TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Presume this is all just a bit of willy waving on both sides and there is still a reasonable chance of the deal happening.

+1

Given all parties are supposedly under NDAs, this selective leaking is driven by people with an agenda

[Millsy]

It all feels like brinkmanship. Reports of "new demands" but nobody mentioning what those are suggest that.

I also have no doubt that within days of it being announced that one party was close to exclusivity, that someone leaks to Alan Nixon that Ashley only actually wants the stadium, not the club - is a move to try and disrupt the sale process in order to allow Ashley to either get the stadium or force Genevra out of the way so he is the only show in town. You have to question what Ashley would get out of owning a stadium with a financially stricken club as the only viable tenant.

Empty stadium on that land, is worth close to nothing, especially with the additional hurdles to redevlopment/sale of land for non-stadium purposes that there are now.

maybe he will turn it into a music venue

Ice rink.

Morgue.

[stealthpapes]

Oh, a regular then.

[RoyalBlue]

It achieves nothing. We should take a leaf out of Southend's book and protest outside his mansion, or perhaps that exclusive Mayfair club he likes to be seen at.

Yes, fully agree. The protests need to be taken to the homes of the real villains in this piece - Dai Yongge and The EFL.

[Hendo]

It achieves nothing. We should take a leaf out of Southend's book and protest outside his mansion, or perhaps that exclusive Mayfair club he likes to be seen at.

Yes, fully agree. The protests need to be taken to the homes of the real villains in this piece - Dai Yongge and The EFL.

They certainly need reform and changes, however can you just confirm why you think the EFL are one of the real villains?

[blythspartan]

It achieves nothing. We should take a leaf out of Southend's book and protest outside his mansion, or perhaps that exclusive Mayfair club he likes to be seen at.

Yes, fully agree. The protests need to be taken to the homes of the real villains in this piece - Dai Yongge and The EFL.

As much as I don’t like the football authorities the EFL aren’t to blame for our situation. This all on Dai and his total ineptitude at running a football club and now he’s just being plain awkward.

[Brogue]

i wouldn't waste your breath guys he's been told repeatedly. He's either a bit thick, or.... nah I'll just leave it at that

[RoyalBlue]

It achieves nothing. We should take a leaf out of Southend's book and protest outside his mansion, or perhaps that exclusive Mayfair club he likes to be seen at.

Yes, fully agree. The protests need to be taken to the homes of the real villains in this piece - Dai Yongge and The EFL.

As much as I don’t like the football authorities the EFL aren’t to blame for our situation. This all on Dai and his total ineptitude at running a football club and now he’s just being plain awkward.

Aren't you overlooking the fact that EFL approved Dai after EPL had rejected them and that their approval was supposedly conditional with them stating that his ownership would be subject to increased financial scrutiny? They clearly failed to undertake the latter or used shyte accountants/auditors.

Also, it is the EFL who have set up rules that punish the innocent players, employees and fans rather than the guilty owners. And their final act of incompetence is having rules that dictate that the players must be paid on time but all other employees can get screwed! IMO they are very much co-villains in this appalling saga.

[El Diablo]

Yes, fully agree. The protests need to be taken to the homes of the real villains in this piece - Dai Yongge and The EFL.

As much as I don’t like the football authorities the EFL aren’t to blame for our situation. This all on Dai and his total ineptitude at running a football club and now he’s just being plain awkward.

Aren't you overlooking the fact that EFL approved Dai after EPL had rejected them and that their approval was supposedly conditional with them stating that his ownership would be subject to increased financial scrutiny? They clearly failed to undertake the latter or used shyte accountants/auditors.

Also, it is the EFL who have set up rules that punish the innocent players, employees and fans rather than the guilty owners. And their final act of incompetence is having rules that dictate that the players must be paid on time but all other employees can get screwed! IMO they are very much co-villains in this appalling saga.

I'm sure on financial level, he's just fine, and ticks all the boxes..

Unfortunately you cant asses / or apply what level of pcunt a would be owner might be..

[Hendo]

Yes, fully agree. The protests need to be taken to the homes of the real villains in this piece - Dai Yongge and The EFL.

As much as I don’t like the football authorities the EFL aren’t to blame for our situation. This all on Dai and his total ineptitude at running a football club and now he’s just being plain awkward.

Aren't you overlooking the fact that EFL approved Dai after EPL had rejected them Different organisations have different conditions. Plus I don't think it was exactly the same ownership group who tried and failed with the Premier League and that their approval was supposedly conditional with them stating that his ownership would be subject to increased financial scrutiny? They clearly failed to undertake the latter or used shyte accountants/auditors. Well clearly not, as it has certainly caught up with us now and over the last few years. You're aware that the rules stipulate a 3 year cycle? Maybe this could've been flagged earlier, maybe it was and Dai just totally ignored it - doesn't sound outside the realms of possibility.

Also, it is the EFL who have set up rules that punish the innocent players, employees and fans rather than the guilty owners. In any normal situation, the owner would also see this as a punishment as it is a detriment on the club, doesn't seem to be the situation at Reading.And their final act of incompetence is having rules that dictate that the players must be paid on time but all other employees can get screwed!Yes, that is a poor look, however the rule is likely in place so owners can prove they have the money to run a football club whilst paying the actual footballers, rather than paying no one. Footballers also have bills to pay, yes they could probably miss a pay cheque here or there, or get paid a few days late, but they don't just have an endless pit of money - especially players that are at Reading who are likely on a pittance and just starting out their careers IMO they are very much co-villains in this appalling saga.

As previously said, reform and changes must happen, and are happening - but to call them villains in our situation, is pretty far of the mark, imo.

[Elm Park Kid]

Yes, fully agree. The protests need to be taken to the homes of the real villains in this piece - Dai Yongge and The EFL.

As much as I don’t like the football authorities the EFL aren’t to blame for our situation. This all on Dai and his total ineptitude at running a football club and now he’s just being plain awkward.

Aren't you overlooking the fact that EFL approved Dai after EPL had rejected them and that their approval was supposedly conditional with them stating that his ownership would be subject to increased financial scrutiny? They clearly failed to undertake the latter or used shyte accountants/auditors.

Also, it is the EFL who have set up rules that punish the innocent players, employees and fans rather than the guilty owners. And their final act of incompetence is having rules that dictate that the players must be paid on time but all other employees can get screwed! IMO they are very much co-villains in this appalling saga.

I think you just fundamentally don't understand what the EFL is and how it operates. The EFL administers the rules that clubs agree upon. They are not an independent body 'policing' the league.

It's been repeated again and again that the EFL have never been given permission by the clubs to do a proper 'fit and proper' test for new owners. All they do is check some basic requirements to do with bankruptcy and criminal convictions. Yes, they said that there would be some additional financial scrutiny, but that was never specified and it's unclear whether the existing rules gives them the rights to do anything meaningful.

Similar with the punishments for violating financial rules. These are decided upon by the clubs and everyone (including Reading) agreed upon them. The EFL are not making any decisions on types of punishment themselves. If the clubs wanted there to be a punishment for not paying staff on time then they could introduce that - but there are enough shitty owners in the league to block that proposal.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

Just hope there's some clarity either way before the twitter crowd sort out their game abandonment plans.

Interesting no local journo has said anything, particularly Earnshaw who seems to have the most insider knowledge.

The only journo who has gone to print is our mate Percy from the Torygraph, he was the guy who said a deal for £50m had been agreed with Storey....

[From Despair To Where?]

I just find it amusing that these "EFL are the villains" posts all come from a poster who repeatedly castigated Madejski for not spaffing millions away on the club.

I suppose there's some sort of twisted consistancy in it.

[WestYorksRoyal]

The problem is the EFL don't have the power to force the owner out. We need an independent regulator with real power.

As for approving the deal, their checks focus on proof of funding, criminal convictions, money laundering, previous directorships etc., but they can't predict the future. Their bid for Hull failed because another party failed. They bought us without his involvement.

It's a bit like if, in my sadness when we eventually get liquidated, I get hammered at the pub, drive home, have an accident and we all blame the DVLA for giving me a licence years ago.

[rabidbee]

Breaches of contract are usually a matter for employee and employer, and perhaps the courts, are they not? Not sure why the EFL should be held responsible for the running of a private business, as much as they might privately disapprove of staff not being paid.

But clearly there are rules concerning paying players, to ensure that league fixtures are fulfilled, but there aren't rules concerning paying ticket office staff, or club shop staff, or groundsmen. I'm not sure how anybody thinks the league can impose any kind of penalties other than upon the club within the context of the league, I presume even the fines on individuals will ultimately be reinforced by the threat of sanctions upon the club, otherwise how are they going to enforce payment?

[Mid Sussex Royal]

The problem is the EFL don't have the power to force the owner out. We need an independent regulator with real power.

As for approving the deal, their checks focus on proof of funding, criminal convictions, money laundering, previous directorships etc., but they can't predict the future. Their bid for Hull failed because another party failed. They bought us without his involvement.

It's a bit like if, in my sadness when we eventually get liquidated, I get hammered at the pub, drive home, have an accident and we all blame the DVLA for giving me a licence years ago.

What about the 2 clubs under his ownership that went out of business? Or was that post purchase?

[Stranded]

The problem is the EFL don't have the power to force the owner out. We need an independent regulator with real power.

As for approving the deal, their checks focus on proof of funding, criminal convictions, money laundering, previous directorships etc., but they can't predict the future. Their bid for Hull failed because another party failed. They bought us without his involvement.

It's a bit like if, in my sadness when we eventually get liquidated, I get hammered at the pub, drive home, have an accident and we all blame the DVLA for giving me a licence years ago.

What about the 2 clubs under his ownership that went out of business? Or was that post purchase?

Both his other clubs went pop well after he completed the purchase of us.

[Hendo]

The problem is the EFL don't have the power to force the owner out. We need an independent regulator with real power.

As for approving the deal, their checks focus on proof of funding, criminal convictions, money laundering, previous directorships etc., but they can't predict the future. Their bid for Hull failed because another party failed. They bought us without his involvement.

It's a bit like if, in my sadness when we eventually get liquidated, I get hammered at the pub, drive home, have an accident and we all blame the DVLA for giving me a licence years ago.

What about the 2 clubs under his ownership that went out of business? Or was that post purchase?

Both his other clubs went pop well after he completed the purchase of us.

Seems a lot of people don't know that or chose just to ignore it.

[Stranded]

What about the 2 clubs under his ownership that went out of business? Or was that post purchase?

Both his other clubs went pop well after he completed the purchase of us.

Seems a lot of people don't know that or chose just to ignore it.

Doesn't help the narrative that the EFL should have stopped his takeover.

[karbota]

I just find it amusing that these "EFL are the villains" posts all come from a poster who repeatedly castigated Madejski for not spaffing millions away on the club.

I suppose there's some sort of twisted consistency in it.

CFY, again!