Club Financial Statement

[Yorkshire Royal]

Yes, there's no way anybody can really claim that Woodley, Earley, Tilehurst and Calcot are part of Reading.

Woodley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Earley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Tilehurst is in Reading. Well done.
Calcot I think comes under West Berkshire.

Anyway, as many posters have stated, it's not about size or catchment area. Stoke are a bigger club than Reading. More history and more fans.

I was only replying to the questions regarding Stoke and why they can spend more money. Which I have answered.

God bless you proud people of Reading...

[Uke]

Size has never mattered, ever

It's all about performance levels

[CMRoyal]

I'm a real simpleton when it comes to..well, everything really, but finances in particular.

So forgive the dumb question, but to those who say we couldn't sustain Premier League football, my question is that surely it was the £7.5m spent on infrastructure that dragged us into deficit in the Premier League years, and surely these are one-off costs? How much annually would/does infrastructure cost once you are up to Premier League standard?

[brendywendy]

I'm a real simpleton when it comes to..well, everything really, but finances in particular.

So forgive the dumb question, but to those who say we couldn't sustain Premier League football, my question is that surely it was the £7.5m spent on infrastructure that dragged us into deficit in the Premier League years, and surely these are one-off costs? How much annually would/does infrastructure cost once you are up to Premier League standard?

but every one is saying you need to spend between 10-20 million on transfers every season just to survive
so..............

[Uke]

I'm a real simpleton when it comes to..well, everything really, but finances in particular.

So forgive the dumb question, but to those who say we couldn't sustain Premier League football, my question is that surely it was the £7.5m spent on infrastructure that dragged us into deficit in the Premier League years, and surely these are one-off costs? How much annually would/does infrastructure cost once you are up to Premier League standard?

No these would be an increase in running costs

The one off costs would have been spent getting there

[Dirk Gently]

I'm a real simpleton when it comes to..well, everything really, but finances in particular.

So forgive the dumb question, but to those who say we couldn't sustain Premier League football, my question is that surely it was the £7.5m spent on infrastructure that dragged us into deficit in the Premier League years, and surely these are one-off costs? How much annually would/does infrastructure cost once you are up to Premier League standard?

That was one-off capital costs, yes.

So we'll be much better placed when we next go back up - but to honest when you're talking about PL-level money £7.5M won't make that much difference. Compare it to an annual wage bill of £30+ M.

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

I am struggling to understand why it has taken just over 5 weeks to issue a very clear and simple explanation of the club financial situation. The last activity to conclude this and to bring all parties up to date was the close of the transfer window 1st September.

[ZacNaloen]

Yes, there's no way anybody can really claim that Woodley, Earley, Tilehurst and Calcot are part of Reading.

Woodley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Earley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Tilehurst is in Reading. Well done.
Calcot I think comes under West Berkshire.

Anyway, as many posters have stated, it's not about size or catchment area. Stoke are a bigger club than Reading. More history and more fans.

I was only replying to the questions regarding Stoke and why they can spend more money. Which I have answered.

God bless you proud people of Reading...

Yet we all put "Reading" on our postal addresses, not Wokingham.

[CMRoyal]

I'm a real simpleton when it comes to..well, everything really, but finances in particular.

So forgive the dumb question, but to those who say we couldn't sustain Premier League football, my question is that surely it was the £7.5m spent on infrastructure that dragged us into deficit in the Premier League years, and surely these are one-off costs? How much annually would/does infrastructure cost once you are up to Premier League standard?

That was one-off capital costs, yes.

So we'll be much better placed when we next go back up - but to honest when you're talking about PL-level money £7.5M won't make that much difference. Compare it to an annual wage bill of £30+ M.

I was looking at it in terms of profit - ie, in our second season we made £7m profit. To break even that leaves us needing to spend a net £7m on transfers less infrastructure running costs. So, I'm beginning to see where that would be awkward, given that Sunderland invested about £30m in transfers in order to get the extra 2 points to keep themselves up the season before last.

I guess it would be a question of which increases at the faster rate - wages or income?

[brendywendy]

so, people moan about finances, lack of clarity, and where has all the money gone
and the club issue a statement, which they dont need to do, other than at agreed times to companys house
and then people moan that it took too long, theres notr enough info etc

i said it was a pointless excersise

[Dirk Gently]

I am struggling to understand why it has taken just over 5 weeks to issue a very clear and simple explanation of the club financial situation. The last activity to conclude this and to bring all parties up to date was the close of the transfer window 1st September.

To avoid any confusion on why it was being released. Release a statement about finances when the papers have got hold of their "imminent Arab buyer" story and everyone will leap to the wrong conclusions.

That's died down now so it can be released.

[CMRoyal]

I am struggling to understand why it has taken just over 5 weeks to issue a very clear and simple explanation of the club financial situation. The last activity to conclude this and to bring all parties up to date was the close of the transfer window 1st September.

I guess there was some red tape, with accountants and auditors constraining what could and couldn't be declared?

What difference would getting this out earlier have made?

[Dirk Gently]

I guess it would be a question of which increases at the faster rate - wages or income?

Wages - the top players (Lampard, Gerrerd, etc, etc) have their on-going competition to see who can be paid the most and that drags up wages for all players at all levels. For them, it's not actually how much they get paid, it's the fact that they get paid more than others. And every time the TV contract goes up there's another round of "wages arms-race"

[Dirk Gently]

I am struggling to understand why it has taken just over 5 weeks to issue a very clear and simple explanation of the club financial situation. The last activity to conclude this and to bring all parties up to date was the close of the transfer window 1st September.

I guess there was some red tape, with accountants and auditors constraining what could and couldn't be declared?

What difference would getting this out earlier have made?

See the post above yours giving the actual reason.

[CMRoyal]

so, people moan about finances, lack of clarity, and where has all the money gone
and the club issue a statement, which they dont need to do, other than at agreed times to companys house
and then people moan that it took too long, theres notr enough info etc

i said it was a pointless excersise

Pointless at getting across to people at the extremes. To the rest of us, a worthwhile exercise.

[CMRoyal]

I am struggling to understand why it has taken just over 5 weeks to issue a very clear and simple explanation of the club financial situation. The last activity to conclude this and to bring all parties up to date was the close of the transfer window 1st September.

I guess there was some red tape, with accountants and auditors constraining what could and couldn't be declared?

What difference would getting this out earlier have made?

See the post above yours giving the actual reason.

Thanks.

[Deadlock]

Yes, there's no way anybody can really claim that Woodley, Earley, Tilehurst and Calcot are part of Reading.

Woodley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Earley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Tilehurst is in Reading. Well done.
Calcot I think comes under West Berkshire.

I know they do, pedant. You'll find the western part of Tilehurst - Birch Copse and Westwood - is also in West Berks.

But paying council tax to Newbury or Wokingham doesn't make those areas not part of Reading.

[adamh4608]

Does anyone know what the wage billis now

[Sun Tzu]

Yes, there's no way anybody can really claim that Woodley, Earley, Tilehurst and Calcot are part of Reading.

Woodley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Earley is part of Wokingham Unitary Authority. HTH.
Tilehurst is in Reading. Well done.
Calcot I think comes under West Berkshire.

I know they do, pedant. You'll find the western part of Tilehurst - Birch Copse and Westwood - is also in West Berks.

But paying council tax to Newbury or Wokingham doesn't make those areas not part of Reading.

He's wrong anyway.

I live in Earley but am within the Reading boundaries...

[Elm Park Old Boy]

I'm not suggesting there's anything sinister, but these kinds of partial statements always beg more questions than they answer.

In two seasons we received £54,450,000 from 'central payments'. But spunked £59,370,000 on wages. On the face of it scary. But surely 'central payments' aren't everything. Didn't we sell 18,000 (expensive) season tickets, and fill the ground virtually every league game? Where does that income feature?

Did you not read the bit later on where they said about all the other revenue and the club returning a profit?

Funnily enough, I did. But it didn't answer my question. How much did we raise that wasn't from 'central payments', and what was it spent on (that wasn't wages)?