by Z175 » 01 Dec 2016 17:10
by Muskrat » 01 Dec 2016 18:04
STAR Liaison Er, might have to hold yer horses on this one. According to rumours accessible via mattdeanradio on twitter our would-be investors were seen near Hull yesterday in the company of the City chairman.
by Lower West » 01 Dec 2016 18:15
Z175 .
Yet given the naivete of fans who think people want to "invest" in football clubs, I'm sure the Chinese will be welcomed with open arms and one of the stands named after "Lady" Sasima.
by genome » 01 Dec 2016 18:31
by royalp-we » 01 Dec 2016 19:54
Z175 I'm rather concerned by the apathy shown on here. I have no concern over the new owners - they sound richer than the Thais.
I'm more concerned that the club's assets like the hotel, car park and land will have been effectively almost stolen! If the Chinese don't work out - then what is there left as security to save us from liquidation? The stadium ain't worth much if all the land around it is owned separately.
The only possible reason for supporting REP was as a value enhancing move for the football club. That is surely now shown to be not the intention at all.
I get this is something that has kind of happened already but this asset stripping can be stopped. If Reading borough council denied planning permission on the grounds of traffic issues (and the fact the land was originally sold by the council for development for a community asset, not Thai profits), then it is essentially worthless, and if the Thais walk away they have no incentive to take it with them.
by Ian Royal » 01 Dec 2016 21:24
Nameless Not sure what is scarier - having a couple of Chinese billionaires buy us or Snowball / Ian Royal / me having influence at board level....
by Elm Park Kid » 01 Dec 2016 23:41
Z175 I'm rather concerned by the apathy shown on here. I have no concern over the new owners - they sound richer than the Thais.
I'm more concerned that the club's assets like the hotel, car park and land will have been effectively almost stolen! If the Chinese don't work out - then what is there left as security to save us from liquidation? The stadium ain't worth much if all the land around it is owned separately.
The only possible reason for supporting REP was as a value enhancing move for the football club. That is surely now shown to be not the intention at all.
I get this is something that has kind of happened already but this asset stripping can be stopped. If Reading borough council denied planning permission on the grounds of traffic issues (and the fact the land was originally sold by the council for development for a community asset, not Thai profits), then it is essentially worthless, and if the Thais walk away they have no incentive to take it with them.
The football league could also help by not approving the takeover unless the land is also sold...
Yet given the naivete of fans who think people want to "invest" in football clubs, I'm sure the Chinese will be welcomed with open arms and one of the stands named after "Lady" Sasima.
by sandman » 02 Dec 2016 08:10
Elm Park KidZ175 I'm rather concerned by the apathy shown on here. I have no concern over the new owners - they sound richer than the Thais.
I'm more concerned that the club's assets like the hotel, car park and land will have been effectively almost stolen! If the Chinese don't work out - then what is there left as security to save us from liquidation? The stadium ain't worth much if all the land around it is owned separately.
The only possible reason for supporting REP was as a value enhancing move for the football club. That is surely now shown to be not the intention at all.
I get this is something that has kind of happened already but this asset stripping can be stopped. If Reading borough council denied planning permission on the grounds of traffic issues (and the fact the land was originally sold by the council for development for a community asset, not Thai profits), then it is essentially worthless, and if the Thais walk away they have no incentive to take it with them.
The football league could also help by not approving the takeover unless the land is also sold...
Yet given the naivete of fans who think people want to "invest" in football clubs, I'm sure the Chinese will be welcomed with open arms and one of the stands named after "Lady" Sasima.
I understand why people would draw this conclusion but it's not really important what assets RFC holds or doesn't at any one time. What's important is 1 - whether the footballing side is making a profit or loss and 2- the attitude and finances of the owners. If the football itself is profitable then the club is secure as that part can always just be sold off and kept going. However if it's not then the financial security of the club is entirely down to the willingness and ability of the owners to invest. You might say that holding assets makes a club 'solvent', but that's not really important for a privately owned business as long as it can maintain any debt repayments. And even if the club did hold lots of assets there's nothing to stop owners from borrowing against them to leave it in the same position if it didn't own them in the first place.
It's the same thing with how Chelsea technically owes Abramovich Billions - it's just an accountancy/tax thing. It doesn't effect the security of the club.
This is what you have to understand as a fan - your club is entirely dependent on the whim of the owner, nothing else matters. The council can't stop them 'asset stripping' or running it into the ground if they want to. The fans can't stop them, not even the players can stop them. You just have to hope and pray that every time someone buys you that they have the resources and commitment to keep you going.
by Baggie192 » 02 Dec 2016 18:12
Z175 I'm rather concerned by the apathy shown on here. I have no concern over the new owners - they sound richer than the Thais.
I'm more concerned that the club's assets like the hotel, car park and land will have been effectively almost stolen! If the Chinese don't work out - then what is there left as security to save us from liquidation? The stadium ain't worth much if all the land around it is owned separately.
The only possible reason for supporting REP was as a value enhancing move for the football club. That is surely now shown to be not the intention at all.
I get this is something that has kind of happened already but this asset stripping can be stopped. If Reading borough council denied planning permission on the grounds of traffic issues (and the fact the land was originally sold by the council for development for a community asset, not Thai profits), then it is essentially worthless, and if the Thais walk away they have no incentive to take it with them.
The football league could also help by not approving the takeover unless the land is also sold...
Yet given the naivete of fans who think people want to "invest" in football clubs, I'm sure the Chinese will be welcomed with open arms and one of the stands named after "Lady" Sasima.
by semtex1871 » 03 Dec 2016 16:01
MuskratSTAR Liaison Er, might have to hold yer horses on this one. According to rumours accessible via mattdeanradio on twitter our would-be investors were seen near Hull yesterday in the company of the City chairman.
Well there you have it then, it couldn't be clearer. They intend to merge the two clubs into one, probably called Hull City Royals. As one parking space at the Mad Stad is worth more than the whole of the City of Hull, they'll sell off all the land and we'll play at the KC Stadium, with reserve games at the Mad Stad. The strip will be orange, white, blue and black in a gangnam style.
by Horsham Royal » 03 Dec 2016 18:38
semtex1871MuskratSTAR Liaison Er, might have to hold yer horses on this one. According to rumours accessible via mattdeanradio on twitter our would-be investors were seen near Hull yesterday in the company of the City chairman.
Well there you have it then, it couldn't be clearer. They intend to merge the two clubs into one, probably called Hull City Royals. As one parking space at the Mad Stad is worth more than the whole of the City of Hull, they'll sell off all the land and we'll play at the KC Stadium, with reserve games at the Mad Stad. The strip will be orange, white, blue and black in a gangnam style.
Corrected for you......
by One8Seven1* » 12 Dec 2016 09:48
by CountryRoyal » 12 Dec 2016 10:40
by maffff » 12 Dec 2016 11:18
MuskratSTAR Liaison Well there you have it then, it couldn't be clearer. They intend to merge the two clubs into one, probably called Hull City Royals.
by Sutekh » 12 Dec 2016 11:42
GetReading
The potential Chinese takeover at Reading has moved a big step closer with the prospective new owners having now met with the Football League.
Brother and sister Dai Yongge and Dai Xiu Li are in advanced talks about buying a majority share of the club from the Thai consortium which currently runs things at Madejski Stadium.
And getreading has learnt that both Yongee and Xiu Li travelled to Preston last week to meet with the Football League - who will only sanction a takeover if the potential buyers pass their owners and directors test.
The test sees any potential owner go through a series of stringent checks, including on their past business dealings and their level of futire funding.
Both Yongee and Xiu Li saw an attempted takeover of Hull City fail in the summer when members of a consortium they put together failed to pass the Premier League’s owners and directors test.
But it is understood there is no consortium involved in their bid for Reading - and the fact that the pair have now spoken to the Football League is a significant step forward in their attempts to take control in Berkshire.
A deal is now looking increasingly likely which will see them take a majority share off the Thais - thought to be in the region of 75 per cent.
Sumrith Thanakarnjansuth, known as Tiger, who currently owns 25 per cent, and Narin Niruttinanon, who owns 50 per cent, will remain at the club - but they will have a much reduced shareholding. Pairoj Piempongsant, who was appointed as a director on November 24, will also remain.
Co-chairwoman Lady Sasima Srivikorn, however, will give up her entire 25 per cent stake.
by Z175 » 12 Dec 2016 12:33
Sutekh Noting here that there still will be Thai involvement in the club, with only Lady Sasima departing, so any concerns over REP may not be something to worry about - at least just yet anyway.
Elm Park Kid I understand why people would draw this conclusion but it's not really important what assets RFC holds or doesn't at any one time. What's important is 1 - whether the footballing side is making a profit or loss and 2- the attitude and finances of the owners. If the football itself is profitable then the club is secure as that part can always just be sold off and kept going. However if it's not then the financial security of the club is entirely down to the willingness and ability of the owners to invest. You might say that holding assets makes a club 'solvent', but that's not really important for a privately owned business as long as it can maintain any debt repayments. And even if the club did hold lots of assets there's nothing to stop owners from borrowing against them to leave it in the same position if it didn't own them in the first place.
It's the same thing with how Chelsea technically owes Abramovich Billions - it's just an accountancy/tax thing. It doesn't effect the security of the club.
This is what you have to understand as a fan - your club is entirely dependent on the whim of the owner, nothing else matters. The council can't stop them 'asset stripping' or running it into the ground if they want to. The fans can't stop them, not even the players can stop them. You just have to hope and pray that every time someone buys you that they have the resources and commitment to keep you going.
Baggie192 Having Chinese owners from what's happened so far and this stand for both Wolves and Villa. They are not interested in asset stripping in fact it's the oppersite. They are trying to build brands in China, There are massive Tax Breaks in China for owning an overseas football clubs. We'll see what happens in January where our owner stands on investment. As, our sale wasn't finalised until late September Early October. Both Fosun and Dr Xia put money in though
by WoodleyRoyal » 12 Dec 2016 12:46
Z175
I think the answer to question 1 is almost always, "A loss". We were sailing close to the wind when "saved" by the Thais, and the asset rich position of the club must have been a factor. I highly doubt they would have stepped in if SJM tried to keep the hotel, car park etc..
by maffff » 12 Dec 2016 12:57
Z175 Let's really, ,really hope so! Unlike Zingarevich and the Thais, they do sound like they have money.
by maffff » 12 Dec 2016 13:15
by One8Seven1* » 12 Dec 2016 14:10
maffff I keep seeing the name Huang Rulun cropping up..
(wonder if Huang Kad knows anything )
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], katweslowski, tidus_mi2 and 202 guests