Points Deduction AGAIN

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Not necessarily if it’s properly investing to be more successful in the future

Don’t think academy costs are counted anyway are they? It at least some exemptions for it

Just taken this from the BBC page from back in 2019.

"Money spent on stadiums, training facilities, youth development or community projects is exempt."

Now whether that means just investment to improve your facilities or just the academy/training facilities in general, I don't know, I've always assumed it was an investment to making them better, rather than the upkeep of them.

If it is the latter, it only muddies the water further about, what else are we spending money on to be so far over the FFP limits previously? If all training/academy facilities etc are exempt, how have we lost £138m worth of accumulated losses over three seasons? Transfer fees and wages will make up a big proportion I'm sure, but what is the rest made up of?

Because we were historically pissing money up the wall.

For two seasons straight, only about 2 years ago our wage bill was 200% of income. Excluding everything else that's a two year loss of about £40m on its own.

At the same time we were throwing around multi million transfer fees.

Selling off every asset we owned so we could rent it back from the owner.

Yeah I know I've included the likes of wages and transfer fees in that, but even still, if you go off a £40m~ wage bill each season and £25m~ over that 3 year period (for arguments sake), that works out at £145m. Now if our revenue sits at around £16m for each season (£48m over 3 years) and take that off this figure, that leaves us with £97m. £138m minus that £97m still leaves us with £41m of "other operating costs" over that 3 year period that we can't account for, assuming the training/academy facilities aren't counted towards this.

Selling off every asset to rent it back from the owner would only increase our income, as it did when we sold the stadium to our owners. But that's what I mean, where are we spending the other £13.5m~ each season based on those 3 years where we eventually broke the rules?

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Being discussed on TalkSport now with Mike Keegan of Daily Mail

In brief:

Revenue coming in is fine (inc. MU Cup tie)

Expenditure (wages) is possibly the issue looking at players they have

League are currently reviewing accounts

Knock on for other clubs (i.e. Peterborough who went down last season but abided by the rules could have a case to bring)

Questioning ownership model - what is the source of money coming in? What is the gain for the owner?

What sanctions now? Repeat offenders should be dealt with more harshly

Issue could be Reading being unable to get players off their books but they agreed to business plan

Feel sorry for players and Paul Ince

But I don't get the part about "not being able to get players off our books"? The EFL have signed off all of our incoming transfers which surely means we are in line with what they've said?

If they've signed off some of our signings knowing it was going to go over budget (likewise we knew we were going over the budget) and both parties have just accepted that, then what was the point in agreeing to a Business Plan in the first place?

You say that like the club has no agency over who it signs, or whether we break the rules. If the club knew a signing was going to send us over budget, they shouldn't be signed. If they didn't know they were going to send us over budget then they should probably hire a better accountant.

But the EFL were meant to be signing off our transfers though. So surely if a signing was going to take us over our permitted budgets for the season, then why would the EFL sign it off? If they were happy to sign off a transfer/loan just to take us over budget (hypothetically), then why did they bother signing off any transfers in the first place?

[Hound]

Yes good summary mr angry

Again I’d question the point of this business plan if we are punished having just missed our targets. Considering we are losing an absolutely huge chunk of our wage bill in the summer (Moore, Joao, Meite definitely, Puscas likely, Ejaria hopefully) we’re talking near 5m a year

If we’ve breached by a few hundred grand, we’ll still have achieved the supposed aim of getting on a former and more sustainable footing

[Stranded]

Yes good summary mr angry

Again I’d question the point of this business plan if we are punished having just missed our targets. Considering we are losing an absolutely huge chunk of our wage bill in the summer (Moore, Joao, Meite definitely, Puscas likely, Ejaria hopefully) we’re talking near 5m a year

If we’ve breached by a few hundred grand, we’ll still have achieved the supposed aim of getting on a former and more sustainable footing

Agreed but even if we have breached by a penny, the agreement is pretty clear and we should have the 6pts taken off us.

We may of course then have the fun of Peterborough looking for their pound of flesh, claiming that if all 12 had been taken off last year, we would have gone down instead of them - which naturally overlooks the fact that the team were on the beach for the last 3 games and if needed may well have got the 1 additional win needed to stay up anyway.

[kwik-silva]

But I don't get the part about "not being able to get players off our books"? The EFL have signed off all of our incoming transfers which surely means we are in line with what they've said?

If they've signed off some of our signings knowing it was going to go over budget (likewise we knew we were going over the budget) and both parties have just accepted that, then what was the point in agreeing to a Business Plan in the first place?

You say that like the club has no agency over who it signs, or whether we break the rules. If the club knew a signing was going to send us over budget, they shouldn't be signed. If they didn't know they were going to send us over budget then they should probably hire a better accountant.

But the EFL were meant to be signing off our transfers though. So surely if a signing was going to take us over our permitted budgets for the season, then why would the EFL sign it off? If they were happy to sign off a transfer/loan just to take us over budget (hypothetically), then why did they bother signing off any transfers in the first place?

Yeah, they're fair questions though I still think they're misplaced. The anger should be directed at the club and whoever is involved in this (if we have broken the rules again). And we're obviously all totally speculating, may be nothing to do with transfers (or even wages!) and maybe we've broken the rules in some other way.

[Elm Park Kid]

Like I said before, I do find it interesting what people read into these statements.

In terms of information, it seems to me that the club's response is exactly the same as the fake one I made up a few pages back. All they are doing is acknowledging the information that is already public and stating that they have received no official communication from the EFL regarding their compliance. That's it - that's literally all it all it says.

They would release the same statement if they knew they were definitely innocent or if they knew they were definitely guilty. It's just classic media strategy that you give people/media something harmless to repeat to reduce the time they are speculating.

[Delboy]

not sure how long this will take, hope RFC have a good barrister like Man City!!!!!!!!

[YorkshireRoyal99]

You say that like the club has no agency over who it signs, or whether we break the rules. If the club knew a signing was going to send us over budget, they shouldn't be signed. If they didn't know they were going to send us over budget then they should probably hire a better accountant.

But the EFL were meant to be signing off our transfers though. So surely if a signing was going to take us over our permitted budgets for the season, then why would the EFL sign it off? If they were happy to sign off a transfer/loan just to take us over budget (hypothetically), then why did they bother signing off any transfers in the first place?

Yeah, they're fair questions though I still think they're misplaced. The anger should be directed at the club and whoever is involved in this (if we have broken the rules again). And we're obviously all totally speculating, may be nothing to do with transfers (or even wages!) and maybe we've broken the rules in some other way.

Well ultimately the responsibility will always be on the club, but if the EFL have had a hand in putting us over the restrictions that they set in their business plan, then it's more than fair to be pointing fingers elsewhere as well. On one hand, why request a transfer if we know that was going to take us over, secondly, why sanction it if you knew it would break the rules and thus see us punished?

But yes, it's all speculation and we may not have done anything wrong (I hope).

[Hound]

Yes good summary mr angry

Again I’d question the point of this business plan if we are punished having just missed our targets. Considering we are losing an absolutely huge chunk of our wage bill in the summer (Moore, Joao, Meite definitely, Puscas likely, Ejaria hopefully) we’re talking near 5m a year

If we’ve breached by a few hundred grand, we’ll still have achieved the supposed aim of getting on a former and more sustainable footing

Agreed but even if we have breached by a penny, the agreement is pretty clear and we should have the 6pts taken off us.

We may of course then have the fun of Peterborough looking for their pound of flesh, claiming that if all 12 had been taken off last year, we would have gone down instead of them - which naturally overlooks the fact that the team were on the beach for the last 3 games and if needed may well have got the 1 additional win needed to stay up anyway.

In which case it is a punishment, no more no less. It’d also be extremely harsh to then have further embargos, which again would be a punishment

Fine if that’s the case but it shouldn’t be dressed up any other way

[KC Royal]

The Mail article also mentions about not paying the wages on time in November, suggesting it could lead to a separate deduction or another suspended penalty.

[skipper]

I predict we won't be deducted any further points. There are a few other clubs far far closer to the wind than we are.

[RG30]

6 point deduction next week from what Ince has said at pre game press conference

[Pepe the Horseman]

"For previous misdemeanours, not something done over past year"

How does that work then?

[Hound]

6 point deduction next week from what Ince has said at pre game press conference

For something done prior to the past year? Interesting

[Hound]

Oh Moore’s back as well just to cheer Ian up

[Elm Park Kid]

6 point deduction next week from what Ince has said at pre game press conference

Yeah, it was confirmed to me by a source earlier today as well.

[Brogue]

ffs this is unbelievable. Well hopefully this will galvanise the plays and fans to really push on and stick two fingers up to the EFL, who are coming out of this looking awful.

[Hendo]

Yeah, this really is some confusing bullshit.

[Snowflake Royal]

Just taken this from the BBC page from back in 2019.

"Money spent on stadiums, training facilities, youth development or community projects is exempt."

Now whether that means just investment to improve your facilities or just the academy/training facilities in general, I don't know, I've always assumed it was an investment to making them better, rather than the upkeep of them.

If it is the latter, it only muddies the water further about, what else are we spending money on to be so far over the FFP limits previously? If all training/academy facilities etc are exempt, how have we lost £138m worth of accumulated losses over three seasons? Transfer fees and wages will make up a big proportion I'm sure, but what is the rest made up of?

Because we were historically pissing money up the wall.

For two seasons straight, only about 2 years ago our wage bill was 200% of income. Excluding everything else that's a two year loss of about £40m on its own.

At the same time we were throwing around multi million transfer fees.

Selling off every asset we owned so we could rent it back from the owner.

Yeah I know I've included the likes of wages and transfer fees in that, but even still, if you go off a £40m~ wage bill each season and £25m~ over that 3 year period (for arguments sake), that works out at £145m. Now if our revenue sits at around £16m for each season (£48m over 3 years) and take that off this figure, that leaves us with £97m. £138m minus that £97m still leaves us with £41m of "other operating costs" over that 3 year period that we can't account for, assuming the training/academy facilities aren't counted towards this.

Selling off every asset to rent it back from the owner would only increase our income, as it did when we sold the stadium to our owners. But that's what I mean, where are we spending the other £13.5m~ each season based on those 3 years where we eventually broke the rules?

There's a good chance that there's mixed messaging in the reporting that conflates or references interchamgeably both overall loss (including infrastructure expenditure and academy maintenance) and FFP accountable loss.

We're only ever going to have a limited idea what is being spent where. But the accounts have been clwar for a long time that we were making vast losses through totally irresponsible spending, in clear breach of FFP.

[Coppells Lost Coat]

I think its the word historical that has riled me.
If they came out and said Reading FC are well out of line towards the business plan agreed upon this season. Then I might would have sucked it up.