#SellBeforeWeDai (to someone fit and proper)“ supporters action group

[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?

[Royal Rother]

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.

[Mr Angry]

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.

I would imagine that ultimately some sort of fan ownership (probably a partial ownership) model would be the goal, but right now thats not a realistic proposition (and may never be); if the choice is a leap into the unknown that might end in tears in a few Years, or maintaining the current ownership I am all for that leap into the unknown!

[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.

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' Tash]

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.

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?

[WestYorksRoyal]

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?

It's about picking battles I guess. Football in this country relies on benefactors. If we truly want to be sustainable, L1 is our level as the Championship is filled with clubs backed by owners willing to invest.

Or we can accept that 90% of clubs rely upon investment and hope for good investors. Targeted investment which maximises your chance of success is not remotely the same as Dai's obscene roulette wheel approach. Let's hope these guys know what they're doing and can deliver.

[Sutekh]

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?

Yes, that's how football works in most of the top leagues and will continue as such until the likes of FIFA start demanding clubs are run to a more equitable model. If all clubs were forced tomorrow to work with only the money they could each generate through sponsorship, ticket sales, merchandising, player investment, tv rights etc. things would get very interesting for those that could survive at all (but at least player salaries would crash through the floor).

You just have to hope your club is good at it. SJM's ethic was pretty flawless in the scheme of things, but still couldn't make a profit but that's probably the model you have to hope the club can now go on to emulate in some way or other. Just hope whoever comes in understands the important community relationships that all clubs hold and gets to enjoy the experience of what RS can serve up on the pitch each week.

[Stranded]

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?

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.

[MartinRdg]

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' Tash]

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

[WestYorksRoyal]

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

A fair challenge. The EFL tests are a point in time but can't stop things going sour in the future, in the same way passing a driving test doesn't mean you won't drink drive.

What SBWD have been pushing for is a licensing systems and powers for the EFL/regulator to get involved and force a sale if things go wrong, which they don't currently have. Our situation has been a wake up call; Rick Parry admitted that administration is normally a mechanism to get owners out, but in our case we've had an AWOL owner who is not paying the bills, not selling and not putting us in administration. What are the EFL to do in that circumstance?

[Esteban]

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

I guess it's about making sure that owners have someone to answer to and to give fans the confidence that there is a body who can act decisively on their behalf when owners threaten the existence of the club. As in the case of the 2 other clubs that Dai Yongge liquidated, there was nobody with any real power fighting their corner for them.

The current tests used to vet owners aren't fit for purpose, but as you rightly say, those tests can't possibly be foolproof either.

[Snowflake Royal]

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

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' Tash]

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.

yea, but doesn't that apply to Chelsea FC since Todd Boehly took over?

[WestYorksRoyal]

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?

It's back to the fact that they have minimal powers currently. They warned us after a couple of years, and we proceeded to sign Joao and Puscas for a lot of money. Then they went with harder powers of embargoes and points deductions. And that's all they could do. They have no more power. That's why we need a regulator, and the EFL support that. In hindsight, they could have blocked our spending in 2019, but you could argue you need to give owners a chance to learn to make better decisions. And they also have to worry about legal action when treading the line. Clubs owned by billionaires can go to town on legal costs, while the EFL are relatively skint and so need to be doubly sure of any punishment. At least that sphere is a fairer fight in the PL.

And yes, Chelsea could well go the same way as Everton and you worry about what it means when his investors get impatient. There is always a pipeline of the next crisis club.

[Mr Angry]

Article in the i about the van at Wembley;

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/foot ... st_popular

[maffff]

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.

[East Grinstead Royal]

Indeed, maffff. That’s why FFP was introduced, because the big clubs were scared shitless that they would be overtaken by smaller clubs with bigger spending power. To some extent it’s started to happen anyway in England, with Chelsea and Man C both having won the Champions League. Politics have brought Chelsea back to their natural level, but FFP and P&S will probably bring both clubs to their knees before long. Whether that will send the message to prospective owners that they won’t be able to buy success remains to be seen, but certain clubs’ owners will be hoping so.

Sorry, a bit off topic there!

[Sutekh]

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.

Well that's exactly right but of course the elite clubs won't have that as it'd mean they might not be guaranteed of a CL place every season. It's down to the likes of FIFA and the domestic FAs and leagues to stand up and put the big clubs in their place but that'll never happen.