[Football] Reading deducted 6 points

[Pinkie Brown]

Signed Andy Carroll on a free earlier this week, who's now probably on the treatment table after dropping the pen on his foot. Now six points docked. What a time to be a Reading fan.

 

[SAC]

They may argue that we broke FFP Rules, but we didn't, Yes we are beneficiaries of TB, but he has not broken any FFP rules, nor has the club (AFAIK) nor have they used any dodgy tactics to get round FFP rules.

The same can not be said of Reading nor Derby (or Leicester) so I am quite happy to see them suffer the consequences of cheating

Plenty of clubs benefit from having wealthy owners but they, like us, abide by the rules.

I can understand some people feeling sorry for the fans as it really isn't their fault, but not the clubs, nor the owners who try to cheat their way to the Premier League.

Not entirely true. 2012/13, the first year of FFP, I think permitted losses were £3 million but only 5 Championship clubs kept to this. There was no penalty in year one but the rules were broken.

 

[Badger Boy]

... but Reading doesnt have financial trouble, making this very different. They dont have problem with the finances, just with the rules.

If we're being really honest, both Derby and Reading are having the problems we would have faced if we hadn't been promoted when we were. I have no doubt we're better structured off the pitch and are well run, so we'd have made the appropriate sales and trimmed the squad appropriately to avoid falling foul of the rules but FFP made it very difficult for clubs to spend their way out of the league. If everyone's doing it, only a select few will be successful and the majority won't be and will inevitably face consequences. There have been plenty of examples of the teams challenging us for promotion in those seasons reaping what they were sewing.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

If we're being really honest, both Derby and Reading are having the problems we would have faced if we hadn't been promoted when we were. I have no doubt we're better structured off the pitch and are well run, so we'd have made the appropriate sales and trimmed the squad appropriately to avoid falling foul of the rules but FFP made it very difficult for clubs to spend their way out of the league. If everyone's doing it, only a select few will be successful and the majority won't be and will inevitably face consequences. There have been plenty of examples of the teams challenging us for promotion in those seasons reaping what they were sewing.

Agree with this. It would have been heartbreaking to have seen that great side of 5 years ago sold off because we had fell short of promotion, but that is what would have had to have happenned. We gambled and won. Others gambled and lost

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm with you on this ... apart from that I do have a low level distaste for both Derby and Reading.

But your general point stands.

We're lucky to have a highly competent and extremely generous owner. It wasn't always the case. Other clubs have been afflicted with poor owners, this is hardly the fault of the fan base.

I'd invite anyone having a pop to consider where the Albion would be in a counter factual world where Tony Bloom decided there are other things he wanted to do with his millions than buy a football club.

I don't like Reading much, but I won't gloat at them over a points deduction

You are replying to a post that repeated the false trope that we broke FFP rules. That is a lie and a slander.

We and Reading are not in the same boat. They broke rules and spent money they could not afford, as did Derby and Bournmouth and others. And their supporters lapped it up.

**** 'em.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Agree with this. It would have been heartbreaking to have seen that great side of 5 years ago sold off because we had fell short of promotion, but that is what would have had to have happenned. We gambled and won. Others gambled and lost

I repeat, we broke no rules. Others broke rules and lost.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If we're being really honest, both Derby and Reading are having the problems we would have faced if we hadn't been promoted when we were. I have no doubt we're better structured off the pitch and are well run, so we'd have made the appropriate sales and trimmed the squad appropriately to avoid falling foul of the rules but FFP made it very difficult for clubs to spend their way out of the league. If everyone's doing it, only a select few will be successful and the majority won't be and will inevitably face consequences. There have been plenty of examples of the teams challenging us for promotion in those seasons reaping what they were sewing.

Nonsense.

They have been docked points for breaking rules.

We would not have been docked points because we broke no rules.

You and other soft sentimentalists can take out a small onion to shed a tear for The Royals if you wish. But if we're being really honest, they brought it on themselves by trying to cheat the system.

 

[sams dad]

Signed Andy Carroll on a free earlier this week, who's now probably on the treatment table after dropping the pen on his foot. .

 

[atfc village]

Only 6? Not enough .

 

[Creaky]

Nonsense.

They have been docked points for breaking rules.

We would not have been docked points because we broke no rules.

You and other soft sentimentalists can take out a small onion to shed a tear for The Royals if you wish. But if we're being really honest, they brought it on themselves by trying to cheat the system.

We didn’t break FFP rules but as [MENTION=33885]Badger Boy[/MENTION] posted we would have had problems if we hadn’t been promoted - with FFP losses of close to £30m in our promotion season and only allowed a total of £39m over 3 seasons then the next two seasons would have been tight.

In simple terms Reading cocked up their finances but unlike Derby didn’t try to hide it - a 6 point deduction seems fair.

All that maintaining the difference between the allowable losses/rewards in the Championship and the Premier League achieves is to maintain a comparable difference in the level of players in each league which, in turn, makes it more difficult for promoted clubs to compete - it does absolutely nothing to maintain the financial viability of the clubs, the stated intention. FFP is all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

You are replying to a post that repeated the false trope that we broke FFP rules. That is a lie and a slander.

We and Reading are not in the same boat. They broke rules and spent money they could not afford, as did Derby and Bournmouth and others. And their supporters lapped it up.

**** 'em.

The post I replied to did not say that we broke FFP, so there is no lie and no slander. Specsavers is your friend.

Surely every football fan is the same? When your club buys a decent player, you're happy. The paying the bills is the part you entrust to the owner.

Now if, for example, there is obvious incompetence / financial mismanagement, then as a fan base you can ask questions, but there's a high level of opacity in football finance and in the ability and willingness of the owner to keep writing cheques. But even if there wasn't, how many examples can you think of where football fans have mobilised as a group to protest against the owner for spending too much money on players?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The post I replied to did not say that we broke FFP, so there is no lie and no slander. Specsavers is your friend.

Surely every football fan is the same? When your club buys a decent player, you're happy. The paying the bills is the part you entrust to the owner.

Now if, for example, there is obvious incompetence / financial mismanagement, then as a fan base you can ask questions, but there's a high level of opacity in football finance and in the ability and willingness of the owner to keep writing cheques. But even if there wasn't, how many examples can you think of where football fans have mobilised as a group to protest against the owner for spending too much money on players?

The post he posted to which I replied to, to which you replied to.

It is my existential linguistics rather than my eyesight that's at fault

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

We didn’t break FFP rules but as [MENTION=33885]Badger Boy[/MENTION] posted we would have had problems if we hadn’t been promoted - with FFP losses of close to £30m in our promotion season and only allowed a total of £39m over 3 seasons then the next two seasons would have been tight.

In simple terms Reading cocked up their finances but unlike Derby didn’t try to hide it - a 6 point deduction seems fair.

All that maintaining the difference between the allowable losses/rewards in the Championship and the Premier League achieves is to maintain a comparable difference in the level of players in each league which, in turn, makes it more difficult for promoted clubs to compete - it does absolutely nothing to maintain the financial viability of the clubs, the stated intention. FFP is all smoke and mirrors.

FFP, to be fair has had some effect in reduce the overheating of the wage market. I actually think the mess football finances are in would have been worse without it.

The differences in income between the PL and Championship, have encouraged risk taking on a grotesque level and I still believe some sort of regulatory framework is needed. Whether there is something that would work better, i'm not sure.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

We didn’t break FFP rules but as [MENTION=33885]Badger Boy[/MENTION] posted we would have had problems if we hadn’t been promoted - with FFP losses of close to £30m in our promotion season and only allowed a total of £39m over 3 seasons then the next two seasons would have been tight.

I don't have access to the profit and loss figures for the seasons around that time. (or can't be arsed trawling for them) On the logic of being no more than a 39m loss over a rolling three year period, could that explain the Hyypia season when we went from splashing cash and promotion pushes the previous seasons, to purchasing and loaning on the cheap in order to balance the books? No idea if my theory is correct, but that season was notable for the sub standard signings and an army of loans.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not entirely true. 2012/13, the first year of FFP, I think permitted losses were £3 million but only 5 Championship clubs kept to this. There was no penalty in year one but the rules were broken.

Fair enough. We are therefore all as bad as each other and the right and proper penalty for Derby and Reading is a pat on the back and a hearty refrain of 'you're OK, mate'.

On the other hand, perhaps the notion of things not being entirely black and white is a little more nuanced. In the first year of FFP almost all clubs breached the rules because the rules were new and the way to navigate them wasn't clear, and only clubs without a pot to piss in avoided overspending. That is a far cry from the egregious spending of money a club will never recoup and the non payment of debts in a desperate attempt to win something the club has no right to win (thereby stealing from other clubs the glory and rewards that are rightfully theirs, by hard work and fair play), but failing and ending up in the shit, then rebranding the owner structure and avoiding paying off the debts, like the club formely known as Crystal Palace.

This is why I hate whataboutery. The logical consequence of 'we are all sinners' and 'let those who are free of sin cast the first stone' has always struck me as 'yeah, ****it, to hell with rules, let's just have a free for all, and hardest puncher wins.'. Nobody wants that.

 

[SAC]

Fair enough. We are therefore all as bad as each other and the right and proper penalty for Derby and Reading is a pat on the back and a hearty refrain of 'you're OK, mate'.

On the other hand, perhaps the notion of things not being entirely black and white is a little more nuanced. In the first year of FFP almost all clubs breached the rules because the rules were new and the way to navigate them wasn't clear, and only clubs without a pot to piss in avoided overspending. That is a far cry from the egregious spending of money a club will never recoup and the non payment of debts in a desperate attempt to win something the club has no right to win (thereby stealing from other clubs the glory and rewards that are rightfully theirs, by hard work and fair play), but failing and ending up in the shit, then rebranding the owner structure and avoiding paying off the debts, like the club formely known as Crystal Palace.

This is why I hate whataboutery. The logical consequence of 'we are all sinners' and 'let those who are free of sin cast the first stone' has always struck me as 'yeah, ****it, to hell with rules, let's just have a free for all, and hardest puncher wins.'. Nobody wants that.

I think the ways to navigate the new FFP rules were very clear, much more so than they are now, but clubs decided to ignore them as there was no penalty. That's not to say that the rules weren't broken. Not sure that this is whataboutery, just a reminder to those on this thread who said otherwise.

I'm quite happy for Reading to be given a 6, 9 or 12 point penalty. The fact that they apparently still have very high player wages shows that they haven't learnt their lesson.

 

[rippleman]

I'm sure there is a dullard somewhere around the place who could confirm whether we have, or have not, broken FFP rules.

I'm 99% certain we did not but the dullard's confirmation would lay the matter to rest once and for all.

 

[El Presidente]

I'm sure there is a dullard somewhere around the place who could confirm whether we have, or have not, broken FFP rules.

I'm 99% certain we did not but the dullard's confirmation would lay the matter to rest once and for all.

You called sir?

 

[sparkie]

Fair enough. We are therefore all as bad as each other and the right and proper penalty for Derby and Reading is a pat on the back and a hearty refrain of 'you're OK, mate'.

On the other hand, perhaps the notion of things not being entirely black and white is a little more nuanced. In the first year of FFP almost all clubs breached the rules because the rules were new and the way to navigate them wasn't clear, and only clubs without a pot to piss in avoided overspending. That is a far cry from the egregious spending of money a club will never recoup and the non payment of debts in a desperate attempt to win something the club has no right to win (thereby stealing from other clubs the glory and rewards that are rightfully theirs, by hard work and fair play), but failing and ending up in the shit, then rebranding the owner structure and avoiding paying off the debts, like the club formely known as Crystal Palace.

This is why I hate whataboutery. The logical consequence of 'we are all sinners' and 'let those who are free of sin cast the first stone' has always struck me as 'yeah, ****it, to hell with rules, let's just have a free for all, and hardest puncher wins.'. Nobody wants that.

Whataboutery can have a limited value on occasion.

The key is though that it mustn't be "False Equivalence".

 

[Braggfan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59320479

View attachment 142225

This is one of my all time favourite posts on here