lee_av

Have welcomed you "elsewhere" General, but keep spreading the word. It's great that you've taken the time and trouble to see the thoughts and feelings of the Villa masses. Long may it continue.

Good Call - A Bronx Tale is a very good film, and directed by De Niro. Also as regards the De Vito character, he was indeed more psychotic than portrayed in the film. There is a good documentary that can be found on torrents, caled "Thr real Goodfella". well worth downloading.

Pesci - end of

So what if they do? The more the merrier. I think the point is Lee,if we're going to get a few players in before the 31st we need it sorted asap. Unless we are spending Villas money only, there won't be any difference between any of the bids. The long term is the key. We need players, but we can cope with the quality of manager that we have in the short term.

So what if they do? The more the merrier.

Dugdale used to own 3% as this was declared in the annual reports but has not been for a while, still believe he owns 1% Yes he does. Are there anymore?

Out side of Petchy and Ellis (and family), who else are the major shareholders?

Could have swore it was Lee who replied, must have a strong drink to correct my eyesight Infamy, Infamy - they've all got it in for me!!!

The clock may have run out on the AV06 bid - it was always playing catch up. There may still be some twists and turns. This week could be interesting

The soul of the club got demolished with the trinity imo That was shear vandalism.

Renaming the stadium would be like selling the soul of the club IMO

Perhaps they do

I have no need to read into what you say at all - I KNOW, and so do you.

What difference would it make? The word 'shareholders' should give that one away Lee...... So my proxy vote as a Shareholder that I give the Trust counts for nothing. Do keep up. :winkold: Of course it does. I don't understand what you mean. I thought Dennis was talking about the various consortia trying to get one of the Shareholders 'clubs' on board? I think that perhaps he is reading far to much into it - only he can answer. Any prospective buyer would be "duty bound" to test the water with Supporters as they are the inelastic recipients of the clubs product at the end of the day.

What difference would it make? The word 'shareholders' should give that one away Lee...... So my proxy vote as a Shareholder that I give the Trust counts for nothing. Do keep up. :winkold:

What difference would it make?

Have AV06 started making waves - now that is a suprise. :winkold: I want the best bid for AVFC. That might or might not be Lerner. That might or might not be AV06. Do we trust Doug, or shall we ask the VFC to choose?

Ian, The financial results are being posted out on 25 August 2006 and the AGM is sceduled 11.30 am 26 September 2006. I'm not clever just read the announcement of the final results :winkold: So the Martians are landing then - bummer :evil:

AV06 resurfacing. Now that is a suprise.

what does it / could it mean? It means that the Martians are about to land.

Who says that Lerner is the richest? Neville seems a bit of a chancer, and if the rumours are correct that he asked Petchy to borrow him some dough, then his looks more dubious by the minute.

I have no idea what he was offering for the development of the club and the team. I guess thats the point I'm making, no-one does, no-one knows what it was that Ellis turned down[/quote This is true, or who he actually favours in the bright new future.

well, as I recall, the main complaint from the likes of VFC about the way that the Ranson bid was handled wasn't that it was rejected out of hand. The main complaint was that the details of what it was that had been turned down weren't made clear to the stakeholders in the club. To give an extreme example to illustrate why this important Maybe Ranson offered only £47m for the club, but also promised ongoing transfer funding of £200m per year together with plans and funding to completely redevelop the off field facilities and turn the club overnight into the chelsea of the midlands. To turn down such a deal in favour of one which offers £64m for the shares but offers no cash for ongoing development would not be in the interests of the club. So while there are many who claim with religious fervour that recent events show that Doug was right to turn down Ranson, it is my opinion that until such time as the details of all the bids, including that of Ranson, are known, this is not a claim that can justified. I'm not saying your wrong, but I never heard anything about £200M a year. If he could have funded that he would have brought the club at the time. What I do know is that he seemed to be trying to get the club on th cheap.

I believe that was the figure that was banded about.

Is it not a wonderful thing