#SellBeforeWeDai Action/Inaction Group

[Greatwesternline]

Did Zing pay for his 51% and did he get it back or forfeited it when that share reverted to SJM? It's something I have wondered before but never checked it out.

There's conflicting info.

At the time I recall the deal being pay x for 51% with a deadline for the remaining 49% with the lot reverting to SJM if that second payment was missed.

However, Dirkers has subsequently claimed he'd heard Anton never actually paid for the 51% and that's why it all reverted to SJM.

I find the latter incredibly hard to believe because I think you'd have to be a screaming moron to hand over control of your company without being paid for it.

If Zinga didnt even pay the initial 51% then the contract wouldnt have been completed and Sir John could just void the transfer of ownership.

It must therefore be taken as given that he got paid for the 1st half.

Then got the rest of the club back when Zinga didnt go through with the purchase. A great bit of business from Sir john

[Snowflake Royal]

Did Zing pay for his 51% and did he get it back or forfeited it when that share reverted to SJM? It's something I have wondered before but never checked it out.

There's conflicting info.

At the time I recall the deal being pay x for 51% with a deadline for the remaining 49% with the lot reverting to SJM if that second payment was missed.

However, Dirkers has subsequently claimed he'd heard Anton never actually paid for the 51% and that's why it all reverted to SJM.

I find the latter incredibly hard to believe because I think you'd have to be a screaming moron to hand over control of your company without being paid for it.

If Zinga didnt even pay the initial 51% then the contract wouldnt have been completed and Sir John could just void the transfer of ownership.

It must therefore be taken as given that he got paid for the 1st half.

Then got the rest of the club back when Zinga didnt go through with the purchase. A great bit of business from Sir john

Well, yes. That was my point at the time.

[Mr Angry]

SBWD statement following today's news is kneejerk and not for the first time.

They are complaining the club hasn't announced who the proposed buyer is, really think they need to get individuals who understand this stuff to check their statements through.

Can you put their statement up on here please?

https://twitter.com/SellBeforeWeDai/status/1772650446856863844

Many thanks

That statement doesn't seem in anyway unhinged or inappropriate; pretty reasonable IMHO.

[Mr Angry]

Their point about naming the counterparty is impossible; EFL rules don't allow them to be named until they have completed their OADT procedures.

As for asking for communication from the buyer, it does seem a bit self important, but I would agree with the sentiment that building a rapport with the fans should be a top priority for any incoming owner. This year has been particularly difficult because there is so much distrust of a silent owner who has never tried to justify or explain their decisions to us.

If the rules state that they can't be named at the moment why does anyone think that means they can start communicating with fans or fan groups until they're allowed to go public about the deal? I'm sure once they're able to we'll get press statements being issued and hopefully some dialogue with STAR.

I'd presume that some members of STAR are entitled to know more about this process than the rest of us, and could hold conversations with possible buyers about expectations. But that would be STAR as the official supporters trust and not SBWD who are effectively a protest group (though there is overlap between individuals involved). I would hope that any buyer who has got this far has tried to initiate some contact with the fans.

I read that the statement said they urge the prospective buyers to reach out to STAR "as soon as possible"; that doesn't mean they are demanding the group with exclusivity contact STAR today, it means they would like them to as soon as they are able to do so.

[The Royal Forester]

Can you put their statement up on here please?

https://twitter.com/SellBeforeWeDai/status/1772650446856863844

Many thanks

That statement doesn't seem in anyway unhinged or inappropriate; pretty reasonable IMHO.

This statement hopes the next one will signify the end of the campaign. Does that mean the "Football has an ownership problem" part of the campaign being dropped as well? If so, were they only interested in Reading FC and not football in general!1? Anyone from SBWD like to enlighten us?

[Brogue]

https://twitter.com/SellBeforeWeDai/status/1772650446856863844

Many thanks

That statement doesn't seem in anyway unhinged or inappropriate; pretty reasonable IMHO.

This statement hopes the next one will signify the end of the campaign. Does that mean the "Football has an ownership problem" part of the campaign being dropped as well? If so, were they only interested in Reading FC and not football in general!1? Anyone from SBWD like to enlighten us?

good point well made

[Green]

TBF we pass the baton on at that point, albeit we're still invested supporters from the sidelines.

[Pepe the Horseman]

TBF we pass the baton on at that point, albeit we're still invested supporters from the sidelines.

We take the Portsmouth approach. Ignore anyone else in trouble and go after the people that wronged us.

[leon]

TBF we pass the baton on at that point, albeit we're still invested supporters from the sidelines.

We take the Portsmouth approach. Ignore anyone else in trouble and go, leaving a trail of shitty mattresses, rubbish and dead dogs behind.

[The Royal Forester]

TBF we pass the baton on at that point, albeit we're still invested supporters from the sidelines.

Which group(s) will the baton be passed onto?

[Brogue]

TBF we pass the baton on at that point, albeit we're still invested supporters from the sidelines.

Which group(s) will the baton be passed onto?

the homosexuals

[Green]

TBF we pass the baton on at that point, albeit we're still invested supporters from the sidelines.

Which group(s) will the baton be passed onto?

Take your pick (of one of many in financial strife)

[maffff]

If the rules state that they can't be named at the moment why does anyone think that means they can start communicating with fans or fan groups until they're allowed to go public about the deal? I'm sure once they're able to we'll get press statements being issued and hopefully some dialogue with STAR.

I'd presume that some members of STAR are entitled to know more about this process than the rest of us, and could hold conversations with possible buyers about expectations. But that would be STAR as the official supporters trust and not SBWD who are effectively a protest group (though there is overlap between individuals involved). I would hope that any buyer who has got this far has tried to initiate some contact with the fans.

I read that the statement said they urge the prospective buyers to reach out to STAR "as soon as possible"; that doesn't mean they are demanding the group with exclusivity contact STAR today, it means they would like them to as soon as they are able to do so.

That was certainly the intent!

[maffff]

Many thanks

That statement doesn't seem in anyway unhinged or inappropriate; pretty reasonable IMHO.

This statement hopes the next one will signify the end of the campaign. Does that mean the "Football has an ownership problem" part of the campaign being dropped as well? If so, were they only interested in Reading FC and not football in general!1? Anyone from SBWD like to enlighten us?

good point well made

The end of the campaign against the owner.

Certainly not the intention that the wider purpose disappears. We want to be there to support others that need it, hold the governance system to account etc.

Plus, we'll be watching the new owner, hoping we don't need to rebrand and step back up.....

Hopefully there'll be wider cognisance and empathy from the general fanbase towards other clubs that start heading down a path that could become an existential crisis also compared to pre campaign. We've certainly learned a lot as we go.

[leon]

Let’s hope the campaign is coming to an end.

Interesting* that throughout the whole thing that there were the usual suspects on here sneering (whilst doing fcuk all obviously) at SBWD.

I didn’t always agree with everything they did but on balance I think they were effective at getting the message out there.

[Royal Rother]

I’m with Hiram K Hackenbacker.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

So if the rumours are correct and the prospective new owners are buying us as an Arbitrage play - with funds from various exotic industries (crypto/longevity biotech) - the protests continue or they stop?

Do we want sugar daddies who gamble on making money (for themselves) in the prem or not?

I was under the impression that this is the type of ownership that SBWD was against.

[bcubed]

I’m with Hiram K Hackenbacker.

I agree

[Stranded]

So if the rumours are correct and the prospective new owners are buying us as an Arbitrage play - with funds from various exotic industries (crypto/longevity biotech) - the protests continue or they stop?

Do we want sugar daddies who gamble on making money (for themselves) in the prem or not?

I was under the impression that this is the type of ownership that SBWD was against.

I think as was said, the owners will be watched by the fans and hopefully the EFL. Just because they want to make money out of things doesn't mean they are going to wrecklessly through money at it. Sensible recruitment utilising the buy low, sell high rationale is a decent way to a) improve the club anb b) operate sustainably.

If we have good football people in place who are well funded to do their job well, then we should have no cause for concern.

The fact that we can't pay a fee still until next year means we have to be working sustainably from the off. The silly thing of course with the emabrgo is it does limit the club massively, take the rumour of our interest in this kid from Chippenham (or whichever NL club it was), we can't go for him as we can't even pay 10k does seem overly strict but hey ho, those are the rules.

[WestYorksRoyal]

So if the rumours are correct and the prospective new owners are buying us as an Arbitrage play - with funds from various exotic industries (crypto/longevity biotech) - the protests continue or they stop?

Do we want sugar daddies who gamble on making money (for themselves) in the prem or not?

I was under the impression that this is the type of ownership that SBWD was against.

I think as was said, the owners will be watched by the fans and hopefully the EFL. Just because they want to make money out of things doesn't mean they are going to wrecklessly through money at it. Sensible recruitment utilising the buy low, sell high rationale is a decent way to a) improve the club anb b) operate sustainably.

If we have good football people in place who are well funded to do their job well, then we should have no cause for concern.

The fact that we can't pay a fee still until next year means we have to be working sustainably from the off. The silly thing of course with the emabrgo is it does limit the club massively, take the rumour of our interest in this kid from Chippenham (or whichever NL club it was), we can't go for him as we can't even pay 10k does seem overly strict but hey ho, those are the rules.

The main question to ask is what happens if it doesn't work. The buy low, develop players, use the academy, sell high strategy sounds great. But football is competitive and these strategies are not simple to execute.

If we're still in L1 in 5 years and the investors are disappointed, what's their plan? Commit, look at what's going wrong and try to improve? Or cut losses and move out? And if it's the latter, will they continue to fund the club while they find a buyer?