Brian had not been a miracle worker, who would have covered the deficit? As we look at Sheff Utd falling into League 1, its hard not been to worry slightly about what happens when we can't sell players.

Yet presumably we would have had to trim to the bone. Not in class, but in numbers. We actually have a 22 man squad, arguably even more. I think only QPR can match us for having this many championship level players. If we hadn't sold the Sig, we would have no Harte, no Kishinishvilli, no Howard, probably no Leigertwood, no Manset, maybe no McAnuff and maybe no Federici. Therefore if we stay down, the options this summer will be either to get rid of half the squad and hopefully keep everyone fit, or sell the likes of Long or Kebe+Feds to cover another McDermott inspired playoff push.

I'm relatively disinterested about watching us in the prem next season. But considering it will fund the team for 5 years then it makes it all the more necessary. Looking at the amounts Cardiff and Forest have "invested" then at least two, if not three of these teams may find it hard for the next few years.

Nice Post.









"Z175 OUT!!"

[Bucks Dave]

I did actually post my article "Where's the money gone? " to Graham for the articles section in HobNob but it never appeared. If people are still believing that SJM is not contributing anything then contact Star who may let you see the article they circulated for their members.

It is now becoming a real conspiracy theory with some that SJM is holding(or has taken) a bundle of cash within the club that he won't release. As with all such theories its proponents will simply never give in.

[strap]

So in the interview he says ...

"If we don't make it to the promised land then things will have to change but that's the nature of the beast I'm afraid."

I've listened to the interview 3 or 4 times .... and NOWHERE in the interview does Mr Mad say anything of the sort! Maybe it's me, but all he confirms is that the club is available to a buyer with deep pockets - which is absolutelynothing new to any of us!

Perhaps the Beeb have changed the interview??

Anyway for what it's worth, if we don't go up, I agree with the posters who say Long, Kebe and Federici (or perhaps McCarthy listening to the Everton rumours) will be sold - and we will probably pick up around £6-7M for all three, which will match the Sig transfer last year. Seing as the Sig was sodl to effectively pay off the overdraft at the bank, this year's £6-7M will start to pay-off Mr Mad's £20M loan that is still outstanding.

Again, should this come to pass, it will be absolutely no surprise to any real RFC fan. The Academy seems to be producing, (at last), a steady trickle of future stars, (which of course is its purpose), and so the business model Mr Mad put in placewhen we reached the PL last time is arguably working as intended.

To be frank, promotion to the PL would be a double edged sword. On the one hand, the 4 years parachute payments after relegation in the first year back, (which should be the business plan worst case assumption), will keep the club afloat for the next five years. However, the needs of the PL will undoubtedly mean fewer opportunities for the Academy players coming through, which could lead to stunting their development and possibly meaning they leave before they have deveoped to 1st XI standard which would stymie our progress when back in the Championship.

I have siad this befoer and will say again - in my opinion Mr Mad's ideal will be for us to continue flirting with the play-offs, safe from relegation in teh upper reahes fo the Championship, but NOT getting promotion to the PL. Attendances will be healthy, wages will be kept down, and Academy players will have a chance to develop, with the possibility of selling one or two players a year for a couple of million to help balance the books. ANything over this couple of million will go to paying off Mr Mad's loan. 5 more years of this, Mr Mad gets his money back, the club has no debt, Mr Mad would have been in charge for a nicve round 25 years, and he can sell to whoever he likes and lake a profit. WHich after all - has always been his aim!

[Snowball]

He did say it. Strap.I heard it.

[Royal Lady]

If, as appears to be widely accepted on here, we are destined to make a loss every year - even after selling players, such as Sig last year for twice what our "black hole" was - can we all now stop spouting the "we're a well run club" bollocks in that case? Because if we're well run, that kind of implies that we don't get into debt, don't pay our players more than we should, etc etc. So could someone please explain to me how you define a "well run club" if it makes losses year on year?

[Snowball]

If, as appears to be widely accepted on here, we are destined to make a loss every year - even after selling players, such as Sig last year for twice what our "black hole" was - can we all now stop spouting the "we're a well run club" bollocks in that case? Because if we're well run, that kind of implies that we don't get into debt, don't pay our players more than we should, etc etc. So could someone please explain to me how you define a "well run club" if it makes losses year on year?

Let's say the business model is based on 16,000 gates (whatever figure you like)

Let's say that in order to get that 16K we need to be above half-way.

Let's say we can do that but we go behind by 2-5 Million in the season.

Then, if we aren't promoted, we have to cash in on a player and find bargains as we have done for many years.


Now say we cut wages so that there wasn't a shortfall.

We then drop towards the relegation places, GATES DROP, say to 12K. 23 x 4K x £23.
That's a loss of gate money of £2.17 Million, so we still have a short-fall
Plus lost programme and kit sales, less corporate sponsorship..



Seems to me that the "Losing 3-5 million a year model" is one that gives us a decent punt at the POs
and more-or-less maintains gates. Get promoted, get a good pay-out. Miss out, sell 1-2 players, get
in a bargain, one you hope will increase in value by a couple of million.


Brett Williams, for example. Surely he's a punt to be 4th striker (initially) if Shane goes? (Hunt, Church or Manset, Williams)
but would probably go out on loan if we go up and/or Shane stays.

Manset, too, could easily develop and be worth a couple of million in a year or two.

[Svlad Cjelli]

If, as appears to be widely accepted on here, we are destined to make a loss every year - even after selling players, such as Sig last year for twice what our "black hole" was - can we all now stop spouting the "we're a well run club" bollocks in that case? Because if we're well run, that kind of implies that we don't get into debt, don't pay our players more than we should, etc etc. So could someone please explain to me how you define a "well run club" if it makes losses year on year?

A well-run club is one that knows exactly what its financial situation is and manages within the constraints of that.

More specifically, it doesn't sign contracts left right and centre that it can't afford; it doesn't have different parts of the club all acting independently so that there are contracts that the finance people don't know about until too late; it doesn't give in to blackmail from players whose wages it can't afford, it has a proper accounting system and financial control; it signs contracts that allow provision for change when the financial situation changes, so it's not tied into long-term, inappropriate agreements. All of the above d not apply at other clubs (Pompey's accounting system was a carrier bag full of bills at the bottom of a drawer!)

And so on... a well-run club at this level is one which continues to exist. It's impossible to make a profit at this level - or even to break-even and compete - so a well-run cub is one with financial control and flexibility, so there are no horrible surprises, financially. It's perfectly legitimate to make a loss, as long as there are ways (e.g. player sales) to counter that.

[Royal Lady]

Mind, on the other hand, you get your Cardiff's, Pompey's etc who although going into administration and supposedly not having a pot to piss in, manage to sign some big name players and carry on trading.

Seems to me you're damned if you do things the "right" way and given free rein if you break the rules (also see QPR for further details)

[Svlad Cjelli]

Mind, on the other hand, you get your Cardiff's, Pompey's etc who although going into administration and supposedly not having a pot to piss in, manage to sign some big name players and carry on trading.

Seems to me you're damned if you do things the "right" way and given free rein if you break the rules (also see QPR for further details)

Welcome to football's broken financial model.

But how sustainable that is in the long-term remains to be seen - it just can't go on. The UEFA "Financial Fair Play" regulations will make some changes, and expect other changes to financial governance to come as a result of the DCM Enquiry.

[strap]

He did say it. Strap.I heard it.

Thanks chap. This is link of the interview I heard

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/reading/9481723.stm

Would appreciate the link of the one you heard?

TIA.

[Royal With Cheese]

He did say it. Strap.I heard it.

Thanks chap. This is link of the interview I heard

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/reading/9481723.stm

Would appreciate the link of the one you heard?

TIA.

Strap - you've really stepped over the line.

Snowball heard it - therefore it is a FACT.

MOVE ON.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Some of the comments in this and other threads make me laugh. I read things like we are over achieving, one person in this thread suggesting we have done so since 2002!! Tell me how do you propose to be successful and continue to grow as a club if its not to keep pushing forward and achieving more each year?

That sort of comment is what stops people and organisations from getting to the top, "well done people we have done really well, but you can relax now and take your foot of the gas because, I mean really we have done far better than we should have, so who gives a stuff if we balls it up from here!!".

What a load of crap!!

Ok, I should have also added you are also an idiot of you don't know the difference between spending money you don't have an investing.

Someone above said businesses grow by investing money to get bigger.

That is certainly true. The difference is that an investment brings in a return. They don't just spend more than their income year on year. Businesses that do that go bankrupt, not grow.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed, but in football you can only "invest" in infrastructure and facilities - if you're spending money on player, managers etc that's not "investing", it's "gambling".

There are no guarantees of returns, and because the number of trophies/promotion places etc stays the same, the more other teams there are who are gambling in the same way then the more likely it is that the gamble won't pay off.

[Forbury Lion]

I'm relatively disinterested about watching us in the prem next season. But considering it will fund the team for 5 years then it makes it all the more necessary. Looking at the amounts Cardiff and Forest have "invested" then at least two, if not three of these teams may find it hard for the next few years.

+1

If we are fortunate enough to get there, We should look at the Premiership as a working holiday from the Championship and not do anything stupid in terms of transfers and wages to cause problems further down the line.... Coppell made mistakes with the likes of Seol, plus our record signing, whatever his name was - we should sign players who will still be there if we are relegated.

[floyd__streete]

So - taking play-off f*ck up for granted - we will have to let good players go, reduce budget and rely on youth products. Hasn't that been the same story for the past 3 seasons anyway, and we have still managed to finish in the top 10 of this mediocre division regardless?

The worry must be that the standards drop consistently so that we eventually become Preston.