EXCLUSIVE: Championship side Reading are slapped with a SIX point deduction by the EFL... and they could be hit with a further six points if the Royals breach spending rules again
Reading have been hit with a six-point deduction having struggled financially
They have exceeded £39million limit of losses over a three-year period
Royals will take immediate six point hit, dropping them down to 19th in the table
Championship side have also been hit with a suspended six-point deduction
But additional six points will not be applied pending business plan compliance
Points loss comes just one day after Derby were hit with nine-point deduction
Reading have been slapped with a six-point deduction by the EFL after breaching spending rules.
The Championship side have also seen a further six points suspended, and will need to comply with an agreed business plan for the remainder of this season and next to avoid the additional penalty being triggered.
The six-point deduction has seen the Royals drop from 16th to 19th in the Championship table but they are still outside the second-tier's relegation spots.
An EFL statement read: 'Reading Football Club has been deducted six points from this season's (2021/22) points tally, with a further six points suspended until the end of the 2022/23 Season, after admitting to breaches of the EFL's Profitability and Sustainability rules (P&S).
'It follows a review of the financial submission from the club for the four-year period 2017/18 to 2020/21 where it was determined the club had recorded a loss of £57.8million, £18.8m in excess of the £39.0m Upper Loss Threshold.'
Championship clubs are not permitted to make losses of more than £39million over three years but Chinese-owned Reading's operating losses for that period went beyond that figure.
Negotiations over the deduction have been described as 'lengthy but amicable'.
A business plan has been agreed for the rest of this season and next. It will need to be adhered to should the Royals swerve an additional six point penalty. It is thought that high wages will be among a number of financials to be addressed.
On Tuesday, it was announced that Derby had been docked a further nine points for financial breaches on top of the 12 they were handed in September for going into administration.
Wayne Rooney's side sit bottom on minus three points.
With six points deducted, Reading now have 16 points. Currently Hull City, with 12 points, occupy the final relegation spot.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10212587/Reading-agree-SIX-point-Championship-deduction-EFL.html
Christ - what a year.
Yet PSG and Man City get away with it
Isn't it, let's say weird, that they spent in one year more than Derby did, and they got 6, while Derby got 9 point deduction?
Derby's major problem was going into administration and concealing their financial misdeeds from the EFL twice, I think.
Quote from: paulbrookersmazydribbles on November 17, 2021, 07:39:27 PM
Derby's major problem was going into administration and concealing their financial misdeeds from the EFL twice, I think.
But isn't administration automatic 12 point deduction? The other 9 should be from finances. If I got it right.
21 points in deductions is massive. I don't see how they possibly survive this. They've only earned a bit more than 1 point per match played before accounting for the penalties, and they're now 18 points from safety.
Still managed to sign Andy Carroll though. Doubt hes on the cheap.
They're very good at punishing clubs with financial difficulties but don't address the abysmal performances of some referees or certain players consistently cheating . They take the easy road .
Perhaps we will not need 50 points to avoid relegation this season.
Ah the old Elm Park - happy days - almost as intimidating as the Old Den
However there was Ronnie Mauge's double own goals in a 3 - 2 defeat there, not so clever matey!
Cheated us out of that playoff with that ridiculous hand ball
And we went all the way there once for the game to be called off at HT due to fog
Serves them right - and Derby
Quote from: bobbo on November 17, 2021, 09:10:15 PM
They're very good at punishing clubs with financial difficulties but don't address the abysmal performances of some referees or certain players consistently cheating . They take the easy road .
About time they took the top 5 or 6 highest spenders in thecPrem to task. Clubs like Reading or Derby are easy targets in comparison to Man City or Utd.
Quote from: sunburywhite on November 17, 2021, 07:17:36 PM
Yet PSG and Man City get away with it
PSG and Man City aren't cheating, because the FFP rules are written to punish teams trying to climb the table by buying better players. PSG and Man City buy players to stay top of the table, which is legit. For FFC, the rules are written to reward if we try to yo-yo and punish us financially if we try to have the 17th best squad in the premier league only to fail. Yo-Yo or DIE is what the EPL wants for Fulham.
Before FFP exceptions, Reading lost £20m in 17/18, £30m in 18/19, and £41 in 19/20 (i.e. £91m over three years). It, therefore, seems they managed to claim £33m of except losses and £57m of FFP losses.
The "ex-footballer in the Media" should be calling out the Reading DOFs over this period as hopelessly wasting money, but due to their self-interest of future employment, they try to maintain the lie that clubs are better managed by ex-footballers and so won't call out "the failures of ex-footballers that are DOFs" (such as Brain McDermott, Jaam Stam, and Mark Bowen). Tony Khan has been positively brilliant compared to many DOF Failures in the Championship.
Mark Bowen was sporting director but Stam and McDermot were managers - never DOFs at Reading.
Quote from: The Rational Fan on November 18, 2021, 04:56:30 AM
Before FFP exceptions, Reading lost £20m in 17/18, £30m in 18/19, and £41 in 19/20 (i.e. £91m over three years). It, therefore, seems they managed to claim £33m of except losses and £57m of FFP losses.
The "ex-footballer in the Media" should be calling out the Reading DOFs over this period as hopelessly wasting money, but due to their self-interest of future employment, they try to maintain the lie that clubs are better managed by ex-footballers and so won't call out "the failures of ex-footballers that are DOFs" (such as Brain McDermott, Jaam Stam, and Mark Bowen). Tony Khan has been positively brilliant compared to many DOF Failures in the Championship.
OMG how on earth do you manage to get in a (inaccurate) TK fanboy post on a thread about Reading's points deductions? Remarkable.
Fire sale of John Swft in Jan...we might be interested, with Seri away and depending on the injury situation for Cairney/Chalobah
Quote from: Twig on November 18, 2021, 08:05:38 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on November 18, 2021, 04:56:30 AM
Before FFP exceptions, Reading lost £20m in 17/18, £30m in 18/19, and £41 in 19/20 (i.e. £91m over three years). It, therefore, seems they managed to claim £33m of except losses and £57m of FFP losses.
The "ex-footballer in the Media" should be calling out the Reading DOFs over this period as hopelessly wasting money, but due to their self-interest of future employment, they try to maintain the lie that clubs are better managed by ex-footballers and so won't call out "the failures of ex-footballers that are DOFs" (such as Brain McDermott, Jaam Stam, and Mark Bowen). Tony Khan has been positively brilliant compared to many DOF Failures in the Championship.
OMG how on earth do you manage to get in a (inaccurate) TK fanboy post on a thread about Reading's points deductions? Remarkable.
:wow: 064.gif 064.gif 064.gif
Quote from: Twig on November 18, 2021, 08:05:38 AM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on November 18, 2021, 04:56:30 AM
Before FFP exceptions, Reading lost £20m in 17/18, £30m in 18/19, and £41 in 19/20 (i.e. £91m over three years). It, therefore, seems they managed to claim £33m of except losses and £57m of FFP losses.
The "ex-footballer in the Media" should be calling out the Reading DOFs over this period as hopelessly wasting money, but due to their self-interest of future employment, they try to maintain the lie that clubs are better managed by ex-footballers and so won't call out "the failures of ex-footballers that are DOFs" (such as Brain McDermott, Jaam Stam, and Mark Bowen). Tony Khan has been positively brilliant compared to many DOF Failures in the Championship.
OMG how on earth do you manage to get in a (inaccurate) TK fanboy post on a thread about Reading's points deductions? Remarkable.
You
almost have to give the amount of effort taken to shoehorn in a begrudging respect, don't you? Even if it is utterly incorrect.
TK PR team alive and on the ball
Quote from: sunburywhite on November 17, 2021, 07:17:36 PM
Yet PSG and Man City get away with it
not just them many other top teams.. real would fall foul of any normal rules of FFP ( their books are a well known tricjk of the light) as would Barca, and the business ethics of these big clubs in the way they entice players is nothing short of discpicable.
Quote from: RufusBrevettatemyhamster on November 17, 2021, 09:04:07 PM
Still managed to sign Andy Carroll though. Doubt hes on the cheap.
Probably pay per play and his appearance rate is not great. More time on physio couch than on the pitch.
Quote from: ALG01 on November 18, 2021, 12:05:28 PM
Quote from: sunburywhite on November 17, 2021, 07:17:36 PM
Yet PSG and Man City get away with it
not just them many other top teams.. real would fall foul of any normal rules of FFP ( their books are a well known tricjk of the light) as would Barca, and the business ethics of these big clubs in the way they entice players is nothing short of discpicable.
Didnt Man City get £400 mill stadium naming rights from the Qatar airways, which happens to be state owned by the ruling monarch who also owns Man City :023:
When are they scrapping FFP? That is, for the teams outside the top 6.
Clubs going into administration is one thing, but stopping entrepreneur billionaires investing in their business is another. It would cause uproar if authorities fined Elon Musk for investing his own money into Tesla. The whole FFP idea stinks and should be challenged in the courts IMO.
I hate these one shoe fits all laws. If, say, you are a billionaire owner with no personal debt who also owns a Championship team, and you coughed up a few million pounds in player salaries over the last three years beyond what seems reasonable, thus incurring an aggregate "loss' in club finances in excess of what's allowed, you aren't given the opportunity of claiming an exemption from the rules' application of financial fair play if evidence shows you can sustain such losses indefinitely and be able to carry on quite well thank you. The whole point of the rules, they claim, is to protect the club from going under by making them live within their means. And to make such determinations, officials look at money losses as if the club should be run like a real business. That is, as if you aren't a billionaire owner who bought the team as a vanity play, or to give his son something to do, or just loves football, wants to play a part in it, and doesn't feel much discomfort over losses beyond what a proper businessman might think excessive and unwise. All I'm saying is the FFP rules seem out of place when the club's ownership isn't feeling any financial panic or heavy risk over going past allowed spending, because the ownership just has that much money to burn.
Think of Newcastle's newest owner. Is the Royal House really going to care about spending a few million over the proscribed limit every year?
Quote from: Forever Fulham on November 19, 2021, 05:44:11 AM
I hate these one shoe fits all laws. If, say, you are a billionaire owner with no personal debt who also owns a Championship team, and you coughed up a few million pounds in player salaries over the last three years beyond what seems reasonable, thus incurring an aggregate "loss' in club finances in excess of what's allowed, you aren't given the opportunity of claiming an exemption from the rules' application of financial fair play if evidence shows you can sustain such losses indefinitely and be able to carry on quite well thank you. The whole point of the rules, they claim, is to protect the club from going under by making them live within their means. And to make such determinations, officials look at money losses as if the club should be run like a real business. That is, as if you aren't a billionaire owner who bought the team as a vanity play, or to give his son something to do, or just loves football, wants to play a part in it, and doesn't feel much discomfort over losses beyond what a proper businessman might think excessive and unwise. All I'm saying is the FFP rules seem out of place when the club's ownership isn't feeling any financial panic or heavy risk over going past allowed spending, because the ownership just has that much money to burn.
Think of Newcastle's newest owner. Is the Royal House really going to care about spending a few million over the proscribed limit every year?
Excellent points, Forever Fulham.
The thing is, Newcastle likely won't fall foul of FFP, because of the their huge crowds, and associate sponsorship, merchandising cash, etc.
Which shows that FFP doesn't do what it was intended to do, and create a more level playing field, with smaller clubs, like Fulham's, only means of joining the elite - funding from a rich owner, now blocked to a great extent.
The top clubs in this country are all owned by very wealthy owners, besides being able to generate a lot of money through attendances, sponsorships and merchandising ,and word wide tv audiences with absolutely no barrier to their ever increasing wealth.
