Reading FC - Dear Prudence

[One Beer is never enough.]

Good read, speculative, but encapsulates a great deal of the questions about RFC finances.

[kevan]

Can I just object to people bringing facts onto this board. That's not what I come here for.

[Stuka]

Entirely separate issue but how good was Siouxsie and the Banshees' version of Dear Prudence? Far better than the original I say.

[seahawk10]

Entirely separate issue but how good was Siouxsie and the Banshees' version of Dear Prudence? Far better than the original I say.

'greed

[Cypry]

Doesn't this also provide a possible clue to the delays in signings.

If the club had to sell Kevin Doyle before June 30th (i.e. before the end of the club's financial year) to balance the books that year, maybe it is choosing to wait until the new financial year (July 2?) before making signings - so that signings are made under the first full year of the new ownership structure and with the PL payments received in the same period.

Am no accountant, but would seem to make some sense, wouldn't it? Not that we couldn't announce a signing before it's inked.

Can't believe I'm writing about this, I need to out more.

Same thought crossed my mind - if we made a loss in 2010/11 which was only partly covered by the sale of Gylfi, then last years figures are likely to look similar, with Mills and Long making up some of the shortfall. Spend before 30 June and the 2011/12 financials could look pretty dire...

[Fox Talbot]

Excellent work and unpaid too! Two points:

- much of this work is possible because RFC remains a company with shareholders that has to publish accounts (unlike I believe Chelsea). Both SJM previously, and the new owners after they have bought the rest of SJM's shares, were / would be in a position to compulsorily buy everyone else's shares. This would mean an end to the publication of such information as it would then be a private company. If TSI want to carry on 'in the Reading way' it would be good if they gave now an assurance they won't take the company private.

- this is an excellent benchmark against which to measure progress by the new owners and a suitable epitaph for SJM's stewardship

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Excellent work and unpaid too! Two points:

- much of this work is possible because RFC remains a company with shareholders that has to publish accounts (unlike I believe Chelsea). Both SJM previously, and the new owners after they have bought the rest of SJM's shares, were / would be in a position to compulsorily buy everyone else's shares. This would mean an end to the publication of such information as it would then be a private company. If TSI want to carry on 'in the Reading way' it would be good if they gave now an assurance they won't take the company private.

- this is an excellent benchmark against which to measure progress by the new owners and a suitable epitaph for SJM's stewardship

If the new owners were interested in the open publication of financial information they'd not be working through a company registered in Gibraltar by an expert in keeping company finances secret.

[Fox Talbot]

^^^ so you imagine there is a potential conflict on the horizon? PR implications not good.

[Vision]

Suspect we're moving from the "where's the money gone" era to the "where's the money from" era.

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

A great read and review of the finances at Reading.

[royalsteve]

Superb Article this: http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/reading-fc-dear-prudence.html

know this a while. now perhaps the mongs should stop moaning about madejski who i think has done a blinding job

with the zingeravichs coming in it doesnt mean we will spends millions on players, for me it means a bit of stability and we dont have to sell a player or two every year. had we not gone up last season and if the russain didnt happen, then we would have lost 2 or 3 players and obviously roberts would never have happend - reckon kebe, feds, mcanuff would have gone

[Royal With Cheese]

Suspect we're moving from the "where's the money gone" era to the "where's the money from" era.

TBH as long as there is money I can't see many people complaining.

[Nick Shorey my Lord!]

Ok, so am I the only one who is getting a little itchy with all this spending? Don't get me wrong, it's great we're buying up youngish talent for faily decent prices and we have to build out the squad to survive, but we've never spent this much before in a pre-season (que someone telling me we have).

Times they are a changing.

[Cypry]

Ok, so am I the only one who is getting a little itchy with all this spending? Don't get me wrong, it's great we're buying up youngish talent for faily decent prices and we have to build out the squad to survive, but we've never spent this much before in a pre-season (que someone telling me we have).

Times they are a changing.

Unless I'm mistaken the only fees we've paid have been for Mariappa, Gunter and the young kid Sweeny....not exactly pushing the boat out.....

Yes, Pog will be on a sizeable wage, but given that we've effectively had a cash windfall of some £45-50M this year by gaining promotion, increasing the wage bill by £10-15M and spending <£5M on players still leaves a sizeable war-chest...

The only "sizeable" spending that has been done is in peoples imaginations when talking about Gylfi / Rhodes / Owen / DeFoe etc, none of which look like happening....

[Ian Royal]

We've not spent quite this much before, but then out of the two summer's we've had preparing for the PL, one we had a far better team that didn't need many additions, and the other we fecked up royally causing us to get relegated.