CONFIMRED - The 2nd final countdown

[WestYorksRoyal]

The Times are reporting the Premier League advised the EFL to not sanction Dai's takeover in 2017 and they were told he'd have to sell if Reading were promoted to the Premier League.

So Liam Moore's penalty was more pivotal than we ever could have speculated.

[Dirk Gently]

The Times are reporting the Premier League advised the EFL to not sanction Dai's takeover in 2017 and they were told he'd have to sell if Reading were promoted to the Premier League.

Is this news? The big problem is that the PL has the money and the financial clout to fight a legal case from someone they refuse to sanction. They also have alternative information sources to the EFL that they can't share with them.

But the EFL is on such a shaky financial footing that if a potential owner who they turned down took legal action against them then they couldn't afford to fight it (and if they did, a defence of "The PL told us not to" won't hold water) and that would probably bankrupt them and see the end of the Football League and many of its clubs. So they're not able to take that risk of turning anyone down unless they have clear and defensible reasons why not that they can use in court. .

[Crusader Royal]

The Times are reporting the Premier League advised the EFL to not sanction Dai's takeover in 2017 and they were told he'd have to sell if Reading were promoted to the Premier League.

Is this news? The big problem is that the PL has the money and the financial clout to fight a legal case from someone they refuse to sanction. They also have alternative information sources to the EFL that they can't share with them.

But the EFL is on such a shaky financial footing that if a potential owner who they turned down took legal action against them then they couldn't afford to fight it (and if they did, a defence of "The PL told us not to" won't hold water) and that would probably bankrupt them and see the end of the Football League and many of its clubs. So they're not able to take that risk of turning anyone down unless they have clear and defensible reasons why not that they can use in court. .

Aren’t the rules different too ? So failing one doesn’t mean you will fail the other. If the rules are not identical they should be.

[Dirk Gently]

The Times are reporting the Premier League advised the EFL to not sanction Dai's takeover in 2017 and they were told he'd have to sell if Reading were promoted to the Premier League.

Is this news? The big problem is that the PL has the money and the financial clout to fight a legal case from someone they refuse to sanction. They also have alternative information sources to the EFL that they can't share with them.

But the EFL is on such a shaky financial footing that if a potential owner who they turned down took legal action against them then they couldn't afford to fight it (and if they did, a defence of "The PL told us not to" won't hold water) and that would probably bankrupt them and see the end of the Football League and many of its clubs. So they're not able to take that risk of turning anyone down unless they have clear and defensible reasons why not that they can use in court. .

Aren’t the rules different too ? So failing one doesn’t mean you will fail the other. If the rules are not identical they should be.

Yep, that as well. The key thing is that the PL have the power and the money to use slightly dubious methods to obtain overseas financial records (e.g. via private investigators in tax havens etc). The EFL simply don't, and anything that the PL finds out via slightly questionable means certainly isn't sharable with the EFL.

[Orion1871]

As the article suggests it seems the EFL weren't being entirely honest in their recent statement.

Following recent comments in respect of the circumstances around the approval of Mr Dai's acquisition of the Club in 2017, the League would like to reiterate that Mr Dai was not subject to a sports governing body disqualification, including the Premier League, at the time of the acquisition.

The reason Mr Dai did not procced with a purchase at Hull City was related to the involvement of a separate individual. This individual was not involved in the subsequent purchase of Reading, and in the absence of any disqualifying condition, alongside ample evidence of source and sufficiency of funding, the EFL was obligated to confirm that Mr Dai met the requirements of the Regulations.

https://www.efl.com/news/2025/april/03/efl-statement--reading-fc/

[WestYorksRoyal]

This looks like a politically motivated leak by the PL to distance themselves from the shitshow. Though why they would think this bolster their arguments against the regulator is beyond me.

[morganb]

To me the story looks like a journalist who knows that Reading and Dai will soon no longer be newsworthy so he's put something spectacular out to get clicks

(I've not read the story but if the Premier League told Dai he'd not be able to own a PL club due to his dodgy dealings then unless the plan was to buy us, we go up within a game or two of him owning us then he sells at a profit then he'd not get the prestige he was craving)

[Stranded]

This looks like a politically motivated leak by the PL to distance themselves from the shitshow. Though why they would think this bolster their arguments against the regulator is beyond me.

As with any statement, there will be a grain of truth but the PL will know that the EFL will also have had no choice but to pass Dai based on the rules at the time.

When info like this make the public domain you have to ask why today and not at any point over the past 2 years or so - Dai seemingly being close to gone is one reason but you only have to look at votes in Parliament this week to see why this has been leaked now. Transparent as hell and makes you wonder how much of it is actually accurate.

[Sutekh]

The Times are reporting the Premier League advised the EFL to not sanction Dai's takeover in 2017 and they were told he'd have to sell if Reading were promoted to the Premier League.

How would the PL know anything about the deal, its out of their jurisdiction, they wouldn’t be involved.

And the FL are on record publically that Dai isn’t the reason his bid failed for Hull, they'd be abslolute lunatics to do that if there's an actual audit trail of what the Times are reporting anywhere.

I can see there being the potential that the PL and FL talked and the PL said if the takeover is on the same basis as the one refused for Hull, they should reject it and he would have to sell if we got promoted. But that's not quite the same thing, and the offer was different.

It’s a confusing mess, Sky reported at the time that it was Dai who was the reason the PL blocked the take over and Dai would have had to sell if the club was promoted. And the PL’s worries have been proven.

Still, all water under the bridge now, whether right or wrong what’s done is done. It just highlights the stupidity of having different rules on ownership between the FL and PL, at least the gentleman concerned should be gone today, tomorrow or Friday.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Something was obviously awry at the time, as there were rumours of the PL blocking our promotion if we won, and then the EFL required additional financial monitoring when they approved which you only do if you know something is off.

My guess is it came down to risk and resources. The PL can afford to pay lots of legal fees which we're seeing with the Man City case, the EFL can't. They needed a bulletproof reason to block an owner and clearly felt they didn't have enough. I think Samuelson was on record in that documentary about dodgy football antics that you can force a lot through by upping the ante.

Whether a football regulator would fix this is up for debate. Presumably they would need to make the football industry pay for any litigation and not the taxpayers. I still think a levy (e.g., 0.5%) on transfer fees spent by PL & EFL clubs would raise a lot of funds given spending often tops £1bn p.a., these days.

[Snowflake Royal]

Either way our problems had nothing to do with Dai's finances until about 5 years into his reign, so if the PL did have concerns, they haven’t been born out. Everything wrong with us is to do with how Dai ran us, and spent beyond our income. Not where his money came from. Even when his money dried up a couple of years ago, if he'd run us well in the first place, it wouldn’t have had anywhere near the impact it has

[Snowflake Royal]

Is it done yet?

[East Grinstead Royal]

Apologies if I missed it, but no-one seems to have commented on the club’s message to fans yesterday. I wonder what prompted it - the EFL, the police, STAR? It did strike me as an indication that the sale won’t have completed before Saturday’s game, but I suppose it could apply equally in the event the sale is completed.

[Stranded]

Apologies if I missed it, but no-one seems to have commented on the club’s message to fans yesterday. I wonder what prompted it - the EFL, the police, STAR? It did strike me as an indication that the sale won’t have completed before Saturday’s game, but I suppose it could apply equally in the event the sale is completed.

Fairly standard message that goes out at a club hosting a game where there is something riding on it on the last day.

A couple of extra bits thrown in for good measure I would say but generally the tone is as many other messages in the past - don't be a tw*t and ruin the day.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Apologies if I missed it, but no-one seems to have commented on the club’s message to fans yesterday. I wonder what prompted it - the EFL, the police, STAR? It did strike me as an indication that the sale won’t have completed before Saturday’s game, but I suppose it could apply equally in the event the sale is completed.

They're probably thinking we have a track record of pitch invasions for finishing 7th so better warn it off again.

I'd say nothing to read into. TVP and STAR won't know anything about the takeover anyway.

[Sutekh]

Apologies if I missed it, but no-one seems to have commented on the club’s message to fans yesterday. I wonder what prompted it - the EFL, the police, STAR? It did strike me as an indication that the sale won’t have completed before Saturday’s game, but I suppose it could apply equally in the event the sale is completed.

Nowt to do with sale one way or t’other, it’s just a typical end of season warning as they know people will rush the pitch at FT instead of waiting patiently for the players to return to do the end of season lap of honour.

[Snowflake Royal]

Didn’t see it, but I would say there's been a lot of talk when things looked worse of it being our last chance to make any sort of statement and go out with a bang if the deal isn’t done, because that would look like the end of us.

I'm hoping the deal is done by 3pm Saturday, or if it isn’t the club, FL and Couhig are smart enough to release a statement updating on how close it is to head off anything regretable.

Obviously if the deal falls through, then a pitch invasion and massive disruption is entirely fair enough.

[Fezza]

Are we still under a suspended points deduction for pitch invasions? I'm assuming that the club's message is more about protecting any chance of the play offs from an EFL that is at the end of its tether with us!

[Armadillo Roadkill]

There's usually a warning about pitch invasions before a game when there's a possibility of promotion /play-offs, cup final etc. Shouldn't read too much into the statement and how it might pertain to the change of ownership.

Would be nice to see it applied evenly - the celebrations in Wrexham this week certainly featured a comprehensive pitch invasion.

[Brogue]

Are we still under a suspended points deduction for pitch invasions? I'm assuming that the club's message is more about protecting any chance of the play offs from an EFL that is at the end of its tether with us!

Can’t remember the wording, but in essence it says any match that is abandoned or postponed because of a pitch invasion would trigger the the deduction. As a pitch invasion would happen after the match has finished, it wouldn’t trigger the points deduction, no.

Edit: found it

The Club is now subject to a suspended three-point deduction with the sanction to be activated in either the 2023/2024 season or the 2024/2025 season if any fixture played in any EFL competition is postponed or abandoned due to disruption (including incursion onto the field of play) by the Club’s supporters. If it is required, the suspended three-point deduction will become active with immediate effect in the season during which the breach occurs.

https://www.efl.com/news/2024/january/2 ... eading-fc/