TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

3415 posts
User avatar
NathStPaul
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10888
Joined: 19 Feb 2019 14:21

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by NathStPaul » 04 Mar 2024 15:31

windermereROYAL Just listened to Nigel Howe on the podcast, it would seem some prospective buyers are surprised they`re not getting the hotel too and some are concerned that we could lose all the car parking space when the royal elm park development finally starts, said he hoped they could buy that too, fukks sake how realistic is that?

People shouldn't be driving to games anyway, it is bad for the environment.

User avatar
PieEater
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 6443
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 15:42
Location: Comfortably numb

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by PieEater » 04 Mar 2024 15:32

windermereROYAL
WestYorksRoyal
windermereROYAL
Where did this story come from?

https://star-reading.org/notes-from-sta ... ruary-2024

Sounds like Howe is targeting late March/April to have a new owner in. So basically, huge month ahead


Some pretty grim reading there without the EFL ruling out us getting chucked out.


There's some strained logic in their decision making.

"The EFL noted that Reading FC is one of the first to be referred under this rule, which was updated in June 2023"


Aren't we the actual first.

The principle the EFL adopts when seeking to ensure future compliance and sporting integrity, is that future sporting sanctions for the same or similar breaches should be in excess of what has previously been imposed.


So even though we are the first to be punished under this new rule, they've decided an HMC breach it's the same as breaching another rule for late player wage payment and therefore cummulative for punishment.

Also bemused by
from an EFL perspective, Reading FC has taken a decision to assemble a squad at a certain level and based on the owner's position, has demonstrated it cannot now afford to maintain it


If many clubs are owner funded it doesn't matter if the wage bill is 100k a month or £1m if the owner decides not to pay it. I'd hope they would take into account what the wage bill is relative to other teams before deciding there is a sporting advantage. Their logic only works when clubs are self funding.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39975
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Snowflake Royal » 04 Mar 2024 15:41

PieEater
windermereROYAL
WestYorksRoyal https://star-reading.org/notes-from-sta ... ruary-2024

Sounds like Howe is targeting late March/April to have a new owner in. So basically, huge month ahead


Some pretty grim reading there without the EFL ruling out us getting chucked out.


There's some strained logic in their decision making.

"The EFL noted that Reading FC is one of the first to be referred under this rule, which was updated in June 2023"


Aren't we the actual first.

The principle the EFL adopts when seeking to ensure future compliance and sporting integrity, is that future sporting sanctions for the same or similar breaches should be in excess of what has previously been imposed.


So even though we are the first to be punished under this new rule, they've decided an HMC breach it's the same as breaching another rule for late player wage payment and therefore cummulative for punishment.

Also bemused by
from an EFL perspective, Reading FC has taken a decision to assemble a squad at a certain level and based on the owner's position, has demonstrated it cannot now afford to maintain it


If many clubs are owner funded it doesn't matter if the wage bill is 100k a month or £1m if the owner decides not to pay it. I'd hope they would take into account what the wage bill is relative to other teams before deciding there is a sporting advantage. Their logic only works when clubs are self funding.

Our wage bill is blatantly top 10 for the division, minimum.

WestYorksRoyal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5640
Joined: 15 Apr 2019 19:16

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by WestYorksRoyal » 04 Mar 2024 15:55

Glad to hear Howe isn't putting together a slide deck / prospectus which allows investors to look at us like a real estate asset instead of a football club. That's what got us where we are. We need an owner who understands the meaning and importance of a football club (doesn't mean they have to be English).

User avatar
PieEater
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 6443
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 15:42
Location: Comfortably numb

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by PieEater » 04 Mar 2024 16:24

Snowflake Royal Our wage bill is blatantly top 10 for the division, minimum.


Yes our wage bill is probably top 5, I should have said SCMP.


WestYorksRoyal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5640
Joined: 15 Apr 2019 19:16

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by WestYorksRoyal » 04 Mar 2024 16:34

I'd be interested to know how many of the 72 EFL clubs could stay afloat if their owner turned off the tap. 20? 10? So it does seem harsh to punish clubs for their owner losing interest.

That being said, the EFL is a representative body. The 72 vote for these rules, probably because they want an advantage. We're potentially a ticket for a very poor side to stay in L1, so if you're the owner of Cambridge or Shrewsbury then wouldn't you vote for those rules? And then what are the EFL to do buy enforce them? It just shows football can't govern itself as everyone is acting in self interest.

It also seems the EFL hope this will pressure Dai to sell; sell up or your asset depreciates. Well that is a very high stakes game of chicken that potentially ends in ruin for us. Were it to happen, the only right response from the incoming IREF would be to be a mother fcuking sledgehammer of a regulator and ensure heads roll.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39975
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Snowflake Royal » 04 Mar 2024 16:46

Nationalise football.

User avatar
RG30
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5942
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 20:42

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by RG30 » 04 Mar 2024 16:59

Mark Bowen said we had a top 3 wage bill budget on BBC Radio Berkshire earlier this season.

User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2797
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by tmesis » 04 Mar 2024 17:08

RG30 Mark Bowen said we had a top 3 wage bill budget on BBC Radio Berkshire earlier this season.

That probably counts the academy as well though, as I doubt we have many players on big money.

With a (first team) squad as small as ours, we'd need to be paying well over the odds to have a high first team wage bill.


Mid Sussex Royal
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3293
Joined: 02 Nov 2008 17:56

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Mid Sussex Royal » 04 Mar 2024 17:37

RG30 Mark Bowen said we had a top 3 wage bill budget on BBC Radio Berkshire earlier this season.


I think it was top three based on all outgoings, only us and Derby have cat one academies.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39975
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Snowflake Royal » 04 Mar 2024 18:13

tmesis
RG30 Mark Bowen said we had a top 3 wage bill budget on BBC Radio Berkshire earlier this season.

That probably counts the academy as well though, as I doubt we have many players on big money.

With a (first team) squad as small as ours, we'd need to be paying well over the odds to have a high first team wage bill.

Big money for the Championship, absolutely not.

Big money for L1?

Most of Holmes, Yiadom, Wing, Smith, Knibbs, Button absolutely, maybe Azeez, maybe Mukairu. NGW would have been. McIntyre would have been.

Ejaria would have been on fairly good Championship money and we'd have had to cover a lot of it to terminate the contract. Carroll probably got a bit of a pay off.

Our first team squad also isn't small. It's about 22 now, and it was about 27 at the start of the season.

WestYorksRoyal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5640
Joined: 15 Apr 2019 19:16

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by WestYorksRoyal » 04 Mar 2024 18:21

Snowflake Royal
tmesis
RG30 Mark Bowen said we had a top 3 wage bill budget on BBC Radio Berkshire earlier this season.

That probably counts the academy as well though, as I doubt we have many players on big money.

With a (first team) squad as small as ours, we'd need to be paying well over the odds to have a high first team wage bill.

Big money for the Championship, absolutely not.

Big money for L1?

Most of Holmes, Yiadom, Wing, Smith, Knibbs, Button absolutely, maybe Azeez, maybe Mukairu. NGW would have been. McIntyre would have been.

Ejaria would have been on fairly good Championship money and we'd have had to cover a lot of it to terminate the contract. Carroll probably got a bit of a pay off.

Our first team squad also isn't small. It's about 22 now, and it was about 27 at the start of the season.

Our registration list to the EFL has 11 senior players :|

It's not our playing staff that are killing us, it's our wider overheads. It's hard to argue the counterfactual, but I'm guessing that if we don't sign Wing, Smith, Dean and Button we still can't afford to cover our costs.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39975
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Snowflake Royal » 04 Mar 2024 18:45

WestYorksRoyal
Snowflake Royal
tmesis That probably counts the academy as well though, as I doubt we have many players on big money.

With a (first team) squad as small as ours, we'd need to be paying well over the odds to have a high first team wage bill.

Big money for the Championship, absolutely not.

Big money for L1?

Most of Holmes, Yiadom, Wing, Smith, Knibbs, Button absolutely, maybe Azeez, maybe Mukairu. NGW would have been. McIntyre would have been.

Ejaria would have been on fairly good Championship money and we'd have had to cover a lot of it to terminate the contract. Carroll probably got a bit of a pay off.

Our first team squad also isn't small. It's about 22 now, and it was about 27 at the start of the season.

Our registration list to the EFL has 11 senior players :|

It's not our playing staff that are killing us, it's our wider overheads. It's hard to argue the counterfactual, but I'm guessing that if we don't sign Wing, Smith, Dean and Button we still can't afford to cover our costs.

:lol: @ trying to pretend the young players don’t count.


User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2797
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by tmesis » 04 Mar 2024 20:39

Snowflake Royal
WestYorksRoyal
Snowflake Royal Big money for the Championship, absolutely not.

Big money for L1?

Most of Holmes, Yiadom, Wing, Smith, Knibbs, Button absolutely, maybe Azeez, maybe Mukairu. NGW would have been. McIntyre would have been.

Ejaria would have been on fairly good Championship money and we'd have had to cover a lot of it to terminate the contract. Carroll probably got a bit of a pay off.

Our first team squad also isn't small. It's about 22 now, and it was about 27 at the start of the season.

Our registration list to the EFL has 11 senior players :|

It's not our playing staff that are killing us, it's our wider overheads. It's hard to argue the counterfactual, but I'm guessing that if we don't sign Wing, Smith, Dean and Button we still can't afford to cover our costs.

:lol: @ trying to pretend the young players don’t count.

I think the figure was 37 players outside that list of 11 senior players.

That would suggest that our first teamers aren't paid a huge amount, but the cumulative wage bill of those 48 will be high.

The Cube
Member
Posts: 886
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 18:52

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by The Cube » 04 Mar 2024 21:09

On the podcast Howe seems to think that the Parliamentary boundary changes will affect how councils look at planning applications. Is he is as clueless as that on every other property topic?

blythspartan
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2261
Joined: 05 Jun 2012 20:50

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by blythspartan » 05 Mar 2024 07:41

windermereROYAL Just listened to Nigel Howe on the podcast, it would seem some prospective buyers are surprised they`re not getting the hotel too and some are concerned that we could lose all the car parking space when the royal elm park development finally starts, said he hoped they could buy that too, fukks sake how realistic is that?


Listening to Nigel Howe’s podcast and him mentioning Ashley’s name just made me wonder if Ashley could be the front runner.

It’s probably more wishful thinking on my part, but I could see the club appealing to Ashley and he’s definitely got the funds. If we’re being sold as whole package, Ashley would be very happy to get the stadium and Bearwood included.

User avatar
Silver Fox
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25798
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 10:02
Location: From the Andes to the indies in my undies

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Silver Fox » 05 Mar 2024 07:57

Considering Ashley no longer being interested feels like the only concrete thing we've been told of late I doubt it

User avatar
SouthDownsRoyal
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 9589
Joined: 08 Dec 2005 12:48

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by SouthDownsRoyal » 05 Mar 2024 08:53

Silver Fox Considering Ashley no longer being interested feels like the only concrete thing we've been told of late I doubt it


Lol

User avatar
Armadillo Roadkill
Member
Posts: 809
Joined: 03 Nov 2007 19:47
Location: In a zone of great calm

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Armadillo Roadkill » 05 Mar 2024 09:44

Snowflake Royal Nationalise football.


I like your long-term thinking here.

Maybe football clubs could be converted in QUANGOs. With charters that require a degree of consultation with recognised and legitimate supporter groups.

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 8713
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://youtu.be/c4sX57ZUhzc

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Forbury Lion » 05 Mar 2024 09:47

NathStPaul
windermereROYAL Just listened to Nigel Howe on the podcast, it would seem some prospective buyers are surprised they`re not getting the hotel too and some are concerned that we could lose all the car parking space when the royal elm park development finally starts, said he hoped they could buy that too, fukks sake how realistic is that?

People shouldn't be driving to games anyway, it is bad for the environment.
Who said they want it to use as a car park? - probably want to do some building development before selling the club on less the car park, not realising the Thai's already did that

Seriously though, If a prospective buyer isn't aware of what they're actually buying that is a cause for concern.

Also, with the car park - wasn't there some suggestion that as part of the building plans free buses would be provided or something, If so that should be picked up by the Thai developers, but wouldn't surprise me if they got the club to agree to fund all that before they sold it.

3415 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 519 guests

It is currently 28 Apr 2024 00:51