Tight old Reading

[Extended-Phenotype]

Ftr, it's completely disingenuous to discredit a more spending approach by using Zingaravich as an example of it.

He spent money that he insisted he had, when it turned out he didn't.

There is a valid argument in suggesting the owner should be more open to the idea of shopping in the 5m bracket, as the return could be significant and the risk could be minor.

I know it's ''up to the owners'' and it's ''Not my money'' but we discuss what we want from formations and tactics, decisions outside of our control, it's fair enough to say that if Reading are to improve, they might need to shop around higher value players.

Anton Zingaravich does not trump this argument.

But we don't have the money, so we can't spend it. As I said to someone else, feel free to magic up Mr Moneybags who's got no interest in maintaining or increasing his fortune and is quite happy to spunk tens of millions a year on Reading. Although whether he could do that thanks to FFP is debateable.

It's not all about headline transfer fees. That's not where the majority of the cost is. We're spending over £30m a year on wages in the second tier ffs.

We don't have what money? What does that even mean and what is it even based on?

Wages, great. But how many good players reach the end of their contract before they sign a new one or are snapped up by someone else?

Why does the spending approach always get strawmanned into ''silly money'' and why is it anyone discussing such an approach has to magic up someone willing to invest in players at this club?

Isn't it possible to invest a bit more without losing significantly more?

My not-particularly-controversial point is that I'm not sure the player market we are in, is giving us much value or return. Up our threshold a bit might see a better quality of player come here, more consistent and safer bets. Which in turn may see better results, certainly ones in keeping with the stated ambitions and promises of the club, which in turn will see a better return on the investment.

Shouting ''Anton Zingaravich'' at people discussing such an approach doesn't discredit it nor add anything to the conversation.

[Ian Royal]

Ftr, it's completely disingenuous to discredit a more spending approach by using Zingaravich as an example of it.

He spent money that he insisted he had, when it turned out he didn't.

There is a valid argument in suggesting the owner should be more open to the idea of shopping in the 5m bracket, as the return could be significant and the risk could be minor.

I know it's ''up to the owners'' and it's ''Not my money'' but we discuss what we want from formations and tactics, decisions outside of our control, it's fair enough to say that if Reading are to improve, they might need to shop around higher value players.

Anton Zingaravich does not trump this argument.

But we don't have the money, so we can't spend it. As I said to someone else, feel free to magic up Mr Moneybags who's got no interest in maintaining or increasing his fortune and is quite happy to spunk tens of millions a year on Reading. Although whether he could do that thanks to FFP is debateable.

It's not all about headline transfer fees. That's not where the majority of the cost is. We're spending over £30m a year on wages in the second tier ffs.

We don't have what money? What does that even mean and what is it even based on?

Wages, great. But how many good players reach the end of their contract before they sign a new one or are snapped up by someone else?

Why does the spending approach always get strawmanned into ''silly money'' and why is it anyone discussing such an approach has to magic up someone willing to invest in players at this club?

Isn't it possible to invest a bit more without losing significantly more?

My not-particularly-controversial point is that I'm not sure the player market we are in, is giving us much value or return. Up our threshold a bit might see a better quality of player come here, more consistent and safer bets. Which in turn may see better results, certainly ones in keeping with the stated ambitions and promises of the club, which in turn will see a better return on the investment.

Shouting ''Anton Zingaravich'' at people discussing such an approach doesn't discredit it nor add anything to the conversation.

Well let's consider our best and least successful signings.

Vydra - unsuccessful £2.5m
Sa - unsuccessful £1m
Quinn - successful £0
McShane - successful £0

This is replicated through our history. What makes you think you know what we can afford and what will bring succes better than the people who run the club?

If you paid attention to our financial position, you'd know our spending is at the limit. We already need to cut spending on wages. We can't afford to increase spending on transfer fees. Especially seeing as most studies show a far superior correlation between success and wage bill than success and transfer spending.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Lolz @ 1-2m being hailed as examples of significant investment.

Clive Baskerville, Charles Watts, Tim Dellor, Mick Gooding, Steve Coppell, Addy Williams, Jimmy Kebe and swathes of other pundits, players and journos have all mentioned that Reading suffer from a lack of real investment.
 
It shouldn’t be a taboo subject. It shouldn’t be strawmanned into fans insisting on bankrupting the club. It can’t be dismissed as fantasy ambition. And it can’t be discredited by the disingenuous use of Anton Zingaravich as an example of what happens when you spend.
 
Reading FC operate within a transfer bracket which consistently sees us yielding an incomplete team. Our thresholds see us missing out on the tweaks we need and resorting to making do or putting up with falling short. It’s not a massive step to up our threshold, and the argument is that an owner putting a bit more into the club would get a lot more out of it.

[Royal_jimmy]

When you sell your best top goalscoring 2 forwards Blackman and Sa in January and you don't replace them (which we haven't) then you are going to be giving yourself a problem. We have struggled for goals since McDermott returned, oh I wonder why...

We cannot keep selling players without adequately replacing them otherwise we will end up in league one. We nearly did last year and well... if we somehow did go down this year then it will teach the board a lesson.

[Ian Royal]

Lolz @ 1-2m being hailed as examples of significant investment.

Clive Baskerville, Charles Watts, Tim Dellor, Mick Gooding, Steve Coppell, Addy Williams, Jimmy Kebe and swathes of other pundits, players and journos have all mentioned that Reading suffer from a lack of real investment.
 
It shouldn’t be a taboo subject. It shouldn’t be strawmanned into fans insisting on bankrupting the club. It can’t be dismissed as fantasy ambition. And it can’t be discredited by the disingenuous use of Anton Zingaravich as an example of what happens when you spend.
 
Reading FC operate within a transfer bracket which consistently sees us yielding an incomplete team. Our thresholds see us missing out on the tweaks we need and resorting to making do or putting up with falling short. It’s not a massive step to up our threshold, and the argument is that an owner putting a bit more into the club would get a lot more out of it.

Most of them are paid to play to the lowest common denominator's narrative, and I'd question whether they're all even accurate.

We're already making sizeable losses. if £1-2m isn't significant, then you're asking us to double, maybe triple our loss every year. The only reason we made a small profit last year and not a massive loss (~£7m) is because of a one off addition of about £11m which wasn't actually cash in, and the FA Cup run.

Our wages have got to be in the top half dozen in the league. We don't need to spend more, we need to spend better. Big money transfers has never, ever been the route to success for us and it is not the approach we're going to take. Deal with it.

[The Royal Forester]

Do owners really invest their money into a club? From what I have seen or read in the media most of them loan the money to the club and when they get fed up and decide to move on they expect to be repaid, leaving the club in debt and/or falling foul of the FFP rules etc. If the club cannot repay that sum, it enters into administration and a downward spiral starts. That is not a good way to run a business, as football clubs have become.

[Extended-Phenotype]

you're asking us to double, maybe triple our loss every year

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that we allow ourselves to spend above the 2-3m mark on a player we need once in a while.

[wingnut]

Yeah but you're asking the club to spend money that you have no idea that they have. It's all very well saying you have to specul8 to accumul8 but that's very easy to say if it's not your money you're specul8ing with and its not your financial arse on the line.

With high transfer fees tends to come high wages. We already can't afford the wage bill we've got.

[Extended-Phenotype]

"It's not your money"



Dunno how many times I've clarified that. It's not my football team either, I'm not the manager, nor are you, but we discuss and suggest formations, line-up, selections and tactics.

I'm saying if we were a little less strict in the market and occasionally allowed ourselves to continue to persue the right player when our standard bids are rejected, maybe that would be a better use of money rather than throwing minimal sums at players who aren't quite right.

It feels like we set a limit and give up if it looks like going over.

Never mind, I just don't think it should be a tabboo subject which gets spun into demmands for bankruptcy or dismissed with Anton being missused as an example of more investment.

[wingnut]

Discussing formations/tactics etc with players we already have is different to insisting other people should spend money you have no idea they have.

And from what I can gather you're not talking about spending "minimal sums"' either.

"It feels like we set a limit and give up if it looks like going over. "
Don't we all on any substantial purchase?

[Extended-Phenotype]

Discussing formations/tactics etc with players we already have is different to insisting other people should spend money you have no idea they have.

So we can't suggest a little more investment might see a better return, because we don't know if the money is there for it?

But we can suggest Brian starts Rakels even though we don't know if he is up to speed and match fit?

Disagree. It's just the same, speculating about how best to approach our campaign.

[trueroyal1871]

"It's not your money"



Dunno how many times I've clarified that. It's not my football team either, I'm not the manager, nor are you, but we discuss and suggest formations, line-up, selections and tactics.

I'm saying if we were a little less strict in the market and occasionally allowed ourselves to continue to persue the right player when our standard bids are rejected, maybe that would be a better use of money rather than throwing minimal sums at players who aren't quite right.

It feels like we set a limit and give up if it looks like going over.

Never mind, I just don't think it should be a tabboo subject which gets spun into demmands for bankruptcy or dismissed with Anton being missused as an example of more investment.

Massive +1 the club need to accept you cannot progress in this division or the next without spending more than they currently are. Times have changed a lot in football and what we currently spend just doesn't get you enough quality. I'm not advocating spending loads of money for the sake of it but if we feel a certain player is right for the club to make progress then we should be prepared to spend outside of our comfort zone to make it happen. Obviously there comes a point when you have to walk away if you get outbid and you can't afford to offer more but at the moment we don't even try.

[Haag Royal]

Where we do seem keen to invest as a club is on the training ground and the Academy. How much out of pocket cash has been spent on these two projects in the last 3-4 years?

Putting the training ground spending aside for a moment, if we invest so much in the Academy why aren't the managers playing more of them? Last game I think 1 player was ex Academy and he's leaving in the summer.

So can the likes of Stacey, Fosu, Kuhl, Samuels, Keown, etc....etc.... please be given game time as we approach the end of the season with bugger all the play for at the expense of loanees who will not be here come August?

Then we can see surely if this money is being well spent or if it's a case of spending this money in a different way going forwards? i.e. on new players coming in.

[genome]

Last game I think 1 player was ex Academy and he's leaving in the summer.

3 in the starting line up were from the academy

[No Fixed Abode]

When you sell your best top goalscoring 2 forwards Blackman and Sa in January and you don't replace them (which we haven't) then you are going to be giving yourself a problem. We have struggled for goals since McDermott returned, oh I wonder why...

We cannot keep selling players without adequately replacing them otherwise we will end up in league one. We nearly did last year and well... if we somehow did go down this year then it will teach the board a lesson.

I agree totally. Most on here said Blackman wouldn't be missed as he was on a downward spiral. Of course - no other top scorers go through a bad run through a season do they?

But I do think it was just a case of "He's leaving us, he wasn't very good any way" bitterness for the most part from Reading fans.

[Ouroboros]

When you sell your best top goalscoring 2 forwards Blackman and Sa in January and you don't replace them (which we haven't) then you are going to be giving yourself a problem. We have struggled for goals since McDermott returned, oh I wonder why...

We cannot keep selling players without adequately replacing them otherwise we will end up in league one. We nearly did last year and well... if we somehow did go down this year then it will teach the board a lesson.

I agree totally. Most on here said Blackman wouldn't be missed as he was on a downward spiral. Of course - no other top scorers go through a bad run through a season do they?

But I do think it was just a case of "He's leaving us, he wasn't very good any way" bitterness for the most part from Reading fans.

Yeah, his goals for Derby have proven those people badly wrong.

[No Fixed Abode]

When you sell your best top goalscoring 2 forwards Blackman and Sa in January and you don't replace them (which we haven't) then you are going to be giving yourself a problem. We have struggled for goals since McDermott returned, oh I wonder why...

We cannot keep selling players without adequately replacing them otherwise we will end up in league one. We nearly did last year and well... if we somehow did go down this year then it will teach the board a lesson.

I agree totally. Most on here said Blackman wouldn't be missed as he was on a downward spiral. Of course - no other top scorers go through a bad run through a season do they?

But I do think it was just a case of "He's leaving us, he wasn't very good any way" bitterness for the most part from Reading fans.

Yeah, his goals for Derby have proven those people badly wrong.

As we know - some players just 'fit' at a club. He bided his time and came good at Reading under Clarke's supervision. Players often go to bigger clubs and it doesn't work out. So his Derby form has nothing to do with justifying his move. But if it makes you feel better......

[Ouroboros]

What else are you prepared to do to make me feel better?

[Extended-Phenotype]

When you sell your best top goalscoring 2 forwards Blackman and Sa in January and you don't replace them (which we haven't) then you are going to be giving yourself a problem. We have struggled for goals since McDermott returned, oh I wonder why...

We cannot keep selling players without adequately replacing them otherwise we will end up in league one. We nearly did last year and well... if we somehow did go down this year then it will teach the board a lesson.

I agree totally. Most on here said Blackman wouldn't be missed as he was on a downward spiral. Of course - no other top scorers go through a bad run through a season do they?

But I do think it was just a case of "He's leaving us, he wasn't very good any way" bitterness for the most part from Reading fans.

Partly agreed.

He wanted out, was in a patch of poor form, was tricky working out where to play him without having a negative impact on other players and hadn't exactly endeared himself to the fans during his time here, so it was very easy to shrug at his departure. But the idea he wouldn't be missed or didn't need properly replacing was all a bit silly.

[handbags_harris]

Isn't it possible to invest a bit more without losing significantly more?

Poo poo the Zingarevich argument all you like, but while we still suffer the effects of the utterly ridiculous contracts that TSI agreed with individual players then the argument surrounding him is, in part, valid.

Is it possible to invest a bit more without losing significantly more? The fact our annual accounts were scrutinised significantly with uncertainty surrounding whether we would breach or stay within FFP regs would suggest not. As it is, yes we stayed within FFP but only by the skin of our teeth so the room for outside investment isn't there as it would presumably breach FFP. The days of the owner investing cash that would otherwise be significantly beyond a club's means have gone.

Having said that, last season's accounts included 6 months of Royston Drenthe, a season of Pogrebnyak, on top of the Pearce, Karacan Kelly and Federici contracts all of which were signed under Zingarevich. There is a reason we offered them all significantly reduced terms, a reason we let Drenthe go on a free (other than his obscene attitude), and a reason we let Pogrebnyak go on a free - our salary to turnover ratio stood at 96%. If we were to be relegated (not exactly out of the question at the moment but unlikely) you can expect a huge overhaul of the squad as FFP in League 1 mandates salary can be 75% of turnover for clubs relegated from the Championship, and 60% after that. I don't believe we will be anywhere near 96% at the end of this season as the vast majority of high earners have been released or sold over the last two summers, but I do believe we'll still be running a fairly high percentage. In short, don't expect us to spend much in the way of transfer fees, and expect cheapish bargain buys should we need to bring anyone in.

Welcome back to the Reading Way, not by design, but by necessity.