Gourlay out.

[Old Man Andrews]

At this point, if Wolves break our record, I won't be that fussed. It just won't be the same as our achievement - they would have bought the record, we did it through seasons of squad building and very little spend.

It is still the record though. £20million spend isn't astronomical either.

It also blows out the window our only decent comeback chant to away supporters. We'd have to chant about the Simod Cup or something.

[genome]

You'll never sing that
You'll never sing thaaaaaat
Full Members' Cup Champions
You'll never sing that

[muirinho]

Wolves alleged had a 30odd million bid turned down for Silva from AC Milan.

How the pfuck are they bidding like that but not gone over FFP

Might be loan to buy. Also £30 mill with a 4 year contract is £7.5mill per year in FFP terms

Our wage bill is higher than theirs

Their gate averages about 10K more than ours.

They made a transfer loss last season, but made a transfer profit the season before. And FFP is spread over 3 years.

Is it conformed our wage bill is higher?

They hage a net spend so far this season if 17.23 million so assuming contracts are 4 years each it is only 4.3 million plus 7.5 with Silva so that is (aasuming they buy and sell nobody else) almost 12 million a year on JUST fees.

I have no idea what the average wage is. Lets say 30k a week? 120k a month per player x 20 in their squad is 2.4 million a month on wages. Times by 12 is 28 million 800k. Just player wages a year.

If you sell a player does it get knocked off straight away or go into yearly installments for the rest of their contract?

All of this kind of stuff is on google, so I dont' know why you don't just look instead of querying everything I'm saying.

2015/2016 Reading wage bill - 30.1 million
2015/2016 Wolves wage bill - 18.2 million

See?

Transfer fees are just a part of the costs of running a club, and a part of what counts for FFP. Not the be-all and end-all. A player you buy for 4 million and pay 0.5mill a year to, over 4 years costs 1.5million per year.

A player you get for free, give a signing on bonus of 2mill, and pay 1 mill a year over 4 years also costs 1.5 million per year.

In terms of selling players, the difference between the sale price and the "value" of that player at the time of sale is the profit or loss that gets booked to FFP.

Take the player you bought for 4mill with a 4 year contract. If you sell him for 2.5 million after 1 year, you make a loss of 0.5 million because in "book" terms, he's worth 3million at that point. If you sell him for 2.5 million after 3 years, you make a profit of 1.5 million. (because after 3 years he has a book value of 1 million)

Our highest transfer was Aluko at the same cost it would have been per year for Andre Silva.

Not exactly, no.

Let's say Aluko's cost is 7.5 million. his contract is 4 years long. So his cost is £1.875million per year in transfer fees. There will also be wages etc, but let's ignore those for now.

Assuming Silva's cost is 30million over 4 years - remember only 6 months of that is in this season as it's a January transfer. So that would make his cost 3.75mill this year in transfer fees. Not including wages

So it's double. But look at the difference between us and Wolves in wage bills. They can easily absorb that when they have so much leeway on wages.

[Winston Biscuit]

Aluko is only £7M+ if we go up to the PL, if not it's a lot lower.

[Theroyalbox]

Aluko is only £7M+ if we go up to the PL, if not it's a lot lower.

4.5 million it is rising to 7.5 if we are promoted

[muirinho]

Aluko is only £7M+ if we go up to the PL, if not it's a lot lower.

4.5 million it is rising to 7.5 if we are promoted

Indeed. But to make sure that we don't breach FFP taking in the current year into consideration, they would have to treat it as if we got promoted, in case we do.

Really though the point I'm trying to make is - if you take transfer fees plus wages into consideration, there isn't the massive difference in terms of FFP-related expenditure between us and Wolves. Especially when you consider they have a higher turnover as they get more fans through the gates.

Need to get players who aren't picked and aren't going to be picked off the wage bill. Squad is too big (as well as being umbalanced) IMO.

[Hound]

Need to get players who aren't picked and aren't going to be picked off the wage bill. Squad is too big (as well as being umbalanced) IMO.

big +1 on this. Can't see the likes of Mendes, Harriott, Beerens, Popa or Quinn contributing anything much for the rest of the season

Would be happy for Stam to allow the likes of Kelly (that 4 year deal not looking great business at the moment) , Evans and Blackett to go out on loan as well, if it freed up a bit of wage for a loan forward to come in

I'd rather stream line the squad and promote the U23s if nec

That wage bill, know its a couple of years old but still, is obscene

[muirinho]

Need to get players who aren't picked and aren't going to be picked off the wage bill. Squad is too big (as well as being umbalanced) IMO.

That wage bill, know its a couple of years old but still, is obscene

Higher than our turnover. And it was higher the previous year!

It was wages not transfer fees wot done for QPR also.

[genome]

I think we have traditionally always been quite high wage-payers.

DIdn't we have a big wage bill in 2011/12?

[John Smith]

Personally, and it is my own opinion but I don’t think they’ll sack Stam. Ron Gourlay is in as much shit with the owners as Stam is right now. Gourley will be protecting his own position by sicking with stam. By sacking Stam, Gourlay will weaken his’s own position with the owners who have an eastern culture, a culture of honour that differs to ours. It was Gourley that went to the owners to convinced them to spend 15 odd Million in the summer in belief of Stam being the right man. We’re stuck with the pair of them until it suits Gourlay to cut Stam a drift. Right now, if Stam goes then Gourlay goes too. But as I’ve said before the players are not playing for this Dutchman. Stam’s he’s a tyrant dictator, these players don’t need that and they dont need him.

Did any of you hear Stam on the Radio just now (post match) ... The man can not be wrong! Having a go at the BBCRB boys for their view, having a pop at the fans again... imagine being a player under this man. His way or no way. He's just not a nice man (in my opinion) and not a Reading Football Club Manager.

Would really love to know how you could manage such inconsistency with the spelling of Gourlay within two paragraphs

[Hound]

I think we have traditionally always been quite high wage-payers.

DIdn't we have a big wage bill in 2011/12?

I think so. Im guessing a big part of the reason Hugill took a flounce and tried to force his way to a move was because of the wages we offered. Aluko as well.

Still, its not really a recipe for success if we are ending up with average players who are then difficult to shift, and preventing us bringing in different players where necessary

From what I've seen of some of the younger lads, such as Barrett, Osho, Richards, Axel A and Rinomhota, they would be perfectly acceptable back up squad players, who are undoubtedly a lot cheaper

[Wycombe Royal]

2015/2016 Reading wage bill - 30.1 million
2015/2016 Wolves wage bill - 18.2 million

Wolves wage bill from last season to this season will be miles apart, and they will make a huge loss in this years accounts. How that fairs with the accumulated loss rules for FFP we will have to wait and see.

[Oilroyal]

Personally, and it is my own opinion but I don’t think they’ll sack Stam. Ron Gourlay is in as much shit with the owners as Stam is right now. Gourley will be protecting his own position by sicking with stam. By sacking Stam, Gourlay will weaken his’s own position with the owners who have an eastern culture, a culture of honour that differs to ours. It was Gourley that went to the owners to convinced them to spend 15 odd Million in the summer in belief of Stam being the right man. We’re stuck with the pair of them until it suits Gourlay to cut Stam a drift. Right now, if Stam goes then Gourlay goes too. But as I’ve said before the players are not playing for this Dutchman. Stam’s he’s a tyrant dictator, these players don’t need that and they dont need him.

Did any of you hear Stam on the Radio just now (post match) ... The man can not be wrong! Having a go at the BBCRB boys for their view, having a pop at the fans again... imagine being a player under this man. His way or no way. He's just not a nice man (in my opinion) and not a Reading Football Club Manager.

Would really love to know how you could manage such inconsistency with the spelling of Gourlay within two paragraphs

far too much John Smith, John Smith

[Snowflake Royal]

People have got to stop thinking in transfer fees when it comes to FFP, it's wages that are most important.

[double d]

People have got to stop thinking in transfer fees when it comes to FFP, it's wages that are most important.

With your seemingly deep and in the know football knowledgeable brain because you clearly work in the game, tell us how you know this is even the case?

[KC Royal]

At this point, if Wolves break our record, I won't be that fussed. It just won't be the same as our achievement - they would have bought the record, we did it through seasons of squad building and very little spend.

I'd be disappointed, especially as I think we could have got even more points. Just thinking back to the games I saw, Ingimarsson gifted Leeds an equaliser in a game that for the majority of the game we dominated, and Oster IIRC hit the post against Watford (although in that one I think 0-0 was probably fair).

[From Despair To Where?]

People have got to stop thinking in transfer fees when it comes to FFP, it's wages that are most important.

With your seemingly deep and in the know football knowledgeable brain because you clearly work in the game, tell us how you know this is even the case?

Basically, because it is. It's called reading and researching.

FFP calculates the cost of the player over the whole contract with the transfer fee split over the length of a contract.

Therefore, if we buy a player for £4m on a 4 year contract, he costs us £1m a year in transfer fees. If we are paying him £25,000 a week, he is also costing us £1.3m a year in wages, a total of £2.3m a season. Pogrebnyak for example, was a free transfer but reportedly on £65,000 a week. That's an annual cost over £3.5m

Now consider that the club's revenue is somewhere in the region £18m a year and FFP allows for an average annual loss in the region of £5m, you can see how we can't afford too many £2.3m a year players. That's why signing a Romanian international with Champions League experience for £500,000 on a 3 year deal worth £10,000 a week made sense on paper. He's effectively costing us £650,000 a year and had the potential to be a key player.

As someone pointed out, Wolves are fine at the moment as their wages are lower and revenue higher but they could run into shit in Year 3 or 4 if they don't secure promotion.

[double d]

People have got to stop thinking in transfer fees when it comes to FFP, it's wages that are most important.

With your seemingly deep and in the know football knowledgeable brain because you clearly work in the game, tell us how you know this is even the case?

Basically, because it is. It's called reading and researching.

FFP calculates the cost of the player over the whole contract with the transfer fee split over the length of a contract.

Therefore, if we buy a player for £4m on a 4 year contract, he costs us £1m a year in transfer fees. If we are paying him £25,000 a week, he is also costing us £1.3m a year in wages, a total of £2.3m a season. Pogrebnyak for example, was a free transfer but reportedly on £65,000 a week. That's an annual cost over £3.5m

Now consider that the club's revenue is somewhere in the region £18m a year and FFP allows for an average annual loss in the region of £5m, you can see how we can't afford too many £2.3m a year players. That's why signing a Romanian international with Champions League experience for £500,000 on a 3 year deal worth £10,000 a week made sense on paper. He's effectively costing us £650,000 a year and had the potential to be a key player.

As someone pointed out, Wolves are fine at the moment as their wages are lower and revenue higher but they could run into shit in Year 3 or 4 if they don't secure promotion.

Great thanks!

[Snowflake Royal]

People have got to stop thinking in transfer fees when it comes to FFP, it's wages that are most important.

With your seemingly deep and in the know football knowledgeable brain because you clearly work in the game, tell us how you know this is even the case?

Firstly, I have no particular deep, specialist knowledge or expertise of football or its finance, nor have I ever claimed such. What I do have, is a borderline unhealthy obsession with RFC, mild intelligence and the free time and inclination to actually read articles on football finance, glance over our published accounts and listen to the views of people with far greater knowledge and expertise than me in these areas. As opposed to gathering my view from attention seeking oxf*rd on twitter and barely numerate, half-witted pundits on Sky with a vested interest in things continuing to spiral ever higher and higher in the cause of sensationalism and appetite for the spectacle their channel promotes.

It only takes a cursory check of the various articles on finance and our accounts (which are always posted up on here and commented on by people who actually work in accounting), to see what the reality is.

Take our transfer spending this summer. It was reportedly in the region of £10m (adding together the various reported transfer fees). Now that has been denied by the club as a hugely inflated figure, and even if it were true it would be a headline and potentially include all sorts of add ons that won't necessarily be triggered, and certainly not this year. On top of that, transfer fees are amortised over the length of the contract for the player for accounting purposes, so for FFP purposes, our spending in the summer was almost certainly a lot less than £4m on transfer fees.

Our accounts for 2014-15 and 2015-16 (2016-17 yet to be released - about July maybe?) show the following (remember these include parachute payments we no longer receive):
2014-15
Turnover: £35m
Pre-tax profit: £2.6m
Staff costs: £33.3m
wages to turnover ration: 95%
Debt: - (not included in the article I checked)

2015-16
Turnover: £25.8m
Pre-tax loss: £15m
Staff costs: £30.8m
Wage to turnover ratio: 119%
Debt: ~£51m

Based on the parachute's going and our transfers for last season, I'd make a not particularly reliable estimate for 2016-17 of:
Turnover: £18m
Pre-tax loss: £12m
Staff costs: £27m
wages to turnover ratio: 150%

By comparison, Wolves (who may have just about still been receiving parachute payments for these years):
2014-15
Turnover: £26.4m
Pre-tax profit: £0.7m
Staff costs: £17.7m
wages to turnover ratio: 67%

2015-16
Turnover: 27.2m
Pre-tax profit: £5.8m
Staff costs: 18.2m
Wages to turnover ratio: 67%

So Wolves are fine to spend big, because for two of the last three years they've made profit and their wages are extremely healthy in comparison to their income. Whereas our wages are batshit mental for our income and two years ago we made a huge loss, with probably similar last year.

TL:DR
It's all in the wages and our wages are sky high.

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/national/football-finance-championship-club-by-club-2015-16

[Maneki Neko]

I think we have traditionally always been quite high wage-payers.

DIdn't we have a big wage bill in 2011/12?

I think so. Im guessing a big part of the reason Hugill took a flounce and tried to force his way to a move was because of the wages we offered. Aluko as well.

Still, its not really a recipe for success if we are ending up with average players who are then difficult to shift, and preventing us bringing in different players where necessary

From what I've seen of some of the younger lads, such as Barrett, Osho, Richards, Axel A and Rinomhota, they would be perfectly acceptable back up squad players, who are undoubtedly a lot cheaper

I think we are still persisting with the view that paying good wages is what makes you successful, rather than high transfer fees, after they did a bit of research on it a few years ago, which was part of the madejski way.