Rumour - Rodrigo Riquelme

[Nameless]

We’ve cut the squad dramatically, if they are forcing us to cut further it seems draconian when there is no actual basis for doing it.
If I was Dai I would simply loan the three or four players who are surplus to requirements to one of the other clubs in his group andproblem solved.....

[Snowflake Royal]

Presumably the basis for requiring us to cut the squad further is our wage budget.

We didn't actually lose that many high wage players given how far over our wage budget we were. Not to mention the fact that the last time the FL let us come out from under a soft embargo we immediately spunked about £10m on strikers.

Moore, Swift, Baldock, Aluko.... all still here that's about £5m in salary a year just for those four.

It's almost like we should have cashed in on someone like Swift when they were wanted.

[Nameless]

Presumably the basis for requiring us to cut the squad further is our wage budget.

We didn't actually lose that many high wage players given how far over our wage budget we were. Not to mention the fact that the last time the FL let us come out from under a soft embargo we immediately spunked about £10m on strikers.

Moore, Swift, Baldock, Aluko.... all still here that's about £5m in salary a year just for those four.

It's almost like we should have cashed in on someone like Swift when they were wanted.

The whole process is a joke though.
There is no public statement that we are under a ‘soft embargo’ and if we are it seems either a ridiculously loose sanction or we don’t understand what it means.
A ‘one in one out’ rule is pointless, we could ship out a low paid youngster and recruit a high paid marquee signing if that were the criteria.
If Riquelme has been approved it would suggest we aren’t under any embargo given that would be 4 signings since anyone left.....

[Snowflake Royal]

Presumably the basis for requiring us to cut the squad further is our wage budget.

We didn't actually lose that many high wage players given how far over our wage budget we were. Not to mention the fact that the last time the FL let us come out from under a soft embargo we immediately spunked about £10m on strikers.

Moore, Swift, Baldock, Aluko.... all still here that's about £5m in salary a year just for those four.

It's almost like we should have cashed in on someone like Swift when they were wanted.

The whole process is a joke though.
There is no public statement that we are under a ‘soft embargo’ and if we are it seems either a ridiculously loose sanction or we don’t understand what it means.
A ‘one in one out’ rule is pointless, we could ship out a low paid youngster and recruit a high paid marquee signing if that were the criteria.
If Riquelme has been approved it would suggest we aren’t under any embargo given that would be 4 signings since anyone left.....

Yeah, I didn't say it was one in one out and just pointed out that wouldn't work as a system myself.

The whole thing is about not spending beyond your means. So, assuming this is the hold up, we need to move sufficient wages off the book before we bring more in.

What's a joke is how we run our finances.

[Lower West]

Presumably the basis for requiring us to cut the squad further is our wage budget.

We didn't actually lose that many high wage players given how far over our wage budget we were. Not to mention the fact that the last time the FL let us come out from under a soft embargo we immediately spunked about £10m on strikers.

Moore, Swift, Baldock, Aluko.... all still here that's about £5m in salary a year just for those four.

It's almost like we should have cashed in on someone like Swift when they were wanted.

The whole process is a joke though.
There is no public statement that we are under a ‘soft embargo’ and if we are it seems either a ridiculously loose sanction or we don’t understand what it means.
A ‘one in one out’ rule is pointless, we could ship out a low paid youngster and recruit a high paid marquee signing if that were the criteria.
If Riquelme has been approved it would suggest we aren’t under any embargo given that would be 4 signings since anyone left.....

Yeah, I didn't say it was one in one out and just pointed out that wouldn't work as a system myself.

The whole thing is about not spending beyond your means. So, assuming this is the hold up, we need to move sufficient wages off the book before we bring more in.

What's a joke is how we run our finances.

Current crisis is going to cause a major reset across the board. In some ways good timing for Reading.

[Nameless]

Presumably the basis for requiring us to cut the squad further is our wage budget.

We didn't actually lose that many high wage players given how far over our wage budget we were. Not to mention the fact that the last time the FL let us come out from under a soft embargo we immediately spunked about £10m on strikers.

Moore, Swift, Baldock, Aluko.... all still here that's about £5m in salary a year just for those four.

It's almost like we should have cashed in on someone like Swift when they were wanted.

The whole process is a joke though.
There is no public statement that we are under a ‘soft embargo’ and if we are it seems either a ridiculously loose sanction or we don’t understand what it means.
A ‘one in one out’ rule is pointless, we could ship out a low paid youngster and recruit a high paid marquee signing if that were the criteria.
If Riquelme has been approved it would suggest we aren’t under any embargo given that would be 4 signings since anyone left.....

Yeah, I didn't say it was one in one out and just pointed out that wouldn't work as a system myself.

The whole thing is about not spending beyond your means. So, assuming this is the hold up, we need to move sufficient wages off the book before we bring more in.

What's a joke is how we run our finances.

We don’t spend beyond our means.
We spend outside the set of rules that the EFL want clubs to stick to, and they don’t want to allow wealthy owners to spend money on their clubs.

[WestYorksRoyal]

The whole process is a joke though.
There is no public statement that we are under a ‘soft embargo’ and if we are it seems either a ridiculously loose sanction or we don’t understand what it means.
A ‘one in one out’ rule is pointless, we could ship out a low paid youngster and recruit a high paid marquee signing if that were the criteria.
If Riquelme has been approved it would suggest we aren’t under any embargo given that would be 4 signings since anyone left.....

Yeah, I didn't say it was one in one out and just pointed out that wouldn't work as a system myself.

The whole thing is about not spending beyond your means. So, assuming this is the hold up, we need to move sufficient wages off the book before we bring more in.

What's a joke is how we run our finances.

We don’t spend beyond our means.
We spend outside the set of rules that the EFL want clubs to stick to, and they don’t want to allow wealthy owners to spend money on their clubs.

Funny really, we're fully reliant upon our owners but as long as they stick around we're fine. Could the same have not been said in the SJM era, which we currently look at as responsible? Towards the end with PL money and player sales like Doyle, Kitson, Siggy and Long we may have been self sufficient, but if SJM had walked in the early 00s surely we'd have been oxf*rd?

[Snowflake Royal]

The whole process is a joke though.
There is no public statement that we are under a ‘soft embargo’ and if we are it seems either a ridiculously loose sanction or we don’t understand what it means.
A ‘one in one out’ rule is pointless, we could ship out a low paid youngster and recruit a high paid marquee signing if that were the criteria.
If Riquelme has been approved it would suggest we aren’t under any embargo given that would be 4 signings since anyone left.....

Yeah, I didn't say it was one in one out and just pointed out that wouldn't work as a system myself.

The whole thing is about not spending beyond your means. So, assuming this is the hold up, we need to move sufficient wages off the book before we bring more in.

What's a joke is how we run our finances.

We don’t spend beyond our means.
We spend outside the set of rules that the EFL want clubs to stick to, and they don’t want to allow wealthy owners to spend money on their clubs.

You might thinking that spending way more than income is fine. I don't. It ends in tears eventually.

[Nameless]

Yeah, I didn't say it was one in one out and just pointed out that wouldn't work as a system myself.

The whole thing is about not spending beyond your means. So, assuming this is the hold up, we need to move sufficient wages off the book before we bring more in.

What's a joke is how we run our finances.

We don’t spend beyond our means.
We spend outside the set of rules that the EFL want clubs to stick to, and they don’t want to allow wealthy owners to spend money on their clubs.

You might thinking that spending way more than income is fine. I don't. It ends in tears eventually.

If I have a million pounds in the bank but earn £10k a year then refusing to allow me to buy a house because I don’t earn enough is daft.
It would be wrong to allow clubs to spend money they were borrowing at high interest rates that would need to be repaid in the future. If any owner wants to spend money then they should be allowed to as long as it is not creating a burden of debt on the club.
If you think artificially restricting club owners to spending only what they earn from ‘approved’ sources is ok is fine then you are backing a pointless, restrictive system. Allow owners to invest what they want as long as it is not done as a loan and fully fundssalaries for the duration of contracts.

[Zip]

Hmm as it’s loan is it not just a case of finding Sam Smith a club to loan him to? Shouldn’t be hard

You would hope not and there are others like Walker, Holmes or McIntyre, Aluko. Baldock and Watson who could be loaned out or sold. We need these lads off the books.

[Snowflake Royal]

We don’t spend beyond our means.
We spend outside the set of rules that the EFL want clubs to stick to, and they don’t want to allow wealthy owners to spend money on their clubs.

You might thinking that spending way more than income is fine. I don't. It ends in tears eventually.

If I have a million pounds in the bank but earn £10k a year then refusing to allow me to buy a house because I don’t earn enough is daft.
It would be wrong to allow clubs to spend money they were borrowing at high interest rates that would need to be repaid in the future. If any owner wants to spend money then they should be allowed to as long as it is not creating a burden of debt on the club.
If you think artificially restricting club owners to spending only what they earn from ‘approved’ sources is ok is fine then you are backing a pointless, restrictive system. Allow owners to invest what they want as long as it is not done as a loan and fully fundssalaries for the duration of contracts.

You also need to remember that Dai owns RFC, he isn't RFC. What he has isn't all ours.

So many clubs have been bankrolled by someone rich, put into huge debt and when they die or leave been absolutely oxf*rd.

Clubs should be run sustainably.

And of course it doesn't matter what we think the rules should be. We have to abide by what they are. The FL is made up of member clubs and voted for them as well. So it's not like it's imposed against our will.

[Zip]

Agreed Ian. Clubs should live within their means. Just because they are football clubs doesn’t preclude them from behaving like sustainable business entities.

I’m relieved the club haven’t splashed out loads on players in this window to date. I’d be happy with two or three more loan signings to cover areas where we are short but that’s only if we get rid of another four or five players.

We have to cut back. Otherwise the day will come when the club will be fighting to stay alive.

[Notts Royal]

Have to agree - maybe the EFL are learning from the plight of clubs such as Wigan and are acting tougher. It’s most likely for our long-term benefit. Also, the full impact of Covid hasn’t been realised, so the more precautionary measures taken against clubs spending loads, the lower the fallout is likely to be.

And actually what we need is a few low key additions rather than Dai splurging loads on transfer deadline deals. We’ve got a good core...let’s not rock the boat

[Pepe the Horseman]

Have to agree - maybe the EFL are learning from the plight of clubs such as Wigan and are acting tougher. It’s most likely for our long-term benefit. Also, the full impact of Covid hasn’t been realised, so the more precautionary measures taken against clubs spending loads, the lower the fallout is likely to be.

And actually what we need is a few low key additions rather than Dai splurging loads on transfer deadline deals. We’ve got a good core...let’s not rock the boat

The plight of Wigan isn't down to overspending, it's down to the EFL giving the thumbs up to them being taken over by a bunch of crooks.

[TiagoIlori]

Exclusives has now reported the move has been hijacked by an unknown rival. I still have the feeling he’ll sign to be honest, hopefully Kia works his magic

[Zip]

Exclusives has now reported the move has been hijacked by an unknown rival. I still have the feeling he’ll sign to be honest, hopefully Kia works his magic

We know that Bournemouth are interested. Obviously if Brooks leaves then they will want somebody to replace him.

[TiagoIlori]

Exclusives has now reported the move has been hijacked by an unknown rival. I still have the feeling he’ll sign to be honest, hopefully Kia works his magic

We know that Bournemouth are interested. Obviously if Brooks leaves then they will want somebody to replace him.

It seems he’ll be staying, no one will pay 40m for him. Worth baring in mind Bournemouth haven’t signed anyone yet as far as I know.

[Snowflake Royal]

Have to agree - maybe the EFL are learning from the plight of clubs such as Wigan and are acting tougher. It’s most likely for our long-term benefit. Also, the full impact of Covid hasn’t been realised, so the more precautionary measures taken against clubs spending loads, the lower the fallout is likely to be.

And actually what we need is a few low key additions rather than Dai splurging loads on transfer deadline deals. We’ve got a good core...let’s not rock the boat

The plight of Wigan isn't down to overspending, it's down to the EFL giving the thumbs up to them being taken over by a bunch of crooks.

If they have no unspent fraud convictions, are not barred from being company directors and have proof of funds there is nothing the FL can do.

They don't run checks on whether owners are nice and have the club's best interests at heart.

That's up to the seller to work out.

[Stranded]

Exclusives has now reported the move has been hijacked by an unknown rival. I still have the feeling he’ll sign to be honest, hopefully Kia works his magic

Ah the battle of the ITKs - Exclusives says it's been hijacked yet Eddie says it is really done. Be interesting* to see who is right.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Exclusives has now reported the move has been hijacked by an unknown rival. I still have the feeling he’ll sign to be honest, hopefully Kia works his magic

Ah the battle of the ITKs - Exclusives says it's been hijacked yet Eddie says it is really done. Be interesting* to see who is right.

Eddie has a great track record, but if he was right surely it would be confirmed by now.