by East Grinstead Royal » 06 Mar 2024 23:14
by Crusader Royal » 07 Mar 2024 05:38
SutekhGreatwesternlineSutekh
And which ground is up to standard that someone would be willing to share or rent to Reading for next to nothing?
You're talking about it from a footballing perspective. An administrator need not care about such things. A stadium can be found to complete fixtures as required.
I think the FL, not to mention plod, might have something to say if any administators suddenly said Reading would be playing at Bottom Meadow for the forseeable.
by Franchise FC » 07 Mar 2024 07:56
WestYorksRoyalElm Park KidWestYorksRoyal Pompey fans raised £2.5m for their club. Why can't Reading do similar? Even £500k would probably get us over March's key obligations and buy more time for a deal until late April.
It wouldn't, from what I heard this morning it's much worse than that. And the issue is the lack of trust in Dai, you're asking average fans to raid their savings and give money to a Chinese Billionaire who doesn't want to spend his own.
I'm expecting that the club will announce something by the end of the week.
Sounds pretty dire. The Directors must be getting close to wrongful trading; they can be banned from other directorships and roles in the UK if they keep trading knowing the club is insolvent, and make themselves liable to personal claims from creditors who are left out of pocket.
They have the authority to place us in administration, but it may not be possible as someone needs to agree to pay the administrators. It sure as hell won't be Dai. This comes back to whether SJM, SCL and other local business peers could club together, as administration >>>>>>>>liquidation.
by Royals and Racers » 07 Mar 2024 08:27
by Greatwesternline » 07 Mar 2024 10:43
Royals and Racers Statement from the EFL- Leicester 1 EFL 0
by WestYorksRoyal » 07 Mar 2024 11:24
by Wycombe Royal » 07 Mar 2024 12:06
by RFCMod » 07 Mar 2024 12:38
SutekhGreatwesternlineSutekh
And which ground is up to standard that someone would be willing to share or rent to Reading for next to nothing?
You're talking about it from a footballing perspective. An administrator need not care about such things. A stadium can be found to complete fixtures as required.
I think the FL, not to mention plod, might have something to say if any administators suddenly said Reading would be playing at Bottom Meadow for the forseeable.
by WestYorksRoyal » 07 Mar 2024 12:42
by Stranded » 07 Mar 2024 12:55
by Elm Park Kid » 07 Mar 2024 14:05
Franchise FCWestYorksRoyalElm Park Kid
It wouldn't, from what I heard this morning it's much worse than that. And the issue is the lack of trust in Dai, you're asking average fans to raid their savings and give money to a Chinese Billionaire who doesn't want to spend his own.
I'm expecting that the club will announce something by the end of the week.
Sounds pretty dire. The Directors must be getting close to wrongful trading; they can be banned from other directorships and roles in the UK if they keep trading knowing the club is insolvent, and make themselves liable to personal claims from creditors who are left out of pocket.
They have the authority to place us in administration, but it may not be possible as someone needs to agree to pay the administrators. It sure as hell won't be Dai. This comes back to whether SJM, SCL and other local business peers could club together, as administration >>>>>>>>liquidation.
I’m sure this has been mentioned before but, were the club to be placed into administration, the administrators would be paid from the proceeds of either selling the club or liquidating. A process over which Dai would have no control
by East Grinstead Royal » 07 Mar 2024 15:48
Stranded It's even more simple than that certainly in situations like ours - you make a rule that an owner cannot loan a club money - if they want to use a benefactor owner model then fine, but you make money when the club makes money when it loses money, you cover it.
If an owner chooses not to, s/he has to sell in good time else the club can be "siezed" by the EFL ran at the bar minimum i.e. as if it is in admin and sold by the EFL to an owner that passes its test at a "fair market value". At which point, the former owner may received a percentage but a much lower one than if they had just sold themselves.
by WestYorksRoyal » 07 Mar 2024 15:59
by Snowflake Royal » 07 Mar 2024 16:00
East Grinstead RoyalStranded It's even more simple than that certainly in situations like ours - you make a rule that an owner cannot loan a club money - if they want to use a benefactor owner model then fine, but you make money when the club makes money when it loses money, you cover it.
If an owner chooses not to, s/he has to sell in good time else the club can be "siezed" by the EFL ran at the bar minimum i.e. as if it is in admin and sold by the EFL to an owner that passes its test at a "fair market value". At which point, the former owner may received a percentage but a much lower one than if they had just sold themselves.
Excellent post, Stranded.
by Dirk Gently » 08 Mar 2024 20:17
Elm Park Kid Also, i'm not an expert in this, but in the case of administration I think that Dai does still have to agree to the sale.
by Sutekh » 09 Mar 2024 09:31
Dirk GentlyElm Park Kid Also, i'm not an expert in this, but in the case of administration I think that Dai does still have to agree to the sale.
The votes on whether a proposed sale or any other settlement are amongst the creditors, with the number of votes for each creditor being proportional to how much each is owed. So if Dai is owed 90% of the debt he gets 90% of the votes on what happens.
by Mid Sussex Royal » 09 Mar 2024 09:36
by Elm Park Kid » 09 Mar 2024 10:05
by Mid Sussex Royal » 09 Mar 2024 10:17
Elm Park Kid I heard this morning that SCL have paid this month's tax bill.
by Orion1871 » 09 Mar 2024 10:32
Mid Sussex RoyalElm Park Kid I heard this morning that SCL have paid this month's tax bill.
Those guys are absolute legends if true.
Users browsing this forum: Four Of Clubs and 154 guests