CONFIMRED - This might be it!!

7305 posts
windermereROYAL
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8536
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 11:18

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by windermereROYAL » 19 Mar 2024 14:43

People were all over this on twatter yesterday, strangely quiet today.

WestYorksRoyal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6591
Joined: 15 Apr 2019 19:16

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by WestYorksRoyal » 19 Mar 2024 14:47

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.

How do Forest fans perceive their owners? They're the closest scenario to Dai's insane spending bringing success to me, and I'd say they look precarious.

Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 20450
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Stranded » 19 Mar 2024 14:48

windermereROYAL People were all over this on twatter yesterday, strangely quiet today.


Think Earnshaw tweeted last night there was hope for a positive outcome in 24 to 48 hours. We aren't even at 24 yet.

blythspartan
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2501
Joined: 05 Jun 2012 20:50

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by blythspartan » 19 Mar 2024 14:52

Hendo
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.


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


As a Bengals fan I wouldn’t be happy with owners of the Vikings :lol:

windermereROYAL
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8536
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 11:18

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by windermereROYAL » 19 Mar 2024 14:52

Stranded
windermereROYAL People were all over this on twatter yesterday, strangely quiet today.


Think Earnshaw tweeted last night there was hope for a positive outcome in 24 to 48 hours. We aren't even at 24 yet.


Well I suppose after waiting the best part of 6 months another 24 hours isn`t going to hurt us.


Hound
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25659
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Hound » 19 Mar 2024 14:57

Dull point but slightly related to that NFL people alleged bid

Haven’t we let international teams (ie NZ) train there previously. Have we broken planning laws by doing that?

Would the council or whoever be harder on us doing it again potentially closing off a useful income stream?

Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 20450
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Stranded » 19 Mar 2024 15:00

Hound Dull point but slightly related to that NFL people alleged bid

Haven’t we let international teams (ie NZ) train there previously. Have we broken planning laws by doing that?

Would the council or whoever be harder on us doing it again potentially closing off a useful income stream?


I wouldn't think so given it is only for a few days - difference would be if it is a permanent move for a club of some description. Way round it I guess would be Reading have to have primary tenancy in any share of Bearwood.

User avatar
rabidbee
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3780
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Like a dog to vomit

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by rabidbee » 19 Mar 2024 15:03

Some more details about the football bill here. It currently includes powers for a regulator to force an owner to sell.

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25256
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: See me in m'pants and ting

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by From Despair To Where? » 19 Mar 2024 15:07

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.


Pretty sure there was widespread bemusement at the levels of spending vis a vis Moore's contract, signing Baldock, Aluko, Puscas & João. Whether he's spending it well enough kind of goes hand in hand.


User avatar
rabidbee
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3780
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Like a dog to vomit

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by rabidbee » 19 Mar 2024 15:13

From Despair To Where?
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.


Pretty sure there was widespread bemusement at the levels of spending vis a vis Moore's contract, signing Baldock, Aluko, Puscas & João. Whether he's spending it well enough kind of goes hand in hand.

So the complaints weren’t about the sums but about the quality of the players. Presumably if he had persuaded more talented players to drop a division for those kinds of sums, and that had got us up (as Wrexham have done), few would have complained. But that’s the problem, because so many teams are going for broke but there can only be a few winners.

User avatar
Hendo
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22325
Joined: 25 Mar 2012 20:53
Location: Lambs to the cosmic slaughter

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Hendo » 19 Mar 2024 15:15

Stranded
Hound Dull point but slightly related to that NFL people alleged bid

Haven’t we let international teams (ie NZ) train there previously. Have we broken planning laws by doing that?

Would the council or whoever be harder on us doing it again potentially closing off a useful income stream?


I wouldn't think so given it is only for a few days - difference would be if it is a permanent move for a club of some description. Way round it I guess would be Reading have to have primary tenancy in any share of Bearwood.


Yeah I wouldn't have thought so either.

Especially if it is during an International break where RFC wouldn't be using it as much when compared with the regular season.

Greatwesternline
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6914
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 14:36

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Greatwesternline » 19 Mar 2024 15:15

rabidbee Some more details about the football bill here. It currently includes powers for a regulator to force an owner to sell.


The full details are here for the legal text https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0187/230187.pdf

And here are the explanatory notes https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0187/en/230187en.pdf

Upon my first read through what struck me was:

Ownership removal orders: In certain circumstances, such as when an owner fails to comply with a removal direction without a reasonable excuse, the IFR may make an order to secure that an unsuitable owner is no longer an owner by a specified date. This can include the appointment of trustees with the power to take actions on behalf of the owner

but also

When a club first applies, it is for a provisional operating licence. This allows the club to operate for a fixed period only (up to a maximum of three years initially, with possibility for the IFR to extend beyond this). To obtain a provisional operating licence clubs apply with some basic minimum information and documentation. For example, a business plan containing (amongst other things) financial information, and a personnel statement listing the clubs owners, officers, and senior managers.


So they would have the power to remove a club from an owner, this is seriously powerfull stuff, and overrides some quite fundamental rule of law. This is as nuclear as it gets, Government appropriation of private assets, on par with what the Government did to Roman Abramovich and Chelsea under the umbrella of the sanctions regime.

However, part two suggests there are going to be three years of getting the system of licensing going, so it will be a while before any of this bites in full.

User avatar
Silver Fox
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 26535
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 10:02
Location: From the Andes to the indies in my undies

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Silver Fox » 19 Mar 2024 15:19

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.


It would be a handy spot for the international development lads too


Greatwesternline
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6914
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 14:36

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Greatwesternline » 19 Mar 2024 15:20

Also, the Bill only had its 1st reading today.

So it will take months for it to be passed as an Act. And still then it will take a long time for the Regulator to be up and running. Maybe for the 2025-26 season might be a stretch goal.

User avatar
rabidbee
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3780
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Like a dog to vomit

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by rabidbee » 19 Mar 2024 15:23

Leaving aside that the bill will fall after Rishi's shock calling of a GE next week, how likely do you think this would get through Parliament anyway?

User avatar
Brum Royal
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3828
Joined: 12 Sep 2013 09:06
Location: Birmingham

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Brum Royal » 19 Mar 2024 15:29

Presumably with the (expected) Labour majority post-election this will help move things along quicker/have more positive backing from the MPs

User avatar
RG30
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6290
Joined: 26 Jul 2005 20:42

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by RG30 » 19 Mar 2024 15:30

If the Vikings do take over, does that mean we have to chant SKOL at every corner with an Icelandic clap?

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 44639
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Snowflake Royal » 19 Mar 2024 15:33

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.

Spending way too much on wages. Spending way too much on fees after an embargo. Way too much on Aluko.

User avatar
rabidbee
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3780
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Like a dog to vomit

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by rabidbee » 19 Mar 2024 15:35

Brum Royal Presumably with the (expected) Labour majority post-election this will help move things along quicker/have more positive backing from the MPs

Any legislation not passed before Parliament is dissolved would fall, and would have to be reintroduced as a new bill, from the first reading, by the next government (even if somehow that new government was actually this one again). Labour did say they would make this a red-wall election issue if the government didn't introduce the bill. You have to wonder how keen Labour would be to spend time legislating on this if they get in, over other priorities. If you want to see a new regulator soon, your best bet might be to hope Rishi clings on until January...

Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 20450
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

by Stranded » 19 Mar 2024 15:40

Earnshaw tweeting that there are no meetings today, understands the offers are just with Dai and his people to make a decision.

So don't hold your breath.

7305 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: From Despair To Where? and 389 guests

It is currently 14 Mar 2025 20:21