CONFIMRED - The final countdown

[windermereROYAL]

So 142 days to go until 1st of July when all our contracted players bar 5 walk out the door, then presumably we need to provide proof we have the funds to start next season.
This will probably involve getting enough STs sold and cashing in on the few players we have left in contract.

When does a lost cause become a hopeless cause?

[Sutekh]

So 142 days to go until 1st of July when all our contracted players bar 5 walk out the door, then presumably we need to provide proof we have the funds to start next season.
This will probably involve getting enough STs sold and cashing in on the few players we have left in contract.

When does a lost cause become a hopeless cause?

September 2024.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

So 142 days to go until 1st of July when all our contracted players bar 5 walk out the door, then presumably we need to provide proof we have the funds to start next season.
This will probably involve getting enough STs sold and cashing in on the few players we have left in contract.

When does a lost cause become a hopeless cause?

I'd imagine we may have options to extend contracts on some of the younger players that have come through the academy, does anyone know?

[Snowflake Royal]

So 142 days to go until 1st of July when all our contracted players bar 5 walk out the door, then presumably we need to provide proof we have the funds to start next season.
This will probably involve getting enough STs sold and cashing in on the few players we have left in contract.

When does a lost cause become a hopeless cause?

I'd imagine we may have options to extend contracts on some of the younger players that have come through the academy, does anyone know?

We don't tend to publicise contract details. But we have every other year, so it's a safe bet.

I also hardly think we're going to have to sell the few players we have on contract come the summer to keep going.

[Hound]

So 142 days to go until 1st of July when all our contracted players bar 5 walk out the door, then presumably we need to provide proof we have the funds to start next season.
This will probably involve getting enough STs sold and cashing in on the few players we have left in contract.

When does a lost cause become a hopeless cause?

I’d imagine a lot of those ooc players won’t necessarily get offered better deals elsewhere. Or the likelihood of playing time

The Smith transfer genuinely seemed to be a bit of a bonus rather than something we were seeking so maybe we do have a little bit more cash knocking about

And we can offer new contracts so I don’t think it’ll be a hopeless cause, yet at least

[Crusader Royal]

So 142 days to go until 1st of July when all our contracted players bar 5 walk out the door, then presumably we need to provide proof we have the funds to start next season.
This will probably involve getting enough STs sold and cashing in on the few players we have left in contract.

When does a lost cause become a hopeless cause?

I’d imagine a lot of those ooc players won’t necessarily get offered better deals elsewhere. Or the likelihood of playing time

The Smith transfer genuinely seemed to be a bit of a bonus rather than something we were seeking so maybe we do have a little bit more cash knocking about

And we can offer new contracts so I don’t think it’ll be a hopeless cause, yet at least

Signing players just won’t be a problem. What quality we could get is a different question but if we announced open trials on July 2nd we’d have huge numbers turn up.
Do the EFL require any kind of tangible proof of funding for an existing member ? Would be interesting to know what the actual league rules are. Obviously given our history they will be all over us but I suspect there are a few clubs who would struggle to actually give cast iron proof of funding for 12 months. We’ve probably more than used up any goodwill with the authorities by now.

[Snowflake Royal]

So 142 days to go until 1st of July when all our contracted players bar 5 walk out the door, then presumably we need to provide proof we have the funds to start next season.
This will probably involve getting enough STs sold and cashing in on the few players we have left in contract.

When does a lost cause become a hopeless cause?

I’d imagine a lot of those ooc players won’t necessarily get offered better deals elsewhere. Or the likelihood of playing time

The Smith transfer genuinely seemed to be a bit of a bonus rather than something we were seeking so maybe we do have a little bit more cash knocking about

And we can offer new contracts so I don’t think it’ll be a hopeless cause, yet at least

Signing players just won’t be a problem. What quality we could get is a different question but if we announced open trials on July 2nd we’d have huge numbers turn up.
Do the EFL require any kind of tangible proof of funding for an existing member ? Would be interesting to know what the actual league rules are. Obviously given our history they will be all over us but I suspect there are a few clubs who would struggle to actually give cast iron proof of funding for 12 months. We’ve probably more than used up any goodwill with the authorities by now.

I think we can safely say that because we haven't been kicked out yet, they either don't have such a rule or don't enforce it, or can't enforce it until we publish our accounts.

[Sutekh]

I’d imagine a lot of those ooc players won’t necessarily get offered better deals elsewhere. Or the likelihood of playing time

The Smith transfer genuinely seemed to be a bit of a bonus rather than something we were seeking so maybe we do have a little bit more cash knocking about

And we can offer new contracts so I don’t think it’ll be a hopeless cause, yet at least

Embargoed clubs can offer new contracts to existing players, but each offer would be dependent upon the circumstances of the Club at the time and require sign off from the FL.

[Lower West]

Perhaps structurally they could integrate more of the off-field stuff into the match broadcast rather than cover it in the preamble before KO

Maybe they could get an interview with someone involved in football takeovers or a football finance expert who can asses the Reading situation and give some plausible suggestions as to why the club isn't selling etc (to be fair, I think we all know who the problem is, but always good to hear form someone better educated on the matters)

All to do do with off field business matters unrelated to the club. Dai must have a woven a complex web to achieve the fraud he committed in China and will require forensic accountants to determine where the money went. Took a year just for Grant Thornton to conduct the initial investigation.

[stealthpapes]

I’d imagine a lot of those ooc players won’t necessarily get offered better deals elsewhere. Or the likelihood of playing time

The Smith transfer genuinely seemed to be a bit of a bonus rather than something we were seeking so maybe we do have a little bit more cash knocking about

And we can offer new contracts so I don’t think it’ll be a hopeless cause, yet at least

Signing players just won’t be a problem. What quality we could get is a different question but if we announced open trials on July 2nd we’d have huge numbers turn up.
Do the EFL require any kind of tangible proof of funding for an existing member ? Would be interesting to know what the actual league rules are. Obviously given our history they will be all over us but I suspect there are a few clubs who would struggle to actually give cast iron proof of funding for 12 months. We’ve probably more than used up any goodwill with the authorities by now.

I think we can safely say that because we haven't been kicked out yet, they either don't have such a rule or don't enforce it, or can't enforce it until we publish our accounts.

what was the precedent for Bury? CVA and then failed to prove they were a going concern?

[Lower West]

Signing players just won’t be a problem. What quality we could get is a different question but if we announced open trials on July 2nd we’d have huge numbers turn up.
Do the EFL require any kind of tangible proof of funding for an existing member ? Would be interesting to know what the actual league rules are. Obviously given our history they will be all over us but I suspect there are a few clubs who would struggle to actually give cast iron proof of funding for 12 months. We’ve probably more than used up any goodwill with the authorities by now.

I think we can safely say that because we haven't been kicked out yet, they either don't have such a rule or don't enforce it, or can't enforce it until we publish our accounts.

what was the precedent for Bury? CVA and then failed to prove they were a going concern?

The fact that the annual accounts haven't been signed off is a clear indication of how fragile the situation is. Once the season ends. Then the only income stream will be season ticket sales. The lack of renewal of player contracts would be a telling sign.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Bolton and Bury were both given a deadline to prove they could survive the season or get expelled. Bolton got there, Bury didn't.

The reaction across football was scathing and the episode along with the Super League is one of the reasons we have a regulator incoming. There was no need to take such a hard line; the problem of how to handle Bury running out of money should have been tackled when it happened, not preemptively without giving them a chance. Parry became Chairman shortly afterwards and Birch in 2021, so neither were involved.

I'd be very surprised if they do it again.

[Sutekh]

Signing players just won’t be a problem. What quality we could get is a different question but if we announced open trials on July 2nd we’d have huge numbers turn up.
Do the EFL require any kind of tangible proof of funding for an existing member ? Would be interesting to know what the actual league rules are. Obviously given our history they will be all over us but I suspect there are a few clubs who would struggle to actually give cast iron proof of funding for 12 months. We’ve probably more than used up any goodwill with the authorities by now.

I think we can safely say that because we haven't been kicked out yet, they either don't have such a rule or don't enforce it, or can't enforce it until we publish our accounts.

what was the precedent for Bury? CVA and then failed to prove they were a going concern?

The league suspended Bury after the club failed to provide proof it could satisfy the agreed CVA and gave them a deadline to provide proof or be ejected. Their chairman, Steve Dale, then rejected what looked to be a last minute deal to sell, and therefore save the club, as “he believed he could still get a better deal” The FL, who were obviously anxious to get the mess sorted for the integrity of the league, were then persuaded to give a further deadline extension by various pleading from local politicians. Another deal to sell was then finally agreed so the league gave a final deadline extension of 4 days but at the 11th hour the buyers pulled out saying they “couldn’t proceed” with the deal. And that was that, the FL threw Bury out.

All sounds rather worryingly like where we’re heading…

[Sutekh]

Bolton and Bury were both given a deadline to prove they could survive the season or get expelled. Bolton got there, Bury didn't.

The reaction across football was scathing and the episode along with the Super League is one of the reasons we have a regulator incoming. There was no need to take such a hard line; the problem of how to handle Bury running out of money should have been tackled when it happened, not preemptively without giving them a chance. Parry became Chairman shortly afterwards and Birch in 2021, so neither were involved.

I'd be very surprised if they do it again.

Actually not sure about the introduction of a regulator as the league should be resourcing themselves to handle these things (it is their competition and their rules after all). You can guarantee a supposed “independent” regulator will end up as a political appointment with all the “shenanigans” that’ll bring.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

I think we can safely say that because we haven't been kicked out yet, they either don't have such a rule or don't enforce it, or can't enforce it until we publish our accounts.

what was the precedent for Bury? CVA and then failed to prove they were a going concern?

The league suspended Bury after the club failed to provide proof it could satisfy the agreed CVA and gave them a deadline to provide proof or be ejected. Their chairman, Steve Dale, then rejected what looked to be a last minute deal to sell, and therefore save the club, as “he believed he could still get a better deal” The FL, who were obviously anxious to get the mess sorted for the integrity of the league, were then persuaded to give a further deadline extension by various pleading from local politicians. Another deal to sell was then finally agreed so the league gave a final deadline extension of 4 days but at the 11th hour the buyers pulled out saying they “couldn’t proceed” with the deal. And that was that, the FL threw Bury out.

All sounds rather worryingly like where we’re heading…

Aren't the Neville family from Bury? Never heard of them saying anything about Bury.

[Sutekh]

what was the precedent for Bury? CVA and then failed to prove they were a going concern?

The league suspended Bury after the club failed to provide proof it could satisfy the agreed CVA and gave them a deadline to provide proof or be ejected. Their chairman, Steve Dale, then rejected what looked to be a last minute deal to sell, and therefore save the club, as “he believed he could still get a better deal” The FL, who were obviously anxious to get the mess sorted for the integrity of the league, were then persuaded to give a further deadline extension by various pleading from local politicians. Another deal to sell was then finally agreed so the league gave a final deadline extension of 4 days but at the 11th hour the buyers pulled out saying they “couldn’t proceed” with the deal. And that was that, the FL threw Bury out.

All sounds rather worryingly like where we’re heading…

Aren't the Neville family from Bury? Never heard of them saying anything about Bury.

Yes. Neville Neville was even a director of Bury before he died in 2015 and his wife was general manager there at some point so there was considerable family connection to the club. Neville Snr was involved in saving Bury during previous Bury flirtations with admin, so much so that a stand was named after him following his death.

Given this, it’s a real shame that Gary and Phil didn’t break away from the largely unappreciated “Salford invention” and step in to help rescue Bury in some way.

[Mr Angry]

The survival of a football club with a long and proud tradition shouldn't be down to the whim of an ex player from the local area; IMO if an owner is not prepared to sell a football club when he/she has run it into the ground, then the Community - ie; the local Council - should be allowed to take it over as it is a Community asset, with zero liabilities, with any outstanding debts remaining with the previous owner (who, after all, had chances to sell the football club).

[WestYorksRoyal]

The survival of a football club with a long and proud tradition shouldn't be down to the whim of an ex player from the local area; IMO if an owner is not prepared to sell a football club when he/she has run it into the ground, then the Community - ie; the local Council - should be allowed to take it over as it is a Community asset, with zero liabilities, with any outstanding debts remaining with the previous owner (who, after all, had chances to sell the football club).

We're a loss making entity. How will the council fund those losses?

Btw, I'm not against severe action against poor owners but it needs to be thought through. Who will also foot the lawyers' bills when Dai litigates to death?

[Forbury Lion]

The survival of a football club with a long and proud tradition shouldn't be down to the whim of an ex player from the local area; IMO if an owner is not prepared to sell a football club when he/she has run it into the ground, then the Community - ie; the local Council - should be allowed to take it over as it is a Community asset, with zero liabilities, with any outstanding debts remaining with the previous owner (who, after all, had chances to sell the football club).

I understand Reading Council took ownership of Kings Point (The eyesore towerblock near the Back of Beyond pub which had a Kwik Fit on the bottom floor), they did so after the overseas property developer owners became untraceable.
Not sure of this kind of power could be used to seize the stadium if the owner is untraceable and fails to respond/pay the rates.

[Hound]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -regulator

Nothing new but still, bit of interest ina national