Since promotion

Schards#2 · by **Schards#2** » 10 Jul 2007 12:00

Simplistictly....

IN - in TV revenue, circa Â£65,000,000

OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000

Given that the reason we were given that ticket prices were hiked by 80% odd last year was so we could build a team to compete in the Premiership, should the club be refunding some of it if it refuses to compete in the transfer/wages market and is, presumably sitting on tens of millions of pounds?

Coppelled Streets · by **Coppelled Streets** » 10 Jul 2007 12:02

I wonder just how much of that TV revenue will total for wages, but agree totally with you Schards.

Wycombe Royal · by **Wycombe Royal** » 10 Jul 2007 12:14

Schards#2 wrote:Simplistictly....

IN - in TV revenue, circa Â£65,000,000

OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000

If it is so simple, why have you left out the biggest expense?

Coppelled Streets · by **Coppelled Streets** » 10 Jul 2007 12:21

Wycombe Royal wrote:
Schards#2 wrote:Simplistictly....

IN - in TV revenue, circa Â£65,000,000

OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000
If it is so simple, why have you left out the biggest expense?

Lindy?

SpaceCruiser · by **SpaceCruiser** » 10 Jul 2007 12:27

Schards#2 wrote:OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000

Soccerbase says otherwise: Â£5,750,000 and they've even missed out Andre Bikey, so the total out really is Â£6,750,000. And you seem to have ignored the wages. Surely there is more out than a mere Â£3 mill.

Schards#2 · by **Schards#2** » 10 Jul 2007 12:30

SpaceCruiser wrote:
Schards#2 wrote:OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000
Soccerbase says otherwise: Â£5,750,000 and they've even missed out Andre Bikey, so the total out really is Â£6,750,000. And you seem to have ignored the wages. Surely there is more out than a mere Â£3 mill.

Does Soccerbase include the sale of Halford?

As for wages, if you take an average of Â£15,000 p.w for 25 players, (a high estimate) thats Â£19.5 million

SpaceCruiser · by **SpaceCruiser** » 10 Jul 2007 12:34

Schards#2 wrote:
SpaceCruiser wrote:
Schards#2 wrote:OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000
Soccerbase says otherwise: Â£5,750,000 and they've even missed out Andre Bikey, so the total out really is Â£6,750,000. And you seem to have ignored the wages. Surely there is more out than a mere Â£3 mill.
Does Soccerbase include the sale of Halford?

Yes, it does, but I seem to have missed out your word "net", so it's minus Â£2.5 million = Â£4,250,000.

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 10 Jul 2007 12:36

Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.

Schards#2 · by **Schards#2** » 10 Jul 2007 12:43

Stranded wrote:Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.

Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.

I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.

Wycombe Royal · by **Wycombe Royal** » 10 Jul 2007 13:00

Schards#2 wrote:
Stranded wrote:Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.

I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.

Didn't we go over this whole toopic last season about 427 times?

Bowman's Quiver · by **Bowman's Quiver** » 10 Jul 2007 13:09

Wycombe Royal wrote:
Schards#2 wrote:Simplistictly....

IN - in TV revenue, circa Â£65,000,000

OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000
If it is so simple, why have you left out the biggest expense?

Because that wouldn't suit his agenda

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 10 Jul 2007 13:10

Schards#2 wrote:
Stranded wrote:Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.

I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.

Ok, so for example we'd gone out and spent say another Â£10m last year and it had gone wrong would that have been better?

I can see where you are coming from but each club goes about it's business in it's own way and I for one am happy that we are not paying over the odds for players with limited Prem experience such as Koumas and Kamara who have moved on in the last few days.

I'd much rather we continue to go about things as we are and go from there.

Harps stay sharp · by **Harps stay sharp** » 10 Jul 2007 13:12

Schards#2 wrote:Simplistictly....

IN - in TV revenue, circa Â£65,000,000

OUT - in net transfers, circa Â£3,000,000

Given that the reason we were given that ticket prices were hiked by 80% odd last year was so we could build a team to compete in the Premiership, should the club be refunding some of it if it refuses to compete in the transfer/wages market and is, presumably sitting on tens of millions of pounds?

But the club have stated the money is available for the Manager to spend. Coppell was well within his budget last season.

So the Club haven't misled anyone, i am sure the money for the increase in 2006/07 is still available for the right player/s.

SpaceCruiser · by **SpaceCruiser** » 10 Jul 2007 13:19

Wycombe Royal wrote:
Schards#2 wrote:
Stranded wrote:Did the team not compete in the Premiership last season? Or did I just dream that.
Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.

I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.
Didn't we go over this whole toopic last season about 427 times?

How did you arrive at that figure?

Wycombe Royal · by **Wycombe Royal** » 10 Jul 2007 13:21

SpaceCruiser wrote:
Wycombe Royal wrote:
Schards#2 wrote: Yes it did, but not as a result of the increased ticket revenue as the club has chosen to spend a fraction of the funds at its disposal.

I'm not saying the club's choice to not compete financial with pretty much every other club in the Premiership is neccessarily wrong. Just that you can't say you are charging more in order to do that, but not actually do it.
Didn't we go over this whole toopic last season about 427 times?
How did you arrive at that figure?

I think I double counted one of the discussions. It was actually 426 times.

Harold · by **Harold** » 10 Jul 2007 13:31

Only time will tell if Reading can continue in the transfer market the way they have been.

If reading dont sign many players this pre-season and do well, SC will be a genius again. If Reading fail, then the board will be to blame.

Wycombe Royal · by **Wycombe Royal** » 10 Jul 2007 13:32

Harold wrote:If Reading fail, then the board will be to blame.

Why would they? It has been stated that the funds are available, so surely then it must be Hammond and Coppell who would be to blame for not spending it?

Harold gets it wrong again when attempting a fishing trip.

Coppelled Streets · by **Coppelled Streets** » 10 Jul 2007 13:33

Put your maggot away my m8.

Harold · by **Harold** » 10 Jul 2007 14:06

Wycombe Royal wrote:
Harold wrote:If Reading fail, then the board will be to blame.
Why would they? It has been stated that the funds are available, so surely then it must be Hammond and Coppell who would be to blame for not spending it?

Harold gets it wrong again when attempting a fishing trip.

it says funds available, but we dont know how much!!

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 10 Jul 2007 14:09

Harold wrote:
Wycombe Royal wrote:
Harold wrote:If Reading fail, then the board will be to blame.
Why would they? It has been stated that the funds are available, so surely then it must be Hammond and Coppell who would be to blame for not spending it?

Harold gets it wrong again when attempting a fishing trip.
it says funds available, but we dont know how much!!

Reading do not and never have had a set transfer budget.

Since promotion

Since promotion

Re: Since promotion

Re: Since promotion

Re: Since promotion

Re: Since promotion

Re: Since promotion

Re: Since promotion

Re: Since promotion

Who is online

Links

Forums

Who is online