Anyone For Chinese?

[marlowuk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -side.html

Sunday Sport>>>a goats anus>>>>www.football-rumours.co.uk>>>Daily Mail

And to quote someone with a brain from a different thread ...

The words "Daily Mail" should have killed this thread .
Daily Mail = The paper for those that think they are reading something superior to The Star or Sunday Sport but are simply fooled by a lack of Red Ink.

Any idea who, Big Ern?

[Big Ern]

No idea , but he sounds devilishly handsome and as clever as a man that just ate a Brain Pie

[Nameless]

The core question in the article is a reasonable one to ask. Hardly original though as it's pretty much been debated on here since the summer !
The article however is really lazily written and poorly researched. We could play a little game of spot the error. How many mistakes or misrepresentations can YOU Find in it.....
And the comparison with Pompey is somewhat bizarre, the one reasonable point is the splitting of the land and the club. But beyond that I must have missed us racking up huge debt by buying players we just cannot afford. AFAIK our debt is to the owners, we don't owe the taxman, or St Johns, or our match day staff, or the man who supplies the bread.

[genome]

It won't surprise you to learn who have a thread about that Daily Mail article on their boards...

[One8Seven1*]

You right the article off, yet our debt is higher now than before the Thai's took over. That in itself shouldn't shock anyone, we're one of many clubs who make an annual loss, but the debt is a substantial one, and we are yet to see what the club will still own after the Thai's have gone. Without doubt we are in a very precarious position!

"Sir John Madejski wanted the club's debts cleared and investment put in when he sold Reading"

Not a penny!

[Woodcote Royal]

The core question in the article is a reasonable one to ask. Hardly original though as it's pretty much been debated on here since the summer !
The article however is really lazily written and poorly researched. We could play a little game of spot the error. How many mistakes or misrepresentations can YOU Find in it.....
And the comparison with Pompey is somewhat bizarre, the one reasonable point is the splitting of the land and the club. But beyond that I must have missed us racking up huge debt by buying players we just cannot afford. AFAIK our debt is to the owners, we don't owe the taxman, or St Johns, or our match day staff, or the man who supplies the bread.

Well that's more balanced than the usual left wing bilge above that just disregards anything emanating from the mail.

Agree it's not the most well informed piece of journalism and that comparisons with Portsmouth are stretching things more than a bit.

However, while I have a lot of time for the Thais in that they have most certainly steadied the ship and are entitled to extract a fair reward for doing so, it's not difficult to point the finger for asset stripping and just how much of their own money went into this project is a more than fair question to ask.

SJM was clearly between a rock and a hard place when the deal was struck and wasn't the one holding most of the aces.

[Woodcote Royal]

It won't surprise you to learn who have a thread about that Daily Mail article on their boards...

If it's those twats on the south coast they must be looking over their shoulder

"Now we've gone and steadied our ship
We're gonna p*ss on brighton's chips"

[Nameless]

You right the article off, yet our debt is higher now than before the Thai's took over. That in itself shouldn't shock anyone, we're one of many clubs who make an annual loss, but the debt is a substantial one, and we are yet to see what the club will still own after the Thai's have gone. Without doubt we are in a very precarious position!

"Sir John Madejski wanted the club's debts cleared and investment put in when he sold Reading"

Not a penny!

1. By all accounts only one of the Thai's is going anywhere
2. Why would the debt not be higher if we make a loss ? Hasn't be mentioned before that a really important thing is who the debt is owed to. If the debt is to the owners (like it has been for 20 years) then it's not a huge concern. It's when the debt is to third parties that it becomes a major issue. We owed money to the tax man and to Ray Ranson and by all accounts we owe money to neither now. They could have demanded payment and put us into administration, I think it is unlikely the Thai's will.
3. Who had 'righten' (perhaps written is better) the article off ? Some people seem to always assume the worst. Personally I think the Mail article is well off the mark, but as with many clubs I think our finances are well out of kilter but that is modern football for you

[Yellowcoat]

Well said. Would not surprise me if 1871 was the ill informed source for the article as he/she always seems to be looking for something negative to say.

[tidus_mi2]

But Reading and all those fans who suddenly discovered football when someone built them a ground where they could sit down to watch it

A doozy from NSC

Sometimes I think they don't quite realise how much of a similar path Brighton have followed to our own.

[Nameless]

you have to laugh at NSC !
Why do they feel the need to make illinformed comments about a club which has no relevance to them ?
Some kind of inferiority complex seems the obvious diagnosis.

[From Despair To Where?]

To be honest, apart from the one bloke overloading the irony meter with the "found loads of fans when they built the stadium" comment, their responses are fairly measured and sensible although they all seem to unfailingly believe the article.

[tidus_mi2]

To be honest, apart from the one bloke overloading the irony meter with the "found loads of fans when they built the stadium" comment, their responses are fairly measured and sensible although they all seem to unfailingly believe the article.

Pretty accurate description, I'd say they're probably 9/10 sympathetic to our 'plight'.

Even if that plight is made up BS from the Daily Fail.

[From Despair To Where?]

I'm all for mocking the self righteous muppetry that appears on NSC, but I don't think that's the case in this instance.

[genome]

I'm all for mocking the self righteous muppetry that appears on NSC, but I don't think that's the case in this instance.

Yes, to be fair most of the comments are in the style of "I don't like them but hope they don't get stitched up".

Although there is this one:

"I'd very happy to see Reading sink back to their natural level.

Probably the club I dislike the most after Palace. F*cking bellends"

[tmesis]

But Reading and all those fans who suddenly discovered football when someone built them a ground where they could sit down to watch it

A doozy from NSC

Sometimes I think they don't quite realise how much of a similar path Brighton have followed to our own.

One big difference is the amount of money they are spending on the team.

While our 2006 spending was comparatively frugal, they have a £30 million wage bill and an income of £15 million.

[sandman]

The core question in the article is a reasonable one to ask. Hardly original though as it's pretty much been debated on here since the summer !
The article however is really lazily written and poorly researched. We could play a little game of spot the error. How many mistakes or misrepresentations can YOU Find in it.....
And the comparison with Pompey is somewhat bizarre, the one reasonable point is the splitting of the land and the club. But beyond that I must have missed us racking up huge debt by buying players we just cannot afford. AFAIK our debt is to the owners, we don't owe the taxman, or St Johns, or our match day staff, or the man who supplies the bread.

Well that's more balanced than the usual left wing bilge above that just disregards anything emanating from the mail.

Agree it's not the most well informed piece of journalism and that comparisons with Portsmouth are stretching things more than a bit.

However, while I have a lot of time for the Thais in that they have most certainly steadied the ship and are entitled to extract a fair reward for doing so, it's not difficult to point the finger for asset stripping and just how much of their own money went into this project is a more than fair question to ask.

SJM was clearly between a rock and a hard place when the deal was struck and wasn't the one holding most of the aces.

House!

That's Right Wing Bingo.

[From Despair To Where?]

I'm all for mocking the self righteous muppetry that appears on NSC, but I don't think that's the case in this instance.

Yes, to be fair most of the comments are in the style of "I don't like them but hope they don't get stitched up".

Although there is this one:

"I'd very happy to see Reading sink back to their natural level.

Probably the club I dislike the most after Palace. F*cking bellends"

The irony being that if they were also to sink back to their natural level, they'd still be playing us at least twice a season.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Been working in Portsmiff this week

Pretty evident that they are ready to welcome us


No probs.. but

(Wasn't their downfall something to do with selling the land around their ground in addition to the boom and bust owners who bought in.....then checked out?)

Won the FA Cup tho'

[CountryRoyal]

I'm all for mocking the self righteous muppetry that appears on NSC, but I don't think that's the case in this instance.

Yes, to be fair most of the comments are in the style of "I don't like them but hope they don't get stitched up".

Although there is this one:

"I'd very happy to see Reading sink back to their natural level.

Probably the club I dislike the most after Palace. F*cking bellends"

The irony being that if they were also to sink back to their natural level, they'd still be playing us at least twice a season.