CONFIMRED

[WestYorksRoyal]

Somebody ITK surely has to let us know, do we have 13 or 41 days left on life support?

Appears to be 41 days as Dai not selling by 4th April triggers a 30 day "warning" to 4th May - after that RFC will be disqualified from any football related activities with Dai at the helm.

I am not at all in the know, and don't know how automatic the consequences of this test failure are, but if the FL have any leeway then it is patently obvious to set the deadline to after the table is finalised but plenty of time before next season's fixtures, so as far as possible the final outcome doesn't mess with the league table or the organisation for next season

I don't know the letter of the law, but politically the only way they can expel us is with objective evidence that we're unable to fulfil our fixtures. They'll have to explain the decision in front of a parliamentary select committee, and saying that our owner is a dickhead will not wash.

[Sutekh]

Appears to be 41 days as Dai not selling by 4th April triggers a 30 day "warning" to 4th May - after that RFC will be disqualified from any football related activities with Dai at the helm.

I am not at all in the know, and don't know how automatic the consequences of this test failure are, but if the FL have any leeway then it is patently obvious to set the deadline to after the table is finalised but plenty of time before next season's fixtures, so as far as possible the final outcome doesn't mess with the league table or the organisation for next season

I don't know the letter of the law, but politically the only way they can expel us is with objective evidence that we're unable to fulfil our fixtures. They'll have to explain the decision in front of a parliamentary select committee, and saying that our owner is a dickhead will not wash.

No they won’t.

[Scutterbucketz]

Some comments on hear on the lost profits claim and being outrageous as well as the £12/£6m escrow.

If we assume Couhig believes he has valid evidence of a breach of exclusivity, then I would hope we would all agree that a loss of profits claim his reasonable, as a breach of contract by the seller prevented him from owning the club and he wouldn’t be buying it if he didn’t think he could make a profit from it.

It therefore comes down to a forecasting exercise on future profits. £12m does sound very optimistic, but I’m sure they’ll have projections to support that and it will come down to a debate on what reasonable projections are (if the court finds there was a breach).

On the £6m escrow point - that wasn’t the club saying they agree to £6m of loss profits, more a negotiation tactic to reduce the potential downside for Dai and get more of the sale proceeds to him straight away.

I would argue that any claim that you can guarantee a profit from buying a L1 club is laughable.

Nobody has mentioned guaranteeing a profit anywhere.

But it’s basic operation of markets that the vast majority of businesses get purchased because of an expectation of making a profit.

So if a judge concludes exclusivity is broken he will find in Couhig’s favour and award a compensation amount.

What that is will come down to how good the QC’s and arguments are.

Last year I had a 5 year contract with a Council client at work. We had worked for them seamlessly for them for the previous 5 years, but In that first year of the new contract, due to us being massively let down our installation partner, we messed up the delivery and it was a full week until we were able to put things right. When I met with the client I held my hands up and admitted it all, told them why things happened and offered to cancel the whole contract if they paid a reasonable amount for what had been received. I offered a 30% reduction on that first year cost, which was fair. Their noses had been put out of joint and they wanted 80% off due to, essentially, their hurt feelings. To just put an end to it I offered a 50% discount, which was way beyond the level of failure, and just asked them to focus realistically on what had had been delivered and try to put aside the emotion and warned them that next step would be arbitration, which we were very keen to avoid because of the time and expense it involved. They declined.

So we went to court. Seeing as we had nothing to lose at that stage we decided to go for loss of earnings for the whole 5 years. Didn’t really expect to get it, but would literally only take an extra few minutes in the court case to explain why we might be entitled to it. If the judge disagreed then no harm no foul.

As the judge could see we had tried to find a reasonable solution (asking for just 50% of one year to avoid court) and that they weren’t being remotely pragmatic nor had they given the chance to improve, he gave it to us; all 5 years in full.

Long story short; you’d be amazed the sway that disrupting future profits holds in court. I certainly was.

[stealthpapes]

Somebody ITK surely has to let us know, do we have 13 or 41 days left on life support?

Appears to be 41 days as Dai not selling by 4th April triggers a 30 day "warning" to 4th May - after that RFC will be disqualified from any football related activities with Dai at the helm.

I am not at all in the know, and don't know how automatic the consequences of this test failure are, but if the FL have any leeway then it is patently obvious to set the deadline to after the table is finalised but plenty of time before next season's fixtures, so as far as possible the final outcome doesn't mess with the league table or the organisation for next season

Basically this, and that the timeline ends as the season does, I can't see beyond that all being in place, in that order, deliberately.

I also can't see beyond Dai continuing to do nothing.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

I would argue that any claim that you can guarantee a profit from buying a L1 club is laughable.

Nobody has mentioned guaranteeing a profit anywhere.

But it’s basic operation of markets that the vast majority of businesses get purchased because of an expectation of making a profit.

So if a judge concludes exclusivity is broken he will find in Couhig’s favour and award a compensation amount.

What that is will come down to how good the QC’s and arguments are.

Last year I had a 5 year contract with a Council client at work. We had worked for them seamlessly for them for the previous 5 years, but In that first year of the new contract, due to us being massively let down our installation partner, we messed up the delivery and it was a full week until we were able to put things right. When I met with the client I held my hands up and admitted it all, told them why things happened and offered to cancel the whole contract if they paid a reasonable amount for what had been received. I offered a 30% reduction on that first year cost, which was fair. Their noses had been put out of joint and they wanted 80% off due to, essentially, their hurt feelings. To just put an end to it I offered a 50% discount, which was way beyond the level of failure, and just asked them to focus realistically on what had had been delivered and try to put aside the emotion and warned them that next step would be arbitration, which we were very keen to avoid because of the time and expense it involved. They declined.

So we went to court. Seeing as we had nothing to lose at that stage we decided to go for loss of earnings for the whole 5 years. Didn’t really expect to get it, but would literally only take an extra few minutes in the court case to explain why we might be entitled to it. If the judge disagreed then no harm no foul.

As the judge could see we had tried to find a reasonable solution (asking for just 50% of one year to avoid court) and that they weren’t being remotely pragmatic nor had they given the chance to improve, he gave it to us; all 5 years in full.

Long story short; you’d be amazed the sway that disrupting future profits holds in court. I certainly was.

My council tax thanks you for your service...

[Sutekh]

Appears to be 41 days as Dai not selling by 4th April triggers a 30 day "warning" to 4th May - after that RFC will be disqualified from any football related activities with Dai at the helm.

I am not at all in the know, and don't know how automatic the consequences of this test failure are, but if the FL have any leeway then it is patently obvious to set the deadline to after the table is finalised but plenty of time before next season's fixtures, so as far as possible the final outcome doesn't mess with the league table or the organisation for next season

Basically this, and that the timeline ends as the season does, I can't see beyond that all being in place, in that order, deliberately.

I also can't see beyond Dai continuing to do nothing.

[Elm Park Kid]

Some comments on hear on the lost profits claim and being outrageous as well as the £12/£6m escrow.

If we assume Couhig believes he has valid evidence of a breach of exclusivity, then I would hope we would all agree that a loss of profits claim his reasonable, as a breach of contract by the seller prevented him from owning the club and he wouldn’t be buying it if he didn’t think he could make a profit from it.

It therefore comes down to a forecasting exercise on future profits. £12m does sound very optimistic, but I’m sure they’ll have projections to support that and it will come down to a debate on what reasonable projections are (if the court finds there was a breach).

On the £6m escrow point - that wasn’t the club saying they agree to £6m of loss profits, more a negotiation tactic to reduce the potential downside for Dai and get more of the sale proceeds to him straight away.

I would argue that any claim that you can guarantee a profit from buying a L1 club is laughable.

Nobody has mentioned guaranteeing a profit anywhere.

But it’s basic operation of markets that the vast majority of businesses get purchased because of an expectation of making a profit.

So if a judge concludes exclusivity is broken he will find in Couhig’s favour and award a compensation amount.

What that is will come down to how good the QC’s and arguments are.

Football is not a normal market though - and it would be fairly simple to provide historic evidence that very few L1 clubs (or even Championship) generate a profit for their owners over time.

I agree that if the courts find in Couhig's favour then some compensation will be in order - but the multiple millions based on a claim that he could have made anything in profit is going to get laughed out of court. There's just very little evidence to base a claim that he would expect to make money from buying the club.

[Snowflake Royal]

Appears to be 41 days as Dai not selling by 4th April triggers a 30 day "warning" to 4th May - after that RFC will be disqualified from any football related activities with Dai at the helm.

I am not at all in the know, and don't know how automatic the consequences of this test failure are, but if the FL have any leeway then it is patently obvious to set the deadline to after the table is finalised but plenty of time before next season's fixtures, so as far as possible the final outcome doesn't mess with the league table or the organisation for next season

I don't know the letter of the law, but politically the only way they can expel us is with objective evidence that we're unable to fulfil our fixtures. They'll have to explain the decision in front of a parliamentary select committee, and saying that our owner is a dickhead will not wash.

Nope. They can quite easily expel us for being owned and run by someone who has repeatedly flouted their rules, ignored their rulings and no longer meets their standards of participation after being given two years of patience and plenty of warning to sell.

[Snowflake Royal]

I would argue that any claim that you can guarantee a profit from buying a L1 club is laughable.

Nobody has mentioned guaranteeing a profit anywhere.

But it’s basic operation of markets that the vast majority of businesses get purchased because of an expectation of making a profit.

So if a judge concludes exclusivity is broken he will find in Couhig’s favour and award a compensation amount.

What that is will come down to how good the QC’s and arguments are.

Football is not a normal market though - and it would be fairly simple to provide historic evidence that very few L1 clubs (or even Championship) generate a profit for their owners over time.

I agree that if the courts find in Couhig's favour then some compensation will be in order - but the multiple millions based on a claim that he could have made anything in profit is going to get laughed out of court. There's just very little evidence to base a claim that he would expect to make money from buying the club.

It would also be easy to show that some do make profit. Whether most clubs aren't profitable is immaterial. Couhig would only have to provide reasonable evidence that he could have turned a profit with us.

And realistically it doesn't even have to be how he'd actually have run us. We have quite valuable assets for example.

[WestYorksRoyal]

I am not at all in the know, and don't know how automatic the consequences of this test failure are, but if the FL have any leeway then it is patently obvious to set the deadline to after the table is finalised but plenty of time before next season's fixtures, so as far as possible the final outcome doesn't mess with the league table or the organisation for next season

I don't know the letter of the law, but politically the only way they can expel us is with objective evidence that we're unable to fulfil our fixtures. They'll have to explain the decision in front of a parliamentary select committee, and saying that our owner is a dickhead will not wash.

Nope. They can quite easily expel us for being owned and run by someone who has repeatedly flouted their rules, ignored their rulings and no longer meets their standards of participation after being given two years of patience and plenty of warning to sell.

They really can't. We've paid all our bills on time since autumn 2023, we're not actually behaving that badly as a club. It's one man and his cronies bringing us into disrepute. When Parry was last quizzed on us in parliament, he said a primary concern is securing our future. Do you seriously think they would then punish the entire town for Dai's actions, when their actions will be under the microscope from sports ministers and local MPs?

Bury failed to play their first 4 or 5 games of the season and were kicked out to protect the integrity of the competition. That's the only justification they can use which will stand up to public and political opinion. I can see a crunch point in June before fixtures are released, where we need to provide evidence of adequate funding to survive the season. Fail to provide that and it'll be good night.

[Snowflake Royal]

I don't know the letter of the law, but politically the only way they can expel us is with objective evidence that we're unable to fulfil our fixtures. They'll have to explain the decision in front of a parliamentary select committee, and saying that our owner is a dickhead will not wash.

Nope. They can quite easily expel us for being owned and run by someone who has repeatedly flouted their rules, ignored their rulings and no longer meets their standards of participation after being given two years of patience and plenty of warning to sell.

They really can't. We've paid all our bills on time since autumn 2023, we're not actually behaving that badly as a club. It's one man and his cronies bringing us into disrepute. When Parry was last quizzed on us in parliament, he said a primary concern is securing our future. Do you seriously think they would then punish the entire town for Dai's actions, when their actions will be under the microscope from sports ministers and local MPs?

Bury failed to play their first 4 or 5 games of the season and were kicked out to protect the integrity of the competition. That's the only justification they can use which will stand up to public and political opinion. I can see a crunch point in June before fixtures are released, where we need to provide evidence of adequate funding to survive the season. Fail to provide that and it'll be good night.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

[RoyalBlue]

Nope. They can quite easily expel us for being owned and run by someone who has repeatedly flouted their rules, ignored their rulings and no longer meets their standards of participation after being given two years of patience and plenty of warning to sell.

They really can't. We've paid all our bills on time since autumn 2023, we're not actually behaving that badly as a club. It's one man and his cronies bringing us into disrepute. When Parry was last quizzed on us in parliament, he said a primary concern is securing our future. Do you seriously think they would then punish the entire town for Dai's actions, when their actions will be under the microscope from sports ministers and local MPs?

Bury failed to play their first 4 or 5 games of the season and were kicked out to protect the integrity of the competition. That's the only justification they can use which will stand up to public and political opinion. I can see a crunch point in June before fixtures are released, where we need to provide evidence of adequate funding to survive the season. Fail to provide that and it'll be good night.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

I fear you might be right. It seems to me that the EFL are great at speaking with forked tongues. I can see them coming out with the same old argument: 'The rules are the rules. We can't make exceptions and we are powerless to change them.'

The only thing that might work in our favour is the spectre of an Independent Football Regulator looming over the footballing authorities. Our club going to the wall would significantly strengthen the argument that the footballing authorities are not fit for purpose, are failing clubs, supporters and communities, and that the only real solution is an IFR.

[Orion1871]

Nope. They can quite easily expel us for being owned and run by someone who has repeatedly flouted their rules, ignored their rulings and no longer meets their standards of participation after being given two years of patience and plenty of warning to sell.

They really can't. We've paid all our bills on time since autumn 2023, we're not actually behaving that badly as a club. It's one man and his cronies bringing us into disrepute. When Parry was last quizzed on us in parliament, he said a primary concern is securing our future. Do you seriously think they would then punish the entire town for Dai's actions, when their actions will be under the microscope from sports ministers and local MPs?

Bury failed to play their first 4 or 5 games of the season and were kicked out to protect the integrity of the competition. That's the only justification they can use which will stand up to public and political opinion. I can see a crunch point in June before fixtures are released, where we need to provide evidence of adequate funding to survive the season. Fail to provide that and it'll be good night.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

Yep. As Ian is so rightly saying here the efl, like Dai and Couhig, have zero regard for the health, wellbeing, or future of the fans or employees of Reading FC.

[WestYorksRoyal]

They really can't. We've paid all our bills on time since autumn 2023, we're not actually behaving that badly as a club. It's one man and his cronies bringing us into disrepute. When Parry was last quizzed on us in parliament, he said a primary concern is securing our future. Do you seriously think they would then punish the entire town for Dai's actions, when their actions will be under the microscope from sports ministers and local MPs?

Bury failed to play their first 4 or 5 games of the season and were kicked out to protect the integrity of the competition. That's the only justification they can use which will stand up to public and political opinion. I can see a crunch point in June before fixtures are released, where we need to provide evidence of adequate funding to survive the season. Fail to provide that and it'll be good night.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

Yep. As Ian is so rightly saying here the efl, like Dai and Couhig, have zero regard for the health, wellbeing, or future of the fans or employees of Reading FC.

Put it this way. The scenario I described provides of asking us to prove funding for the 25/26 season provides a clear pathway for the same outcome with far less pelters and proving beyond doubt that Dai is the bad guy and not them. And it would only extend uncertainty by 6 - 8 weeks. Why would executives in the public eye with legislation going through parliament on an independent regulator choose not to do this?

Being Chair or CEO of the EFL is a political role, and politicians care about optics.

[Snowflake Royal]

The FL have pulled every lever they can. Dai has had two years to sell. He's been in exclusivity with 4 or 5 parties. He's had a deal complete and waiting for his signature and binned it. He's ignored fines. They could have used more sporting sanctions rather than fining Dai personally.

It's really simple, you can't play in the league if you're owned by someone banned from the competition. Don't enforce this and you can just throw the O&DT in the bin completely. From the FL perspective, it's reached the point where getting rid of us is less damage than keeping us.

The FL can't make Dai sell. It is all Dai. The FL's responsibility is to the competition as a whole, and it's member clubs as a whole, not ignoring the mess of one rogue owner for one club's fans and staff.

Orien's post is like trying to tell the CPS they can't prosecute someone for a crime because it will affect their family and employees.

[Crusader Royal]

The FL have pulled every lever they can. Dai has had two years to sell. He's been in exclusivity with 4 or 5 parties. He's had a deal complete and waiting for his signature and binned it. He's ignored fines. They could have used more sporting sanctions rather than fining Dai personally.

It's really simple, you can't play in the league if you're owned by someone banned from the competition. Don't enforce this and you can just throw the O&DT in the bin completely. From the FL perspective, it's reached the point where getting rid of us is less damage than keeping us.

The FL can't make Dai sell. It is all Dai. The FL's responsibility is to the competition as a whole, and it's member clubs as a whole, not ignoring the mess of one rogue owner for one club's fans and staff.

Orien's post is like trying to tell the CPS they can't prosecute someone for a crime because it will affect their family and employees.

To be honest that’s a poor analogy.
Certainly family circumstances can be taken into account when sentencing. Wouldn’t be part of a decision to prosecute, but we’re not at that stage anyway,

[Sutekh]

Nope. They can quite easily expel us for being owned and run by someone who has repeatedly flouted their rules, ignored their rulings and no longer meets their standards of participation after being given two years of patience and plenty of warning to sell.

They really can't. We've paid all our bills on time since autumn 2023, we're not actually behaving that badly as a club. It's one man and his cronies bringing us into disrepute. When Parry was last quizzed on us in parliament, he said a primary concern is securing our future. Do you seriously think they would then punish the entire town for Dai's actions, when their actions will be under the microscope from sports ministers and local MPs?

Bury failed to play their first 4 or 5 games of the season and were kicked out to protect the integrity of the competition. That's the only justification they can use which will stand up to public and political opinion. I can see a crunch point in June before fixtures are released, where we need to provide evidence of adequate funding to survive the season. Fail to provide that and it'll be good night.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

It’s the FL’s competition with a set of rules by which clubs must abide in order to compete. Reading’s owner has breached those rules time and again and has now failed the most important test. The FL will have to act in accordance with those rules in order to maintain the integrity of their competition and also it’s because what other clubs would expect. Their decision does not and will not have to be ratified by a public or government enquiry, something which would more than likely be very concerning to UEFA and FIFA if it were.

As a supporter of football I would wholeheartedly support the FL in their action to kick out bad owners and their clubs. The only good thing is that Dai has a bit more time than most because the end of the season is nigh and Reading are lucky that the FL are actually being quite amenable and helpful as they do not really want any member club to go under. There’s many Reading fans that have been calling on the FL to force “matey” into this position a lot sooner, at least now they’ve done it with the season end looming and one way or another we’ll have a club with a “new vision” next season.

We now all await Dai’s final move so this whole sorry mess (that I presume everyone everywhere is now more than quite fed up with) can finally be laid to rest.

[WestYorksRoyal]

The FL have pulled every lever they can. Dai has had two years to sell. He's been in exclusivity with 4 or 5 parties. He's had a deal complete and waiting for his signature and binned it. He's ignored fines. They could have used more sporting sanctions rather than fining Dai personally.

It's really simple, you can't play in the league if you're owned by someone banned from the competition. Don't enforce this and you can just throw the O&DT in the bin completely. From the FL perspective, it's reached the point where getting rid of us is less damage than keeping us.

The FL can't make Dai sell. It is all Dai. The FL's responsibility is to the competition as a whole, and it's member clubs as a whole, not ignoring the mess of one rogue owner for one club's fans and staff.

Orien's post is like trying to tell the CPS they can't prosecute someone for a crime because it will affect their family and employees.

To be honest that’s a poor analogy.
Certainly family circumstances can be taken into account when sentencing. Wouldn’t be part of a decision to prosecute, but we’re not at that stage anyway,

I'd say fans, players and the community are the victims of Dai's ownership and the law normally takes the impact upon victims pretty seriously.

[East Grinstead Royal]

Unless a sale is completed quickly, our out of contract players will be gone and we will be in the same position as Bury were - effectively a club with no players at the start of next season. With the timing of its announcement and apparent deadline, the EFL has ensured the club’s demise, should it happen, will be outside the season, meaning the fury of the supporters will have no focus. Maybe that’s a wise move.

[tmesis]

They really can't. We've paid all our bills on time since autumn 2023, we're not actually behaving that badly as a club. It's one man and his cronies bringing us into disrepute. When Parry was last quizzed on us in parliament, he said a primary concern is securing our future. Do you seriously think they would then punish the entire town for Dai's actions, when their actions will be under the microscope from sports ministers and local MPs?

Bury failed to play their first 4 or 5 games of the season and were kicked out to protect the integrity of the competition. That's the only justification they can use which will stand up to public and political opinion. I can see a crunch point in June before fixtures are released, where we need to provide evidence of adequate funding to survive the season. Fail to provide that and it'll be good night.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself.

It’s the FL’s competition with a set of rules by which clubs must abide in order to compete. Reading’s owner has breached those rules time and again and has now failed the most important test. The FL will have to act in accordance with those rules in order to maintain the integrity of their competition and also it’s because what other clubs would expect. Their decision does not and will not have to be ratified by a public or government enquiry, something which would more than likely be very concerning to UEFA and FIFA if it were.

As a supporter of football I would wholeheartedly support the FL in their action to kick out bad owners and their clubs. The only good thing is that Dai has a bit more time than most because the end of the season is nigh and Reading are lucky that the FL are actually being quite amenable and helpful as they do not really want any member club to go under. There’s many Reading fans that have been calling on the FL to force “matey” into this position a lot sooner, at least now they’ve done it with the season end looming and one way or another we’ll have a club with a “new vision” next season.

We now all await Dai’s final move so this whole sorry mess (that I presume everyone everywhere is now more than quite fed up with) can finally be laid to rest.

I would say that the EFL must have considered the legality of the consequences of disqualifying an owner, or there really isn't any point in them doing it. If a club was sold to an owner who failed the tests to be a qualified owner, they would be in the same boat. The only real challenge is whether the disqualification was unjust, and there's no indication that is being contested.

The awkward thing is what happens after being kicked out, as it's not the same as the club going bust. In theory we could join the National League. We don't have to start at the bottom. That's one 'advantage' of being kicked out before the members of each division for 25/26 has been settled.

What Dai would choose to do is another matter. It could be the trigger to make him give up, or he could choose to keep the club limping along to get his rent money.