by JIM » 27 Jan 2017 09:13
by pwb » 27 Jan 2017 09:32
Royalwasterpwbmaffff Interestingly the charge is against RFC Propco, not the club itself.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09315720
24.66% of Royal Elm Park I assume.
Not sure where you have found the "Charge document" within that link as there is NO charge against that company. The charge is agaist Reading football Holding Limited see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... UOZ9h2jmKw
As for the take over collapsing, i think it all done and dusted, they just don't what to announce until after the transfer window has closed. as if everyone new RFC had new owners, then they would be asking for more money for potential signings.
Sorry that's just wishful thinking and not true ... not saying it's definitely off but definitely not done and dusted.
by LoyalRoyal22 » 27 Jan 2017 10:16
pwbmaffff Interestingly the charge is against RFC Propco, not the club itself.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09315720
24.66% of Royal Elm Park I assume.
Not sure where you have found the "Charge document" within that link as there is NO charge against that company. The charge is agaist Reading football Holding Limited see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... UOZ9h2jmKw
As for the take over collapsing, i think it all done and dusted, they just don't what to announce until after the transfer window has closed. as if everyone Knew RFC had new owners, then they would be asking for more money for potential signings.
by Royalwaster » 27 Jan 2017 10:20
by maffff » 27 Jan 2017 13:27
pwbmaffff Interestingly the charge is against RFC Propco, not the club itself.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09315720
24.66% of Royal Elm Park I assume.
Not sure where you have found the "Charge document" within that link as there is NO charge against that company. The charge is agaist Reading football Holding Limited see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... UOZ9h2jmKw
As for the take over collapsing, i think it all done and dusted, they just don't what to announce until after the transfer window has closed. as if everyone Knew RFC had new owners, then they would be asking for more money for potential signings.
SCHEDULE 1 - THE SECURITIES
1,499,817 ordinary shares comprising approximately 10% of the issued share capital of RFC Propco Limited (company number 09315720)
by Sutekh » 27 Jan 2017 13:38
NamelessSutekh The only news on this is that both parties are still discussing and presumably both hoping that an agreeable solution can be brokered.
Interesting phrasing (although it can be dangerous to read too much into exact semantics I think !)
When you say 'both parties' I assume you mean the Thai's and the Chinese.
The hold ups seem to be the FL and PL raising issues though.
So are you suggesting those issues have been resolved and it isn't just the terms of the deal to be concluded ?
Or are they trying to find ways jointly to overcome whatever the PL concerns are ?
Or am I reading too much into a casual comment ?
by pwb » 27 Jan 2017 13:57
maffffpwbmaffff Interestingly the charge is against RFC Propco, not the club itself.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09315720
24.66% of Royal Elm Park I assume.
Not sure where you have found the "Charge document" within that link as there is NO charge against that company. The charge is agaist Reading football Holding Limited see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... UOZ9h2jmKw
As for the take over collapsing, i think it all done and dusted, they just don't what to announce until after the transfer window has closed. as if everyone Knew RFC had new owners, then they would be asking for more money for potential signings.
What the securities are against P16.SCHEDULE 1 - THE SECURITIES
1,499,817 ordinary shares comprising approximately 10% of the issued share capital of RFC Propco Limited (company number 09315720)
Money is into the club, collateral isn't against the club.
by maffff » 27 Jan 2017 18:47
pwbmaffffpwb
Not sure where you have found the "Charge document" within that link as there is NO charge against that company. The charge is agaist Reading football Holding Limited see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... UOZ9h2jmKw
As for the take over collapsing, i think it all done and dusted, they just don't what to announce until after the transfer window has closed. as if everyone Knew RFC had new owners, then they would be asking for more money for potential signings.
What the securities are against P16.SCHEDULE 1 - THE SECURITIES
1,499,817 ordinary shares comprising approximately 10% of the issued share capital of RFC Propco Limited (company number 09315720)
Money is into the club, collateral isn't against the club.
Sorry, the charge is on Reading Football Holdings Limited and they are responsible for paying the debt back! The security is against RFC Propco, who are responsible for paying the debt back If Reading Football Holdings goes under!!! this is the same as if you want to by a car, but you have a poor credit rating, so you would need someone to stand as a guarantor. Also the same when you by a house, the house is used as the security.
so the CHARGE is on Reading Football Holdings Limited!
by Oilroyal » 27 Jan 2017 19:46
by Lower West » 27 Jan 2017 20:30
Oilroyal 4) 10 £ million quid in our bank against security offered by the present owners which is odd considering it's well know the present owners do not want to put more money into the club.
by Oilroyal » 27 Jan 2017 21:07
Lower WestOilroyal 4) 10 £ million quid in our bank against security offered by the present owners which is odd considering it's well know the present owners do not want to put more money into the club.
With promotion a possibility would you throw away the opportunity? A gamble worth taking surely. At the very least they'll be further interest in Reading from other sources.
by Ian Royal » 27 Jan 2017 23:08
Oilroyal Reasons to believe the deal is done with FL and PL approval.
1) FL won't comment saying it's down to the club to make a statement (exactly the same as when the present owners took over)
2) The club refuse to comment on the status of the new ownership. We can only assume an announcement will be made after the window closes to prevent inflation of target players, plus manage fan/media expectations during the January window.
3) We keep hearing it's not a done deal, but keep being told that the deal has not fallen through
4) 10 £ million quid in our bank against security offered by the present owners which is odd considering it's well know the present owners do not want to put more money into the club.
5) 10 £ million which has already helped to sign current players improved terms/contracts, Kelly, McCleary and others as well as fund a new club record signing.
6) Dominic Samual on the verge of a loan move would also support the arrival of a new striker. Any championship striker that would help a promotion push with cost upward of 3 million.
Hats off to everyone at the club if this deal is a done deal to be announce early Feb.
If the deal is dead with the Chinese with no other interested party, then we're screwed, F*cked and bust!
My money's on we'll be fine with the new owners... Whenever they decide to step forward.
by PieEater » 29 Jan 2017 13:09
by Nameless » 29 Jan 2017 14:14
PieEater We need the loan just to get to the end of the season and cover the current costs, that should pretty well cover the operating loss.
I'm surprised they've not gone early for the ST money.
by largetrousers » 30 Jan 2017 09:46
by Royalwaster » 30 Jan 2017 10:15
largetrousers The massive amount of debt the club are now in does worry me, frustrating considering we were pretty much solvent under JM and Anton just completely did us over taking advances from the parachute payments which the PL agreed to pay early from what I understand plus loans secured against them, rumoured to go into dodgy Russian places and that ice hockey team which have now also been done over. Anton was also stupid flashing the cash and giving people like Roberts extended deals when he was injured, and then daddy refused to bankroll his fantasy. Hope he gets his comeuppance!
Whilst the Thais have come in and have just about kept the lights on, the growing debt will still exist when they sell the majority of their stake. I thought originally that was one of the saving graces of them coming in to effectively wipe some of this debt? Yet they'll keep the land around the ground worth an estimated 60M, broken away into separate companies.
They've no where near put that into the club since taking ownership, so just from their drip feeding and not even honouring bills that are outstanding month in month out they get to keep the land whilst selling off the majority share and prob making the money back they've spent thus far. Does it leave the football club in a better place? We'll still have the debt, and we'll be minus the land around the ground which will be privately owned and probably won't have any revenue stream into the club if the Thais aren't the majority shareholders.
As long as they don't do a Blackpool on us, offering season tickets on a 2 year deal, only to then asset strip the over achieving team selling players at inflated prices and only fielding youth/reserves, pocketing the advanced ST money and then in year 2 when the gates claim x number are going through the turnstiles, realistically half the ST haven't bothered turning up at their despise of what has happened to their team through the greed of their owner.
by Hound » 30 Jan 2017 10:34
by largetrousers » 30 Jan 2017 10:54
Think that's the effects of my missus running on at me over the years without pausing to take breath in her sentences!Royalwaster Phew ... mate, you need to break up your sentences a bit with commas and full-stops .... is exhausting reading otherwise.
by muirinho » 30 Jan 2017 10:57
largetrousers Yet they'll keep the land around the ground worth an estimated 60M, broken away into separate companies.
They've no where near put that into the club since taking ownership, so just from their drip feeding and not even honouring bills that are outstanding month in month out they get to keep the land whilst selling off the majority share and prob making the money back they've spent thus far. Does it leave the football club in a better place? We'll still have the debt, and we'll be minus the land around the ground which will be privately owned and probably won't have any revenue stream into the club if the Thais aren't the majority shareholders.
by USA_Loyal_Royal » 31 Jan 2017 21:58
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 561 guests