Where has £3.95 million gone?

[Stranded]

Transfers work both ways though - for example Mills is often put down as £2m but he's only cost us around half that to date.

[STAR Liaison]

I do find the attitude of some of you on here to be frustrating. Some have called me a WUM and nothing could be further for the truth.

What bugs me is that we were told there was a shortfall of £4M last June and even though we raised £8M in player sales, little of the surplus has been reinvested. Most of you seem to see no inconsistency in all this and I suppose the Chairman is right. If the fans don't care why bother to invest?

I have been trying to hold my nerve and not post on this thread but this needs to be put right if it is what really bugs you. I don't think you are a WUM but your extrapolation of statements made are just plain wrong. And as STAR are shareholders I have a copy of the accounts for 2010.

The statement that there was a £4 million shortfall was concerning the 2010/11 season not the 2009/10. I know posters on here will not credit it but the budget for the current season was being set early last season and STAR had been told at the management meetings that the club was aware that without promotion there was going to be a large shortfall once the parachute payment ceased and that they were afraid that a player would have to be sold to plug the gap.

The 2009/10 season showed a profit both in ordinary trading as well as a profit on players trading but as the profit was well under the level of parachute payments it should be clear to everyone that the 2010/11 season was unlikely to show a profit.

I know the disbeleivers will not be convinved but the chairmans loan is a massive £24,000 less that 2009 so the players sales have not gone there.

FYI gross wages (for all RFC employees not just players) has gone down from just under £28 million in 2009 to just over £20 million to June 2010. And directors renumeration (SJM and Ian Wood-Smith) is nil.

Finally I do find it very difficult to reconcile the use of words that have a financial meaning with the ordinary english use of the word. Investment meaning just the purchase of players ignores all the other possible use of funds and your comment that little has been reinvested ignores a whole list of possible use of the surplus.

[brendywendy]

If Long gets injured(He's just limped off at half time in the WBA game), then where are your goals coming from?

He's still playing in the second half.......

Ok, fair enough.

BUT seriously, you sold Sigurdson for 7m and ok, Reading are trying to have a tight ship financially, but you would expect a team that had two years in the prem, to have a little financial clout over teams that haven't been in the top flight for some time, plus the fact all the high earners are off the wages bill and have gone elsewhere.... Surely they can afford a 1m player plus his wages........Reading do have a decent squad for the Championship, but injuries to vital player will kill any promotion hopes.

Please don't kid yourself and come up with excuses......if they can't afford that, then something is seriously wrong at the club.

replace RFC with chelsea, and up the numbers slightly, and i could say much the same about chelseas current transfer policy.

[brendywendy]

I do find the attitude of some of you on here to be frustrating. Some have called me a WUM and nothing could be further for the truth.

As Victor said earlier I was one of the most supportive posters about the club for a long time. I supported the club for many years prior to the PL years and saw the club being built brick by brick and in general I agreed with that approach. I am all for developing the Academy and bringing through young players and for buying talent from the lower divisions and developing players etc etc.

BUT what disturbs me is that the promotion to the PL, two seasons there, two years parachute payments and a profit on player sales of some £20M, let alone the additional PL ticket sales (home and away) and merchandising brought the club is at least an ADDITIONAL £140,000,000 as compared to the income we would have generated if we had never been promoted. As not one penny of this money was invested in the squad (the cost of putting together the 2005-6 squad was all but identical to the cost of putting together the 2010-11 squad) the only items I am aware of that were paid for out of the £140M were the training ground and the new press box. The pitch was rebuilt - but that would have had to have been done anyway.

Assuming all the rest (say £130M) went on higher wages, I think it is a scandal if we wasted that much. In reality I suspect that some loans at least have been repaid - I have no problem with that but just wish the club would be honest.

What bugs me is that we were told there was a shortfall of £4M last June and even though we raised £8M in player sales, little of the surplus has been reinvested. Most of you seem to see no inconsistency in all this and I suppose the Chairman is right. If the fans don't care why bother to invest?

As for Bradley W-P. I have no problem with him. Have not seen him play enough to make a sensible comment and he is probably at least Championship standard, so on one level it might turn out to be a good buy - BUT what virtually everyone who has commented on what we "need" has said in past months that we need a target man type striker who can change a game. I think Long is superb, but if he gets injured who will lead the line. Even if W-P does sign we will only have three small strikers to take his place.

Anyway clearly from these pages I am in a minority - although it would appear a growing one - most of you are happy to be told one story one minute by the club and a different story the next.

I still hope we succeed. No one wants promotion more than me and I do think the Chairman would like promotion but only if it can be obtained without any risk whatsoever. He might get lucky again, just as we were incredibly lucky in 2005-6 as Victor also said earlier. It was a fluke season that year. We only had 10 senior pros at the end of 2004-5 and the Chairman showed some ambition (signed Lita with his own money) plus sanctioned the signings of Doyle, Long, Oster, Gunnar, Makin and others - who all gelled into an amazing team/squad. You can argue that was good management - good coaching etc, but it is what virtually every team tries to do every season and it hardly ever works.

This season we have the potential of another excellent squad - overall better than we had at the end of 2004/5 and just a little ambition could take us to even higher heights, but that ambition seems to be missing this time.

Fortunately for us McD is defying the odds at the moment and long may that continue.

not reading all that.
ill just assume you made horrendous over calculations on income, and totally failed to take any outgoings into account.
you probably slagged off teh signing of BWP too.

[brendywendy]

Not much understanding of the expenditure side of the accounts yet again. All you focus on is ill informed income. Stand back and deal with reality not how you would like things to be!

Of course non wage expenditure was higher for the two years in the PL - but if you seriously think it ate much into that £130/140M of additional income you are deLOLuded (we have to pay for the ground, rates, infrastructure etc whatever division we are in). Wages is the only conceivable explanation and we were never amongst the higher wage payers even in the two PL seasons.

where the feck are you getting 140 million of "extra" income from anyway?
it was about 30 million a season tv money wasnt it? plus an extra 1/2 on matchday income?

2 x 30million+ in wages, new training ground, new players, media centre, ......
ity all adds up, except in your book, which only has an incoming column

[brendywendy]

Well over the two years in the Prem, the official figures are that we made a £13m profit in the two years in the prem. The two years prior to that we lost £12m. We lost £6.25m gambling in getting back in that first year and we had to repay a £7.5m overdraft.

Of course you may want to call these figures all lies, but they are the only figures we have and I think it makes everything pretty clear but hey ho.

it all seems to add up every time i look at them too, so i have no idea what the eedjits are on about

[Royal Rother]

£140m ADDITIONAL income?? Already commented on but that one really did make me LOL.

[andrew1957]

I do find the attitude of some of you on here to be frustrating. Some have called me a WUM and nothing could be further for the truth.

What bugs me is that we were told there was a shortfall of £4M last June and even though we raised £8M in player sales, little of the surplus has been reinvested. Most of you seem to see no inconsistency in all this and I suppose the Chairman is right. If the fans don't care why bother to invest?

I have been trying to hold my nerve and not post on this thread but this needs to be put right if it is what really bugs you. I don't think you are a WUM but your extrapolation of statements made are just plain wrong. And as STAR are shareholders I have a copy of the accounts for 2010.

The statement that there was a £4 million shortfall was concerning the 2010/11 season not the 2009/10. I know posters on here will not credit it but the budget for the current season was being set early last season and STAR had been told at the management meetings that the club was aware that without promotion there was going to be a large shortfall once the parachute payment ceased and that they were afraid that a player would have to be sold to plug the gap.

The 2009/10 season showed a profit both in ordinary trading as well as a profit on players trading but as the profit was well under the level of parachute payments it should be clear to everyone that the 2010/11 season was unlikely to show a profit.

I know the disbeleivers will not be convinved but the chairmans loan is a massive £24,000 less that 2009 so the players sales have not gone there.

FYI gross wages (for all RFC employees not just players) has gone down from just under £28 million in 2009 to just over £20 million to June 2010. And directors renumeration (SJM and Ian Wood-Smith) is nil.

Finally I do find it very difficult to reconcile the use of words that have a financial meaning with the ordinary english use of the word. Investment meaning just the purchase of players ignores all the other possible use of funds and your comment that little has been reinvested ignores a whole list of possible use of the surplus.

So are you saying that the club would have effectively gone bust if we had not sold £8m of players last summer. In which case the shortfall musty have been 8M not 4M. Why say it was 4M if that was not enough. OK I am being simplistic but what no one has satisfactorily explained is why we needed 4M generated 8M and yet there is little or nothing left over to reinvest.

And nor has anyone explained how we can generate 130-140M of additional income over 5 years and yet spend virtually all of this on routine normal expenditure. This in no way strikes me as the sign of being well run.

If one of my businesses generated extra sales of 140M over the next 5 years I would be very disappointed if I had little or nothing to show for it in 5 years time.

[Stranded]

How do you get £140m additional revenue? We were paid £54.5m incl the tv money from the two years. Where is the other £80-£90m coming from?

[Royal Lady]

How do you get £140m additional revenue? We were paid £54.5m incl the tv money from the two years. Where is the other £80-£90m coming from?

I thought we got some money for going into the Prem - plus 2 years tv money plus 2 or 3 years parachute money?

[brendywendy]

I do find the attitude of some of you on here to be frustrating. Some have called me a WUM and nothing could be further for the truth.

What bugs me is that we were told there was a shortfall of £4M last June and even though we raised £8M in player sales, little of the surplus has been reinvested. Most of you seem to see no inconsistency in all this and I suppose the Chairman is right. If the fans don't care why bother to invest?

I have been trying to hold my nerve and not post on this thread but this needs to be put right if it is what really bugs you. I don't think you are a WUM but your extrapolation of statements made are just plain wrong. And as STAR are shareholders I have a copy of the accounts for 2010.

The statement that there was a £4 million shortfall was concerning the 2010/11 season not the 2009/10. I know posters on here will not credit it but the budget for the current season was being set early last season and STAR had been told at the management meetings that the club was aware that without promotion there was going to be a large shortfall once the parachute payment ceased and that they were afraid that a player would have to be sold to plug the gap.

The 2009/10 season showed a profit both in ordinary trading as well as a profit on players trading but as the profit was well under the level of parachute payments it should be clear to everyone that the 2010/11 season was unlikely to show a profit.

I know the disbeleivers will not be convinved but the chairmans loan is a massive £24,000 less that 2009 so the players sales have not gone there.

FYI gross wages (for all RFC employees not just players) has gone down from just under £28 million in 2009 to just over £20 million to June 2010. And directors renumeration (SJM and Ian Wood-Smith) is nil.

Finally I do find it very difficult to reconcile the use of words that have a financial meaning with the ordinary english use of the word. Investment meaning just the purchase of players ignores all the other possible use of funds and your comment that little has been reinvested ignores a whole list of possible use of the surplus.

So are you saying that the club would have effectively gone bust if we had not sold £8m of players last summer. In which case the shortfall musty have been 8M not 4M. Why say it was 4M if that was not enough. OK I am being simplistic but what no one has satisfactorily explained is why we needed 4M generated 8M and yet there is little or nothing left over to reinvest.

And nor has anyone explained how we can generate 130-140M of additional income over 5 years and yet spend virtually all of this on routine normal expenditure. This in no way strikes me as the sign of being well run.

If one of my businesses generated extra sales of 140M over the next 5 years I would be very disappointed if I had little or nothing to show for it in 5 years time.

first bit is just wrong, thats not what theyve said at all.

2nd bit is just mental as no one knows where you are plucking 140million extra income from


whty dont you just read the massive and fulsome statement just given- as it seems to give you exactly the figures you are missing and should change your mind about the finances

[brendywendy]

How do you get £140m additional revenue? We were paid £54.5m incl the tv money from the two years. Where is the other £80-£90m coming from?

I thought we got some money for going into the Prem - plus 2 years tv money plus 2 or 3 years parachute money?

so 50 odd for 2 years tv. the money for being in the prem is about 500k per finishing spot, plus 11 m in parachutes times 2, or 3.
even if you add the 20 million income from transfers thats gone on over the last three seasons it doesnt make anyway near 140 million.


and yet again fails to account for any outgoings at all

[Royal Lady]

I thought we were discussing money coming in. Stranded said we got money for 2 years. Which is wrong.

[Stranded]

How do you get £140m additional revenue? We were paid £54.5m incl the tv money from the two years. Where is the other £80-£90m coming from?

I thought we got some money for going into the Prem - plus 2 years tv money plus 2 or 3 years parachute money?

I think we got £1m for winning the league. Parachutes of course, £11m each for two years. First of those years, we did gamble and paid PL wages to keep Doyle, Hunt, Hahnemann etc to attempt to get up and lost £6.265m as a result.

All these figures are readily available from the statement released in Oct '09 and STAR has spoken about the latest accounts, if they looked dodgy I'd be the first to decry the situation but it all looks perfectly normal to me.

EDIT: PL prize money for our 8th and 18th place finishes totaled approx £11m.

[brendywendy]

I thought we were discussing money coming in. Stranded said we got money for 2 years. Which is wrong.

i think the main, and only point is that we havent brought in 140 million in extra income from the prem

[Royal Monk]

I have obtained the accounts and gone through them with a fine toothed comb and indeed we did get 140 million over the period of time we played in the PL and the 2 following years and after taking out all the deductions there is currently a 3.95 million short fall.

I have proof , if anyone wants it then just pm me

[andrew1957]

How do you get £140m additional revenue? We were paid £54.5m incl the tv money from the two years. Where is the other £80-£90m coming from?

The figures I have read indicated nearer to 35/40M per annum for each PL season (PL payments, TV rights, extra payments for televised games).
Plus £12M times two for the two parachute years
Plus 20M player sales surplus
Plus a large amount of additional income from match day sales - share from the gate fees at Man Unt are greater than at Doncaster etc. Plus Madstad full most matches for two years, plus extra merchandising - estimate 10M per annum for two years.

Total 130/140M of additional income. Obviously this is an estimate but whether it is 120M or 140M the points made still apply.

[brendywendy]

I have obtained the accounts and gone through them with a fine toothed comb and indeed we did get 140 million over the period of time we played in the PL and the 2 following years and after taking out all the deductions there is currently a 3.95 million short fall.

I have proof , if anyone wants it then just pm me

LOL!
but that is not 140 million in "extra income"
and its our total income over 4 years,
and its not including the year where we had a 4 million shortfall

[brendywendy]

How do you get £140m additional revenue? We were paid £54.5m incl the tv money from the two years. Where is the other £80-£90m coming from?

The figures I have read indicated nearer to 35/40M per annum for each PL season (PL payments, TV rights, extra payments for televised games).
Plus £12M times two for the two parachute years
Plus 20M player sales surplus
Plus a large amount of additional income from match day sales - share from the gate fees at Man Unt are greater than at Doncaster etc. Plus Madstad full most matches for two years, plus extra merchandising - estimate 10M per annum for two years.

Total 130/140M of additional income. Obviously this is an estimate but whether it is 120M or 140M the points made still apply.

stop taking the daily mail/expresses take on premiere league income, and use the books published by our own club

[Royal Lady]

Hmmmm.

What do the nay sayers have to say to the above 2 posts now then?

EDIT: Damn you Bendy - I didn't mean yours.