limpid

I've created the match forums. Please PM or report any corrections.

Welcome

They still should have pushed this info to the app though

I have a vague memory that the app was being replaced. If it is, then they really should have pushed a story telling users that. It it isn't then I guess it doesn't work with the new site and "amateurs" is about right.

You can click the little arrows on the right of the claret bars on the first page to hide sections. I really hope you didn't think they were just for decoration in your rush to have a moan

It's not even as simple as that. There's a cognitive bias (Dunning–Kruger effect) which means the less that you know about a particular subject, the more certain you are that what you know is right. wiki link for further reading

I've just read a post from someone I know on facebook that she didn't know that we were already in the EU. She thought this was a vote for whether to join. She's 38 and can do grammar.

Taking our owner at his word, that won't do for him, so he has to be ready to offer more. It's not all going to happen at once.

I'd be happy to have a player with two feet in defence.

How did you form this opinion? Is it based on current / projected visitors to the city, particularly from China? I think to pull people out of the city and to bulk up both the match day and non-match day package then there has to be something more available to do at or near Villa Park. Short term Xia might not want to do anything big, but if the project catches there's no reason to think he's limited to the land we already own. Building stuff is what he does. The North Stand car park might be reserved for the roof when it's not in use (Just noticed my autocorrect has been uncorrecting Xia's name. Oops)

Did you signup for the new tariff as a result of similar paper mail?

When I changed the URLs on VT I made sure old and new worked interchangeably; or a least I asked someone else make sure it worked. The same when I turned on SSL. As you know, I don't even do this for a living

Mate wanted a cheap phone quick, so I suggested these: It's distinctly a budget phone, but it's a total bargain. Came with a jelly case at that price too. He wishes he'd paid the extra £4 for the 8GB (on the right) though. There are loads of cheap phones on Amazon, just make sure they can use the Google play store.

They've failed to map old URLs to new though. So lots of 404s from places like Google. **** amateurs.

No confirmation on the OS, official facebook or official g+. The club's PR is a joke.

There's a report button for things like this. There's been an official club statement about Wyness, but not about Samuelson.

That's up to Samuelson. If I was him I'd spend it on something nice

Usually a business is profitable if it made a profit in its last retorting period. If he does spend a GBP2b to get us to that position, it's likely that the new markets of fans he'll create from our Chinese opportunities will allow him to make money operationally. And we'll obviously be worth a lot more if he sells us. What's an unknown for us looking from here is the value to his reputation in his home nation if this project succeeds. That might make GBP2b look like peanuts.

I think most clubs in the PL make a profit. He's put time windows around the first claim (which seems ambitious), but none around the second. He's not saying that we'll be profitable from day one. What makes you think that they are contradictory?

I would hope so. The discussion is about whether that reward should be via an shareholding or salary and bonuses.

I think you might be right, but I don't think you understand the words you are using What you describe are still shares in the company. They are non-voting, non-dividend shares, but they are still shares. At the end of the day such shares would be exactly the same as a contract clause saying that an individual will be paid some amount if the company is sold or merged, but would involve a lot more paperwork. It's simpler for everyone concerned if this payment is done through employment contracts rather that shareholding. In (tech) startups, issuing shares is routinely used as a tool to retain staff (which works while the market cap is rising) and to save cash for re-investment (forcing employees to invest in their employer). The reward to the business is greater than the extra costs at the point of sale. I don't think Xia has built his empire by making things harder for himself unnecessarily. I don't see that he needs to give away shares, so I don't think he will. I work for a billion pound turnover company and to the best of my knowledge none of the directors have shares.

It's not completely different, just more owners to deal with. Several of the stages of Lerner's purchase were after it was removed from the exchanges. Getting to the compulsory purchase threshold was a biggy. Regardless, either it's a significant enough share that Xia would want to worry about who he might end up in business with or it's too small in which case why would the Director join with ideas of how to maximise his money on departure. Easier just to negotiate the money he wants as part of his contract. Did they have the same degree of equity from one individual at the point the company was created, or was this as a result of staff retention / cash saving in later years? I don't think the comparison is a good one. I don't see any advantage to Xia giving away equity when he can recompense in other ways. It's not a sector where people expect an equity share.

and how do you pronounce that for us non-gaelic speakers?

That's Wyness's job, not Samuelson's.

I can't comment on your experience or how often you've been involved with multi million pound companies owned by one individual. Of course it complicates a sale. The buyer then has to deal with these "lawyers" (solicitors) rather than directly with Xai. Don't you remember how long and painful the process of Lerner buying us was? That was caused by having to deal with all the other owners; he couldn't just buy Ellis out.