Another 6 point, points deduction incoming

[Stranded]

Well confirmed but still not clear exactly what we did wrong. Proper fcuking annoying weve had so many restrictions and still managed to break the plan.

Club statement kind of suggests they think they’ve done everything reasonable to stick by the plan

At least it is the end of it this summer. What a painful few years

That's what I am finding annoying here - what part have we actually broken? We've clearly broken something but it's clearly not classed as a serious breach as they are happy for us to be "normal" again from 1st July.

So to me that says we haven't breached the upper threshold, the wages are probably OK - so it must be a technical breach on something relatively minor that meant the EFL couldn't say - yep fine.

[windermereROYAL]

I read the EFL statement and it would appear they have put restrictions in place for next season too.

[Stranded]

Ah here we go:

I. The Club is relying on a ‘related party transaction’ in its P&S Submissions by seeking to include profit from a proposed sale of an investment to an entity controlled by the Club’s owner. This sale was not completed at the time of the Club’s P&S submissions on 1 March 2023. This is a breach of the original Agreed Decision, which makes clear that Reading needs to be P&S compliant without relying on player sales or related party transactions conducted after 1 March 2023. The Club has agreed it would not be compliant without the proposed transaction.

II. The Club has not generated profit required from player sales in line with the budget which formed part of the original Agreed Decision.

Part 1 seems a bit harsh given that is essentially OK for all other clubs but if we agreed to it.

Part 2 is stupid from the club to put themselves in where they needed to generate profit from sales and even more so from not selling Joao (for example) when they had the chance to.

So essentially the ruling appears to have been, which I don't think was ever clear, is you can't run at a loss then sell a player on June 1st 2023 to cover the loss, or sell something to the owner to cover it - and we have breached that bit of the agreement although we will not breach P&S.

So what are we selling this time? Do we have anything left to sell as a club?

A budget will have to be agreed for next year to keep within P&S but we are no longer under an embargo and can trade normally as long as we keep with in P&S - there does not appear to be any future sanction beyond that that could come for breaching the upper threshold again.

[tmesis]

Well confirmed but still not clear exactly what we did wrong. Proper fcuking annoying weve had so many restrictions and still managed to break the plan.

Club statement kind of suggests they think they’ve done everything reasonable to stick by the plan

At least it is the end of it this summer. What a painful few years

That's what I am finding annoying here - what part have we actually broken? We've clearly broken something but it's clearly not classed as a serious breach as they are happy for us to be "normal" again from 1st July.

So to me that says we haven't breached the upper threshold, the wages are probably OK - so it must be a technical breach on something relatively minor that meant the EFL couldn't say - yep fine.

I. The Club is relying on a ‘related party transaction’ in its P&S Submissions by seeking to include profit from a proposed sale of an investment to an entity controlled by the Club’s owner. This sale was not completed at the time of the Club’s P&S submissions on 1 March 2023. This is a breach of the original Agreed Decision, which makes clear that Reading needs to be P&S compliant without relying on player sales or related party transactions conducted after 1 March 2023. The Club has agreed it would not be compliant without the proposed transaction.

II. The Club has not generated profit required from player sales in line with the budget which formed part of the original Agreed Decision.

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/april/clu ... ball-club/
We didn't sell players, and were making our budget by selling stuff to the owner, which didn't happen

[Elm Park Kid]

I've read the documents and this is the 'full story':

1. We agreed with the EFL that we would stay within budget for the 22/23 season by generating income from player sales.
   
2. However, the club came to the conclusion that there was 'limited value' in the playing squad and that we wouldn't be able to achieve this.
   
3. Instead, we decided to sell an (unspecified) 'investment' that the club current holds to another entity owned by Dai. This was allowed under the EFL rules as long as it was sold as a 'fair market' value before 1 March 2023.
   
4. For whatever reason - the transaction did not take place before 1 March. Hence, we were over the agreed maximum loss for the year.
   
5. Hence, the 6 point suspended deduction was applied, as set out in our agreement with the EFL. The club fully accepts this deduction as fair and necessary.
   
6. As long as the above investment sale is completed before the end of the reporting year (it might already have done so), Reading WILL be compliant with our overall agreement with the EFL and no more punishments will be necessary.
   
7. However, a new business plan will be agree with the EFL for next year, which will set out an (unspecified) level of restrictions for our finances.

[tidus_mi2]

What exactly does the club still own that they could have sold to the owner considering we already sold the stadium and training facilities to him and the Thai's robbed us of the land around the ground.

And how did they oxf*rd up selling something to themselves?

[tmesis]

More detail
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/9d1d0 ... dacted.pdf

[Hound]

So despite sticking to the wage limit and transfer embargo as specified , we’re getting a 6 point penalty for basically non footballing activity. Not sure how we could control being able to sell anyone considering our position

No wonder ince wouldn’t be happy.

[Silver Fox]

So we've got in bother because we didn't come up with a dodgy accounting ruse?

[Hound]

Absolutely ridiculous. Fined 6 points as we’ve failed to sell something to ourselves before 1st March. Only Reading.

[Elm Park Kid]

So despite sticking to the wage limit and transfer embargo as specified , we’re getting a 6 point penalty for basically non footballing activity. Not sure how we could control being able to sell anyone considering our position

No wonder ince wouldn’t be happy.

I guess we had a choice back when we came up with the agreement to accept an even lower wage budget, or agree to raise funds through player sales. We choose the latter and failed.

The rules and consequences of breaking them were crystal clear to the club. We are continuing to 'benefit' from having a higher wage bill (even now) than our revenue dictates. This punishment seems perfectly fair to me.

[Hound]

Also makes the stuff about not selling Joao a load of nonsense

[Hound]

So despite sticking to the wage limit and transfer embargo as specified , we’re getting a 6 point penalty for basically non footballing activity. Not sure how we could control being able to sell anyone considering our position

No wonder ince wouldn’t be happy.

I guess we had a choice back when we came up with the agreement to accept an even lower wage budget, or agree to raise funds through player sales. We choose the latter and failed.

The rules and consequences of breaking them were crystal clear to the club. We are continuing to 'benefit' from having a higher wage bill (even now) than our revenue dictates. This punishment seems perfectly fair to me.

I don’t think it’s unfair as such. Well not solely in this context anyway

Be interesting to see how much we missed by and who they had in mind to sell. Clearly very little value in the squad

[Elm Park Kid]

It will be very interesting to see what this investment is that the club is selling to Dai. I mean, what do we have that is valuable enough to cover our losses, or important enough that we didn't try to sell it last season instead?

At the end of the day this might be just some accounting - it moves from one entity owned by Dai to another. The question will be whether it was generating any income for the club. It might just be the case that the club got to use it for 'free', and Dai can continue that arrangement whilst the club not technically owning it.

[tmesis]

The concerning part is Dai choosing not to make this purchase to stop the punshment.

Either he looked at the league table at the end of Feb and gambled that even with 6 points deducted, we'd stay up, or he doesn't want to throw good money after bad, which doesn't bode well.

Or we are just utterly incompetent.

[retro royal]

Looks like we're still have to follow a budget set by these arses next season.

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/9d1d0 ... cision.pdf

[Snowflake Royal]

Ah here we go:

I. The Club is relying on a ‘related party transaction’ in its P&S Submissions by seeking to include profit from a proposed sale of an investment to an entity controlled by the Club’s owner. This sale was not completed at the time of the Club’s P&S submissions on 1 March 2023. This is a breach of the original Agreed Decision, which makes clear that Reading needs to be P&S compliant without relying on player sales or related party transactions conducted after 1 March 2023. The Club has agreed it would not be compliant without the proposed transaction.

II. The Club has not generated profit required from player sales in line with the budget which formed part of the original Agreed Decision.

Part 1 seems a bit harsh given that is essentially OK for all other clubs but if we agreed to it.

Part 2 is stupid from the club to put themselves in where they needed to generate profit from sales and even more so from not selling Joao (for example) when they had the chance to.

So essentially the ruling appears to have been, which I don't think was ever clear, is you can't run at a loss then sell a player on June 1st 2023 to cover the loss, or sell something to the owner to cover it - and we have breached that bit of the agreement although we will not breach P&S.

So what are we selling this time? Do we have anything left to sell as a club?

A budget will have to be agreed for next year to keep within P&S but we are no longer under an embargo and can trade normally as long as we keep with in P&S - there does not appear to be any future sanction beyond that that could come for breaching the upper threshold again.

Well done to everyone at the club who decided it was pointless selling any players, like Joao who Ince doesn’t fancy and hasn't played much, because it wouldn't make any difference. Well it certainly appears to have.

Just think, we could have saved £200k on Dann's contract, £200k on Bouzanis, got a £1m for Joao and saved £750k on his wages...

Looks like the club was really banking on selling Puscas and completely failed.

Far from.convinced by the lessons have been learnt guff. But at least its done now. Although I think we probably are in terms of the Championship now as well.

[Hound]

The concerning part is Dai choosing not to make this purchase to stop the punshment.

Either he looked at the league table at the end of Feb and gambled that even with 6 points deducted, we'd stay up, or he doesn't want to throw good money after bad, which doesn't bode well.

Or we are just utterly incompetent.

Think it’s the latter being as we are apparently still selling this asset to avoid further ffp sanction

[Silver Fox]

Who offered us a million for Joao?

[Hound]

Ah here we go:

I. The Club is relying on a ‘related party transaction’ in its P&S Submissions by seeking to include profit from a proposed sale of an investment to an entity controlled by the Club’s owner. This sale was not completed at the time of the Club’s P&S submissions on 1 March 2023. This is a breach of the original Agreed Decision, which makes clear that Reading needs to be P&S compliant without relying on player sales or related party transactions conducted after 1 March 2023. The Club has agreed it would not be compliant without the proposed transaction.

II. The Club has not generated profit required from player sales in line with the budget which formed part of the original Agreed Decision.

Part 1 seems a bit harsh given that is essentially OK for all other clubs but if we agreed to it.

Part 2 is stupid from the club to put themselves in where they needed to generate profit from sales and even more so from not selling Joao (for example) when they had the chance to.

So essentially the ruling appears to have been, which I don't think was ever clear, is you can't run at a loss then sell a player on June 1st 2023 to cover the loss, or sell something to the owner to cover it - and we have breached that bit of the agreement although we will not breach P&S.

So what are we selling this time? Do we have anything left to sell as a club?

A budget will have to be agreed for next year to keep within P&S but we are no longer under an embargo and can trade normally as long as we keep with in P&S - there does not appear to be any future sanction beyond that that could come for breaching the upper threshold again.

Well done to everyone at the club who decided it was pointless selling any players, like Joao who Ince doesn’t fancy and hasn't played much, because it wouldn't make any difference. Well it certainly appears to have.

Just think, we could have saved £200k on Dann's contract, £200k on Bouzanis, got a £1m for Joao and saved £750k on his wages...

Looks like the club was really banking on selling Puscas and completely failed.

Far from.convinced by the lessons have been learnt guff. But at least its done now. Although I think we probably are in terms of the Championship now as well.

Yes maybe right on Puscas. Gambled by thinking Bari or whoever it was we’re going up