The Administration Thread

[CBRammette]

15 minutes ago, WestKentRam said:

I wonder if it is a matter of timing. The accounts are up to 30th June 2022.

David Clowes bought the club on 1st July 2022. Rob Couhig is on record as saying that the money for the compensation to WW came through two days after this.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-wycombe-rob-couhig-7512397

Yes probably thats it and why he was so determined to screw us as knew the 2021/22 accounts were dire

[TuffLuff]

17 minutes ago, WestKentRam said:

I wonder if it is a matter of timing. The accounts are up to 30th June 2022.

David Clowes bought the club on 1st July 2022. Rob Couhig is on record as saying that the money for the compensation to WW came through two days after this.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-wycombe-rob-couhig-7512397

Bloody Maguire!

[kevinhectoring]

On 29/03/2023 at 10:35, ram59 said:

I'd have loved to see either MM or the administrators challenge our punishments in court, I suspect that we'd still be in the championship.

Remember, we were given a 9 point penalty for a practice that wasn't illegal until February of last year. In addition, other clubs have been allowed a relaxation of financial practises due to COVID, no such allowance had been given to Derby. Other clubs have been allowed to bring action against Derby, against League rules.

We’d still be in the championship if we’d had a good manager last season. We’d now be striving for mid table mediocrity 

if we’d done as you suggest, you and your dog might now be spending Saturday afternoons enjoying the Derbyshire countryside, disturbed only by the occasional phut phut from David Clowes’ plane

[ilkleyram]

It has always struck me that rob couhig is well named.

[angieram]

 

[Crewton]

51 minutes ago, angieram said:

 

I'm glad it was a level-playing field for all......

[LazloW]

Hmm. It’s all falling apart. (Sorry - see this was already posted elsewhere. Feel free to delete if any ‘rules’ broken.)

Edited April 4, 2023 by LazloW

[duncanjwitham]

So by Wycombe's logic, Peterborough have a cast iron case for compensation - Reading knowingly overspent, which triggered a suspended 6 point penalty, and which would have kept Peterborough up if it had been fully applied at the time.  And we only finished 7 points behind them, so we arguably have a case too - our last game or 2 were dead rubbers, with us already down, but wouldn't have been if Reading had had -6 points.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 hours ago, LazloW said:

Hmm. It’s all falling apart. (Sorry - see this was already posted elsewhere. Feel free to delete if any ‘rules’ broken.)

Surely the EFL can appeal the previously agreed 6 points and double it to 12?

[G STAR RAM]

What an absolute mess the EFL is. Love how they have now palmed responsibility off on to someone else now that they have been exposed as incompetent and anything but impartial. 

Wonder if they actually regret letting Gibson control them for the best part of 2 years?

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

What an absolute mess the EFL is. Love how they have now palmed responsibility off on to someone else now that they have been exposed as incompetent and anything but impartial. 

Wonder if they actually regret letting Gibson control them for the best part of 2 years?

They will be hoping that Middlesbrough get promoted won’t they - unlike myself 

[SirBrian]

13 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

They will be hoping that Middlesbrough get promoted won’t they - unlike myself 

No doubt Gibsons solicitors are ready and waiting if Sheff Utd go into admin, and the 12 points are not implemented till next year and they Utd are promoted could be a minefield.

[ram59]

It was blatantly obvious at the time, that despite being under some kind of restrictions that Reading were overspending. It was discussed at length on this forum.

Reading must have had the attitude last season of let's cheat to stop up and hopefully we'll be in a better position to cope with a 6 point penalty next season. Hopefully, they'll get relegated by a point, followed by a 2 year business plan.

[angieram]

10 hours ago, ram59 said:

It was blatantly obvious at the time, that despite being under some kind of restrictions that Reading were overspending. It was discussed at length on this forum.

Reading must have had the attitude last season of let's cheat to stop up and hopefully we'll be in a better position to cope with a 6 point penalty next season. Hopefully, they'll get relegated by a point, followed by a 2 year business plan.

This. They cheated again, knowing the penalty wouldn't be applied until this season, so guaranteeing they had best chance of staying up.

I'm sure Peterborough are on the phone to Couhig as we speak.

[Woodley Ram]

On 04/04/2023 at 15:41, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Surely the EFL can appeal the previously agreed 6 points and double it to 12?

The Reading fans feel hard done to as apparently they had to sell players to satisfy the business plan. I think the EFL were over generous allowing that as it helped keep them up.

Of course the other part of this is that they also signed players and would have to pay wages (Ince would not join for peanuts)for them. If they had not signed players perhaps they would have met their business plan?

My thoughts are (not just Reading) that all clubs that have a business plan should only be allowed to spend what they have in income. The reliance in selling players to keep your head above water is akin to having a bet on the National, you are probably going to fall over at some stage.

[ilkleyram]

2 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

The Reading fans feel hard done to as apparently they had to sell players to satisfy the business plan. I think the EFL were over generous allowing that as it helped keep them up.

Of course the other part of this is that they also signed players and would have to pay wages (Ince would not join for peanuts)for them. If they had not signed players perhaps they would have met their business plan?

My thoughts are (not just Reading) that all clubs that have a business plan should only be allowed to spend what they have in income. The reliance in selling players to keep your head above water is akin to having a bet on the National, you are probably going to fall over at some stage.

I’m not sure that you mean that, or perhaps you do.  Our income is about £30m very roughly with, I think, player sales on top of that. Our outgoings have been much more than that for many years - in common (to different degrees) with almost every other club in the country. I don’t think that you mean that we should be able to spend £30m a year on players.

If you mean that we can only spend any profit we generate, and exclude player sales income, then we will probably never pay a fee for a player again. We’ll largely be dealing in the loan and free market unless the price of players plummets. If you mean that we can only use money we get from trading players by itself then the outcome will probably be largely similar whatever B4 may argue.

At the moment the EFL are preventing us from trading normally in football terms and potentially will do so for another 18 months unless we can negotiate a change to the deal. The quicker we can get back to football normal and hope that Clowes and Warne can find the answer to balancing football expectations/success and financial control the better, including generating income from player sales. Arthur used the £300k he got from Ipswich for Kevin Wilson to great effect and we got promoted as a result, twice in quick succession.

 

[CBRammette]

3 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

I’m not sure that you mean that, or perhaps you do.  Our income is about £30m very roughly with, I think, player sales on top of that. Our outgoings have been much more than that for many years - in common (to different degrees) with almost every other club in the country. I don’t think that you mean that we should be able to spend £30m a year on players.

If you mean that we can only spend any profit we generate, and exclude player sales income, then we will probably never pay a fee for a player again. We’ll largely be dealing in the loan and free market unless the price of players plummets. If you mean that we can only use money we get from trading players by itself then the outcome will probably be largely similar whatever B4 may argue.

At the moment the EFL are preventing us from trading normally in football terms and potentially will do so for another 18 months unless we can negotiate a change to the deal. The quicker we can get back to football normal and hope that Clowes and Warne can find the answer to balancing football expectations/success and financial control the better, including generating income from player sales. Arthur used the £300k he got from Ipswich for Kevin Wilson to great effect and we got promoted as a result, twice in quick succession.

 

Oh no is it another 18 months to when we were rescued or until the end of next season as the former would include a chunk of the following summer 😢

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, CBRammette said:

Oh no is it another 18 months to when we were rescued or until the end of next season as the former would include a chunk of the following summer 😢

I’m not sure we know for certain. Logically it would probably be until the official end of the season which I think is the end of June 2024 when players’ contracts end, so 15 months is more accurate if that’s correct. 
Whether the Clowes charm offensive is working or not we’ll have to wait and see.  I can’t imagine the EFL would lift every restriction this year even if they’re comfortable with how we’re doing and the relationship. Some of this is about punishing us, in my view. But you never know.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Clowes tried to negotiate around transfer fees - something along the lines of we can spend what we generate in selling players for example - otherwise how are we going to get players in the 23/29 age bracket who are still in contract? The alternative is another season of a similar squad.

[Woodley Ram]

16 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I’m not sure that you mean that, or perhaps you do.  Our income is about £30m very roughly with, I think, player sales on top of that. Our outgoings have been much more than that for many years - in common (to different degrees) with almost every other club in the country. I don’t think that you mean that we should be able to spend £30m a year on players.

If you mean that we can only spend any profit we generate, and exclude player sales income, then we will probably never pay a fee for a player again. We’ll largely be dealing in the loan and free market unless the price of players plummets. If you mean that we can only use money we get from trading players by itself then the outcome will probably be largely similar whatever B4 may argue.

At the moment the EFL are preventing us from trading normally in football terms and potentially will do so for another 18 months unless we can negotiate a change to the deal. The quicker we can get back to football normal and hope that Clowes and Warne can find the answer to balancing football expectations/success and financial control the better, including generating income from player sales. Arthur used the £300k he got from Ipswich for Kevin Wilson to great effect and we got promoted as a result, twice in quick succession.

 

Nearly what I meant. I think when you have a business plan you should only be able to spend what you earn. That is because the reason for that plan is because you have already breached the financial limits. In our case we spend less that what we earn (due to the plan).

Reading chose the only option they could in agreeing to sell players otherwise they would have been relegated last year. They didn't for what ever reason but they brought in other players. 

I think the EFL were wrong to force a club to gamble on player sales as a way out of debt but Reading were also wrong to sign players when they could not balance the books.

Peterborough should take legal action against Reading. 

I agree with you re getting back to normality or the new form of normality (thank god) and COYRs 

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

Nearly what I meant. I think when you have a business plan you should only be able to spend what you earn. That is because the reason for that plan is because you have already breached the financial limits. In our case we spend less that what we earn (due to the plan).

Reading chose the only option they could in agreeing to sell players otherwise they would have been relegated last year. They didn't for what ever reason but they brought in other players. 

I think the EFL were wrong to force a club to gamble on player sales as a way out of debt but Reading were also wrong to sign players when they could not balance the books.

Peterborough should take legal action against Reading. 

I agree with you re getting back to normality or the new form of normality (thank god) and COYRs 

Reading didn’t make the punishments but Peterborough and ourself to some degree have a case against the EFL over the implementation of Reading FC punishment