The owners - what went wrong for them

[The Cap]

Extended Phenotype was a very good poster on AE. Not sure why he’s redirected all his efforts onto the Team Board, no matter how sensible his posts are.

That’s kind. I fvcked off because the forum just became unusable for me, then returned to lurk the football threads during the end of the Dai saga looking for any information on the potential sale of the club. Felt the urge to fight the interface to add a bit of positivity and rationality to the forum during dark times. Glad the forum has been updated and works a bit better now. Haven’t been inclined to venture back into AE where not everyone would entirely agree with your positivity (but shit man, that was decades ago! I was a mere nipper back then).

Have always found E-P to be a well informed and educated poster. At the end of the day, it's night and surely healthy debating is exactly that...healthy. It's when peeps starting making it personal that it becomes a bit meh. Personally, I enjoy reading the majority of posts on this forum and also find that the crew on here are, in the main, well informed. As we know, it's all about personal opinion and long may that last. Respectfully, of course.

[Uke]

From my perspective, SJM onwards.

SJM - 9/10 as has previously been said, only loses a point for selling to AZ which started the spiral of shit, otherwise ran us sensibly, was willing to bankroll us out of tier 3 and had a sensible business model for running the club competitively in tier 2

AZ - 2/10 so hard to pick a ranking as I feel he was well intentioned but utterly naive at the same time, wanted to be a football owner and seemed to have these grandiose ideas that he could secure financial investment that eventually came short, probably the closest we came to entering administration

Thais - 6/10 stabilised a sinking ship, ran us sustainably, obviously the accusations of just being there for the land grab are there, but a solid follow-up to the disastrous end of AZ.

Dai - 0/10 utterly horrendous, probably loved the gamble of purchasing the club on the brink of a play-off final, didn't pay off, tried to throw money, probably thinking a little push would be all we needed, didn't work, doubled down, didn't work. Then decided he didn't want to put in his own cash and dragged us down to tier 3, silent owner who seemingly thought he was owed privacy.

Couhig et al - 7/10 business side of the club has generally been very positive from my perspective, the only major criticism really is playing side, perhaps I've grown used to us being a Championship club but 3 seasons in League 1 and 0 top 6 finishes is very disappointing.

What has been positive about the business side of the club with the current ownership?

Lot of expensive, but not very visible stuff.

Investment in stadium, pitch, not binning academy, accounts filed on time, tax bills paid, lawsuits settled, etc. at a guess for starters

It’s not just about the squad

[rabidbee]

From my perspective, SJM onwards.

SJM - 9/10 as has previously been said, only loses a point for selling to AZ which started the spiral of shit, otherwise ran us sensibly, was willing to bankroll us out of tier 3 and had a sensible business model for running the club competitively in tier 2

AZ - 2/10 so hard to pick a ranking as I feel he was well intentioned but utterly naive at the same time, wanted to be a football owner and seemed to have these grandiose ideas that he could secure financial investment that eventually came short, probably the closest we came to entering administration

Thais - 6/10 stabilised a sinking ship, ran us sustainably, obviously the accusations of just being there for the land grab are there, but a solid follow-up to the disastrous end of AZ.

Dai - 0/10 utterly horrendous, probably loved the gamble of purchasing the club on the brink of a play-off final, didn't pay off, tried to throw money, probably thinking a little push would be all we needed, didn't work, doubled down, didn't work. Then decided he didn't want to put in his own cash and dragged us down to tier 3, silent owner who seemingly thought he was owed privacy.

Couhig et al - 7/10 business side of the club has generally been very positive from my perspective, the only major criticism really is playing side, perhaps I've grown used to us being a Championship club but 3 seasons in League 1 and 0 top 6 finishes is very disappointing.

What has been positive about the business side of the club with the current ownership?

Lot of expensive, but not very visible stuff.

Investment in stadium, pitch, not binning academy, accounts filed on time, tax bills paid, lawsuits settled, etc. at a guess for starters

It’s not just about the squad

From the outside, we’re not really well placed to judge, but the redundancies may also have been a positive step for the business (for all that they will have been painful to the individuals) if they help to get the club on a firmer footing financially.

[PieEater]

The odd thing about the redundancies is that I was surprised there was any fat to cut. Given the Dai era of limping month to month to pay the wage bill you'd think the club staff had already been cut to the bone.

[PieEater]

The other thing I wonder about the owners is why some guy from US with no connection to the club or the area spend millions of his hard earned $ on a loss making asset. I'm sure his family are hoping the twitter rage gets to him asap to save him spaffing away their inheritance.

[Extended-Phenotype]

What has been positive about the business side of the club with the current ownership?

Lot of expensive, but not very visible stuff.

Investment in stadium, pitch, not binning academy, accounts filed on time, tax bills paid, lawsuits settled, etc. at a guess for starters

It’s not just about the squad

From the outside, we’re not really well placed to judge, but the redundancies may also have been a positive step for the business (for all that they will have been painful to the individuals) if they help to get the club on a firmer footing financially.

Agreed - I keep telling people that there is a hell of a lot more to club expenditure than transfer fees, and it’s pure fantasy to assume everything was magically fixed simply by the sale of the club.

Buying a player comes with ongoing costs. The owners had money to buy the club, patch up the finances as best they could, and have been trying to bring in as much investment as possible to return us to a sustainable balance of incomings and outgoings. We wanted that. We knew that’s what Couhig would do. They aren’t so much failing to sign players, as failing to sign players while maintaining stability. We surely have to assume that if we don’t get someone, they would have cost us more than we could afford.

It just seems daft to me to insist our owners are tight for not spending money that isn’t there, or not paying over the odds, or not throwing good money at any old player. The abundance of expensive, shit players on our books with long contracts and high wages covered by careless overspending is what nearly killed us and remains a sizeable wound that holds us back today.

That’s not to say anything the owners do is excusable and all mistakes should have a pass. But it does mean we should give them a bit of grace. Last season was never supposed to be glorious. This season is where the mission begins. Let’s see what happens before we write them, Leam, and the squad off with undue hostility. It’s not really a big ask.

[URZZZZZZZZ]

From my perspective, SJM onwards.

SJM - 9/10 as has previously been said, only loses a point for selling to AZ which started the spiral of shit, otherwise ran us sensibly, was willing to bankroll us out of tier 3 and had a sensible business model for running the club competitively in tier 2

AZ - 2/10 so hard to pick a ranking as I feel he was well intentioned but utterly naive at the same time, wanted to be a football owner and seemed to have these grandiose ideas that he could secure financial investment that eventually came short, probably the closest we came to entering administration

Thais - 6/10 stabilised a sinking ship, ran us sustainably, obviously the accusations of just being there for the land grab are there, but a solid follow-up to the disastrous end of AZ.

Dai - 0/10 utterly horrendous, probably loved the gamble of purchasing the club on the brink of a play-off final, didn't pay off, tried to throw money, probably thinking a little push would be all we needed, didn't work, doubled down, didn't work. Then decided he didn't want to put in his own cash and dragged us down to tier 3, silent owner who seemingly thought he was owed privacy.

Couhig et al - 7/10 business side of the club has generally been very positive from my perspective, the only major criticism really is playing side, perhaps I've grown used to us being a Championship club but 3 seasons in League 1 and 0 top 6 finishes is very disappointing.

What has been positive about the business side of the club with the current ownership?

Lot of expensive, but not very visible stuff.

Investment in stadium, pitch, not binning academy, accounts filed on time, tax bills paid, lawsuits settled, etc. at a guess for starters

It’s not just about the squad

Yes, completely understand it’s not just squad related.

A few counter points from what I’ve heard from people in the corridors.

- A huge amount of bills consistently left unpaid, the extent to which is at least on a par with the Dai Yongee era.

- A skeleton and very demotivated staff base left after redundancies, including some of those that were brought in from Wycombe.

- Stadium upgrades, whilst needed, funded by other people’s money. A large portion of the loan was put towards paying off creditors rather than towards the upgrades.

- One Royal forced through quickly with huge investment rather than a well thought out and calculated plan to launch.

- Putting Mr Vegas on the shirt as a short term deal with a fractional uptake on the SCL deal. The value for SCL to stay in place for multi years is higher than a short term deal with anyone else with the value it’s brought in.

I’m a major skeptic based on what I’ve heard. All the noises suggest there is a lot of asset stripping going on to make the club appear more profitable than it is, all this with a view to get out in 3/6 months max. Astute business if you’re a businessman looking to make a quick buck, not good if you’re the custodian of a community asset.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

The other thing I wonder about the owners is why some guy from US with no connection to the club or the area spend millions of his hard earned $ on a loss making asset. I'm sure his family are hoping the twitter rage gets to him asap to save him spaffing away their inheritance.

At this point of late stage Capitalism, I wouldn't be too worried about rich Americans.... it's probably not 'their' actual money...

The Stadium improvement is a £5M loan leveraged against the Stadium itself - so effectively a mortgage to be repaid...

[Uke]

What has been positive about the business side of the club with the current ownership?

Lot of expensive, but not very visible stuff.

Investment in stadium, pitch, not binning academy, accounts filed on time, tax bills paid, lawsuits settled, etc. at a guess for starters

It’s not just about the squad

Yes, completely understand it’s not just squad related.

A few counter points from what I’ve heard from people in the corridors.

- A huge amount of bills consistently left unpaid, the extent to which is at least on a par with the Dai Yongee era.

- A skeleton and very demotivated staff base left after redundancies, including some of those that were brought in from Wycombe.

- Stadium upgrades, whilst needed, funded by other people’s money. A large portion of the loan was put towards paying off creditors rather than towards the upgrades.

- One Royal forced through quickly with huge investment rather than a well thought out and calculated plan to launch.

- Putting Mr Vegas on the shirt as a short term deal with a fractional uptake on the SCL deal. The value for SCL to stay in place for multi years is higher than a short term deal with anyone else with the value it’s brought in.

I’m a major skeptic based on what I’ve heard. All the noises suggest there is a lot of asset stripping going on to make the club appear more profitable than it is, all this with a view to get out in 3/6 months max. Astute business if you’re a businessman looking to make a quick buck, not good if you’re the custodian of a community asset.

Staff will always moan about owners/bosses, it’s pretty much the same everywhere.

And if it’s that bad, then there’s always a job market.

I’d rather have staff that are motivated to make the club a success rather than harp back to the good old days all the time when they probably had even more time on their hands to bitch about the owners.

And if bills are unpaid, then maybe the accounts department needs a shake up? A loan to clear the creditors left by the previous owners doesn’t seem like bad practice to me as the outgoings are then fixed over a period of time and cash is freed up for other stuff.

SCL seem to have agreed to the MrV cash grab as they remain on loads of the shirts in the store (except the men’s ones). Maybe they will return once MrV goes?

So yes, the club is a shitshow but seems to be doing what it needs to do to make it survive

[WestYorksRoyal]

I do think a lot of the Dai years would have been a very cushty gig for staff. Low standards, not much accountability, and hard decisions ducked by management.

Then we had permancrisis after relegation; perhaps they were just expecting a return to the old days, when in fact our cost base needs to be cut down to size and we need a better performance culture to rise again.

[Lower West]

And if bills are unpaid, then maybe the accounts department needs a shake up? A loan to clear the creditors left by the previous owners doesn’t seem like bad practice to me as the outgoings are then fixed over a period of time and cash is freed up for other stuff.

Ask anybody how they manage their own personal finances and the speed with which thewy pay their bills. . Majority will respond as late as possible. Makes me chuckle how posters on social media berate their club owners. For things they'd do themselves if they were in the same situation.

Nor are many social media posters attuned to what it takes to run a football club business. Not just a question of putting 11 players out on the pitch once a week. A successfull team in any walk of life takes time to build. There'll be good times, bad times and indifferent times. Plus a revolving door of individuals. Until finally the right blend is achieved.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

I came off Twitter ages ago because its a cesspit of negativity and its pretty much the same for all clubs. Some Wrexham fan ran a poll a couple of years ago when they lost a couple of games in our league and 85% wanted Parky out.

I'm actually surprised the owners poll is as low as 40% given most of your followers are likely to have similar views to you as that's how Twitter works.

[MartinRdg]

Extended Phenotype was a very good poster on AE. Not sure why he’s redirected all his efforts onto the Team Board, no matter how sensible his posts are.

That’s kind. I fvcked off because the forum just became unusable for me, then returned to lurk the football threads during the end of the Dai saga looking for any information on the potential sale of the club. Felt the urge to fight the interface to add a bit of positivity and rationality to the forum during dark times. Glad the forum has been updated and works a bit better now. Haven’t been inclined to venture back into AE where not everyone would entirely agree with your positivity (but shit man, that was decades ago! I was a mere nipper back then).

And good to see a bit more level-headedness on this forum

[Clyde1998]

My own prejudices aside, something has clearly gone wrong for the new owners of Reading Football Club.

I’m currently running a poll on Twitter. It still has another eight hours or so to run, but the results so far are quite astonishing.

Before getting into them, let’s address the inevitable response:

“Yeah, but it’s Twitter. Everyone on there is a frothing-at-the-mouth weirdo.”

There is some truth in that. There are certainly some very vocal negative nellies on there, and I’ll happily admit that I can fall into that category myself at times. However, they are generally a minority who simply shout louder than everyone else. There are also plenty of perfectly reasonable Reading fans on Twitter.

I’d also argue that the Reading FC community on Twitter contains a significant proportion of the supporters who regularly attend matches. The poll is not a scientific survey, obviously, but with more than 800 votes, it should still give us a reasonable indication of the current mood among the fanbase.

Very few Reading-related polls receive that level of engagement, so the subject has clearly struck a nerve.

The question itself was deliberately simple:

“Do you trust the owners?”

The only options were yes or no. There was no additional context or leading commentary that might influence the result.

As of midday, 837 votes had been cast, and 40% of respondents said they did not trust the owners... 40%?

I find that astonishing. When I posted the poll, I didn’t think for a second that the number voting no would be anywhere near that high.

So what has gone wrong?

You would imagine that almost anyone replacing Dai Yongge would receive an extended honeymoon period. The bar could hardly have been lower. Yet, despite that, after just over a year in charge, four out of every ten people responding to the poll already say they do not trust the new owners.

Regardless of whether the final figure moves slightly before the poll closes, that should concern them. To have lost the trust of such a sizeable section of the fanbase this quickly suggests that something has gone badly wrong.

I missed this when it was originally posted, so just my two cents:

I’m not sure how much weight anyone should be putting on a Twitter poll when attempting to determine the views of a wider population (on any subject).

Without dwelling on the stereotypes about the types of people on Twitter, it’s unlikely a poll would reflect the wider fanbase. People on Twitter skew younger than the general population, for example.

Also, it’s worth noting around two-thirds of the overall adult population say they don’t use Twitter and less than a quarter say they use it at least once per week, based on the most recent dataset I could find on the subject [source].

Additionally, there’s a huge difference between a random probability survey and a self-select poll (such as one on Twitter). People who are naturally more likely to be distrustful of the ownership are more likely to engage with content related to the ownership. People who are more apathetic are probably won’t engage (at least to the same level).

As others have noted, we don’t know how many non-Reading fans may have voted in that poll simply because it turned up in their feeds.

–

The question “Do you have trust in the owners?” doesn’t really get to the root of the issue. Do I trust them to do what exactly?

Personally, I trust them to ensure the operating expenses of the football club are met, but I don’t necessarily trust them to operate in a manner which will maximise the footballing outcomes of the club in the long term (as an example).

How am I supposed to respond to the question? A binary, closed-response question doesn’t reach my true position on the subject as my view is too multifaceted.

If someone was pointing a gun to the back of my head, I’d probably interpret it to mean ‘Do you trust the owners to carry out everything they’ve said they’re going to do?’.

My answer to that would be ‘no’ at this stage. A lot of that comes down to the, perhaps, overly positive nature of the ownership, which fails to accurately judge the reality of the situation at times. There’s also the way Noel Hunt went from having the full backing of the ownership to being sacked within a matter of weeks.

At the end of the day, we all know how fickle football supporters can be. If we sign three or four top quality League One players before the end of the transfer window, it’s almost certain you’d get a very different response from the same people.

–

When it comes to why people may be distrustful of the owners:

I think the over-setting of expectations when they came in has been the biggest factor as to why they’ve not seen the honeymoon period some people may have expected them to have.

Coming in and saying we’ll finish in the top six was a bold strategy to say the least. When we’d lost key players; didn’t have the ability to replace them with players of the same ability; were having to repair the damage from the previous ownership; etc. it would’ve been more reasonable to temper expectations, even if they believed a top six finish was a viable objective.

There’s the common viewpoint that we’re only in this division due to the previous ownership and simply getting rid of them would lead to us quickly returning to our ‘true position’ of the Championship.

This fails to understand that many clubs who’ve been below us for the past generation aren’t necessarily smaller clubs than us and many clubs have since matched or exceeded the advantage we had in the 2000s/early 2010s.

This ownership is not going to overspend on players. Sections of our fanbase do have to remember that spending more than the club’s financial base on players is one of the key reasons the previous ownership failed in the manner it did – exceeding the economy of the football club is not a surefire way of getting us promoted, especially when other clubs are also doing the same.

I remember seeing a documentary on Scottish football and there was an interview with Fergus McCann, who was the owner of Celtic in the mid-to-late-90s. He saved the club from receivership before attempting to make the club sustainable, but faced heavy criticism from the Celtic fanbase for not matching the spending of Rangers. His basic philosophy was “You do not spend £10m on a £5m player”, something I ultimately agree with (and that’s before considering the impact of SCMP).

People are frustrated with the style of football we’ve seen under Leam Richardson, but a lot of the same people were criticising Noel Hunt for playing a similar style. The fact two managers played a fairly conservative style of football last season strikes me as a bit of Realpolitik – that was the best way to maximise the results with the players we had available. What happens on that front this season will have a bearing on people’s happiness with the club in general.

Other factors like the proliferation of AI to replace human capital; the club’s sponsorship deals; decisions around the club’s infrastructure; where the finances are coming from; One Royal; etc. will no doubt come into play too.

–

Ultimately, the fact a lot of people are angry (or frustrated) with the ownership is a positive thing. I’d be much more concerned if people had turned to apathy, as that would show people no longer cared about the club and its direction.

We all need to be mindful to provide constructive criticisms – things that are actionable and within the power of the ownership. We all want what’s best for the football club, but we all have different visions of what that might be.

[Extended-Phenotype]

My own prejudices aside, something has clearly gone wrong for the new owners of Reading Football Club.

I’m currently running a poll on Twitter. It still has another eight hours or so to run, but the results so far are quite astonishing.

Before getting into them, let’s address the inevitable response:

“Yeah, but it’s Twitter. Everyone on there is a frothing-at-the-mouth weirdo.”

There is some truth in that. There are certainly some very vocal negative nellies on there, and I’ll happily admit that I can fall into that category myself at times. However, they are generally a minority who simply shout louder than everyone else. There are also plenty of perfectly reasonable Reading fans on Twitter.

I’d also argue that the Reading FC community on Twitter contains a significant proportion of the supporters who regularly attend matches. The poll is not a scientific survey, obviously, but with more than 800 votes, it should still give us a reasonable indication of the current mood among the fanbase.

Very few Reading-related polls receive that level of engagement, so the subject has clearly struck a nerve.

The question itself was deliberately simple:

“Do you trust the owners?”

The only options were yes or no. There was no additional context or leading commentary that might influence the result.

As of midday, 837 votes had been cast, and 40% of respondents said they did not trust the owners... 40%?

I find that astonishing. When I posted the poll, I didn’t think for a second that the number voting no would be anywhere near that high.

So what has gone wrong?

You would imagine that almost anyone replacing Dai Yongge would receive an extended honeymoon period. The bar could hardly have been lower. Yet, despite that, after just over a year in charge, four out of every ten people responding to the poll already say they do not trust the new owners.

Regardless of whether the final figure moves slightly before the poll closes, that should concern them. To have lost the trust of such a sizeable section of the fanbase this quickly suggests that something has gone badly wrong.

I missed this when it was originally posted, so just my two cents:

I’m not sure how much weight anyone should be putting on a Twitter poll when attempting to determine the views of a wider population (on any subject).

Without dwelling on the stereotypes about the types of people on Twitter, it’s unlikely a poll would reflect the wider fanbase. People on Twitter skew younger than the general population, for example.

Also, it’s worth noting around two-thirds of the overall adult population say they don’t use Twitter and less than a quarter say they use it at least once per week, based on the most recent dataset I could find on the subject [source].

Additionally, there’s a huge difference between a random probability survey and a self-select poll (such as one on Twitter). People who are naturally more likely to be distrustful of the ownership are more likely to engage with content related to the ownership. People who are more apathetic are probably won’t engage (at least to the same level).

As others have noted, we don’t know how many non-Reading fans may have voted in that poll simply because it turned up in their feeds.

–

The question “Do you have trust in the owners?” doesn’t really get to the root of the issue. Do I trust them to do what exactly?

Personally, I trust them to ensure the operating expenses of the football club are met, but I don’t necessarily trust them to operate in a manner which will maximise the footballing outcomes of the club in the long term (as an example).

How am I supposed to respond to the question? A binary, closed-response question doesn’t reach my true position on the subject as my view is too multifaceted.

If someone was pointing a gun to the back of my head, I’d probably interpret it to mean ‘Do you trust the owners to carry out everything they’ve said they’re going to do?’.

My answer to that would be ‘no’ at this stage. A lot of that comes down to the, perhaps, overly positive nature of the ownership, which fails to accurately judge the reality of the situation at times. There’s also the way Noel Hunt went from having the full backing of the ownership to being sacked within a matter of weeks.

At the end of the day, we all know how fickle football supporters can be. If we sign three or four top quality League One players before the end of the transfer window, it’s almost certain you’d get a very different response from the same people.

–

When it comes to why people may be distrustful of the owners:

I think the over-setting of expectations when they came in has been the biggest factor as to why they’ve not seen the honeymoon period some people may have expected them to have.

Coming in and saying we’ll finish in the top six was a bold strategy to say the least. When we’d lost key players; didn’t have the ability to replace them with players of the same ability; were having to repair the damage from the previous ownership; etc. it would’ve been more reasonable to temper expectations, even if they believed a top six finish was a viable objective.

There’s the common viewpoint that we’re only in this division due to the previous ownership and simply getting rid of them would lead to us quickly returning to our ‘true position’ of the Championship.

This fails to understand that many clubs who’ve been below us for the past generation aren’t necessarily smaller clubs than us and many clubs have since matched or exceeded the advantage we had in the 2000s/early 2010s.

This ownership is not going to overspend on players. Sections of our fanbase do have to remember that spending more than the club’s financial base on players is one of the key reasons the previous ownership failed in the manner it did – exceeding the economy of the football club is not a surefire way of getting us promoted, especially when other clubs are also doing the same.

I remember seeing a documentary on Scottish football and there was an interview with Fergus McCann, who was the owner of Celtic in the mid-to-late-90s. He saved the club from receivership before attempting to make the club sustainable, but faced heavy criticism from the Celtic fanbase for not matching the spending of Rangers. His basic philosophy was “You do not spend £10m on a £5m player”, something I ultimately agree with (and that’s before considering the impact of SCMP).

People are frustrated with the style of football we’ve seen under Leam Richardson, but a lot of the same people were criticising Noel Hunt for playing a similar style. The fact two managers played a fairly conservative style of football last season strikes me as a bit of Realpolitik – that was the best way to maximise the results with the players we had available. What happens on that front this season will have a bearing on people’s happiness with the club in general.

Other factors like the proliferation of AI to replace human capital; the club’s sponsorship deals; decisions around the club’s infrastructure; where the finances are coming from; One Royal; etc. will no doubt come into play too.

–

Ultimately, the fact a lot of people are angry (or frustrated) with the ownership is a positive thing. I’d be much more concerned if people had turned to apathy, as that would show people no longer cared about the club and its direction.

We all need to be mindful to provide constructive criticisms – things that are actionable and within the power of the ownership. We all want what’s best for the football club, but we all have different visions of what that might be.

Yeah, that’s a fair point. “Trust” is a bit of a weasel word, and you can play on the ambiguity to generate any reading you wish from the result. It collapses several distinct judgments into one.

- Moral intentions: do I think the owners are nefarious, maliciously or apathetically hurting the club for kicks or personal gain?

- Competence: do I think the owners mean well but have doubts about their ability to make good decisions?

- General character: do I think the owners mean well, will make good decisions but are otherwise your typical shady businessmen type?

- Commitment: do I think they have good intentions but may not see the project through if the going gets tough?

- Reliability: without any comment on their intentions and competence, do I believe the words they say publicly or are they merely using platitudes?

The poll has around 40% giving a negative answer, but it doesn’t tell you what they are feeling negative about. Therefore it doesn’t really tell us much, even setting aside the niche group to which the respondents belong, and the obvious bias of the survey’s creator.

My personal assessment of the owners can't really be captured by a binary poll of ambiguous language. It's more complicated than that. I believe they are businessmen who naturally want to profit personally from running RFC, but that they see this ambition align perfectly with what the fans want: a well-run, sustainable and successful football club. I don’t think they are significantly wealthy, I don’t think they will always make good decisions, and their priority of economic stability will no doubt be in conflict with fans who expect money to be of no object when it comes to improving the squad, just like it always was under Madejski.

But my vision of RFC aligns with theirs; I don’t want my club to be run on huge debts, with expensive players we can’t afford, brought in on the gamble for promotions that could cripple the club if they fail. I want a club that flirts with promotions by operating within their means. We have to achieve success through constraint. That’s the game, now. For all the moaning about where we are, the players we bring in and the football we play, it’s the overspending approach that got us here, not underinvestment or tight pockets. Kick and scream all you like, but this is our reparation for that era of indifference towards money and my blood won’t be boiling over Couhig’s prudence.

[mikey_1871]

Excellent reading all - very glad to see an outbreak of sensible and constructive views here! Bravo!

[Chairman Mao]

doesnt seem at all shocking.
wont trust any owner of the club. theyre in it for profit, not the club or fans, and so will do whatever is right for them, regardless of what is right for the club.
all you can do is that those two things align in some way.