Would you support a chairman that would invest £20 million in the club in return...

[Barrel of Fun]

I am not saying we should sell our soul to any old sailor, but we would be stupid to turn down someone like Madjeski who has overall control and has almost single handedly turned a poor Reading team into a premiership team.

 

[The Large One]

That was 10 years ago and a unique situation that would almost certainly never happen to this club again. Most of us were there and bought the T-Shirt in the 90's - but it's now time to move on and stop harping back to the bad old days because I would rather completely forget them...It was a depressing time to be an Albion supporter and despite the fact that people seem to think what is going on at the club now is terrible, it goes to prove how short people's memories are. That said, it's now time to stop harping back to what is a closed chapter in our history and whilst I respect and admire what you have done for the club's profile, times are different now and the circumstances have changed completely and it IS time to start looking forward to the future of the club not backwards.

I agree we should all look forward, but to forget what happened in the past is inviting suicide. One thing we must NEVER do is forget those Archer/Bellotti/Stanley days, because if we did, how would we learn from them in the future?

And this is certainly NOT a closed chapter in our history. We are still very much living the misery of their behaviour, and until such time as our future is more secured, we will never be free of their legacy.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I agree we should all look forward, but to forget what happened in the past is inviting suicide. One thing we must NEVER do is forget those Archer/Bellotti/Stanley days, because if we did, how would we learn from them in the future?

And this is certainly NOT a closed chapter in our history. We are still very much living the misery of their behaviour, and until such time as our future is more secured, we will never be free of their legacy.

I think with you around bringing it up every 2 minutes, we are not likely to forget are we?





I love you

 

[Gwylan]

A resounding no from me.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[The Large One]

I think with you around bringing it up every 2 minutes, we are not likely to forget are we?





I love you

Love you too, Dave, you funny, slightly mis-managed northern love bundle, you.

 

[Man of Harveys]

That was 10 years ago and a unique situation that would almost certainly never happen to this club again..

That's actually true - just as long as the goldfish on this thread who are happy to sign away our club to the first flash spivvy prick who turns up don't get their way.

 

[attila]

Simster, you are absolutely right.


ABRAMOVITCH’S DONKEY SANCTUARY


Most of the time you’ll find these places quietly tucked away
Run by a bunch of crusties or the RSPCA
But when you see the latest one I’m sure you will agree
That every creature in it has a Premier pedigree.......
It’s funded by the billions leeched by private profiteers
From Soviet oil resources built up over the years
So take a walk to Stamford Bridge and soon you’ll plainly see
The universe’s most exclusive donkey sanctuary!

CHORUS:
Donkey sanctuary, donkey sanctuary
Hey Mr Abramovich, will you buy one from me?
Donkey sanctuary, donkey sanctuary
They’re overpriced, they’re over here, they’re playing for Chelsea!

He wants a new one every day so he puts in a bid
And each new one costs double the amount the last one did
That’s twenty times more than they would have cost a week ago
The Price is Right for Roman however high you go
And all the while most of our clubs are fighting to survive
With buckets and collections just to help them stay alive
Some call this ‘market forces’ but we call it right wing shit
In football, and in life, we’ve had far too much of it!

Chorus

So hate Man U for ever - but hate Chelsea even more
Phone up Stanford Bridge and ask ‘What’s Russian for Ee-aw?’
Rejoice each time they lose a game, abuse them when they win
Cos they’re a plastic football club, a profiteer’s plaything
That money is the people’s cash - in Russia it should stay
A curse upon the traitors who gave Soviet wealth away
A few clubs get the millions, the rest go to the wall
So let’s kick out the usurers - and let’s take back the ball!

Chorus

 

[Lokki 7]

The poll is black and white, yes or no. But the reality is a multi-shaded grey area. People on here seem to think that because no single individual can own the club it insures us from being ripped off and f***ed over. Well correct me if I’m wrong, but Archer didn’t own the club outright when he sold the ground behind our backs. It is just as easy to get bum banged by a group of hard nosed businessmen as it is to be jolly rogered by a fickle millionaire with too much time on his hands. I think that if a wealthy individual came along the club would be very foolish indeed not to seriously consider passing over the reigns. Do I want it to happen? Depends. If it is in the best interests of the club then yes. The criteria would have to be very strict indeed but there are situations where I think it could be very positive. I don’t see the point of dismissing the idea out of hand without assessing each case on its own particular and individual merits.
I personally don’t think this makes me an “ill-educated moron” or a goldfish but what do I know?

 

[Brovion]

The poll is black and white, yes or no. But the reality is a multi-shaded grey area. People on here seem to think that because no single individual can own the club it insures us from being ripped off and f***ed over. Well correct me if I’m wrong, but Archer didn’t own the club outright when he sold the ground behind our backs. It is just as easy to get bum banged by a group of hard nosed businessmen as it is to be jolly rogered by a fickle millionaire with too much time on his hands. I think that if a wealthy individual came along the club would be very foolish indeed not to seriously consider passing over the reigns. Do I want it to happen? Depends. If it is in the best interests of the club then yes. The criteria would have to be very strict indeed but there are situations where I think it could be very positive. I don’t see the point of dismissing the idea out of hand without assessing each case on its own particular and individual merits.
I personally don’t think this makes me an “ill-educated moron” or a goldfish but what do I know?

I partly agree with you. Unlike some others I personally have no problem with the concept of one single person (once again) owning the majority or even all of the shares - although I would put caveats on who it could be and I certainly don't expect them to only pay £56.25 this time.

The problem is that the question on this thread was quite specific - would you give COMPLETE OWNERSHIP, i.e. 100% of the shares in exchange for 20 mil? I'm sorry but if you just give an unequivocal 'yes' to that then you are, in Barnet's words, an 'ill-educated moron' simply because you've seen a wad of cash, heard the word 'million' and thought "Rich investor, all our troubles are now over" without bothering to ask any questions. (I've said 'you', but I don't mean you specifically).

It was left to BensGrandad to ask the simplest question: is that 20 mil before or after the existing shareholders have been bought out and their loans repaid? (Remember he'll have to do that to get sole ownership). If 'before' - how much do you think there will be left? If 'after' - how far do you REALLY think 20 mil will go in this day and age? It will be Dick Knight and his legendary "2 million" all over again.

20 mil for a chunk of shares, percentage to be agreed, then yes. 20 mil for SOLE OWNERSHIP - no.

 

[BensGrandad]

. People on here seem to think that because no single individual can own the club it insures us from being ripped off and f***ed over. Well correct me if I’m wrong, but Archer didn’t own the club outright when he sold the ground behind our backs. It is just as easy to get bum banged by a group of hard nosed businessmen as it is to be jolly rogered by a fickle millionaire with too much time on his hands.

Hillingdon Borough were f***ed by 3 men can't remember their names but we will call them A B & C

A was the chairman of the football club B & C directors and they sold the ground to a land developement company of which B was the chairman and A & C directors. A building company of which C was the chairman and A & B were directors built a small estate on the land. A B & C made a fortune and the football club folded and their manager our old player Jimmy Langley went to work at Hillingdon British Legion club as the club steward. So it is just as easy to be turned over by a consortium of shareholders as it is an individual, if that is the aim.

 

[B.M.F]

I, for one, have learned my lesson with Bill Archer. They way things are set up at the club presently, you can pretty much run the club with a 35-40% share, so why woulkd they need a controlling interest? Checks and balances are needed.

So, NO, I wouldn't

could not agree more. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of yes voters are youngsters or fairly new to following the Albion.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

could not agree more. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of yes voters are youngsters or fairly new to following the Albion.

One here. First game 1990 at the tender age of ten.

Lokki put it most eloquently.

It is a grey area. Ask a Reading fan (one example) if they preferred their past to their present.

A sole or majority shareholder is not necessarily evil. Would you not want someone like DK (a fan) in solely in charge of the club, if he was a multi-multi millionaire?

 

[Man of Harveys]

Would you not want someone like DK (a fan) in solely in charge of the club, if he was a multi-multi millionaire?

Personally speaking, no.

 

[BensGrandad]

. Would you not want someone like DK (a fan) in solely in charge of the club, if he was a multi-multi millionaire?

A lot of people thought that he was when he mentioned putting in £2m. There was no mention of him taking it back again.

 

[Brovion]

A sole or majority shareholder is not necessarily evil. Would you not want someone like DK (a fan) in solely in charge of the club, if he was a multi-multi millionaire?

That's only half the question. Would you let them do it for only 20 mil, given that you're not sure if that's before or after paying off the existing shareholders?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

That's only half the question. Would you let them do it for only 20 mil, given that you're not sure if that's before or after paying off the existing shareholders?

I would like to see the details of the deal and a business plan of the person in question.

If they were an unknown, non-fan, then it would be a straight no.

 

[Brovion]

I would like to see the details of the deal and a business plan of the person in question.

If they were an unknown, non-fan, then it would be a straight no.

Good! So in fact you shouldn't have voted 'yes' should you?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Good! So in fact you shouldn't have voted 'yes' should you?

Nor should I have voted no.

I think I will abstain from this sort of poll in the future. I am indecisive at the best of times......I think.

 

[Brovion]

Nor should I have voted no.

Actually it was quite interesting seeing which way people would jump. If Richie had added an 'it depends' option I'm sure that would have got the most votes, but given a straight 'yes or no' I think a lot of the younger ones just said 'yes' without thinking. I would still have said 'no' BTW even with an 'it depends' option mainly because 20 mil is bugger all - as I may have mentioned before.

 

[British Bulldog]

On one hand I'd have to say no because of what's happened in the past. But on the other hand anybody willing to invest £20 million in a club with no assets would have to be considered as long as they invested in the team and continued the battle for a new stadium.