.Lister: You spoke to five people and they all committed suicide. I wouldn't mind, but one was a wrong number. He only phoned up for the cricket scores
by Four Of Clubs » 18 Mar 2024 17:26
.Lister: You spoke to five people and they all committed suicide. I wouldn't mind, but one was a wrong number. He only phoned up for the cricket scores
by NathStPaul » 18 Mar 2024 17:34
Snowflake RoyalNathStPaulFrom Despair To Where?
Yeah, that's it. The mind boggles.
Can only assume he specialised in convincing people to commit suicide who were on the fence about it. He'd certainly motivate me to end it all.
Thanks, you've reminded me of Red Dwarf and the bit about Rimmer's stint on the Samaritans helpline.
by Snowflake Royal » 18 Mar 2024 17:40
NathStPaulSnowflake RoyalNathStPaul Can only assume he specialised in convincing people to commit suicide who were on the fence about it. He'd certainly motivate me to end it all.
Thanks, you've reminded me of Red Dwarf and the bit about Rimmer's stint on the Samaritans helpline.
Yes good shout!
by From Despair To Where? » 18 Mar 2024 19:03
by Pepe the Horseman » 18 Mar 2024 19:05
Four Of Clubs.Lister: You spoke to five people and they all committed suicide. I wouldn't mind, but one was a wrong number. He only phoned up for the cricket scores
by SouthDownsRoyal » 18 Mar 2024 23:58
Snowflake Royal Tbf, Craig was ahead of his time. He wanted to talk shit at people long before it became popular to be a talentless dim influencer rather than get a real job.
by SouthDownsRoyal » 18 Mar 2024 23:59
Pepe the Horseman He's a very strange man. Posted from his Reading Twitter account that he was taking a 24 hour break from Twitter, then proceeded to tweet all day (about Reading) from his Bournemouth account, before switching back to his RFC account when the 24 hours were up.
by SouthDownsRoyal » 19 Mar 2024 00:02
NathStPaulandrew1957NathStPaul He's a joke. I know I tease the team board folk at times but they are all genuine supporters who mean well. Craig is just an opportunistic arse.
Have you ever teased me? I thought you were being serious.
I'd never tease you Andrew1957.
by NathStPaul » 19 Mar 2024 08:45
SouthDownsRoyalNathStPaulandrew1957
Have you ever teased me? I thought you were being serious.
I'd never tease you Andrew1957.
But did you have the covid vaccine OMA?
by Silver Fox » 19 Mar 2024 08:46
by NathStPaul » 19 Mar 2024 08:49
by Forbury Lion » 19 Mar 2024 11:59
Great stuff, who wants to claim credit for this ahead of the next election? - John Redwood says it would be unfair for the government to step in and save Reading FC, but it looks like the local council have helped out here even if that wasn't the original intention.MartinRdgDelboy Has anyone at SBWD contacted Wokingham council to see if planning is transferrable, it was clearly in RFC name?
Good spot- seems it's not transferrable
by Mr Optimist » 19 Mar 2024 12:05
Forbury LionGreat stuff, who wants to claim credit for this ahead of the next election? - John Redwood says it would be unfair for the government to step in and save Reading FC, but it looks like the local council have helped out here even if that wasn't the original intention.MartinRdgDelboy Has anyone at SBWD contacted Wokingham council to see if planning is transferrable, it was clearly in RFC name?
Good spot- seems it's not transferrable
If there is an application for a change of planning permission, let's make sure they get so many letters of objection that it takes them 6 months just to read them
by Orion1871 » 19 Mar 2024 13:15
by Cureton's Volley » 19 Mar 2024 17:40
by Snowflake Royal » 19 Mar 2024 17:51
Cureton's Volley If we had to sacrifice a human to save the club, Redwood might top the poll...
by East Grinstead Royal » 19 Mar 2024 18:12
by andrew1957 » 19 Mar 2024 18:16
NathStPaulSouthDownsRoyalNathStPaul I'd never tease you Andrew1957.
But did you have the covid vaccine OMA?
No I didn't have it based purely off of the advice Andrew1957 gave us.
by Snowflake Royal » 19 Mar 2024 18:33
East Grinstead Royal Surely Dai and Pang would be ahead of you, Snowflake? And Redwood. And Steve Evans!
by The Green Programme » 19 Mar 2024 22:44
GreatwesternlineThe Green Programme A ‘regulator’!!!!
It’s such a bizarre response.
Just think about what you are saying.
1) Who pays for it (look out for the gravy train)
2) Who decides what they regulate and what they don’t?
3) And what does it mean - another layer of bureaucracy… more cost to fans ….
Be careful what you wish for.
4)The FCA and the Labour Government (in an attempt to beat the market-end boom and bust yawn yawn) and give some real power to the regulator by employing totally inexperienced graduates……managed such levels of ineptitude that they allowed record lending to those who couldn’t afford it after the sale of all our mutual companies (bribery by shareholding) and a resultant crash of the banks….
Whilst happily raking in the taxes during the lending spree - and then managing to overspend on that….
Hurray for regulation…...
5) We will be paying for it for years and years….
We (RFC) are in the crap - it will be resolved and we will move on….
Foreign owners; relying on offshore structures for financing should not be able to purchase clubs in UK.
Some of what has allegedly gone on at City is outrageous but they will probably get away with it all, If they don’t, they’ll be going out of business.
The current ‘regulators’ won’t allow it…..
Hurray for FFP….
And you are probably a Socialist who can propagate two or more totally contradictory principles simultaneously and cannot make a reasoned case for anything - and instead, simply makes silly (or worse) insulting personal comments.
The most regulated markets are often the most corrupted, the most ineffective and the most expensive.
6)The Banks were regulated by a socialist government…. and that went really well…..
That answer is to penalise Clubs in real time - not retrospectively.
It’s the retrospective penalties and the chance of avoiding them that leads to owners taking every risk to get to the promised land - succeed and all is fine (Villa, Bournemouth etc) fail and you become a bankrupt (Derby, Southampton, Wigan,, Reading etc).
No more quangos for us all to fund thank you.
I put those numbers in.
1) It will most likely be levy funded on the clubs it regulates. So lets say the regulator employs ~50 people at an average remuneration of 65k its going to cost £3.25m in fees. Some IT equipment, and some office space probably round the corner from DCMS. So could probably run this thing for about £5m a year.
2) DCMS will decide what they regulate and what they won't. Which will be set out in the legislation.
3) I imagine the fans will be able to absorb £5m cost of a regulator, given that one imagines that split between 92 professional clubs it will cost each club £50,000. And obviously the levy will be larger for the PL clubs who require more regulating than the smaller ones who do not.
4) The FCA was created by the coalition, not Labour. The FSA did prudential regulation pre-financial crisis. No real reason to assume that a regulator tasked with making football clubs sustainable will suffer from the same problems as one in the 00s tasked with prudential lending.
5) See points 1 and 3
6) Banks fail all the time. In the financial crisis they failed in the US, UK, Iceland, and Netherlands during financial crisis and beyond. Was George Bush a socialist? He was President in the US when the crisis happened?
It sounds like you think self regulation in football is better than regulation. But the clubs are already self regulating so it's clearly something the clubs want.
I share your scepticism that a regulator can prevent an owner giving up mid-season a la Dai, but its probably better to try to fix that system than leave it to the clubs to do themselves which we already know isnt working.
Users browsing this forum: Crossbar Challenge, Hove Royal, mikey_1871, Mr Angry and 218 guests