The pitch

Platypuss · by **Platypuss** » 09 Jan 2007 11:58

zac naloen
Platypuss Someone must be able to do a quick Companies House search and nail this properly.

You mean like this?

Reading FC head office = At The Madjeski Stadium

Reading Football club holdings = The same

Well almost. I probably wouldnt have given just the same link twice though.

Rob-Royal · by **Rob-Royal** » 09 Jan 2007 12:01

zac naloen For oxf*rd sake, if that match had of gone ahead then the pitch would have been utterly trashed. Making the likely hood of matches in the future having to be postponed several times more likely... this should be obvious. It was in the interest of the owners of the club AND Rugby Union that the match be delayed. Anything else is just short sighted nonsense.

Absolutely right. Long term damage would suit neither party. There's also another rugby game this weekend as well as tonights match so playing last Sunday as well with the ground cutting up badly would have been no benefit at all to both teams in the long term.....

M4 Junction 11 · by **M4 Junction 11** » 09 Jan 2007 12:02

Platypuss
zac naloen
Platypuss Someone must be able to do a quick Companies House search and nail this properly.

You mean like this?

Reading FC head office = At The Madjeski Stadium

Reading Football club holdings = The same

its a full search you need to check what's on the balance sheet not the free online stuff.

M4 Junction 11 · by **M4 Junction 11** » 09 Jan 2007 12:03

West Stand Man Contracts my friend, contracts. The law is the law and that is that. If the contract doesn't state that the stadium owners can stop a game (and it is highly unlikely that such a restrictive clause would be acceptable) then it can only be down to the authorities (RFU/FA or Police for example).

Though contract might also say LI pay for any damage and the losses resulting from that damage.

zac naloen · by **zac naloen** » 09 Jan 2007 12:04

Platypuss
zac naloen
Platypuss Someone must be able to do a quick Companies House search and nail this properly.

You mean like this?

Well almost. I probably wouldnt have given just the same link twice though.

Oh crap... thats cos my keyboard sticks occasionally...

correct link

There is also a third company...

Just how many Reading Fc related companies are there

Platypuss · by **Platypuss** » 09 Jan 2007 12:07

M4 Junction 11 its a full search you need to check what's on the balance sheet not the free online stuff.

Well yes - which is why I originally asked if someone could do a Companies House search.

zac naloen · by **zac naloen** » 09 Jan 2007 12:10

Platypuss
M4 Junction 11 its a full search you need to check what's on the balance sheet not the free online stuff.

Well yes - which is why I originally asked if someone could do a Companies House search.

Is this really an issue worth spending cash on though?

They are a high profile company, if there was an issue with ownership Reading Fc would never have forced their hand.

zac naloen · by **zac naloen** » 09 Jan 2007 12:11

Now that's what I call diversifictaion.

A COTTAM ELECTRICAL LTD
41 REGENT STREET
BELLE VUE WAKEFIELD
WEST YORKSHIRE WF1 5HW
Company No. 05885730

That's not what my link leads too...

Those sites must relate to the specific search you made. Try to hotlink and it breaks it.

Stupid websites.

Platypuss · by **Platypuss** » 09 Jan 2007 12:13

zac naloen
Platypuss
M4 Junction 11 its a full search you need to check what's on the balance sheet not the free online stuff.

Well yes - which is why I originally asked if someone could do a Companies House search.

Is this really an issue worth spending cash on though?

They are a high profile company, if there was an issue with ownership Reading Fc would never have forced their hand.

Someone must have a job wich allows unlimited lookups!

It'd be nice to have the definitive position regarding ownership nailed for future reference.

RoyalBlue · by **RoyalBlue** » 09 Jan 2007 13:29

Maybe I missed it but I can't recall seeing this link/article anywhere.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_un ... 137708.ece

It's being suggested that despite having no contractual right to have the game called off, RFC officials pressurised the rugby referee into seeing things their way!

SpaceCruiser · by **SpaceCruiser** » 09 Jan 2007 13:37

RoyalBlue Maybe I missed it but I can't recall seeing this link/article anywhere.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_un ... 137708.ece

It's being suggested that despite having no contractual right to have the game called off, RFC officials pressurised the rugby referee into seeing things their way!

I must have seen that article posted on here three times already. Even once earlier in this thread too!

readingbedding · by **readingbedding** » 09 Jan 2007 13:46

RoyalBlue Maybe I missed it but I can't recall seeing this link/article anywhere.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_un ... 137708.ece

It's being suggested that despite having no contractual right to have the game called off, RFC officials pressurised the rugby referee into seeing things their way!

I said the same thing on this thread, dunno if I was shot down in flames though.
Probably.

RoyalBlue · by **RoyalBlue** » 09 Jan 2007 14:03

SpaceCruiser
RoyalBlue Maybe I missed it but I can't recall seeing this link/article anywhere.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_un ... 137708.ece

It's being suggested that despite having no contractual right to have the game called off, RFC officials pressurised the rugby referee into seeing things their way!

I must have seen that article posted on here three times already. Even once earlier in this thread too!

Not surprised you spotted it and I didn't - you seem to spend an awful lot longer on here and so have the time to trawl through everything in fine detail!

True, I missed it on this thread but it wasn't there when I snatched a quick look earlier - then got interrupted by work! - and by the time I got back to finishing my post, I'd been beaten to it. Apologies but it wasn't like it was posted hours earlier.

Still all's well that ends well, it gave you an opportunity to add to your not inconsiderable posting count!

Platypuss · by **Platypuss** » 09 Jan 2007 14:06

RoyalBlue True, I missed it on this thread but it wasn't there when I snatched a quick look earlier - then got interrupted by work! - and by the time I got back to finishing my post, I'd been beaten to it. Apologies but it wasn't like it was posted hours earlier.

Just the two, as it happens.

flintyboy73 · by **flintyboy73** » 11 Jan 2007 00:50

re: companies house.

If I remember my Mark Thomas (silly arse(nal) activist and god-like genius at the same time). Anyone can go to a companies head office and check out the contracts of all the board inc. salary etc. as well as holdings.

It used to be share holders but that changed as it was decided that you should be able to see what you're getting yourself into.

RoyalBlue · by **RoyalBlue** » 14 Jan 2007 10:54

I believe the rugger buggers played on the pitch yesterday and have done their best to get it into a condition that meets Warnock's liking!!

strap · by **strap** » 14 Jan 2007 12:17

flintyboy73 re: companies house.

If I remember my Mark Thomas (silly arse(nal) activist and god-like genius at the same time). Anyone can go to a companies head office and check out the contracts of all the board inc. salary etc. as well as holdings.

You won't find out the contract details of the board as they're not published.

M4 Junction 11 · by **M4 Junction 11** » 19 Jan 2007 18:24

Nigel Howe just said on BBCRB there is damage to the pitch that might be affecting the drainage

Abbo · by **Abbo** » 21 Jan 2007 13:58

This rugby business needs to be knocked on the head.

Huntley & Palmer · by **Huntley & Palmer** » 21 Jan 2007 14:20

Or kicked into touch

The pitch

god bless mark thomas

Re: god bless mark thomas

Who is online