Is Administration A Bad Thing?

[Hoop Blah]

but spending wisely rather than spending big really is the only weapon we have in our arsenal

I agree, but we're still taking the same gamble as everyone else, and did so to a greater extent before promotion because our wages were a massive proportion of a turnover that wasn't enough to cover our outgoings. It's the Market we operate in, it's football.

As for spending wisely, there is nothing to say we can't spend wisely but with greater sums involved for what we consider to be better players. I'm not sure we've really spent wisely either, we've probably got a similar success rate as most other clubs but our hits have just brought in more by way of profits (that could well be the wise bit though!).

[Pseud O'Nym]

I agree, but we're still taking the same gamble as everyone else, and did so to a greater extent before promotion because our wages were a massive proportion of a turnover that wasn't enough to cover our outgoings.

True, but I believe much of the wage bill that season took the form of success related bonuses.

[Svlad Cjelli]

but spending wisely rather than spending big really is the only weapon we have in our arsenal

I agree, but we're still taking the same gamble as everyone else, and did so to a greater extent before promotion because our wages were a massive proportion of a turnover that wasn't enough to cover our outgoings. It's the Market we operate in, it's football.

As for spending wisely, there is nothing to say we can't spend wisely but with greater sums involved for what we consider to be better players. I'm not sure we've really spent wisely either, we've probably got a similar success rate as most other clubs but our hits have just brought in more by way of profits (that could well be the wise bit though!).

Not going to argue too much with that, except to say that once we start to spend bigger sums the potential for efficiency reduces - it's hard to get a £2M bargain, but it's much easier to get a £250k bargain. Also it seems that the more we've spent on individual players in the past the worse that's ended up - I';m thinking of PL-era purchases.

What we are brilliant at is not only getting players cheap (and not being blackmailed by players or selling clubs) and at getting superb deals when we sell them on. We're also really good at keeping saleable players here and wanting to be here for longer than normal due to the environment and atmosphere we have here.

That's all part of the "efficiency" argument - but effectively I suppose I'm saying that we buy players when we feel we need them - and not when others tell us we need to - and more often than not we buy the right players, not just the expensive ones.

We also invest something that very few other clubs do - whilst other clubs "invest" (gamble) money and demand instant results, we invest time in our players - something that's vital to them and often just as important as money.

[Hoop Blah]

I agree, but we're still taking the same gamble as everyone else, and did so to a greater extent before promotion because our wages were a massive proportion of a turnover that wasn't enough to cover our outgoings.

True, but I believe much of the wage bill that season took the form of success related bonuses.

Not sure that's true. I seem to remember the likes of Hahnemann moaning at the size of their bonus (it's was only something like £15k a head I think).

[Hoop Blah]

That's all part of the "efficiency" argument - but effectively I suppose I'm saying that we buy players when we feel we need them - and not when others tell us we need to - and more often than not we buy the right players, not just the expensive ones.

This is the only bit I'd disagree with.

I'm not sure who would be telling us we need to buy players in the first place and, since gaining promotion, I'm not sure where the evidence is to suggest we either buy when we need (I'd suggest we haven't bought when needed) or that we get it right more often than not.

Our transfer record since the January '06 window is probably average at best. Hit/Miss/Maybe our signings since then (when we were effectively a Premier League side) and I don't think it looks that rosey unfortunately.

[PEARCEY]

Clearly, there is a balance to be struck but I feel Reading have gone too far in the direction of caution and I would like to see them roll the dice occassionally. On balance, I would rather have lived through Portsmouth last four years than ours as, simply, it would have been more exciting and stimulating with wonderful highs and desperate lows. That, to me, is what makes football worth watching and if you lose that factor that sets the adreneline flowing, it becomes just another passtime.

I think our main problem is that we did roll the dice (but no-one really realised we were doing it) and it went wrong (when the team imploded, second half of that first season down).

We spent a lot trying to keep the squad together that first season down. It didn't work.

We still sold Kitson, Shorey and Sonko after going down although of course Kits lated reappeared on loan....so it was a calculated roll of the dice.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

28/12/2009. CCC. Plymouth 4 Reading 1. Remember that 1? That was not even 2 years ago.

Is Admistration a Bad Thing?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Clearly, there is a balance to be struck but I feel Reading have gone too far in the direction of caution and I would like to see them roll the dice occassionally. On balance, I would rather have lived through Portsmouth last four years than ours as, simply, it would have been more exciting and stimulating with wonderful highs and desperate lows. That, to me, is what makes football worth watching and if you lose that factor that sets the adreneline flowing, it becomes just another passtime.

I think our main problem is that we did roll the dice (but no-one really realised we were doing it) and it went wrong (when the team imploded, second half of that first season down).

We spent a lot trying to keep the squad together that first season down. It didn't work.

We still sold Kitson, Shorey and Sonko after going down although of course Kits lated reappeared on loan....so it was a calculated roll of the dice.

I think we couldn't keep those three players rather than having sold them - they were all tempted away by having egos bigger than their playing ability.

[Ian Royal]

We did sell some players Pearcey, but name a single club that's come down in the last 10 years that hasn't lost at least one or two of its higher earners / better players?

We didn't bet the farm on getting back up, because we ain't stupid. But we did run the club much more like we were still in the Premier League, than back in the Championship.

The fact is we had half a dozen or more players who were interesting to Prem teams and we sold three of them.

Sonko, Kitson & Shorey were sold, but we kept Doyle, Hahnemann, Bikey & SHunt. All of which were playing Premier League football the season after. And it wasn't because they suddenly came good and impressed in the Championship.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Sonko, Kitson & Shorey were sold, but we kept Doyle, Hahnemann, Bikey & SHunt. All of which were playing Premier League football the season after. And it wasn't because they suddenly came good and impressed in the Championship.

And we didn't want to lose Sonko & Kitson - they demanded moves which meant we couldn't keep them there.

And Shorey had moved on (in his head) 8 months earlier. Perhaps if we'd sold him then we might have stayed up.

[RoyalBlue]

Not going to argue too much with that, except to say that once we start to spend bigger sums the potential for efficiency reduces - it's hard to get a £2M bargain, but it's much easier to get a £250k bargain.

Not sure that really holds true. I'm pretty sure you could spend £2M on a player and get a real bargain because the transfer fee is lot lower than it would normally have been due to the player having a year or less to run on his contract.

What we are brilliant at is not only getting players cheap (and not being blackmailed by players or selling clubs) and at getting superb deals when we sell them on.

We've done well but 'brilliant' probably only applies if you conveniently overlook all of the 'bargains' who haven't worked out. e.g. Mooney, Williams x 2? and I'm sure the folks on here could come up with lots more names. I suspect there are other clubs out there who have done as well if not better.

We're also really good at keeping saleable players here and wanting to be here for longer than normal due to the environment and atmosphere we have here.

Not sure how you measure 'normal' .

That's all part of the "efficiency" argument - but effectively I suppose I'm saying that we buy players when we feel we need them - and not when others tell us we need to - and more often than not we buy the right players, not just the expensive ones.

Would be interesting to compare our 'success' rate with other clubs.

We also invest something that very few other clubs do - whilst other clubs "invest" (gamble) money and demand instant results, we invest time in our players - something that's vital to them and often just as important as money.

I think 'very few' is being overly cynical. I suspect there are more clubs doing this than you make out. Dare I suggest that even Man U invest time in their players?

[paultheroyal]

No doubt mentioned before on numerous threads but if not this is a good a place as any....I found from a very reliable source over the weekend that John Madjeski has nowhere near the wealth that we all think he has, infact he is really struggling but for the love of the club he is keeping it afloat and will continue to do so until a buyer comes in. Nothing at Reading will change as far as big money signings, breaking the wage bill etc - he is clinging onto the hope that miracles are again worked and then a rich and wealthy somebody will come in and take over.

[Ian Royal]

Around the time we were promoted he was valued at about £325m by the Times Rich list irrc. I think he's now valued at around £200m, again iirc. So he seems to have lost at least a third of his fortune... and bear in mind he's owed about £20m by us and then the club will be considered as one of his assets in valuing his wealth, so we've got to equate to something not far off 25% of his wealth.


It's not hard to see why he is struggling and not putting money into us if a football club which is running at an annual deficit without player sales is that much of his wealth and some of his other businesses are doing as bad, if not worse.

[brendywendy]

That's all part of the "efficiency" argument - but effectively I suppose I'm saying that we buy players when we feel we need them - and not when others tell us we need to - and more often than not we buy the right players, not just the expensive ones.

This is the only bit I'd disagree with.

I'm not sure who would be telling us we need to buy players in the first place and, since gaining promotion, I'm not sure where the evidence is to suggest we either buy when we need (I'd suggest we haven't bought when needed) or that we get it right more often than not.

Our transfer record since the January '06 window is probably average at best. Hit/Miss/Maybe our signings since then (when we were effectively a Premier League side) and I don't think it looks that rosey unfortunately.

hit/miss/maybe at 250k a head>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hit/miss/maybe at 2.5 million a head.


cos at those prices we simply cannot afford the misses

[Schards#2]

That's all part of the "efficiency" argument - but effectively I suppose I'm saying that we buy players when we feel we need them - and not when others tell us we need to - and more often than not we buy the right players, not just the expensive ones.

This is the only bit I'd disagree with.

I'm not sure who would be telling us we need to buy players in the first place and, since gaining promotion, I'm not sure where the evidence is to suggest we either buy when we need (I'd suggest we haven't bought when needed) or that we get it right more often than not.

Our transfer record since the January '06 window is probably average at best. Hit/Miss/Maybe our signings since then (when we were effectively a Premier League side) and I don't think it looks that rosey unfortunately.

hit/miss/maybe at 250k a head>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hit/miss/maybe at 2.5 million a head.


cos at those prices we simply cannot afford the missus

We've all been there

[holsgrove breaks a leg]

Knowing our luck if RFC entered administration, we'd more likely do a Plymouth/Luton! Still the blue square south has a bizarre appeal....

[Svlad Cjelli]

Administration would be an utter disaster for SJM if it ever happened, which is why it will never be allowed to happen.

His whole business empire is founded on his trustworthiness and creditworthiness, his honesty and the fact that he *always* pays debts - and expects others to do the same to him (*). If any of his business units went into administration (i.e. had debts it couldn't pay) it would be a disaster for all of them and for him.

(*) qv not letting Exeter off a relatively small sum- it wasn't the money that was important to him, it was the fundamental belief SJM has that *all* debts should be paid in full.

[brendywendy]

This is the only bit I'd disagree with.

I'm not sure who would be telling us we need to buy players in the first place and, since gaining promotion, I'm not sure where the evidence is to suggest we either buy when we need (I'd suggest we haven't bought when needed) or that we get it right more often than not.

Our transfer record since the January '06 window is probably average at best. Hit/Miss/Maybe our signings since then (when we were effectively a Premier League side) and I don't think it looks that rosey unfortunately.

hit/miss/maybe at 250k a head>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hit/miss/maybe at 2.5 million a head.


cos at those prices we simply cannot afford the missus

We've all been there

other way round in my house!

[Mr Angry]

Administration would be an utter disaster for SJM if it ever happened, which is why it will never be allowed to happen.

His whole business empire is founded on his trustworthiness and creditworthiness, his honesty and the fact that he *always* pays debts - and expects others to do the same to him (*). If any of his business units went into administration (i.e. had debts it couldn't pay) it would be a disaster for all of them and for him.

Thats an excellent post Svlad, and from a perspective I hadn't thought about tbh.

No wonder he is so weary of all the hucksters who come into football expecting to put nothing in and then walk out having made a fortune a short time later... (I remember listening to a R5Live programme where SJM was one of those discussing football club ownership with Peter de Saveray who had just bought Millwall, and who's business plan was to basically that....... I think he lasted about a Year before he sold up - at a loss)

[Hoop Blah]

hit/miss/maybe at 250k a head>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hit/miss/maybe at 2.5 million a head.


cos at those prices we simply cannot afford the misses

I'm really sure what you're trying to say with the first bit, is it that our success rate is better at cheap gambles than multi-million pound gambles? Or do you mean it's better to gamble at the cheap end of the market?

In terms of success and which is a better policy it's all relative. When we were in the Premier League a £2.5m gamble was still a relative cheapy compared to both the competition and our income. In the Championship £250k is slightly less in terms of relative value (maybe not much though) but considering the massive drop in income it represents just as big a gamble for the club.

Either way, the gamble of on pitch success vs financial control remains much the same. Gambling on cheap cheap £250k signings when we were in the Premier League wasn't >>>>>>> than anything because the gambles failed.