Chairman Backing

[Royal Lady]

Exactly what I have suggested in the past and been shot down for, I believe.

[brendywendy]

surely what you were saying is, "theres no way we spent 11 million on facilities, and the chairman has clearly been lieing and robbing us blind?"



or was it the hotel? no ones said we dont pay towards teh hotel- what i shot you down over was complaining during the period that the hotel contributed to our profits(ie pre recession)


or did you mean the wages bit?

[Royal Lady]

I've maintained for a long time that because we appear to be "lumped" in with the hotel in the accounts, that part of the money from the club went to the hotel expansion. If the question was to me, Bendy. If not, I've said it anyway!

[brendywendy]

I've maintained for a long time that because we appear to be "lumped" in with the hotel in the accounts, that part of the money from the club went to the hotel expansion. If the question was to me, Bendy. If not, I've said it anyway!

the hotel is part of teh stadium, and part of the holding company. so always on the balance sheet of said holding company.
you were shot down for complaining about this when the hotel was actually contributing to our finances positively.
now i guess its fair game, although shortsighted, to start complaining about it.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Nonsense Brendy , RL ligitamitly(sp) asked in the past if money from The Prem was used to finance the Hotel, and the general concensus seemed to be that it did not. Now Delloites state that the club spent £11million on infrastucture. Yet it has been said that £2m was spent on a media centre, and I recall about £1mill on the training ground, leaves a big hole.

Question is IF the club used football money to extend the Hotel was it the best use of the money? And if it was the best use of the money , who was it best for?

[brendywendy]

consensus shmonsensus

who was it best for?
the the club and holding company. since the profits for the hotel go back into the club, and JM hasnt taken money out of there either.

it has always been in the accounts, so i have no idea why anyone with knowledge of the accounts would have said it wasnt.
clearly the hotel is an investment, and as it showed pre recession it was contributiong financially to the club by a fair ammount.
now the recession has hit its less clear cut, but long term, surely everyone can see that the hotel is a positive thing for the financial income of the club.

[andrew1957]

andrew :
ref 1: we had little choice since no one wanted to pay us 4 million for any of our other players-i absolutely agree that the sale will most probably cost us a shot at the playoffs though

Don't agree with this point. We did not NEED £4M last summer - in fact it has since been stated that the £4M was needed to fund next season's shortfall. In any case bearing in mind our relative lack of debt the bank would have lent us £4M for one season as an overdraft. It was the case of the club not wanting to borrow more rather than not being able to borrow more.

In my view this would have been a small gamble but the senior management obviously thought not worth taking. I think that it possibly shows the Chairman's lack of football knowledge. I think he might of underestimated how important Siggy was to the team and fully thought we could mount a promotion challenge without him - which of course we might yet do - be it unlikely.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Feel free to go back and show where the club have said that money from the premier league income was put into the Hotel, bet you can't.

[brendywendy]

andrew :
ref 1: we had little choice since no one wanted to pay us 4 million for any of our other players-i absolutely agree that the sale will most probably cost us a shot at the playoffs though

Don't agree with this point. We did not NEED £4M last summer - in fact it has since been stated that the £4M was needed to fund next season's shortfall. In any case bearing in mind our relative lack of debt the bank would have lent us £4M for one season as an overdraft. It was the case of the club not wanting to borrow more rather than not being able to borrow more.

In my view this would have been a small gamble but the senior management obviously thought not worth taking. I think that it possibly shows the Chairman's lack of football knowledge. I think he might of underestimated how important Siggy was to the team and fully thought we could mount a promotion challenge without him - which of course we might yet do - be it unlikely.

the same bank who just called our 7 million overdraught back in?

ok then.


whenever the shortfall the money was used to fill it, and then the rest used to release cash for players wages and loan fees, and maybe save some for a rainy day.
no gamble about it- we take enough money in to pay the wage bill we are trying to reach. a loan, and therefore more interest payments would make that less likely, not more in the long term, and since JM isnt paying us free cash any more, we had no choice, like i said

[brendywendy]

Feel free to go back and show where the club have said that money from the premier league income was put into the Hotel, bet you can't.

i never said they did. so why would i look for it.
but the holding company accounts are available, and made public on this very forum every year.

or are we somehow back to the "JM is clearly syphoning off our cash to fund his other businesses and playboy lifestyle" "argument"?

[Tails]

Thats it folks.



This was meant for the Ireland v England match.

[andrew1957]

You're assuming that Gylfi was just an item on the balance sheet, or a computer game. He wasn't - he was a human being with his own hopes and ambitions. The choice was not made to sell him, he was attracted by what he thought was a superb change to further his career. Would it be fair to try and stop him? And how would he have felt and played if we had tried?

This has been covered many times before but you continue to believe what you want to belive.

Siggy himself said that he was told to leave - this has been confirmed by people who knew him. It was almost certainly a bad move for his future development as a season of building the team round him at RFC would have been much better for him than a season sitting mainly on the bench at Hoffenheim. We did him no favours by selling him and the club engineered it. It was a financial decision alone. If you think otherwise you really are deluded.

[brendywendy]

Nonsense Brendy , RL ligitamitly(sp) asked in the past if money from The Prem was used to finance the Hotel, and the general concensus seemed to be that it did not. Now Delloites state that the club spent £11million on infrastucture. Yet it has been said that £2m was spent on a media centre, and I recall about £1mill on the training ground, leaves a big hole.

Question is IF the club used football money to extend the Hotel was it the best use of the money? And if it was the best use of the money , who was it best for?

you forget the new pitch, and it being relaid at a cost of about a million a time, about three times.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Yes Brendy, it is how banks work, it may even be a different bank, I just got 12 months interest free from a CC, yet barely a year ago I cleared the debt totally, now they want my business again. (silly sods)

[brendywendy]

You're assuming that Gylfi was just an item on the balance sheet, or a computer game. He wasn't - he was a human being with his own hopes and ambitions. The choice was not made to sell him, he was attracted by what he thought was a superb change to further his career. Would it be fair to try and stop him? And how would he have felt and played if we had tried?

This has been covered many times before but you continue to believe what you want to belive.

Siggy himself said that he was told to leave - this has been confirmed by people who knew him. It was almost certainly a bad move for his future development as a season of building the team round him at RFC would have been much better for him than a season sitting mainly on the bench at Hoffenheim. We did him no favours by selling him and the club engineered it. It was a financial decision alone. If you think otherwise you really are deluded.

who do i believe, media whore and man in the know at the club svlad cjelli, or andrew 1957??!!


what you fail to mention is the end of that quote from gylfi where he says i didnt want to go......but i felt it was the best thing for my career etc.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Nonsense Brendy , RL ligitamitly(sp) asked in the past if money from The Prem was used to finance the Hotel, and the general concensus seemed to be that it did not. Now Delloites state that the club spent £11million on infrastucture. Yet it has been said that £2m was spent on a media centre, and I recall about £1mill on the training ground, leaves a big hole.

Question is IF the club used football money to extend the Hotel was it the best use of the money? And if it was the best use of the money , who was it best for?

you forget the new pitch, and it being relaid at a cost of about a million a time, about three times.

feel free to show me where the pitch was relaid 3 times at £1million, since you say it was, and where this relaying is in the time of the report from delloittes.

[andrew1957]

Oh, and the sad thing about losing Gylfi was that we had such a short time to appreciate his special talent in a Reading shirt, not that had he stayed with us he might have been worth slightly more in a year or two's time.

I fully agree with this. I have only been arguing from the financial perspective at this seems to be the tone of the debate but I do feel cheated as a fan - because I loved watching Siggy play and was really looking forward to this season and to some extent it has seemed like an anti-climax - although the FA Cup could yet rescue it as a season.

We might never see another player of Siggy's quality again at Reading. He was exceptional.

[brendywendy]

Yes Brendy, it is how banks work, it may even be a different bank, I just got 12 months interest free from a CC, yet barely a year ago I cleared the debt totally, now they want my business again. (silly sods)

now that is nonsense.


youre describing two different things. one is a credit card, one is a bank overdraught.
why would a bank see fit to call in, or close an over draught, then at the same time say do you want an overdraught again?
be that a £1500 overdraught like mine, or a 7 million one, like the clubs.

the only reason theyd do that would be to up the interest and charges deal i signed up to, and then rightly i, and the club would refuse and say no thabnks ill just pay it off please.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

But the overdraft was for one season, i do not see a problem that we repaid it, wonder if that £7m was for the hotel?

[brendywendy]

Nonsense Brendy , RL ligitamitly(sp) asked in the past if money from The Prem was used to finance the Hotel, and the general concensus seemed to be that it did not. Now Delloites state that the club spent £11million on infrastucture. Yet it has been said that £2m was spent on a media centre, and I recall about £1mill on the training ground, leaves a big hole.

Question is IF the club used football money to extend the Hotel was it the best use of the money? And if it was the best use of the money , who was it best for?

you forget the new pitch, and it being relaid at a cost of about a million a time, about three times.

feel free to show me where the pitch was relaid 3 times at £1million, since you say it was, and where this relaying is in the time of the report from delloittes.

i have no idea how many times its been relayed hence the twice used "about" in the quote youve used. im not counting, because im not sat there worrying that the chairman is stealing our money.
you are the one that needs clarification on the hotel and infrastructure money, so why dont you go look for it.
my mind is already clear on the matter.
it may have been relayed twice, it may have cost 1.1 million, but the club announced it clearly at the time it was happening, due to all the where has all the money goneing.