#SellBeforeWeDai Action/Inaction Group

[RoyalBlue]

I sometimes think SBWD need to consider the bigger picture and why these punishments are levied.

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

Unfortunately all the above is correct, we may not like it, but it stands up to scrutiny; it will also mean of we do stay up other clubs may not be able to challenge how the EFL have dealt with us. Neither will the y be able to say they have treated us favourably. It's an administrative process as opposed to the emotional process we are going through. Also the Fück the EFL element of the statement is just childish and does a disservice to all the good off the pitch stuff SBWD (and others) have done and achieved.

Hopefully there will be good news on the sale in the near future to balance this off.

IMO F8ck the EFL is perfectly applicable when you have two-faced barstewards like Rick Parry telling us and the media one thing (don't want to punish the wrong people & pointless fining Dai) and then doing exactly the opposite behind closed doors. And as for what SBWD - have you not looked at the first letter in each line of the 4th, 5th & 6th paragraphs of the statement they issued today? Guess what they spell out!

[WestYorksRoyal]

It's more a case of "fcuk all the bastards". Football is broken from top to bottom and we're at the sharp end right now.

[RoyalBlue]

SBWD have issued new statement.

I sometimes think SBWD need to consider the bigger picture and why these punishments are levied.

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

When someone repeatedly fails to pay fines, a sensible approach would be to look at imposing some other sanction on that individual. And don't forget that a month ago the two-faced barsteward Parry told MPs that it was pointless fining Dai because he wouldn't pay!

As for the rulebook, it's clearly in need of a major revision when the way it is currently written is totally ineffective in dealing with rogue owners like Dai.

[One Beer is never enough.]

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

Unfortunately all the above is correct, we may not like it, but it stands up to scrutiny; it will also mean of we do stay up other clubs may not be able to challenge how the EFL have dealt with us. Neither will the y be able to say they have treated us favourably. It's an administrative process as opposed to the emotional process we are going through. Also the Fück the EFL element of the statement is just childish and does a disservice to all the good off the pitch stuff SBWD (and others) have done and achieved.

Hopefully there will be good news on the sale in the near future to balance this off.

IMO F8ck the EFL is perfectly applicable when you have two-faced barstewards like Rick Parry telling us and the media one thing (don't want to punish the wrong people & pointless fining Dai) and then doing exactly the opposite behind closed doors. And as for what SBWD - have you not looked at the first letter in each line of the 4th, 5th & 6th paragraphs of the statement they issued today? Guess what they spell out!

Jeez, its almost as if that wasn't the childish element I was referring to

[PieEater]

People talk about cheating or the integrity of the league, in reality we have been rightly punished for breaching FFP and got relegated, but I don't see how late payments to players or the taxman are cheating or affect the integrity of the league. Everyone got paid.

I think we have more to moan about the integrity of the league when get points deducted this season for events of last season, then we get the first ever points deducted of late tax payments.

All clubs run at a loss and ours will be comparable to other clubs in this league.

[rabidbee]

In normal circumstances I would agree with all of the above.

However . . . The continued existence of clubs has to take priority over all other factors. The rules, 'fairness', the integrity of the league .. . none of it is more important than a football club being able to continue operating and the EFL needs to recognise that.

So, turning the tables, you would be happy to be relegated by a team that was spending money they didn’t have in order to gain an advantage on the pitch, so that there was no risk to that club’s continuing future?

[Lower West]

I sometimes think SBWD need to consider the bigger picture and why these punishments are levied.

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

When someone repeatedly fails to pay fines, a sensible approach would be to look at imposing some other sanction on that individual. And don't forget that a month ago the two-faced barsteward Parry told MPs that it was pointless fining Dai because he wouldn't pay!

As for the rulebook, it's clearly in need of a major revision when the way it is currently written is totally ineffective in dealing with rogue owners like Dai.

Looks like Dai has been personally named in two liitgation claims that have been lodged in China by a claimant "bank" against two subsidiaries of the China Dili Group. (The existance of the loans being declared when the shares were originally suspended on the HK stock exchange in Oct 2022) . Would explain why Dai has been unable to release funds from China. His hands have been tied.

No amount of rule book rewriting is going to cover eventualties like this.

[Sutekh]

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

When someone repeatedly fails to pay fines, a sensible approach would be to look at imposing some other sanction on that individual. And don't forget that a month ago the two-faced barsteward Parry told MPs that it was pointless fining Dai because he wouldn't pay!

As for the rulebook, it's clearly in need of a major revision when the way it is currently written is totally ineffective in dealing with rogue owners like Dai.

Looks like Dai has been personally named in two liitgation claims that have been lodged in China by a claimant "bank" against two subsidiaries of the China Dili Group. (The existance of the loans being declared when the shares were originally suspended on the HK stock exchange in Oct 2022) . Would explain why Dai has been unable to release funds from China. His hands have been tied.

No amount of rule book rewriting is going to cover eventualties like this.

Which is probably why it's wrong of the FL to penalise Reading over the late payments to HMRC.

[Vision]

The EFL are not fit for purpose.

They allowed Dai to take over. In doing so they made a mistake. If someone makes a mistake, they should help whoever it is to put right that mistake.

Instead they are kicking the club in the head when its already down.

The EFL are scum. Parry and Dai need to get on Maxwell's boat for a cruise in the Canaries or I'd prefer the Everglades now.

Angry is an understatement. The players have worked their oxf*rd arses off to get into this position and the EFL do this...

This might just be the most childish take I’ve seen on here in some time.

Should the EFL have stepped in every time Dai made any decision during his tenure here ?

He had the money at the time and could prove it . He has the money now but either can’t get it out of China or more likely has decided not to pay bills/ invest any more money.

What organisation could possibly predict the what has happened to us in the last few years ? It’s not the EFL’s job to predict 5 years ahead of time .

But yeah let’s wish “death by drowning” on people . If the EFL had blocked him then fans would have been in their back for interfering / holding us back .

[JR]

SBWD have issued new statement.

I sometimes think SBWD need to consider the bigger picture and why these punishments are levied.

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

Never a truer word was said.

SBWD have achieved some great action, but today’s statement really worried me to that they don’t have anyone in their group with sufficient knowledge of sports governance.

[JR]

I sometimes think SBWD need to consider the bigger picture and why these punishments are levied.

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

In normal circumstances I would agree with all of the above.

However . . . The continued existence of clubs has to take priority over all other factors. The rules, 'fairness', the integrity of the league .. . none of it is more important than a football club being able to continue operating and the EFL needs to recognise that.

Why do clubs have to continue to exist? They are easily replaced, no problems with supply.

[Orion1871]

I sometimes think SBWD need to consider the bigger picture and why these punishments are levied.

Yep.

I could do an annotation of what is wrong with that SBWD statement. Most paragraphs to be honest.

Para 1 - You need sporting sanctions to stop clubs from breaching financial fair play. As can be seen from our form over the past 20 games, we are running a play-off contention first 11 which the club doesnt have the resources to maintain. We are therefore gaining a sporting advantage over other clubs who are paying their taxes and wage bills on time but who have a less competitive squad.

Para 2 - Not imposing fines because of an impending sale would be treating Reading preferentially due to its own commercial concerns, so clearly that would be improper.

Para 3 - Just because someone isnt paying a fine, doesnt mean you stop issuing the fines when they continue to break the rules. Obviously.

Para 4 - The number of points we have had deducted is a function of the period time over which we have been breaking the rules - or known as cheating by others.

Para 5 - Of course the EFL do care about their rulebook more than the health and history of the clubs in the league. The rule book is there to protect the clubs' health. SBWD seem to forget we broke the financial fair play rules.

I know many people on here will disagree with those, but let's be honest, take your Reading biases out of it, and its all factually true.

Never a truer word was said.

SBWD have achieved some great action, but today’s statement really worried me to that they don’t have anyone in their group with sufficient knowledge of sports governance.

You can have knowledge of something and still be frustrated by it and the way it is carried out. Particularly when you know the people it is harming the most are those who do not make the decisions to get in the situation.

And when you know a lot of the things people claim are "willingly voted for by the member clubs of the EFL" are things effectively enforced on those EFL clubs through financial blackmail by 20 non-members.

[From Despair To Where?]

The EFL are not fit for purpose.

They allowed Dai to take over. In doing so they made a mistake. If someone makes a mistake, they should help whoever it is to put right that mistake.

Instead they are kicking the club in the head when its already down.

The EFL are scum. Parry and Dai need to get on Maxwell's boat for a cruise in the Canaries or I'd prefer the Everglades now.

Angry is an understatement. The players have worked their oxf*rd arses off to get into this position and the EFL do this...

This might just be the most childish take I’ve seen on here in some time.

Should the EFL have stepped in every time Dai made any decision during his tenure here ?

He had the money at the time and could prove it . He has the money now but either can’t get it out of China or more likely has decided not to pay bills/ invest any more money.

What organisation could possibly predict the what has happened to us in the last few years ? It’s not the EFL’s job to predict 5 years ahead of time .

But yeah let’s wish “death by drowning” on people . If the EFL had blocked him then fans would have been in their back for interfering / holding us back .

Have you read his other posts? It's articulate, measured and mature in comparison. He's always been an absolute clown.

[leon]

The EFL are not fit for purpose.

They allowed Dai to take over. In doing so they made a mistake. If someone makes a mistake, they should help whoever it is to put right that mistake.

Instead they are kicking the club in the head when its already down.

The EFL are scum. Parry and Dai need to get on Maxwell's boat for a cruise in the Canaries or I'd prefer the Everglades now.

Angry is an understatement. The players have worked their oxf*rd arses off to get into this position and the EFL do this...

This might just be the most childish take I’ve seen on here in some time.

Should the EFL have stepped in every time Dai made any decision during his tenure here ?

He had the money at the time and could prove it . He has the money now but either can’t get it out of China or more likely has decided not to pay bills/ invest any more money.

What organisation could possibly predict the what has happened to us in the last few years ? It’s not the EFL’s job to predict 5 years ahead of time .

But yeah let’s wish “death by drowning” on people . If the EFL had blocked him then fans would have been in their back for interfering / holding us back .

Have you read his other posts? It's articulate, measured and mature in comparison. He's always been an absolute clown.

This is not wrong.

However the EFL does need a better way of dealing with owners who do this, We are not the first case. The rules needs to be reviewed as it very much means that rogue owners can destroy clubs seemingly on a whim. What these rules can be is up for discussion but something needs to change.

Childish hidden messages and wishing death on people very much undermines what we as a fan base are trying to do.

[From Despair To Where?]

This might just be the most childish take I’ve seen on here in some time.

Should the EFL have stepped in every time Dai made any decision during his tenure here ?

He had the money at the time and could prove it . He has the money now but either can’t get it out of China or more likely has decided not to pay bills/ invest any more money.

What organisation could possibly predict the what has happened to us in the last few years ? It’s not the EFL’s job to predict 5 years ahead of time .

But yeah let’s wish “death by drowning” on people . If the EFL had blocked him then fans would have been in their back for interfering / holding us back .

Have you read his other posts? It's articulate, measured and mature in comparison. He's always been an absolute clown.

This is not wrong.

However the EFL does need a better way of dealing with owners who do this, We are not the first case. The rules needs to be reviewed as it very much means that rogue owners can destroy clubs seemingly on a whim. What these rules can be is up for discussion but something needs to change.

Childish hidden messages and wishing death on people very much undermines what we as a fan base are trying to do.

I agree, the EFL are pretty toothless in dealing with a situation like this but that requires change, be it an independent regular or a change in what the EFL is legally empowered to do. That requires action by either government or by the members themselves. It also requires a grown up discussion.

[Reading4eva]

This might just be the most childish take I’ve seen on here in some time.

Should the EFL have stepped in every time Dai made any decision during his tenure here ?

He had the money at the time and could prove it . He has the money now but either can’t get it out of China or more likely has decided not to pay bills/ invest any more money.

What organisation could possibly predict the what has happened to us in the last few years ? It’s not the EFL’s job to predict 5 years ahead of time .

But yeah let’s wish “death by drowning” on people . If the EFL had blocked him then fans would have been in their back for interfering / holding us back .

Have you read his other posts? It's articulate, measured and mature in comparison. He's always been an absolute clown.

This is not wrong.

However the EFL does need a better way of dealing with owners who do this, We are not the first case. The rules needs to be reviewed as it very much means that rogue owners can destroy clubs seemingly on a whim. What these rules can be is up for discussion but something needs to change.

Childish hidden messages and wishing death on people very much undermines what we as a fan base are trying to do.

Of course no one would actually do that last part. The Maxwell's boat bit is quite obviously a joke but airing frustration at what's going on.

Grow a pair.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Let's not pretend there wouldn't be a party in Reading if Dai went the same way as Maxwell. But obviously STAR and SBWD can't say that out loud.

[genome]

SBWD have issued new statement.

I sometimes think SBWD need to consider the bigger picture and why these punishments are levied.

Bunch of absolute oxf*rd childish idiots

The whole statement is social media bait for engagement & awareness (see the hidden message) - which to be fair, it's doing its job.

[From Despair To Where?]

You need to grow a pair.


Of brain cells.

[Greatwesternline]

People also have short memories with regards to EFL punishments. We recently as a club got a game abandoned, which meant Port Vale had to travel to our ground twice, the second time on a weeknight (so had smaller away following) and lost.

Did we get a points deduction as the FA rules allow? No we got a suspended sentence. Anyone who thinks the EFL has it in for us needs to give their head a wobble.

They showed incredible leniency in that regard.