CONFIMRED - The final countdown

[RoyalBlue]

Link?

Only because I find it interesting how exactly the court case has any impact on the deal. It’s not like there is even a remote possibility that the court is going to award Reading FC to Rob Couhig, so what difference does it make?

If there IS a holdup, surely its Dai’s choice not anyone else’s.

The buyer will either be buying a club that owes Rob Couhig millions in damages or a club which does not. That will affect the price they are prepared to buy the club for by millions.

However, I can't see why there isn't an agreed price of £xM less any damages which may be awarded to Rob Couhig... except perhaps that would rely in the extent of the possible damages being known

I don't believe it would be unusual in these sort of circumstances for the seller to provide the buyer with an indemnity against the amount of any such damages, However, we're talking Dai here, so might not be worth the paper it was written on!

[Extended-Phenotype]

If you want to protest, protest against Couhig, not Dai. Unlike more protests against Dai, it might actually do some good.

Couhig's court case is entirely spurious. He hasn't lost money by not buying the club; it runs at a loss, it's saved him money. Unless the money he's "lost" is the revenue he thinks he could have got by gutting the club of its assets. Either way, for now, he's far more of a threat to the future of the club than Dai is.

If Couhig can be convinced he's not welcome, he may give up.

(Incidentally, when he relinquished buying Bearwood, I don't think it was the fan's protest, it was the planning restrictions in place. But it seemed to hurt him. If SBWD read this - a loud protest tonight and Saturday might be of real benefit to saving the club).

Could be wrong, but I thought the lost earnings thing was not based on RC owning the club, but the period he was engaged in finalising a deal for a sale that was never going to be honoured.

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

If you want to protest, protest against Couhig, not Dai. Unlike more protests against Dai, it might actually do some good.

Couhig's court case is entirely spurious. He hasn't lost money by not buying the club; it runs at a loss, it's saved him money. Unless the money he's "lost" is the revenue he thinks he could have got by gutting the club of its assets. Either way, for now, he's far more of a threat to the future of the club than Dai is.

If Couhig can be convinced he's not welcome, he may give up.

(Incidentally, when he relinquished buying Bearwood, I don't think it was the fan's protest, it was the planning restrictions in place. But it seemed to hurt him. If SBWD read this - a loud protest tonight and Saturday might be of real benefit to saving the club).

I'd be keen to know the exact nature of his claims regarding the liens - which we all thought were satisfied, only to be told last week that maybe they haven't as their satisfaction has disappeared off the company register. Has this been published anywhere? I've searched but can only find scant info.

[Armadillo Roadkill]

Could be wrong, but I thought the lost earnings were not based on RC owning the club, but the period he was engaged in finalising a deal for a sale that was never going to be honoured.

I read somewhere (Earnshaw?) he's claiming £10 million.

Some of that could well be the costs involved in the lead up to a deal, but I think he's also claiming for what he would have earn by owning RFC. Which is just fantasy.

Originally, his case was seen as some Trump-style "art of the deal" negotiating tactic to get Dai to sell him the club.

Now it's pretty clear that, like his bright-orange countryman, he's just a grubby little chancer with a fragile ego and no sense of shame.

[Sutekh]

Could be wrong, but I thought the lost earnings were not based on RC owning the club, but the period he was engaged in finalising a deal for a sale that was never going to be honoured.

I read somewhere (Earnshaw?) he's claiming £10 million.

Some of that could well be the costs involved in the lead up to a deal, but I think he's also claiming for what he would have earn by owning RFC. Which is just fantasy.

Originally, his case was seen as some Trump-style "art of the deal" negotiating tactic to get Dai to sell him the club.

Now it's pretty clear that, like his bright-orange countryman, he's just a grubby little chancer with a fragile ego and no sense of shame.

BBC mentioned £12m but think that included his legal costs too.

Would be supportive of SBWD protesting RC in some way v Wrexham and/or v Stevenage on Saturday.

[Snowflake Royal]

It's a typically shit, dishonest and incompetent move on Dai's part to try to get the liens removed by filing false paperwork that they'd been satisfied when they hadn't. Or at least the relevant parties hadn't agreed they were.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Could be wrong, but I thought the lost earnings were not based on RC owning the club, but the period he was engaged in finalising a deal for a sale that was never going to be honoured.

I read somewhere (Earnshaw?) he's claiming £10 million.

Some of that could well be the costs involved in the lead up to a deal, but I think he's also claiming for what he would have earn by owning RFC. Which is just fantasy.

Originally, his case was seen as some Trump-style "art of the deal" negotiating tactic to get Dai to sell him the club.

Now it's pretty clear that, like his bright-orange countryman, he's just a grubby little chancer with a fragile ego and no sense of shame.

See, I don't think anything about it is "pretty clear"! We can only really make assumptions as to what is happening behind the scenes based on the little we do know. I guess it's in my head like this:

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

[leon]

Could be wrong, but I thought the lost earnings were not based on RC owning the club, but the period he was engaged in finalising a deal for a sale that was never going to be honoured.

I read somewhere (Earnshaw?) he's claiming £10 million.

Some of that could well be the costs involved in the lead up to a deal, but I think he's also claiming for what he would have earn by owning RFC. Which is just fantasy.

Originally, his case was seen as some Trump-style "art of the deal" negotiating tactic to get Dai to sell him the club.

Now it's pretty clear that, like his bright-orange countryman, he's just a grubby little chancer with a fragile ego and no sense of shame.

See, I don't think anything about it is "pretty clear"! We can only really make assumptions as to what is happening behind the scenes based on the little we do know. I guess it's in my head like this:

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

If you didnt buy the bike how were you planning on getting home?

[Snowflake Royal]

Could be wrong, but I thought the lost earnings were not based on RC owning the club, but the period he was engaged in finalising a deal for a sale that was never going to be honoured.

I read somewhere (Earnshaw?) he's claiming £10 million.

Some of that could well be the costs involved in the lead up to a deal, but I think he's also claiming for what he would have earn by owning RFC. Which is just fantasy.

Originally, his case was seen as some Trump-style "art of the deal" negotiating tactic to get Dai to sell him the club.

Now it's pretty clear that, like his bright-orange countryman, he's just a grubby little chancer with a fragile ego and no sense of shame.

See, I don't think anything about it is "pretty clear"! We can only really make assumptions as to what is happening behind the scenes based on the little we do know. I guess it's in my head like this:

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

My read remains that it's a multifaceted approach.

1) recover costs for the failed bid
2) punish Dai for breaching the deal
3) inflate potential compensation as a negotiating tool to reach a satisfactory settlement out of court / force sale of club through on original terms
4) drag things out increasing costs to Dai to the same end as 3
5) power politics at play over who is the real big dog.


But you're right. Nothing is clear and really known. It's all rumour, assumption and inference.

And I think a lot is spin to deflect from how shit Dai is and to create a new villain to excuse him.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I read somewhere (Earnshaw?) he's claiming £10 million.

Some of that could well be the costs involved in the lead up to a deal, but I think he's also claiming for what he would have earn by owning RFC. Which is just fantasy.

Originally, his case was seen as some Trump-style "art of the deal" negotiating tactic to get Dai to sell him the club.

Now it's pretty clear that, like his bright-orange countryman, he's just a grubby little chancer with a fragile ego and no sense of shame.

See, I don't think anything about it is "pretty clear"! We can only really make assumptions as to what is happening behind the scenes based on the little we do know. I guess it's in my head like this:

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

If you didnt buy the bike how were you planning on getting home?

Dunno. Maybe I'd just live with Armadillo.

[leon]

See, I don't think anything about it is "pretty clear"! We can only really make assumptions as to what is happening behind the scenes based on the little we do know. I guess it's in my head like this:

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

If you didnt buy the bike how were you planning on getting home?

Dunno. Maybe I'd just live with Armadillo.

Whilst I didn't buy the bike I still got a bloody ride.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I read somewhere (Earnshaw?) he's claiming £10 million.

Some of that could well be the costs involved in the lead up to a deal, but I think he's also claiming for what he would have earn by owning RFC. Which is just fantasy.

Originally, his case was seen as some Trump-style "art of the deal" negotiating tactic to get Dai to sell him the club.

Now it's pretty clear that, like his bright-orange countryman, he's just a grubby little chancer with a fragile ego and no sense of shame.

See, I don't think anything about it is "pretty clear"! We can only really make assumptions as to what is happening behind the scenes based on the little we do know. I guess it's in my head like this:

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

My read remains that it's a multifaceted approach.

1) recover costs for the failed bid
2) punish Dai for breaching the deal
3) inflate potential compensation as a negotiating tool to reach a satisfactory settlement out of court / force sale of club through on original terms
4) drag things out increasing costs to Dai to the same end as 3
5) power politics at play over who is the real big dog.


But you're right. Nothing is clear and really known. It's all rumour, assumption and inference.

And I think a lot is spin to deflect from how shit Dai is and to create a new villain to excuse him.

Yeah. It’s not that I’m interested in defending RC. I don’t know shit about the guy. It’s that I find it difficult to arrive at the same hostile certainty regarding his character and motives. All this stuff about him making shit up to scupper the deal because he’s a bitter, spoilt miscreant who enjoys hurting ordinary people seems like a rather specific conclusion to jump to from details more patchy and cryptic than a clue from Ted Rogers on 3,2,1.

Sounds to me like a deal fell through and the seller felt the buyer took the piss. I can't say I find that unfathomable, considering the seller's track record.

[Extended-Phenotype]

If you didnt buy the bike how were you planning on getting home?

Dunno. Maybe I'd just live with Armadillo.

Whilst I didn't buy the bike I still got a bloody ride.

Sigh, well I'm here now. Fancy a bit?

[Snowflake Royal]

See, I don't think anything about it is "pretty clear"! We can only really make assumptions as to what is happening behind the scenes based on the little we do know. I guess it's in my head like this:

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

My read remains that it's a multifaceted approach.

1) recover costs for the failed bid
2) punish Dai for breaching the deal
3) inflate potential compensation as a negotiating tool to reach a satisfactory settlement out of court / force sale of club through on original terms
4) drag things out increasing costs to Dai to the same end as 3
5) power politics at play over who is the real big dog.


But you're right. Nothing is clear and really known. It's all rumour, assumption and inference.

And I think a lot is spin to deflect from how shit Dai is and to create a new villain to excuse him.

Yeah. It’s not that I’m interested in defending RC. I don’t know shit about the guy. It’s that I find it difficult to arrive at the same hostile certainty regarding his character and motives. All this stuff about him making shit up to scupper the deal because he’s a bitter, spoilt miscreant who enjoys hurting ordinary people seems like a rather specific conclusion to jump to from details more patchy and cryptic than a clue from Ted Rogers on 3,2,1.

Sounds to me like a deal fell through and the seller felt the buyer took the piss. I can't say I find that unfathomable, considering the seller's track record.

Agreed. The thing that grinds my gears is people using it to excuse Dai, who is and continues to be the real villain of the piece.

Or just assuming this Platek whats it will be wonderful because he's not Couhig/Dai. Although he's at least got a mixed track record rather than just dodgy like some previous prospective buyers.

I also don't see what a protest against Couhig is supposed to achieve. We've got even less power and influence with him than we have with dai, and that's bugger all. Plus it's not like the Court will expedite the Hearing or he'll suddenly withdraw his action with a hearing date scheduled.

[Sutekh]

My read remains that it's a multifaceted approach.

1) recover costs for the failed bid
2) punish Dai for breaching the deal
3) inflate potential compensation as a negotiating tool to reach a satisfactory settlement out of court / force sale of club through on original terms
4) drag things out increasing costs to Dai to the same end as 3
5) power politics at play over who is the real big dog.


But you're right. Nothing is clear and really known. It's all rumour, assumption and inference.

And I think a lot is spin to deflect from how shit Dai is and to create a new villain to excuse him.

Yeah. It’s not that I’m interested in defending RC. I don’t know shit about the guy. It’s that I find it difficult to arrive at the same hostile certainty regarding his character and motives. All this stuff about him making shit up to scupper the deal because he’s a bitter, spoilt miscreant who enjoys hurting ordinary people seems like a rather specific conclusion to jump to from details more patchy and cryptic than a clue from Ted Rogers on 3,2,1.

Sounds to me like a deal fell through and the seller felt the buyer took the piss. I can't say I find that unfathomable, considering the seller's track record.

Agreed. The thing that grinds my gears is people using it to excuse Dai, who is and continues to be the real villain of the piece.

Or just assuming this Platek whats it will be wonderful because he's not Couhig/Dai. Although he's at least got a mixed track record rather than just dodgy like some previous prospective buyers.

I also don't see what a protest against Couhig is supposed to achieve. We've got even less power and influence with him than we have with dai, and that's bugger all. Plus it's not like the Court will expedite the Hearing or he'll suddenly withdraw his action with a hearing date scheduled.

Agreed Dai is the worst. But if the only good thing about a new owner is that they’re not Dai then that’s not really enough is it?

Given the little of what we’ve seen of RC, his causing the ladies team to be stuffed & the seeming immediate closure of Bearwood, would suggest the only good thing about him is that he isn’t Dai and if successful the club would get yet more hard to take medicine straight away.

The next prospect is Mr Platek, we have no clue what his exact plans are (and won’t until any deal is done) so, again, his only redeeming factor at this point might be that he’s not Dai.

RC seemed to communicate, perhaps bit too much, whereas RP has not yet spoken up although the deal appears to be at least at the same point it was with RC when he started appearing everywhere etc.

Right now I presume no one really cares who gets the club as, of the two gentlemen concerned, whoever it is will initially be lauded and revered for saving the club and just not being Dai. At least the upside on it is the two interested parties both have experience of running clubs so know it’s a hiding to nothing.

[rabidbee]

Obviously I know oxf*rd all, but I assume Couhig’s aim now is to force Dai (or Platek) to make some kind of settlement with him out of court, to make him go away. If that’s the case, then it all depends just how strong a case he actually has in his favour, which I guess we’ll find out by 21 March.

[LUX]

Fcking hell, I never read all the details on this thread, I was just hoping that, based on the récent news, we were home and hosed .

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Dunno. Maybe I'd just live with Armadillo.

Whilst I didn't buy the bike I still got a bloody ride.

Sigh, well I'm here now. Fancy a bit?

I feel some context is missing.

It's a way better bike than your previous bike, albeit in need of TLC.

Plus you've been posting on Social as if you already owned the bike, which has given your profile a boost way beyond that which your previous old bike could have...

[Forbury Lion]

You put your bike up for sale online for £50. I say I’m interested and you agree to take the ad down while checks are made. I get a taxi over to have a look and find it rusty, so I change my offer to £40. You tell me to oxf*rd off and some other guy rocks up to check it out, making it clear you didn’t take the ad down as agreed. In fact, I see you have a history of telling people to oxf*rd off and don’t really seem interested in selling at all. So I insist you to recoup me for my taxi fare.

That’s how I see it, anyway. I’m not entirely confident I have that right. But I don’t currently feel like blaming a potential buyer for the misconduct of a seller.

I'd add you paid a refundable £10 deposit and you realise the frame is owned by someone else and the wheels are about to be repossessed because they have finance outstanding on them, you then see the £10 has been spent on sweets and cakes by the owner who is out riding the bike, you pull out of the sale and shortly after you get the £10 back after the owner wins £20 on a scratch-card, before this you offer £5 for the bike to take advantage of the owners needs to buy sweets and cakes. The deal falls through

[Extended-Phenotype]

I think the bike analogy is getting more complicated that the reality it was trying to describe.