Reading going in with the Derby fun

[Red_Alligator]

Looks like . ...."It's time to see the scores on the board, Miss Ford!"

 

[SecretSam]

I guess I got an answer to my question...

[fairweather]

Interesting to see Reading starting to get their defence organised. 
 

I thought they had worked through their legacy and overdraft from trying to buy their way (unsuccessfully) to the premiership. Clearly not and it’s still holding them back

However with the loss of revenue from fans last season, are they being tactically astute by saying to the EFL “mea culpa - any punishment you have we’ll take it now?  
 

We’ll tread water this season. Get a clean slate and have another tilt at premiership over the next 3 years.

Looks like a great time to announce bad news and be a good offender to me.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not necessarily @fairweather because Covid losses are excluded- in other words, Covid wouldn't be a decisive factor between compliance and not.

They surely would have to adhere to a business plan in addition, clubs who fail FFP tend to- that might hinder a tilt at the PL as quickly as suggested.

Could well stay up but depending on when the breach occured, the business plan would give financial targets which would be monitored by the EFL, potentially punishable with further deductions/charges. People focus on the deductions but business plans are unspoken details of P&S/FFP.

Might be something like...

1. Aggregate losses in T-1 and T-2 were equal to or exceeded £26m.
2. T-2 in this instance would be 2018/19 and T-1 would be the combined average of 2019/20 and 2020/21.
3. Therefore, they are 'reset' to an aggregate of £26m if above or stay there if not.
4. Which means that Reading could not exceed an FFP loss of £13m this season...
5. ...Quite possibly next season as well.

5) Is because I'm unsure as to whether the business plan would incorporate T+1 or T+2 as well- in other words the season after 2020/21 and potentially the season after that.

A scenario where it might kick in is if say Reading were forecasted to make an FFP loss of £20m in one of these seasons, then they would need to raise a minimum of £7m just to stand still- just to comply. Fixed Asset profits are no longer permitted for FFP, suddenly the walls are closing in a bit...

Edited September 24, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Sounds like a 6 point deduction with a further 3 suspended.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/reading-fc-points-deduction-update-emerges-amid-ongoing-efl-discussions/

Devil is in the detail with a few things however:

1) Would the 3 suspended be addable in March/April if their in-season projections not in order? That would set a decent precedent.

2) It mentions that they handed in financials quickly. A mitigating factor?

3) The business plan. No reference to it in the report but would hope that one exists in order to maintain present and near future compliance.

4) Tying the extra 3 pts to March would be a positive In terms of continued compliance this season.

5) Which period does it specifically relate to? I'd assume to 2020/21 but there have been no specifics.

Hopefully when ratified, the EFL statement plus written reasons for the agreed decision would explain these key bits.

[Davefevs]

14 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sounds like a 6 point deduction with a further 3 suspended.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/reading-fc-points-deduction-update-emerges-amid-ongoing-efl-discussions/

Devil is in the detail with a few things however:

1) Would the 3 suspended be addable in March/April if their in-season projections not in order? That would set a decent precedent.

2) It mentions that they handed in financials quickly. A mitigating factor?

3) The business plan. No reference to it in the report but would hope that one exists in order to maintain present and near future compliance.

4) Tying the extra 3 pts to March would be a positive In terms of continued compliance this season.

5) Which period does it specifically relate to? I'd assume to 2020/21 but there have been no specifics.

Hopefully when ratified, the EFL statement plus written reasons for the agreed decision would explain these key bits.

Not sure how their accounts in 20/21 will look any better???

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure how their accounts in 20/21 will look any better???

Depends how much fell of the wage bill and amortisation- and remember 2019/20 and 2020/21 are averaged and halved.

The period therefore being 2017/18, 2018/19 and the combined average of the prior 2 seasons.

2021/22 I assume will see a target set of £13m + allowables and the same for 2022/23 if precedent anything to go by, although the lack of a business plan referenced is slightly odd but hopefully as a precedent has been set that will also be in there for Reading, Derby and anyone else that might fall foul/agree a settlement.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Not sure how their accounts in 20/21 will look any better???

By which time it'll be irrelevant, given they'll stay up this year even with a 6 point penalty? 

The efl are such a weak, ineffectual, limp wristed organisation. You'd think Larry Grayson was in charge. 

He might as well be.  

Reading need to be shat on, like Derby. Instead, they've been allowed to sign players the rest of the division would love to have! 

Utterly useless governonce by the efl. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Merrick's Marvels

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

By which time it'll be irrelevant, given they'll stay up this year even with a 6 point penalty? 

The efl are such a weak, ineffectual, limp wristed organisation. You'd think Larry Grayson was in charge. 

He might as well be.  

Reading need to be shat on, like Derby. Instead, they've been allowed to sign players the rest of the division would love to have! 

Utterly useless governonce by the efl. 

As with the  stadium sales by the likes of Derby, Reading et al this is yet more evidence of absolute negligence by the EFL when drafting the new ffp rules.

It now appears that Reading have beaten ffp on 2 counts - stadium sale and players on more than the £8,500 pw that the embargo allows - but in fact have broken no actual rules at all, thanks to the inept EFL!

This really smacks of Reading having their cake and eating it, and I hope that, as with Derby’s accounting methods, the EFL find something with which they can properly punish Reading.

[Mr Popodopolous]

There's no doubt that Reading seem to have got away with a certain amount for sure.

1. Dann
2. Rahman
3. Drinkwater
4. Halilovic

These all strike me as players who shouldn't be on £8.5k per week let's say. If Chelsea choose to give a massive subsidy in terms of the two in the middle though, what can the EFL do? My understanding is that those two are on combined wages- per week- of £170k! If Chelsea as seems to have been done, choose to fund a minimum of 90% and don't demand loan fees what can be done? Reading possibly have a geographical advantage too thinking about it, with proximity to London etc. Not that Reading itself is especially a great location.

This punishment feels light though, 9 points wouldn't be so bad but who knows how the extra 3 fits in.

@downendcity

As we discussed before, it was stadium sale...but also the possible re-sale in 2018/19, then the old training ground sale, land around the Madejski and £3m in operating income- a loan fee tor Sone Aluko to the owner's Chinese club!

Then the whole not selling Swift thing, not selling players even though the CEO at the time basically said it was their only 'out'. I say at the time, I wonder if their owner got rid due to hard truths or indeed he quit as a result of the impasse. Hope they go down...

...Edit. To say nothing of adding Joao, Puscas etc after being released from a soft embargo in summer 2019 when close to the wire and Ejaria on a loan with obligation to buy, the latter of which was activated in summer 2020.

That's why it's key to know the period it falls in because we could see multiple breaches in succession theoretically. We won't know until next March/April when their accounts out but the EFL will know much more than us, we hope!

Edited September 27, 2021 by Mr Popodopolous

[GrahamC]

@Mr Popodopolous to be fair to Halilovic & Dann, they are free agents who were without clubs prior to this, so if a better offer had been out there, they’d have taken it. Sone Aluko was training with Derby in exactly these circumstances & then joined Ipswich because they offered him more.

Rahman & Drinkwater, both on loan from Chelsea look incredibly suspicious though, the latter is rumoured to have a year left on £100k a week, Chelsea surely cannot need 8.5% of it that much..

[1960maaan]

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Rahman & Drinkwater, both on loan from Chelsea look incredibly suspicious though, the latter is rumoured to have a year left on £100k a week, Chelsea surely cannot need 8.5% of it that much..

I've tried to think why?
The only thing I can come up with is, no one else came in and they just wanted then in the shop window.
Anything else would be very suspicious.