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.
Royal RotherLinden 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.
Right now I would imagine everyone prefers the fire to the frying pan.
WestYorksRoyalStrandedLinden 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.
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?
StrandedWestYorksRoyalStranded
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?
Most professional investors know that they will lose on some investments - football is a very risky investment but with the potential for almost unlimited returns if you can get into and stay in the PL. The prospective new owners are taking that bet that with the PL standard infrastruture we have that with sensible investment in the playing staff, both first team and academy, there is a strong chance that they can get the club there - at which point they can see some or part of the club.
Look at the sale of 40% of Ipswich this last week or so - that will be a model for them, get the club to a spot where other investors are willing to buy in to help the club grow. If we stagnate, then like a lot of investors they will look to divest to recoup whatever they can and move on - the key info will be how the assets of the club are set up post buy out - will they return to The Reading Football Club Limited or will they reside with an external 3rd party company - the latter would naturally be concerning.
Linden Jones' TashStrandedWestYorksRoyal 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?
Most professional investors know that they will lose on some investments - football is a very risky investment but with the potential for almost unlimited returns if you can get into and stay in the PL. The prospective new owners are taking that bet that with the PL standard infrastruture we have that with sensible investment in the playing staff, both first team and academy, there is a strong chance that they can get the club there - at which point they can see some or part of the club.
Look at the sale of 40% of Ipswich this last week or so - that will be a model for them, get the club to a spot where other investors are willing to buy in to help the club grow. If we stagnate, then like a lot of investors they will look to divest to recoup whatever they can and move on - the key info will be how the assets of the club are set up post buy out - will they return to The Reading Football Club Limited or will they reside with an external 3rd party company - the latter would naturally be concerning.
Ultimately, though, it is still about relying on "more money" being pumped than the level of revenue generated from fans and/or traditional sponsorship - and then hoping that the "sensible investment in playing staff' is better than others so that our club climbs the leagues.
I'm struggling how this squares with the protest at the 'football has an ownership problem' - we are still relying in the benevolence of others - whether so called Chinese or Russian Billionaires, Thai investors, Sovereign Investment funds or Private Equity - i.e. we still just want a sugar daddy who makes the right calls.... right?
Linden Jones' TashStrandedWestYorksRoyal 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?
Most professional investors know that they will lose on some investments - football is a very risky investment but with the potential for almost unlimited returns if you can get into and stay in the PL. The prospective new owners are taking that bet that with the PL standard infrastruture we have that with sensible investment in the playing staff, both first team and academy, there is a strong chance that they can get the club there - at which point they can see some or part of the club.
Look at the sale of 40% of Ipswich this last week or so - that will be a model for them, get the club to a spot where other investors are willing to buy in to help the club grow. If we stagnate, then like a lot of investors they will look to divest to recoup whatever they can and move on - the key info will be how the assets of the club are set up post buy out - will they return to The Reading Football Club Limited or will they reside with an external 3rd party company - the latter would naturally be concerning.
Ultimately, though, it is still about relying on "more money" being pumped than the level of revenue generated from fans and/or traditional sponsorship - and then hoping that the "sensible investment in playing staff' is better than others so that our club climbs the leagues.
I'm struggling how this squares with the protest at the 'football has an ownership problem' - we are still relying in the benevolence of others - whether so called Chinese or Russian Billionaires, Thai investors, Sovereign Investment funds or Private Equity - i.e. we still just want a sugar daddy who makes the right calls.... right?
Linden Jones' TashStrandedWestYorksRoyal 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?
Most professional investors know that they will lose on some investments - football is a very risky investment but with the potential for almost unlimited returns if you can get into and stay in the PL. The prospective new owners are taking that bet that with the PL standard infrastruture we have that with sensible investment in the playing staff, both first team and academy, there is a strong chance that they can get the club there - at which point they can see some or part of the club.
Look at the sale of 40% of Ipswich this last week or so - that will be a model for them, get the club to a spot where other investors are willing to buy in to help the club grow. If we stagnate, then like a lot of investors they will look to divest to recoup whatever they can and move on - the key info will be how the assets of the club are set up post buy out - will they return to The Reading Football Club Limited or will they reside with an external 3rd party company - the latter would naturally be concerning.
Ultimately, though, it is still about relying on "more money" being pumped than the level of revenue generated from fans and/or traditional sponsorship - and then hoping that the "sensible investment in playing staff' is better than others so that our club climbs the leagues.
I'm struggling how this squares with the protest at the 'football has an ownership problem' - we are still relying in the benevolence of others - whether so called Chinese or Russian Billionaires, Thai investors, Sovereign Investment funds or Private Equity - i.e. we still just want a sugar daddy who makes the right calls.... right?
Stranded
I'll let someone involved in the campaign speak further but my view was that it was never about there being a benefactor model in football but ensuring there was governance around those to ensure we don't get into the same mess again. If the campaign was purely about having an owner than runs a club truly sustainably then even someone like Madjeski wouldn't make the cut.
Dai's main problem was not so much spending the money but where and how it was spent and his total stubborness when it came to doing the other bit of ownership, which is selling players at their highest value and using that to finance the club. If he had done more of the 2nd part, then we may not be where we are today.
MartinRdgStranded
I'll let someone involved in the campaign speak further but my view was that it was never about there being a benefactor model in football but ensuring there was governance around those to ensure we don't get into the same mess again. If the campaign was purely about having an owner than runs a club truly sustainably then even someone like Madjeski wouldn't make the cut.
Dai's main problem was not so much spending the money but where and how it was spent and his total stubborness when it came to doing the other bit of ownership, which is selling players at their highest value and using that to finance the club. If he had done more of the 2nd part, then we may not be where we are today.
Wholeheartedly agree with this
Linden Jones' TashMartinRdgStranded
I'll let someone involved in the campaign speak further but my view was that it was never about there being a benefactor model in football but ensuring there was governance around those to ensure we don't get into the same mess again. If the campaign was purely about having an owner than runs a club truly sustainably then even someone like Madjeski wouldn't make the cut.
Dai's main problem was not so much spending the money but where and how it was spent and his total stubborness when it came to doing the other bit of ownership, which is selling players at their highest value and using that to finance the club. If he had done more of the 2nd part, then we may not be where we are today.
Wholeheartedly agree with this
Good points - but then it is impossible to vet potential owners - only hindsight tells us that signing this player or not selling that one at the height of their form or relying on a so-called "super agent" for recommendations or hiring the former CEO of a top London Premier league club etc. etc were bad moves....
Nothing is all black or all white
Linden Jones' Tash Good points - but then it is impossible to vet potential owners - only hindsight tells us that signing this player or not selling that one at the height of their form or relying on a so-called "super agent" for recommendations or hiring the former CEO of a top London Premier league club etc. etc were bad moves....
Nothing is all black or all white
Linden Jones' TashMartinRdgStranded
I'll let someone involved in the campaign speak further but my view was that it was never about there being a benefactor model in football but ensuring there was governance around those to ensure we don't get into the same mess again. If the campaign was purely about having an owner than runs a club truly sustainably then even someone like Madjeski wouldn't make the cut.
Dai's main problem was not so much spending the money but where and how it was spent and his total stubborness when it came to doing the other bit of ownership, which is selling players at their highest value and using that to finance the club. If he had done more of the 2nd part, then we may not be where we are today.
Wholeheartedly agree with this
Good points - but then it is impossible to vet potential owners - only hindsight tells us that signing this player or not selling that one at the height of their form or relying on a so-called "super agent" for recommendations or hiring the former CEO of a top London Premier league club etc. etc were bad moves....
Nothing is all black or all white
Snowflake RoyalLinden Jones' TashMartinRdg
Wholeheartedly agree with this
Good points - but then it is impossible to vet potential owners - only hindsight tells us that signing this player or not selling that one at the height of their form or relying on a so-called "super agent" for recommendations or hiring the former CEO of a top London Premier league club etc. etc were bad moves....
Nothing is all black or all white
Obviously this doesn't do anything for getting past the ownership tests, which are once only, but it takes very little savvy to look at any single year of our published accounts under Dai and conclude that we were:
a) spending way too much, and
b) doing way too little to resolve this and covering it with dodgy accounting tricks that could only work for so long.
And if you went so far as to look at two consecutive years of accounts, it was unmistakeable.
Linden Jones' TashSnowflake RoyalLinden Jones' Tash
Good points - but then it is impossible to vet potential owners - only hindsight tells us that signing this player or not selling that one at the height of their form or relying on a so-called "super agent" for recommendations or hiring the former CEO of a top London Premier league club etc. etc were bad moves....
Nothing is all black or all white
Obviously this doesn't do anything for getting past the ownership tests, which are once only, but it takes very little savvy to look at any single year of our published accounts under Dai and conclude that we were:
a) spending way too much, and
b) doing way too little to resolve this and covering it with dodgy accounting tricks that could only work for so long.
And if you went so far as to look at two consecutive years of accounts, it was unmistakeable.
yea, but doesn't that apply to Chelsea FC since Todd Boehly took over?
MartinRdgStranded
I'll let someone involved in the campaign speak further but my view was that it was never about there being a benefactor model in football but ensuring there was governance around those to ensure we don't get into the same mess again. If the campaign was purely about having an owner than runs a club truly sustainably then even someone like Madjeski wouldn't make the cut.
Dai's main problem was not so much spending the money but where and how it was spent and his total stubborness when it came to doing the other bit of ownership, which is selling players at their highest value and using that to finance the club. If he had done more of the 2nd part, then we may not be where we are today.
Wholeheartedly agree with this
maffffMartinRdgStranded
I'll let someone involved in the campaign speak further but my view was that it was never about there being a benefactor model in football but ensuring there was governance around those to ensure we don't get into the same mess again. If the campaign was purely about having an owner than runs a club truly sustainably then even someone like Madjeski wouldn't make the cut.
Dai's main problem was not so much spending the money but where and how it was spent and his total stubborness when it came to doing the other bit of ownership, which is selling players at their highest value and using that to finance the club. If he had done more of the 2nd part, then we may not be where we are today.
Wholeheartedly agree with this
Absolutely this, sustainable means within the environment we are operating in and without having the rug pulled from under the club.
Ideologically I don't agree with ffp/P&S, I can't see why benefactors can't pay in as much as they want, one condition being it's frontloaded after allowable losses, so the club has access to the money in a way it can't be stripped out and leave it with huge liabilities. As long as all owners have that option and clubs have safeguards such as the above.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 211 guests
