CONFIMRED - This might be it!!

[Millsy]

This potential new owner, I'm confused- is it for the whole thing or everythign except the training ground? If the latter that's still a worry surely.

[Franchise FC]

This potential new owner, I'm confused- is it for the whole thing or everythign except the training ground? If the latter that's still a worry surely.

Genuine question …. why ?

If it’s expensive to run shirley better to have a team survive

[WestYorksRoyal]

People would be hailing Dai as brilliant if he had spent £200m, got us promoted to the PL, not fallen foul of FFP. But the system isn't sustainable if the difference between judging something successful or a failure comes down to whether or not you pull off a massive gamble. You can't build a sustainable model around the idea that clubs need to be run by individuals willing to spend big in the hope of success, when the whole premise of competitive sport is that most of the competitors are going to lose.

That's why I think it's wrong when SBWD say football has an ownership problem, it's far more comprehensive than that. Dai has come in and done exactly what is expected of an owned, he just hasn't shown very good judgement in the way he did it. A regulator will hopefully force all clubs to move to a system that is more sustainable because they will be required to largely fund themselves. (A regulator will also hopefully come down quite hard on fraudulent dealings between clubs and other companies who share an owner, to stop them artificially inflating their earnings.) There will be squealing from the top of the PL because it might make it harder for them to compete with clubs in Europe, but if it makes the whole edifice of the league more secure it will be worth it.

Yes the problem is not just the spending of money and the lack of cashflow now - it's the overall financial governance and lack of sustainability. eg The management of contracts has meant we were paying too much for mediocrities and not recouping money for developing talent. But again this has been discussed to death over the years.

You can go over what has got us here again and again, but bare minimum regulation is a backstop against where we are now. Stop paying wages, HMRC or football creditors? After too many offences, the regulator gets involved and uses funds from the industry to meet commitments (perhaps from a transfer levy). They choose the buyer, take their cut of sale proceeds to reimburse the fund and also as a penalty. You lose control of the sale process and get whatever residual value is left at the end. Dai would have been gone by Christmas.

How you stop clubs getting into that situation first of all is more complicated.

[rabidbee]

You can go over what has got us here again and again, but bare minimum regulation is a backstop against where we are now. Stop paying wages, HMRC or football creditors? After too many offences, the regulator gets involved and uses funds from the industry to meet commitments (perhaps from a transfer levy). They choose the buyer, take their cut of sale proceeds to reimburse the fund and also as a penalty. You lose control of the sale process and get whatever residual value is left at the end. Dai would have been gone by Christmas.

How you stop clubs getting into that situation first of all is more complicated.

Everyone keeps talking about squad-cost ratios, to keep all teams within their means. Rick Parry was saying this would mean they could regulate club finances immediately - by not registering any player that would breach the ratios - rather than three years after the date.

[WestYorksRoyal]

You can go over what has got us here again and again, but bare minimum regulation is a backstop against where we are now. Stop paying wages, HMRC or football creditors? After too many offences, the regulator gets involved and uses funds from the industry to meet commitments (perhaps from a transfer levy). They choose the buyer, take their cut of sale proceeds to reimburse the fund and also as a penalty. You lose control of the sale process and get whatever residual value is left at the end. Dai would have been gone by Christmas.

How you stop clubs getting into that situation first of all is more complicated.

Everyone keeps talking about squad-cost ratios, to keep all teams within their means. Rick Parry was saying this would mean they could regulate club finances immediately - by not registering any player that would breach the ratios - rather than three years after the date.

I would agree with this approach, but you will get a counter argument that it stops ambitious owners investing which would favour the big clubs. And it would make it harder to crash the top table, but not impossible. And I'd say it's a price worth paying.

Also, I support Reading. If I wanted to support a team who won all the time I'd support Man Utd given they were the best as I was growing up. Obviously the big clubs are always going to win more; our best moments will always be rare and celebrated with an ecstacy that big club fans can't understand. Maybe older Man City fans with memories of their dark days used to appreciate it, but even they must be spoiled now.

So if you're worried that such controls would stop you seeing football manager lived out for real, perhaps go and support another club?

[St Pauli]

I mean, he could have done exactly the same thing any number of ways.

The Reading fanbase will eventually have to come to terms with the fact that Dai Yongge spaffed £200m on Reading Football Club, and all we have to show for it is relegation to League 1 and a very nice training ground.

Its the most incredible poor use of funds imaginable. And most of it stems from one poor appointment after another as CEO of RFC, and taking advice on player recruitment from Kia.

If he had thrown a lot more money at hiring elite level managers, and not hiring messers Clement, Gomez, Paunnovic, and a bit less on yet another attacking midfielder, we could well be an established PL team.

Dai Yongge had the deep pockets, and the willingness to spend it, but didnt have a oxf*rd clue about the best way to go about it.

Although i still cant get my head round how badly Ron Gourlay steered the whole ship. He should have been the man to stand up to Dai and take control of the club from a footballing point of view and insist on proper recruitment etc. Instead he gutted the club of the things that worked well and allowed a scnadalous spaff of money to go on terrible player recruitment.

Jeez, where have you been? We all came to terms on that ages ago.

That's the GWL we all know and love. Turn up, make some patronising remarks designed to impress us with his wisdom whilst stating the mostly obvious with a few random grenades designed to keep us "interested".

Would you say it’s gotten too personal between you and GWL, Leon?

It seems every time he posts (and often when he doesn’t) you have some negative dig to make.

[rabidbee]

I would agree with this approach, but you will get a counter argument that it stops ambitious owners investing which would favour the big clubs. And it would make it harder to crash the top table, but not impossible. And I'd say it's a price worth paying.

Also, I support Reading. If I wanted to support a team who won all the time I'd support Man Utd given they were the best as I was growing up. Obviously the big clubs are always going to win more; our best moments will always be rare and celebrated with an ecstacy that big club fans can't understand. Maybe older Man City fans with memories of their dark days used to appreciate it, but even they must be spoiled now.

So if you're worried that such controls would stop you seeing football manager lived out for real, perhaps go and support another club?

There would be nothing stopping a big club from spunking large amounts of cash (within their greater means) on players who turn out to be shit, they just couldn't spunk even more cash on buying replacements, they'd have to live with it, or at least sell the dross first.

Further, I think it was said that clubs competing in UEFA competitions are already subject to 70% squad-cost ratios anyway.

So yes, it would stop a club owner spending £300m to shoot up the leagues and gate-crash the PL, but does anybody want to see that happening anyway?

[WestYorksRoyal]

I would agree with this approach, but you will get a counter argument that it stops ambitious owners investing which would favour the big clubs. And it would make it harder to crash the top table, but not impossible. And I'd say it's a price worth paying.

Also, I support Reading. If I wanted to support a team who won all the time I'd support Man Utd given they were the best as I was growing up. Obviously the big clubs are always going to win more; our best moments will always be rare and celebrated with an ecstacy that big club fans can't understand. Maybe older Man City fans with memories of their dark days used to appreciate it, but even they must be spoiled now.

So if you're worried that such controls would stop you seeing football manager lived out for real, perhaps go and support another club?

There would be nothing stopping a big club from spunking large amounts of cash (within their greater means) on players who turn out to be shit, they just couldn't spunk even more cash on buying replacements, they'd have to live with it, or at least sell the dross first.

Further, I think it was said that clubs competing in UEFA competitions are already subject to 70% squad-cost ratios anyway.

So yes, it would stop a club owner spending £300m to shoot up the leagues and gate-crash the PL, but does anybody want to see that happening anyway?

In our context, clubs like Wolves, Sheffield United, Leicester, Derby, Leeds, Sunderland etc. all have more resources than us - they are bigger clubs.

But we could absolutely outperform these clubs run with such a wage cap in place, if we were run well. I don't think it kills competitiveness.

[Stranded]

First thing you do is ban owners being able to loan money to the club - they can only gift it, buy shares etc but as soon as owner puts the money in the club it is gone unless the club turns a profit. Then the owner can recoup a % in dividend, say 20% of any profit can be returned to the owner in any tax year.

This gives the owner an incentive to run the club sustainably if they want to make any kind of return.

Clubs will also be expected to submit forecasts for their season showing what they exepect to spend - losses over a certain threshold have to be covered by the owner and/or sales - that threshold would be much smaller than it is today. Only if granted a license on this basis can a club compete in the pyramid.

[Stranded]

Latest rumour of that there twitter is that Zygi and Mark Wilf - owners of the Minnesota Vikings were one of the 3 bidders. They want to follow the 49ers into owning an English Club (Niners own, or have large stake in Leeds) but also wanted to convert part of Bearwood into a facility for NFL teams to use for London games and/or potentially ahead of an NFL expansion to the UK.

Honestly, these rumours are getting so specific that there is either a grain of truth to them or people have way too much time on their hands.

[blythspartan]

Admin are very quiet today. I can’t help but think it’ll be like this all week and then on Friday Earnshaw will announce that all parties have walked away from discussions. Actually, maybe for once we’ll get good news.

[leon]

Jeez, where have you been? We all came to terms on that ages ago.

That's the GWL we all know and love. Turn up, make some patronising remarks designed to impress us with his wisdom whilst stating the mostly obvious with a few random grenades designed to keep us "interested".

Would you say it’s gotten too personal between you and GWL, Leon?

It seems every time he posts (and often when he doesn’t) you have some negative dig to make.

no not really. He posts plenty of times without me commenting at all. In fact I think I've not commented on any of his other posts in a while.

Although he did PM me the other day.... *

But clearly you care about him, which is admirable and shows a degree of brotherly solidarity. I'm sure irl he is a fine gentleman and one who would make excellent company on a night or revelry.

* by other day I mean a month ago....

[St Pauli]

That's the GWL we all know and love. Turn up, make some patronising remarks designed to impress us with his wisdom whilst stating the mostly obvious with a few random grenades designed to keep us "interested".

Would you say it’s gotten too personal between you and GWL, Leon?

It seems every time he posts (and often when he doesn’t) you have some negative dig to make.

no not really. He posts plenty of times without me commenting at all. In fact I think I've not commented on any of his other posts in a while.

Although he did PM me the other day.... *

But clearly you care about him, which is admirable and shows a degree of brotherly solidarity. I'm sure irl he is a fine gentleman and one who would make excellent company on a night or revelry.

* by other day I mean a month ago....

OK np thanks for getting back to me x

[leon]

Would you say it’s gotten too personal between you and GWL, Leon?

It seems every time he posts (and often when he doesn’t) you have some negative dig to make.

no not really. He posts plenty of times without me commenting at all. In fact I think I've not commented on any of his other posts in a while.

Although he did PM me the other day.... *

But clearly you care about him, which is admirable and shows a degree of brotherly solidarity. I'm sure irl he is a fine gentleman and one who would make excellent company on a night or revelry.

* by other day I mean a month ago....

OK np thanks for getting back to me x

missing you sweetheart

[WestYorksRoyal]

Latest rumour of that there twitter is that Zygi and Mark Wilf - owners of the Minnesota Vikings were one of the 3 bidders. They want to follow the 49ers into owning an English Club (Niners own, or have large stake in Leeds) but also wanted to convert part of Bearwood into a facility for NFL teams to use for London games and/or potentially ahead of an NFL expansion to the UK.

Honestly, these rumours are getting so specific that there is either a grain of truth to them or people have way too much time on their hands.

Tbh I don't care who it is as long as they get it done and in time to pay this month's bills.

These guys understand sport and finding a shared use for Bearwood makes sense, especially as NFL teams don't come over often.

But just accept one of them Dai and do it this week. I don't care which.

[Hendo]

Latest rumour of that there twitter is that Zygi and Mark Wilf - owners of the Minnesota Vikings were one of the 3 bidders. They want to follow the 49ers into owning an English Club (Niners own, or have large stake in Leeds) but also wanted to convert part of Bearwood into a facility for NFL teams to use for London games and/or potentially ahead of an NFL expansion to the UK.

Honestly, these rumours are getting so specific that there is either a grain of truth to them or people have way too much time on their hands.

Wouldn't be against that. Especially if it means London games are offered out to Reading ST holders

[Stranded]

Probably just attracted by the Purple Kit.

[Snowflake Royal]

Next tie Dai Yongge wants to get involved with football he can give me £200m and I'll teach him how to play FIFA or Football Manager

The training ground investment was the only sound advice he was given, Could have worked out alot differently if he'd appointed a CEO with the right experience at this level and let them get on with it, Possibly Nigel Howe if he'd been up for it.

It would have been no different, because Pang has just been a puppet and Dai was happy to overrule Gourlay when he felt like it.

I meant if Pang was never appointed and someone like Nigel Howe was left unmolested to get on with the job and was in charge of appointing all staff.
At the very least, I think we would still be in the Championship.

Never would have happened.

[Snowflake Royal]

People would be hailing Dai as brilliant if he had spent £200m, got us promoted to the PL, not fallen foul of FFP. But the system isn't sustainable if the difference between judging something successful or a failure comes down to whether or not you pull off a massive gamble. You can't build a sustainable model around the idea that clubs need to be run by individuals willing to spend big in the hope of success, when the whole premise of competitive sport is that most of the competitors are going to lose.

That's why I think it's wrong when SBWD say football has an ownership problem, it's far more comprehensive than that. Dai has come in and done exactly what is expected of an owned, he just hasn't shown very good judgement in the way he did it. A regulator will hopefully force all clubs to move to a system that is more sustainable because they will be required to largely fund themselves. (A regulator will also hopefully come down quite hard on fraudulent dealings between clubs and other companies who share an owner, to stop them artificially inflating their earnings.) There will be squealing from the top of the PL because it might make it harder for them to compete with clubs in Europe, but if it makes the whole edifice of the league more secure it will be worth it.

I mean people were criticising lots of the decisions all along, before they proved unsuccessful.

To be hailed he'd have had to have got us up and kept us up. Something he's incapable of.

[rabidbee]

But were they criticising him for spending lots of money, or for not spending it well enough? Because if it is the latter, that is still part of the problem.