London Irish. WHY???

[Thaumagurist*]

And LOL at Reading for allowing a Rugby match to be played on the pitch 24 hours before a cruicial (or any) football match.

We just don't get it do we??

The rugby was actually scheduled 48 hours before any football match.....

When the Reading game was moved to Friday, why wasn't the rugby cancelled? We are the landlords, we should have a right to demand that they move the fixture.

[Stranded]

Because as with the football, the match was moved due to a contractual obligation.

[Thaumagurist*]

Because as with the football, the match was moved due to a contractual obligation.

Then perhaps we should get SKY to pay us compensation for oxf*rd up the pitch and our promotion chances.

[Sun Tzu]

And LOL at Reading for allowing a Rugby match to be played on the pitch 24 hours before a cruicial (or any) football match.

We just don't get it do we??

The rugby was actually scheduled 48 hours before any football match.....

When the Reading game was moved to Friday, why wasn't the rugby cancelled? We are the landlords, we should have a right to demand that they move the fixture.

Actually I don't think technically 'we' are the landlords.....

But we do have have rights under the agreement with LI and they were observed.

[Sun Tzu]

Because as with the football, the match was moved due to a contractual obligation.

Then perhaps we should get SKY to pay us compensation for oxf*rd up the pitch and our promotion chances.

You would have to be a complete moron to suggest that.


Ah.......

[Thaumagurist*]

Actually I don't think technically 'we' are the landlords.....

Who are the landlords then? God?

[Sun Tzu]

How can the 'landlords' be 'God'.

If you mean God as in the Holy Trinity then the plural would be appropriate, but I don't think you were.

I'm also not sure God has a property portfolio.

[Stranded]

Actually I don't think technically 'we' are the landlords.....

Who are the landlords then? God?

I believe that RFC and LIRFC are legally the shared tennants. Happy to be corrected though.

[Thaumagurist*]

That's wrong, surely. We own the stadium, therefore we can't be one of the tenants.

[Stranded]

Reading Football Club does not own the stadium.

[Thaumagurist*]

Yes, it does.

[Dirk Gently]

No it doesn't.

There's the holding company which owns both the stadium and Reading FC Ltd - as well as various other of JM's assets.

[Thaumagurist*]

What's the name of the holding company? Is it by any chance "Reading FC Holdings"? I would have thought that the "Reading FC" in the name was a clue to who actually owns the stadium.

[Dirk Gently]

The football club is owned by Reading Football Club Ltd - that is the only asset.

The stadium complex is owned by another company called Reading FC Holdings Ltd, which also owns Reading Football Club Ltd.

The fact that they have the same name is irrelevant from a company law point of view - the football club does not own the stadium complex, simple as that.

Reading FC Holdings Ltd could sell the football club to one person and the stadium complex to another person tomorrow and that'd be that.

In the same way Reading FC Holdings Ltd could change its name tomorrow and it would still own both the stadium complex and Reading Football Club Ltd as it does now, as separate entities, regardless of what it was called.

Did you not do Venn diagrams when you were at school?

[Stranded]

Thanks Dirk, saved me the hassle.

RFC and LIRFC are both tennants of RFC Holdings and have equal tennancy rights with that company. Certain conditions have been placed on when the teams can play but with caveats that they have contractual obligations with Sky which supercede these.

[who are ya?]

He's still not going to believe you.

[Thaumagurist*]

It still doesn't explain why it is called Reading FC Holdings. Logically, that's Reading FC holding something. Wasn't this actually designed to keep the stadium and hotel as separate businesses?

London Irish is not under this umbrella, surely.

[Dirk Gently]

It still doesn't explain why it is called Reading FC Holdings. Logically, that's Reading FC holding something. Wasn't this actually designed to keep the stadium and hotel as separate businesses?

London Irish is not under this umbrella, surely.

It's called Reading FC Holdings because the Directors who registered it decided to call it Reading FC Holdings - they could have called it anything they liked.

Yes, it was setup to be the company which owned the other Company which is "Reading FC" - but it also owns other businesses and assets, such as the stadium complex. It could sell any of them. They won Reading FC, they are not Reading FC. If they sold Reading FC Ltd they would still exist as Reading FC Holdings Ltd, still owning the stadium complex.

No, London Irish is not under this umbrella. This is a separate company which has a contract with Reading FC Holdings to rent the stadium complex for a set number of seasons. Reading FC Ltd will have a similar contract, although I'm sure the commercial terms will be quite different.

ISTR that when the latest contract between Reading FC Holdings and LI was signed it was on the condition that LI (and also Reading FC Ltd) each made a 50% contribution to the cost of relaying a "high-tech" pitch. In return they got a guarantee of being able to use the stadium complex for a set term.

So to answer the initial questions - "London Irish - why?" - it's because they have a contract to use the facilities for a certain period of time. They can't be evicted without also receiving massive sums of compensation.

[Thaumagurist*]

Thanks Dirk. Presumably Reading have more favourable terms than LI.

[Sun Tzu]

It still doesn't explain why it is called Reading FC Holdings. Logically, that's Reading FC holding something. Wasn't this actually designed to keep the stadium and hotel as separate businesses?

London Irish is not under this umbrella, surely.

What has logic got to do with it ?

Complete irrelevancy !

Obvioulsy when the set up was constructed it was with a reason, but that was before LI were on the scene. Lots of clubs have a similar set up - for a variety of reasons. For instance I believe Stamford Bridge is actually owned by a seperate company with hundreds of shareholders which was designed to stop the ground ever being sold off by a dodgy owner.

London Irish is not owned by RFC in any shape (obviously) but that doesn't mean it can't have a contract with the holding company.

In reality RFC and RFC holdings are pretty much the same thing, but legally they are seperate. It's hardly news though....