by tidus_mi2 » 01 Aug 2014 09:14
01 Aug 2014 09:14Does this mean you didn't read Charles Watt's tweet where he stated it was only called a partnership because the takeover hasn't been confirmed yet?BR2 wrote:Partnership, not ownership.
Does this mean that the Thais are not willing to put up all the dough?
Does this mean that the Football League are happy with ownership because JM is still invloved?
Does this mean that Anton is a partner?
Does this mean (the only thing most of us care about) that Adkins can now go out and buy some players?
Charles Watts @charles_watts 15h
They may have used the word partnership but, believe me, the consortium will be in control once the Football League confirm it #ReadingFC
Its a discussion forum. Wouldnt be a lot of point if everybody shared the same opinion or thought would it so get off your high horse ffsRoyal Rother wrote:We need a like button.Agent Balti wrote:It is kinda hilarious to see the totally unjustified yet hilarious response from those other social media and the usual suspects here. We have absolutely zero evidence that Group X or Consortium Y or Single Individual Z would be good, bad or indifferent for this or any takeover at any club anywhere.
Who knows what's in store? Absolutely nobody does. Yet some will err on the side of the massively negative because they'll massage their ever so awesome internet ego by saying "I told you so..." if it ends up like Anton's 'venture', but revel in it all they if Reading FC return to our best and achieve greater things...as if their crushing negativity never happened, as nobody will remotely care what they thought when the takeover happened.
It's tiresome and frankly, boring to read over and over. Quit acting like you know any better than anyone else, you don't. You have no idea just like the rest of us. Relax and enjoy the ride!!
by multisync1830 » 01 Aug 2014 09:29
01 Aug 2014 09:29If SJM retains 10% then it's easy for it to be called a partnership. However as minority partner with little or no rights the consortium will be in full control...BR2 wrote:Er, no-Charles Watts is not on my radar.
So it is a fiddle to ensure FL approval of fit and proper persons.
Sounds dodgy to me-a bit like buying a house with a mortgage at a low rate of interest and then immediately letting it.
Still, who cares as long as we sign loads of players and don't have to rely on the likes of HRK.
by tidus_mi2 » 01 Aug 2014 09:50
01 Aug 2014 09:50The answers seem to beBR2 wrote:Partnership, not ownership.
Does this mean that the Thais are not willing to put up all the dough?
Does this mean that the Football League are happy with ownership because JM is still invloved?
Does this mean that Anton is a partner?
Does this mean (the only thing most of us care about) that Adkins can now go out and buy some players?
by West Stand Man » 01 Aug 2014 10:07
01 Aug 2014 10:07It is a partnership because that is how they own it - as partners.BR2 wrote:Partnership, not ownership.
Does this mean that the Thais are not willing to put up all the dough?
Partnership merely until the FL confirm the takeover. It's a full takeover as planned. SJM is stepping aside, probably taking his president role as planned.BR2 wrote:Partnership, not ownership.
Does this mean that the Thais are not willing to put up all the dough?
Does this mean that the Football League are happy with ownership because JM is still invloved?
Does this mean that Anton is a partner?
Does this mean (the only thing most of us care about) that Adkins can now go out and buy some players?
by ZacNaloen » 01 Aug 2014 10:36
01 Aug 2014 10:36by The Rouge » 01 Aug 2014 10:53
01 Aug 2014 10:53New Ownership Deal Thaid UpUke wrote:Now the threads are merged, how about a new title without a typo?
But wouldn't such loss declaration now draw a massive fine from UEFA/FIFA as per FFP rules?Royal Ginger wrote:I think you've got to consider the more modern usage of money laundering which is pretty much synonymous with fraud or tax evasion. Rather than the traditional laundering of ill-gotten gains, I would speculate that football laundering would consist more of over declarations of losses in order to avoid tax bills.multisync1830 wrote:I'm not up in money laundering so walk me through this.
I get money illegally or I don't declare money and pour it into a loss making business the other side of the world. What is in it for me?
by Terminal Boardom » 01 Aug 2014 10:56
01 Aug 2014 10:56At this rate, Billy Sharp would be a good signing.BR2 wrote:Jolly good-all you guys have the answers but really know f*** all however you all post with great authority.
Nameless,
Do you really believe that Nigel is happy to go with unproven youngsters?
His record at Southampton shows that if there is money to spend he will readily have it spent.
I only hope that we don't end up with Billy Sharp.
Uke wrote:Now the threads are merged, how about a new title without a typo?
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Bing [Bot], Keysfield, Royals and Racers and 174 guests