by windermereROYAL » 21 Mar 2024 18:49
by From Despair To Where? » 21 Mar 2024 18:54
Snowflake RoyalMartinRdg Interesting read for those people who thought Friday night's demo at Wycombe was a wasted effort https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/sport/24200475.reading-fc-protest-a-reason-behind-bearwood-pull/
I'm confident the planning permission was front and centre with Dai's bullshit 2nd.
by Sutekh » 21 Mar 2024 19:12
by WestYorksRoyal » 21 Mar 2024 19:40
Sutekh So would being owned by a hedge fund organisation be a good thing (other than just "not being Dai")?
by Hound » 21 Mar 2024 20:34
SutekhFranchise FCSutekh
Yes this is quite correct. Perhaps if the management had known what are they were doing and hadn't been playing random number formations this club might have been on the fringes of the play offs now. Apparently Reading would be 8th in the table if the season had started 20 games ago.
Much as I think Selles got a lot wrong we were, once again, putting together a team of strangers.
A fair few high profile managers have struggled to get a load of new players to gel quickly
But then some managers wouldn't have tried confusing young and inexperienced players who aren't world class internationals with a load of ridiculous "trendy" formation ideas either. They would have tried to make the best with what they had available suitable for the level they were playing at.
by Sutekh » 21 Mar 2024 21:33
WestYorksRoyalSutekh So would being owned by a hedge fund organisation be a good thing (other than just "not being Dai")?
If they're a fund, they'll be looking to make a return on us. The price of football podcast suggested 5 - 7 years is their typical life cycle.
A great example is Ipswich who were bought out by a fund in L1 and will now be worth much more. A bad example on a bigger scale are Chelsea, where Todd Boehly is using his backers millions to play fantasy football. It's embarrassing for them now, but arguable worse is to come when their investors become frustrated by the lack of return. Then there is 777 trying to take over Everton which I won't go into.
So it's literally impossible to tell. We could have savvy people trying to improve our value, or wide boys who have conned investors and enjoy the prestige of running a football club. The one advantage of L1 is that there isn't much prestige involved.
by Mr Angry » 22 Mar 2024 09:23
Sutekh So would being owned by a hedge fund organisation be a good thing (other than just "not being Dai")?
by Greatwesternline » 22 Mar 2024 09:37
Mr AngrySutekh So would being owned by a hedge fund organisation be a good thing (other than just "not being Dai")?
Being owned by anyone other than Dai can only be a good thing; obviously, if we get bought by someone (or some organisation) and they continually fail to pay HMRC, pay bills or pay wages, who look to asset strip the club of its value and take us to the very brink of extinction, then maybe we can say "with hindsight, these new owners are as bad as Dai", but short of using the stadium to launch anthrax at orphans and puppies, I fail to see how any new owners could be WORSE than being owned by Dai.
by WestYorksRoyal » 22 Mar 2024 10:01
GreatwesternlineMr AngrySutekh So would being owned by a hedge fund organisation be a good thing (other than just "not being Dai")?
Being owned by anyone other than Dai can only be a good thing; obviously, if we get bought by someone (or some organisation) and they continually fail to pay HMRC, pay bills or pay wages, who look to asset strip the club of its value and take us to the very brink of extinction, then maybe we can say "with hindsight, these new owners are as bad as Dai", but short of using the stadium to launch anthrax at orphans and puppies, I fail to see how any new owners could be WORSE than being owned by Dai.
They could make the same sort of awful signing as Dai, and similarly waste a load of money, but without spending any money on the Academy and let it wither away.
The record of Dai is
Negatives = Terrible footballing decisions at every turn.
Positives = He funded us a sick arse academy.
You could have someone who has the negatives of Dai without the positives...
How good an owner is largely depends on what happens to the club when the owner wants out. Up until then, many of them are much alike. But when the funds run out or interest wanes, that's when you really find out whether you had a good one or not.
by Greatwesternline » 22 Mar 2024 10:14
WestYorksRoyalGreatwesternlineMr Angry
Being owned by anyone other than Dai can only be a good thing; obviously, if we get bought by someone (or some organisation) and they continually fail to pay HMRC, pay bills or pay wages, who look to asset strip the club of its value and take us to the very brink of extinction, then maybe we can say "with hindsight, these new owners are as bad as Dai", but short of using the stadium to launch anthrax at orphans and puppies, I fail to see how any new owners could be WORSE than being owned by Dai.
They could make the same sort of awful signing as Dai, and similarly waste a load of money, but without spending any money on the Academy and let it wither away.
The record of Dai is
Negatives = Terrible footballing decisions at every turn.
Positives = He funded us a sick arse academy.
You could have someone who has the negatives of Dai without the positives...
How good an owner is largely depends on what happens to the club when the owner wants out. Up until then, many of them are much alike. But when the funds run out or interest wanes, that's when you really find out whether you had a good one or not.
Negative is he threatened our existence for the first time in 40 years, and the threat is still there. That's pretty fcuking awful, and all other positives and negatives pale in comparison.
by WestYorksRoyal » 22 Mar 2024 10:18
by blythspartan » 22 Mar 2024 10:22
WestYorksRoyalGreatwesternlineMr Angry
Being owned by anyone other than Dai can only be a good thing; obviously, if we get bought by someone (or some organisation) and they continually fail to pay HMRC, pay bills or pay wages, who look to asset strip the club of its value and take us to the very brink of extinction, then maybe we can say "with hindsight, these new owners are as bad as Dai", but short of using the stadium to launch anthrax at orphans and puppies, I fail to see how any new owners could be WORSE than being owned by Dai.
They could make the same sort of awful signing as Dai, and similarly waste a load of money, but without spending any money on the Academy and let it wither away.
The record of Dai is
Negatives = Terrible footballing decisions at every turn.
Positives = He funded us a sick arse academy.
You could have someone who has the negatives of Dai without the positives...
How good an owner is largely depends on what happens to the club when the owner wants out. Up until then, many of them are much alike. But when the funds run out or interest wanes, that's when you really find out whether you had a good one or not.
Negative is he threatened our existence for the first time in 40 years, and the threat is still there. That's pretty fcuking awful, and all other positives and negatives pale in comparison.
by SCIAG » 22 Mar 2024 11:52
by Snowflake Royal » 22 Mar 2024 12:48
SCIAG Dai basically made two mistakes, but they're both pretty bad.
1) Put too much of his own money into the squad rather than follow the profit and sustainability rules (which would probably have led to better recruitment), ultimately forcing us to work under EFL sanctions for years on end.
2) Ran out of liquidity.
Other than that, he helped fund the training ground, he kept ticket prices at far below the market rate, and he subsidised away travel.
It's been said to death but if he sells Moore and doesn't sign Aluko and Puscas (combined with generally more sensible recruitment and retention) then we wouldn't be in this mess. Although if Dai ran out of money when we were in the Championship we'd have been in a bigger mess so maybe that's not a great line of argument.
by WestYorksRoyal » 22 Mar 2024 13:04
Snowflake RoyalSCIAG Dai basically made two mistakes, but they're both pretty bad.
1) Put too much of his own money into the squad rather than follow the profit and sustainability rules (which would probably have led to better recruitment), ultimately forcing us to work under EFL sanctions for years on end.
2) Ran out of liquidity.
Other than that, he helped fund the training ground, he kept ticket prices at far below the market rate, and he subsidised away travel.
It's been said to death but if he sells Moore and doesn't sign Aluko and Puscas (combined with generally more sensible recruitment and retention) then we wouldn't be in this mess. Although if Dai ran out of money when we were in the Championship we'd have been in a bigger mess so maybe that's not a great line of argument.
Those small changes only swing it to about £160m lost in 6 years, from £190m. Not enough to prevent the mess, just delay it
by blythspartan » 22 Mar 2024 13:05
by Pepe the Horseman » 22 Mar 2024 14:57
by MouldyRoyal » 22 Mar 2024 15:10
by WestYorksRoyal » 22 Mar 2024 15:33
by SouthDownsRoyal » 22 Mar 2024 15:56
Users browsing this forum: Royals and Racers and 222 guests