We clearly are not signing anyone in January

[Royal Lady]

Wycombe - I'd have to say, knowing a number of Accountants, that you're not a very good one if you are not aware of "creative accounting" in which you can move money around in order to pay less tax etc.

None of it is illegal either.

[ZacNaloen]

I can't believe you are actually accusing Madjeski of taking money from RFC and putting it into his other businesses.

No amount of clever accounting could account for that sort of shortfall

The simple truth is that the club just doesn't make very much money and so will always be close to the line when it comes to balancing the budget.

[Royalee]

I can't believe you are actually accusing Madjeski of taking money from RFC and putting it into his other businesses.

No amount of clever accounting could account for that sort of shortfall

The simple truth is that the club just doesn't make very much money and so will always be close to the line when it comes to balancing the budget.

The thing is, if we sell so many players yet we STILL have a shortfall, we're either TERRIBLY run or there's no smoke without fire as the accounts go. You don't see other clubs selling over £20 million of players since going down, bringing next to nobody in and still supposedly struggling financially. Our negotiated salaries, sponsors etc must be absolutely atrocious (Madejski's fault) or the money's coming out somewhere.

[Wycombe Royal]

Wycombe - I'd have to say, knowing a number of Accountants, that you're not a very good one if you are not aware of "creative accounting" in which you can move money around in order to pay less tax etc.

None of it is illegal either.

That isn't what he was alluding to. And yes I do know all about creative accounting, both legal and illegal. The company I work for is famous for it (under a different name).

However I can assure you that NO money has been removed from RFC for Madejski to either spend on himself or invest elsewhere. If you want to believe he has then that is up to you, after all it is pantomime season.

[ZacNaloen]

Those clubs either get relegated or have an owner covering the shortfall though, with Madjeski we don't have the latter.

Now obviously this means he should probably move on, but for some reason he just won't let go.

[Royal Lady]

So, how much worse off would we be this season if we hadn't sold Sig?

Well, despite what others may say/wish to believe, I still think that the football club aided the hotel expansion in some way - maybe I am wrong - but I just don't understand why, particularly this season, we were said to have a £4 million shortfall, then despite selling Sig for £7 million, not accounting for any other sales at start of season/savings in wages - we're still told there is no money.

[Badger Finger]

I can't believe you are actually accusing Madjeski of taking money from RFC and putting it into his other businesses.

No amount of clever accounting could account for that sort of shortfall

The simple truth is that the club just doesn't make very much money and so will always be close to the line when it comes to balancing the budget.

The thing is, if we sell so many players yet we STILL have a shortfall, we're either TERRIBLY run or there's no smoke without fire as the accounts go. You don't see other clubs selling over £20 million of players since going down, bringing next to nobody in and still supposedly struggling financially. Our negotiated salaries, sponsors etc must be absolutely atrocious (Madejski's fault) or the money's coming out somewhere.

Seriously???


Facts are, we're all wrong, and we're all terribly dull miserable people who have nothing better to do than speculate on things that we nothing about...

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

Tbf you do forget how many teams are turning a profit at this level.

Why can't we be run like Sheff Utd or Derby?

[Royalee]

Seriously, when they've spent next to f*ck all in the Premiership too.

[ZacNaloen]

We spent everything we had.

[Wycombe Royal]

So, how much worse off would we be this season if we hadn't sold Sig?

Well, despite what others may say/wish to believe, I still think that the football club aided the hotel expansion in some way - maybe I am wrong - but I just don't understand why, particularly this season, we were said to have a £4 million shortfall, then despite selling Sig for £7 million, not accounting for any other sales at start of season/savings in wages - we're still told there is no money.

We would be a lot worse off if we hadn't sold Sig, and I mean a lot.

As I said I think the club are being prudent here and have allocated some of the Sig money to next season (at least that is what I hope).

You have to remember we also have Griffin, Khiz and Harte on the wage bill (all will be fairly significant earners, Khiz especially).

As for the hotel, I believe the investment for that came from loans from Madejski which can be seen on the balance sheet (without checking I seem to rememmer a figure of £18m???).

But the main thing is it takes a long time to reduce the cost base back to a Chmpionship level following relegation, if it ever gets back to it. We aren't the only club who have had to keep cutting back costs. Sheffield United have been doing it and still are and they just announced huge losses still.

[Royalee]

We spent everything we had.

If that's true, which I doubt, we spunked it away on Stephen Hunt's wages of £25k a week, shit negotiation, Madejski's fault.

[Victor Meldrew]

I thought for the past couple of years we've been in debt? How else do you account for the figures bandied about by the club about how we have to cut our cloth, season upon season?

This season alone, we've had £7 million for gylfi, plus a small bit of transfer fees, plus saved wages on those players and we've spent, what, £100k? Yet we can't afford any more players? Surely, we didn't actually PLAN to sell Gylfi at the beginning of this season and had already allocated the money on the debts we have incurred?

That is the result of relegation. Revenues fall far quicker than costs due to the length of contracts. It is how you manage that mismatch and RFC did it very well. They attempted to hold on to their better players for one season after relegation in an attempt to bounce straight back and came very close. Then they had to start getting rid of them all.

We could always have taken the Sheffield Utd approach and kept the higher earners for longer and made even bigger losses.

I'm beginning to realise that you just don't understand finances at all and that maybe you just shouldn't bother either. Have a nice afternoon.

We know that RFC is a Private Limited Company and you know better than most that Non-Public limited Companies can,shall we say,manipulate things to suit the shareholders who are also normally the owners as well and are not anweable to thousands of smaller shareholders.
I am sure that nobody on here believes there has ever been any wrongdoing but as simple fans we find it difficult to reconcile the nmassive amounts of income with the apparent black hole.
Also of course we do not know who received the massive remuneration sums that we see in the accounts.

We had ( regrettably) only those 2 seasons in The Premier League but had enormous income:-

2x £30,000,000 of Sky money
2x estimated £10,000,000 of gate receipts

After relegation we had:-

2 x £12,000,000 of Sky money
Income from transfers of £18,000,000 or so (just from Doyle,Hunt,Kitson and Shorey)

Therefore without taking account of extra income from:-
4 years of:-
Hotel income
London Irish money
FA Cup and League Cup bonuses
Sponsorship
Match day refreshments and corporate entertainment
Programme receipts (incl advertising)
Club shop receipts etc

So without those significant extras income has been gross at around £122,000,000 over 4 years.

The biggest outlay as the chairman tells us time and time again is wages but obviously now in our 3rd year at this level those wages will have decreased enormously with incoming players on much lower salaries and the higher earners all gone.
So this season we can anticipate about £7,000,000 from league gate receipts plus the Gylfi money of £7,000,000 plus significant amounts from the above ancilliary sources of income plus some TV revenue.

As a "well-run" club we obviously kept money in hand just in case lean years came along from the £122,000,000 or so of known income.
In my eyes it is a very poorly run business if that massive income (plus the significant ancilliaries)cannot cover expenditure on wages,transfer fees and the other items of expenditure involved in the day-to-day running of a football club.
Sky money was a guaranteed form of income ahead of each of those 4 seasons albeit at lower levels when salaries were reduced (as obviously our well-run club had relegation reductions included in contracts)following relegation but also much less was spent on incoming transfers.

Any guess at figures can be torn to shreds but I think this is what most fans see ,i.e. the revenue and expect our club to be able to manage on that revenue and not keep on pleading poverty and only able to bring in players that cost peanuts when little over a year ago we bought a player supposedly for £2,000,000.

[ZacNaloen]

We spent everything we had.

If that's true, which I doubt, we spunked it away on Stephen Hunt's wages of £25k a week, shit negotiation, Madejski's fault.

Hammonds fault, Madjeski doesn't negotiate anything football related.

[Royalee]

We spent everything we had.

If that's true, which I doubt, we spunked it away on Stephen Hunt's wages of £25k a week, shit negotiation, Madejski's fault.

Hammonds fault, Madjeski doesn't negotiate anything football related.

Except he's Hammond's boss and thus responsible for him.

[ZacNaloen]

Taking that logic Madjeski is also responsible for every positive thing that has happened at the club, those far out way the bad stuff.

[Royalee]

He's responsible for the rise to the Premiership, but he's also as much to blame for the slump since and the total lack of ambition. Given he has the business background and Hammond doesn't, I know who should be taking a closer look at contract negotiations for silly money with players about to complete a hat-trick of Premiership relegations.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

So, how much worse off would we be this season if we hadn't sold Sig?

Well, despite what others may say/wish to believe, I still think that the football club aided the hotel expansion in some way - maybe I am wrong - but I just don't understand why, particularly this season, we were said to have a £4 million shortfall, then despite selling Sig for £7 million, not accounting for any other sales at start of season/savings in wages - we're still told there is no money.

Were we not told at the end of last season that the club would have to cut its costs by £4m the following year/season, in order to cover that shortfall, we sold Cisse 400k, Rasiak left, Majeovsky 650k, Henry went to Millwall(fee undisclosed), with wages that would be close to the £4m said to be required, we then signed Williams(free) and Harte(very little), wages, who knows but possibly about 800k for the pair, thats 8K a week so still good.

So worst case is that there was about £1m to find at the most, then we sold Siggy for whatever, loaned Williams out!! So there should be best part of £5m to play with, HOWEVER we cannot just go out and spend it, and spoil the current wage structure, what the team need is a new striker, thats fecking obvious. But should we sign one can we then keep and afford 4 strikers, IMHO the answer is no. So presumeably one may have to move on, it is the same as when Cox was here, we had 3 or 4 in front of him and there was no way he was going to start, so he was the one to move. Same would happen now, hence the Church rumours.

I am hoping we can sign one striker for the region of £1m, one other player on loan and lose Church to Swansea.

I can however see QPR shittting themselves now after two defeats and coming back in for Kebe, for a silly sum, or McAnuff, and us taking it, as we dont really need them, and Antonio can step up for this season.

[ZacNaloen]

Business background means nothing when you take into account that Madjeski hasn't a clue who's worth what in football.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Business background means nothing when you take into account that Madjeski hasn't a clue who's worth what in football.

Of course JM has a clue, it is wrong to believe he has not, he can see the bottom line, he can see the projected income from crowds at The Prem level plus Sky and other income, he can see if that warrants RFC paying £25k a week to any or all players, he knows a wage budget when presented to him. ANd he can decide if that is worth paying, so long as there is a way of removing that player from the club if it goes wrong, which is exactly what happened. Rather be RFC with Hunt and Doyle's contract than Hull with Bullards.