runetune

Well I've heard a number of people in various clubs and also read some reports who all rate him. I don't know a lot about him, but it does sound as if he might very well be worth a look if nothing else. A couple of things I do know about him is he made history by becoming the first player in Scotland to win both the Player of the Year and Young Player of the year awards in the same year and also spent the best part of 2004 out with a knee injury.

Almost agree with that, although with the squad numbers we have and had last season, I didn't expect more than mid table (12th to 10th ish). So on that basis we are slightly above where I would have expected us to be at this time of the year, especially having played Chelsea and Arsenal away already! So I would say we are overchieving, just doing better than I hoped at this stage in the season. Ask me again at the end of the year! Its likely I will have a completely different answer :winkold:

I agree with villab0y - I don't believe that Nolan is worth anymore than Petrov..... Certainly a player who I think has been overlooked too often because again he plays for an "unfashionable" team, but I don't think he can be placed anywhere near the 20 Mill bracket.

I firmly believe we have every right to embrace the past of AVFC, which is unique. I also believe a memorial in the form of a statue is lacking. But I don't believe the two are necessarily conducive. I still believe the best way that AVFC can show our earlier history is through a proper museum/hall of fame area. Preston's Museum for Football is an excellent example of what can be done. I have always wanted something along those lines at VP. As for a statue, my preferred option is something that relates to the 1982 cup truimph. A simple but effective one for me is either Dennis Mortimer holding the Cup aloft or Ron Saunders. My personal preference is Dennis Mortimer holding the cup aloft.

Well MON is not ruling anything out! Interesting comments from him on the OS about Gabby and our need for replacements in the squad.

I personally believe the 100Mill is way off the mark and that while we won't have peanuts to spend over January (Lerner is perfectly aware like MON that the squad desperately needs some strengthening) I do think the majority of money will be spent after the end of season. I do think there will be plenty though in an attempt to bring players in for the January window. I do think we need as a matter of urgency - Right and Left Back - Right wing x2 and at least one more central midfielder. I do think we have enough with our front players for now at least and on current form would be happy with any of them playing. As for who? I suspect Milner is top of the shopping list.

Thanks BOF, always good to get a comparison.

BOF great to see the comparisons. Thanks for putting this up

If we can avoid a start like we did last night, I've opted for a win for us. Only a close 1-0 or possible 2-1 again, but its a difficult one to call. The upside is we've had another game for MON to assess the squad and also try to work on the main areas he wants to. Downside - we are still weak in areas that might cause us some problems and we can't afford another slow start.

Perhaps add in a Undecided. Might be worth a look. The front page poll is now outdated - an ideal one to replace it with perhaps?

Apparently he uses the press box at Cleveland. Would be the more logical choice imo.

Lerner will be in England for the Reading game. Cheers JC - I did wonder if he would, especially with the comments about the Arsenal game.

And of course, it would appear AV06 could have their wrists slapped for commenting on their bid before actually placing a formal bid on the table. If they have indeed breeched LSE rules (and from what I can gather they did) then that would also be a big black mark against them. Okay I won't rest until either the Reading game (which we are now going to - said be damned and got cheap N. Stand tickets) - and RL is there watching the game and announcement made - or 7am Thursday when we know the LSE could make an announcement to do with the previous days information. But I just consider it too much of a coincidence that the 10 days falls on the evening of the Reading game. Damn wheres Thetrees when you need to know what Lerners jet is doing.

I wondered that as well. It appears that someone else tried to buy the other major shareholder out a while ago and he wasn't interested. But in this instance it might prove harder to stop. Freddie Shepherd apparently only owns about 28% - while the other shareholder who has been approached owns 40% + of the shares. Newcastles value is also higher than AVFC at about 81 million - and of course we don't know of the debt situation there. As for the AVFC situation - I don't think anyone at Rothschilds etc would be happy if there was a last minute bid and would likely reject it outright. I suspect anyway that AV06 were so far behind the game they have too much to catch up on. After all, Lerner has been in this deal for months prior to anyone knowing about it. AV06 had only just come to everyones attention just a matter of weeks ago - including it seems Rothschilds and AVFC. I can't imagine the press statements that have been coming out the past couple of days, coupled with the letter to Shareholders and its announcement to the LSE about returning certificates would have even been considered unless there was absolute certainity that no one else stood a chance.

In fairness the report clearly states: Which suggests to me, that like Cleveland if there is enough negative reaction it wouldn't happen.

It would only be the stadium name not the stand nmes that would be changed! Yes - What I was saying was as an alternative, use the stands for different sponsorships - but I could never endorse The Holte End being renamed - just in case anyone thought I was mixing the two aspects.

Personally if the sponsorship deal really brought a large amount of investment into the players and ground itself, I wouldn't be totally opposed to a name change. Like many here, for me it would still be Villa Park - and I would think of it as being VP sponsored by....... I would rather a name change rather than a venue change. I would also want to see who might take the sponsorship on if there was interest. Don't know why, but I just would want to be sure the name "suited" the ground somehow. Can't really explain it more than that. Alternative - Rebuild and rename the North Stand and also rebuild and add that extra tier to the old Witton Lane stand and give that a sponsorship name and possibly the Trinity Stand. I would hate for The Holte End to ever lose its name though.

Another interesting article. Was also good to read an anaylist commenting that he thinks others are too late to bid now - something we've commented on here a number of times. As for Lerner - yet another great interview. I am more than happy to take some steady growth for the club and can't wait for the ground to be improved to get the right amount of seating in God exciting times. Is this really what being a Villa fan is being about? *tries hard to remember 1982 which seems so very far away now*

I really am sick of it - put up or shut up. Report when there is absolute fact not rehashed drivel. Personally I have no doubts this is a done deal for Lerner.

Thank you Randy Lion. I am going to enjoy writing my email now!

Its just showing who the shares that RAL have agreed to buy are coming from - and then also just some of the additional pay off's on top of the share purchase. As for RAL walking away - unless they are outbid and the newer bid is accepted they are tied to the contract just as Ellis and Co are.

Just as a reminder the full LSE document with all the information in can be read at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/nf4k5

Because it is a figure that allows him to delist from the LSE.

not quite, it enables you to suspend the club from the stockmarket, preventing open trading of shares i think. You can still buy and sell Villa shares privately, but not via the LSE With 90% you can delist completely and take the club private by compulsory purchase of the other 10% I was told it is actually allowing you to delist not just suspend and allows you to end the PLC status. I then understood it was just under 98% to force any remaining shareholders to sell their shares.

The need for 75% plus one share is I believe the LSE rule to then allow you to delist the club and take it private again.