£23 million In ... £1.4 million Spent

[papereyes]

So that's £20M spent, not the £1.4M that Dodger states.

Well, no, Spacey. The club say in one of those articles that Hunt, Mooney and Armstrong add up to £1.5 million.

The £20 million is clearly a total over two and a bit years from promotion to the Premiership and up to now.

But Dodger says we had £23M in. As far as I can see, this season we've only received about £12.5M for Kitson, Sonko and Shorey [Little? Was he a free?]. Where's the other £11M? I know some people have said it's the parachute payment, but you can't have the spent figure for players only and the income figure for players and additional income. That's just skewing it out of proportion to fit Dodger's agenda against Mr Madejski.

To be fair to him, it is just a chunk of extra money we get. We 'earned' it last season, if you will.

But that's the point of his post, aside from the baiting, chumming and setting of hooks - those are the headline figures. That's what people see first and clearest.

[brendywendy]

quote="brendywendy"]

but he did say wed only spent 1.4 million though didnt he?

His first post, admittedly, gives no timescale but I'd really wonder how you could not see what he was referring to, given how the three players bought in this summer cost the amount he writes in his thread title.[/quote]


but the imporant thing is that the 3 players sold, do not total 23 million
which is why the whole title is so(deliberatly?) misleading

the real figures should be 10+M in, 1.4 m spent on players

or give the full outgoings and incomings, not the mismatched data he has displayed there

[brendywendy]

That's what I'd like to hear. We *have* spent the money, but not on players.

Thank you.

no, totally the opposite

No, not at all, read what I wrote there and some of my other posts, the ones with the theme "I can't see how it adds but if we've spent it on improving our infrastructure, then I don't mind so much".

This one, for example, 2nd September 9:06:

If it makes our infrastructure more secure, then that's fine, but who else would like the club to make this a little bit clearer?

or this one, 1st September, 21:19:

I think, really, that the club have to do better PR as most people will simply see only the headline figures, especially with the Premiership being sold as a land of milk, honey and streets paved with gold. However, if that Premiership spell means that we're better prepared to stay up next time (through a securing of our debts and slow march to self-sufficiency), then I can accept that and I think most fans would. But that's an argument for the club to make, that they possibly have to make and I don't think they have.

Now they have, I have less complaint. Easy.

So thank you, JM. That was pretty much exactly what I was asking for.

im glad there has been cklarification from the club on these issues for you

but you still wrote

That's what I'd like to hear. We *have* spent the money, but not on players.

just under a statement that said we had spent 12.5 million on players

[papereyes]

If you genuinely can't see what was written and why, I feel sorry for you.

but the imporant thing is that the 3 players sold, do not total 23 million
which is why the whole title is so(deliberatly?) misleading

the real figures should be 10+M in, 1.4 m spent on players

or give the full outgoings and incomings, not the mismatched data he has displayed there

I completely disagree, given where the £11 million comes from and how we earned it.

[brendywendy]

Don't think its been posted yet, but wonder if the chairman has read our concerns on hobnob!

http://www.readingfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10306~1383884,00.html

and another

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/articles/2/4568

good articles, and glad hes got a thick enough skin to put up with it
id be tempted to throw a hissy fit if it was me working hard to run this club
im glad im not!

[Thaumagurist*]

[Little? Was he a free?]

Yes, remember we had offered him a new contract, but he got a better one from the Portsmouth scum. We got absolutely nothing for him despite us paying for his treatment and rehabilitation from injury.

[papereyes]

Don't think its been posted yet, but wonder if the chairman has read our concerns on hobnob!

http://www.readingfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10306~1383884,00.html

and another

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/articles/2/4568

good articles, and glad hes got a thick enough skin to put up with it
id be tempted to throw a hissy fit if it was me working hard to run this club
im glad im not!

It is what they should have been doing from the off.

As I said earlier, I can see why people gave him stick - the headlines numbers (such as those at the front of the thread) simply don't look like they stack up.

If the club had made it clearer, earlier, they would have had much less hassle - manifested on Saturday when he put himself in the firing line.

[papereyes]

[Little? Was he a free?]

Yes, remember we had offered him a new contract, but he got a better one from the Portsmouth scum. We got absolutely nothing for him despite us paying for his treatment and rehabilitation from injury.

lulz

[Dirk Gently]

Don't think its been posted yet, but wonder if the chairman has read our concerns on hobnob!

http://www.readingfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10306~1383884,00.html

and another

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/articles/2/4568

good articles, and glad hes got a thick enough skin to put up with it
id be tempted to throw a hissy fit if it was me working hard to run this club
im glad im not!

It is what they should have been doing from the off.

As I said earlier, I can see why people gave him stick - the headlines numbers (such as those at the front of the thread) simply don't look like they stack up.

If the club had made it clearer, earlier, they would have had much less hassle - manifested on Saturday when he put himself in the firing line.

Agreed - and JM himself didn't help by some of the things he came out with. But for their own reasons the club felt that they couldn't come out with any statements about the overall financial situation until the transfer window was closed.

[brendywendy]

If you genuinely can't see what was written and why, I feel sorry for you.

but the imporant thing is that the 3 players sold, do not total 23 million
which is why the whole title is so(deliberatly?) misleading

the real figures should be 10+M in, 1.4 m spent on players

or give the full outgoings and incomings, not the mismatched data he has displayed there

I completely disagree, given where the £11 million comes from and how we earned it.

thats fine, but only if you include the other outgoings

saying "we got 23 million in taking into account transfers out, and parachute money, and only 1.4M out"is totally disengenuous, totally distorting the picture to fit with the "where has all the money gone" argument, making it look like madejski has "taken" 21 M + out of the club somehow

look - i can do it myself and distort it the other way if you like

its 10+M (in installments) in, 1.4 out
11 M in(parachute) 20M out in wages, and 2 million out on training ground and new pitch

total = -1.6 M million - now that looks totally different

which is why its important to see the whole picture,
or only quote like for like costs/expenses

[brendywendy]

Don't think its been posted yet, but wonder if the chairman has read our concerns on hobnob!

http://www.readingfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10306~1383884,00.html

and another

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/articles/2/4568

good articles, and glad hes got a thick enough skin to put up with it
id be tempted to throw a hissy fit if it was me working hard to run this club
im glad im not!

It is what they should have been doing from the off.

As I said earlier, I can see why people gave him stick - the headlines numbers (such as those at the front of the thread) simply don't look like they stack up.

If the club had made it clearer, earlier, they would have had much less hassle - manifested on Saturday when he put himself in the firing line.

it was clear to me, just from seeing the accounts from the 1st year, and the other info the club has put out there over the last couple of years
but ill agree, if it would have helped, they should have done more, and earlier

[Gordons Cumming]

“Running a club is a very expensive business and they shouldn’t be so quick to judge.”

[Wycombe Royal]

It is what they should have been doing from the off.

As I said earlier, I can see why people gave him stick - the headlines numbers (such as those at the front of the thread) simply don't look like they stack up.

If the club had made it clearer, earlier, they would have had much less hassle - manifested on Saturday when he put himself in the firing line.

Maybe they should have made it clearer earlier, but many people could understand where the money had gone without needing the club to explain themselves.

For others they obviously need to take the "colour by numbers" approach......

[Man Friday]

I'm glad that JM has come out and fully explained the financial situation.

[brendywendy]

I'm glad that JM has come out and fully explained the financial situation.

sometimes is impossible to please anyone, let alone everyone

[Wycombe Royal]

I'm glad that JM has come out and fully explained the financial situation.

So am I because it might shut up a few of those who have been so critical over the past few months. Of course there will still be the usual idiots who continue........

I'm sure they won't dissapoint us.

[Dirk Gently]

I'm glad that JM has come out and fully explained the financial situation.

So am I because it might shut up a few of those who have been so critical over the past few months. Of course there will still be the usual idiots who continue........

I'm sure they won't dissapoint us.

As I've said a few times recently, there's none so blind as those who won't see.

[Sydneyroyal]

Does anyone know of any billionaires who would like to INVEST money in the club, because that is what it appears is needed (or wanted by the fans) rather than running the club for a profit. Do you think the Man City group will make money? I don't even think QPR are planning on making money for the next few years. JM did a great job taking us this far - at a financial risk. Can he spend the money needed to take us to the next level? It is a risk - just look at Leeds - or even Luton. $10million (sorry don't know how to get a pound sign up) isn't enough to get us to the next level - that is just one, maybe two quality players (1 1/4 Kevin Doyels if Villa rumours were right and that certainly wont keep us at the next level). Sound and safe financial management - might not appease most Hobnobbers but at least we will still have good facilities and an exciting and competitive Championship side that might flirt with promotion occasionally.
I do think that the club is, however, a very attractive proposition for perspective buyers wanting to play the new billionaire's game - and what a shame that would be because we will lose any notion of being a community club and buy Brazilian stars rather than allow players to come through the academy - whilst increasing ticket prices BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Rant over.

[Geekins]

How much did we pay for Matejovsky?

[papereyes]

which is why its important to see the whole picture,
or only quote like for like costs/expenses

Here's the point





Here's you

HTH