Latest club accounts

[Extended-Phenotype]

That’s because, for the love of Christ, you would pay high wages to good players! Man oh man.

It’s like saying Gordon Ramsay is a better chef than Phil from the Reading Buses canteen because he’s paid more money! Wages will go up with quality; but if the food is sh/t, paying Phil more money isn’t going to change that – sacking him and getting a new chef will!

Hey, I’ve just done my own study and found that trophies and player awards are more relevant to success than transfer spends! So keep your players, and just give them more trophies and awards!

FFS.

[Bandini]

paying Phil more money isn’t going to change that – sacking him and getting a new chef will!

No-one is saying that that is the case.

However, happily for us, players can improve over time.

[Svlad Cjelli]

We believe that our team of Phil's, working together and given an investment of time to develop that others aren't prepared to give their chefs, can produce a meal just as good as anything Gordon Ramsay can. And, as such, we get the maximum efficiency out of all the money we spend.

We do spend where required, but it's not how much we spend, it's *how* we do spend it.

[FiNeRaIn]

We believe that our team of Phil's, working together and given an investment of time to develop that others aren't prepared to give their chefs, can produce a meal just as good as anything Gordon Ramsay can. .

The problem is they can't.

We are ok...we have an average team. I suppose if we are paying the divisions averages on wages then I can't really complain. How do we fare against the others of this division? I want fact please not just " we are average" because the official site or one persons opinion on here. Is there any football league/deloitte,etc document on this?

[Hoop Blah]

We believe that our team of Phil's, working together and given an investment of time to develop that others aren't prepared to give their chefs, can produce a meal just as good as anything Gordon Ramsay can. And, as such, we get the maximum efficiency out of all the money we spend.

We do spend where required, but it's not how much we spend, it's *how* we do spend it.

What do you/the club actually mean by this maximum efficiency out of all the money we spend?

[Red]

For the club I imagine it's as simple as maximum financial return on the expenditure

[Extended-Phenotype]

We believe that our team of Phil's, working together and given an investment of time to develop that others aren't prepared to give their chefs, can produce a meal just as good as anything Gordon Ramsay can.

Honestly, Phil is f/cking shit. He can’t even boil an egg.

This is all romantic stuff guys, this time and love and oxf*rd together and over each other, but a shit player is a shit player.

[Hoop Blah]

For the club I imagine it's as simple as maximum financial return on the expenditure

And how would you quantify or define that? How do we know if we've done it?

[Red]

For the club I imagine it's as simple as maximum financial return on the expenditure

And how would you quantify or define that? How do we know if we've done it?

Not followed the whole thread so I don't know what expenditure you're talking about.

But presumably the teams performance will have an impact on ticket sales and season ticket renewals, it wouldn't take a stats genius to come up with some kind of return on investment model comparing expenditure on new players vs facilities for example.

[Svlad Cjelli]

What do you/the club actually mean by this maximum efficiency out of all the money we spend?

Difficult to explain exactly without name-dropping, but it's a way of saying that we get greater value per £ spent than any other club - we buy players who we think are under-valued and so are good value for money. That makes our money go further and makes it more efficient than other clubs spending the same sort of money. We also won't allow ourselves to be held to blackmail by players as many other clubs do.

We also add in extra things that other clubs don't to make the money more effective - investing time in player, providing good facilities and the "family" feel that makes players tend to stay longer than those considered "commodities" would, and also the fact that we're generally open and decent with our players, involving them in their futures.

That previous paragraph will no doubt be derided by those who think that the purchase price of a player shows just how successful they'll be, but all the "soft" benefits really do make a difference - virtually every player who's been here has loved it, and the "team ethic" that comes from it is a massive part of the club's DNA, and it's intangible things like this that you just cannot get by spending all the money in the world.

[Hoop Blah]

Virtually every player? Fae? Halford? Bennett, Mooney, Cox, Lita, Mills, Rasiak?

I must admit a lot of what you say sounds like David Brent style mission statements from the RFC powers that be. I'm sure they really want to get the greatest amount of return from the money we spend (and 95% of it is surely on players) but at the end of the day we seem to spend more than the majority of the teams in the division and haven't gone back up as yet.

Is that getting the most for our greater spend?

[Svlad Cjelli]

The vast majority, certainly. Except for the small numbers who left under a cloud (fewer than your list) just about everyone who has been here speaks glowingly of how much they loved being at the club and how well the club looked after them and how well they do things. Surely even the fiercest critics of the club recognise that the way the players act as a unit and the way everyone from top to bottom is part of the "team" exists and has some extra value that money can't buy.

The thing that astounds me so much is that across football the way Reading do things is so much admired and envied, and seen as "best-practice" and the future for the game, but its own supporters deride it and want Reading to do things the way that other clubs do them, but we can only lose out that way because that plays to our weaknesses not our strengths.

The football world is moving closer to the Reading way, and not the other way round.

[Hoop Blah]

I've not spoken to a lot of ex players about their time here and I take every little bit of comment from players and managers with a truck load of salt. I've very rarely heard a player be negative about a former club and at the end of the day we've been relatively successful.

Anyone who's played competitive sport knows that a successful dressing room/club is usually one that is looked back on with fondness.

Reading is probably looked at as a good way to run a club by many, but so few follow the model that I think you're possibly over playing the significance of that praise.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Time will tell. The way the game is structured, and its financial model and governance, are all changing. It might be slow change, but they're definitely changing.

Within a year, The Football Creditors Rule will have gone,, and after that things will change considerably - no-one will lend money (including selling players or signing as a player) to debt-laden clubs who they won't be confident will be able to meet all the payments.

Financial Fair Play is coming to Tier 1, and DCMS has committed to a club licensing system. The future looks pretty rosy for a solvent, well-run and (hard) debt-free club.

[roadrunner]

Financial Fair Play is coming to Tier 1, and DCMS has committed to a club licensing system. The future looks pretty rosy for a solvent, well-run and (hard) debt-free club.

Which we aren't. Well run, yes, but we run at a loss don't we? And we can't bank on player sales to keep the debt/black hole under control forever.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Financial Fair Play is coming to Tier 1, and DCMS has committed to a club licensing system. The future looks pretty rosy for a solvent, well-run and (hard) debt-free club.

Which we aren't. Well run, yes, but we run at a loss don't we? And we can't bank on player sales to keep the debt/black hole under control forever.

We're well run enough to be able to make the necessary changes if our player sales ever don't bridge the gap of expenses vs. income.

Many other clubs are locked into long-term, inflexible contracts and have mortgaged future income streams.

[Hoop Blah]

I'm just struggling with two things really.

Firstly, the idea that we're this paragon of virtue and look after our players so much better than anyone else so every looks at us and thinks, awwwwwww what a lovelly family club. Sure we have a decent atmosphere about the place and successive managers have tried to look after certain players but there can't be any doubt that we look after the clubs interest first (see contract wrangles with certain players, the low bonus payments after promotion, Federici having to sleep on mates sofa's whilst trying to make it here). I'm sure the club sell themselves as going that extra mile but I'm just not sure I buy it.

Secondly, that we get so much more for our money than anyone else. That's certainly not the case when you look at performance vs wages. We're no great leading light on wages to turnover ratios in the Championship either. Yes there are some that over stretch themselves but there are plenty with a more sustainable looking ratio than us (obviously transfer fee's may change things here as we're massive negative net spenders allowing us to carry higher wages).

We're pretty well run, I totally accept and condone that. Making us out to be so far ahead of everyone else just doesn't feel too realistic to me.

[Svlad Cjelli]

There have been one or two exception (e.g. Salako's contract) but we have been consistently fair to players - other examples are releasing Adi Williams & Simon Cox when best for them, not us, but it really does go right through the club's DNA, top to bottom. Federici was only sleeping on sofas when trying to get trails with clubs - we were the one club who listened to him and took a chance on him when others told him to f*ck off. And "paragon of virtue" are your words, not mine - although we are better than the majority of clubs I'm not saying we're the best of all.

It's transfer fees where we are more efficient than everyone else - there is a set level of wages across each club and each league. Everyone, including agents knows the "level" for each player and you can't economise on that - but look at how much we spend on purchasing players compared with others and the value those players deliver for us.

[Hoop Blah]

I don't think we get great value from our lack of transfer fees though.

We've done ok at building a dull but functional team made up of players we've not spent a hell of a lot on, but value for money? Can't say I see it when I look at where we've actually spent money and the quality of player we get for it.

I'd suggest to the club that if they spent a little less money on wages by running a smaller squad but with a bit more quality to it we might be a bit better (the use of the loan market being something we've failed to do that well over the years - Legiertwood and Bertrand being the obvious exceptions - although I understand that's been a managerial choice more than anything else).

[Svlad Cjelli]

I think we've had massive value for money - look at the below measures :

- cost of our team compared to where we've been finishing in the league
- number of expensive mistakes that haven't performed
- profits made on players when sold
- money spent on players that haven't worked out