runetune

Yeah if you use Man Utd as comparison. As I understand it the timeline was along these lines: March 03 - They had around 2.9% stake in club June 04 - Glazer's stake in club nears 20% October 04 - United confirms bid approach from Glazer, as his stake nears 30% At some point here I also remember he ousted some of the board members. Dec 04 - He made a revised bid that was rejected. April 05 - I remember something else happened, but not too sure what. Beginning of May 05 - His shares were around 57% End of May - They had over 76% and control of the club! So in the course of a couple of weeks, once the major shareholders were bought - it was very quick to complete.

Villa never sold the shares IIRC The deal was cancelled before the time when the shares would actually be issued I think not 100% sure though I thought I had read they were bought back at some point - but I wasn't sure. I really wanted to use it as illustration rather than trying to work out who had what shares. :oops:

You are correct Furthermore, it is important to note that the 75 and 90% figures only apply to traceable shares from what i can gather. So assuming that 10% are missing out of the total 11m. Missing and therefore discounted: 1.1m Remainder: 9.9m Irevocable undertakings already in palce for 58%: 6.38m (64% of those required) Therefore lerner would need, from the small shareholders A MAXIMUM of 3.52m shares, and if the rumours of the missing figure being 18% or higher are true, considerably less, perhaps as little as 2.5m to reach the 75% figure. Thanks for this PB - If indeed you are right and it is traceable shares, then it looks more likely there isn't going to be a problem getting to this figure. Like I said before, somehow I don't even imagine someone like Lerner would go for a figure unless he felt it was perfectly obtainable - after all, he has invested a lot into this already. He must be pretty confident to get to required amount.

No because of the contract he has agreed to with this formal bid. Petchey is also under the same contract.

i was just thinking actually. If 10% are AWOL. then 75% is harder to reach isnt it? and how may do you think will be held by small institutions? 75% might sound quite a lot, but in reality, it is only another 18.2% or thereabouts. I would suspect this figure has been arrived at knowing that some of the larger shareholders are happy to sell. For example I do know NTL had just under 10% and if sold, they are already well on their way to that figure (I don't know if NTL still do own their shares btw but this is for example) - So I would imagine Lerners advisors have already spoken to the other main holders to reach agreement. The odd one or two shares we hold is in fact peanuts - a mere drop in the ocean when you consider nearly 21% of shares are over 2.25 million in number! Ultimately I suspect that while those of us with a very very small stake sending them back might help, its the larger holders of shares who really make the difference and you can bet they have already been sounded out somehow.

Because the acceptance is subject to some conditions. The first is a 10 calander period whereby another bidder can come in with a bid 5% or more above the Lerner bid - this though is also subject to approval by Rothschilds, Ellis/Petchey and the ACFC board. If this 10 days passes without another formal bid, Lerner does then officially own the Ellis and Petchey shares. The 2nd timescale is for 21 days - which allows all other shareholders to respond and either accept and sell their shares to Lerner or not. One other final condition is that for the TO to then be completed, 75% of shares must be in control of RAL (The group under which Lerner is bidding set up for this purpose). I think thats the whole ins and outs of it. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong anywhere with this.

Chief - I think you can give it up now. lol

Yeah but non Villa talkers read this and for some reason believe it, WE know the truth and WE know the facts but there's a hell of alot of people that dont , THATS what worries Oh I know - Thats why I put sorry in front....... Its just the way it initially read - but I totally agree that fans will be reading this and thinking it is true.

Sorry - but I did laugh out loud reading this...... So thanks for making me feel better now.

I know....... for someone to be telling others to be careful and scrutinise all bids, I am afraid this doesn't seem to be something that they have done.

They have put a deadline on it? Where it say this Andy? Hi Jez, Its in the Suns report about 3 pages back now I think.

Jez - Interesting. Nice to see they are continuing to perpetuate the rumours that have been denied and once again someone is trying to link Lerner to the Glazer style of buying, even though its been shown that its a CASH offer! As for: Actually it is the only one and unless there is another formal bid - you can't compare someone elses.

My understanding is that (assuming this all goes Lerners way) Petchey and Ellis will sell their shares. For the deal to be completed, Lerner wants to have at least 75% of the shares sold to him overall..... so this is where the smaller shareholders come into play. Their decisions could have a final bearing on this. Personally, I don't doubt that Lerner will get all this...... and you are right, if Lerner is given the majority of shares anyway by Ellis and Petchey declaring they don't approve of a bid from AV06 should it come in - then AV06 will find it very difficult and almost certainly would disappear.

Yeah if the Sun is right (and we have no reason not to doubt this atm) then it could very well be there is a self imposed timescale on this from Rothschilds. I am not too sure how that might hold up to a legal challenge though if someone wanted to if the LSE rules specify a 10 period? Unless in there is another clause that allows you to place your own deadline for bids for consideration? Perhaps they is someone here qualified enough who could clarify that please?

Thats correct. Its a 10 day calander period as well not working day. EDITED TO ADD: Its 21 days for the other shareholders to return their decisions either to sell or not - the 10 days only applies to getting another improved bid in.

And just catching up with this all myself...... read the Sun's report and will be interested to see how accurate this is. Certainly, as some here yesterday predicted, the LSE rules are very strict and by commenting about their possible bid AV06 are likely to get a telling off. Mind you, having listened to the interview Padfield gave again yesterday to type a segment out - it was apparent then, he might know about general law, but obviously doesn't understand the rules of the LSE because they were asking to be told about any formal bids! I doubt Rothschilds will now take them seriously anyway unless the bid itself is way over and above what Lerner is offering in all areas...... not just the financial.

Because there is a short period of grace as it were, where someone else can offer 5% or more above Lerners bid amount. This improved bid would then either be approved or rejected by Rothschilds, Ellis/Petchey and the AVFC board. Anyone of those can say they don't approve of the bid.

Because, as I've said before and will continue to say..... It isn't just about one comment from Padfield or AV06. I've said my various reasons are in this thread and others. Its a combination of things that have made me very wary. To put it simply - I do not want someone in control of AVFC who are happy to resort to some of the comments and tactics we've seen over the past couple of days.

Perhaps if Padfield hadn't resorted to slanderous, xenophobic tactics, more people on this board would be a little more fair-minded about him. What he has said to the media goes a long way to revealing his character and intentions IMHO. Well don't you think Learners tactics of pretending to pullout were a bit under hand? Whose to say he was pretending and it was a genuine reaction on his part? And even if it wasn't - to react against Ellis is one thing - to make a host of comments that range from (if they are from AV06 and Padfield as reported) xenophobic to outright lies - are they someone you really want? Thanks - but no thanks.

At the moment for me - Simply because Padfield has been said to have made comments which I find astounding and completely unprofessional for someone supposedly trying to place a formal bid for AVFC. I am not going to repeat these reasons, they are throughout this and the other main thread about Padfield for anyone who wishes to read them. If AV06 had just come in with a formal bid that we were asked to approve, I would have been interested because I know to get to that stage it would have to completely overhaul Lerners in all areas. But that hasn't happened, and now even if it did, I am still dubious of a consortia that hasn't just got on with the job of bidding for AVFC.

I think most brits don't like Bush....... but then, most of the Americans I know don't like him either! lol But it is a worry that there is a general concept that Americans aren't liked by the Brits, and Padfields comments could be read as that. Great PR work once again by AV06. If the quality of the rest of their supposed bid is to the same level......... I am not worried by them at all.

I've copied this over from the other thread since I think its sums up how I feel over on this thread at the moment. The above quote is taken from the Radio 5 live interview with Padfield. His own words that I've typed out. A couple of things struck me which is why I went back to listen to this interview again. First - Padfield makes the comment he is surprised Doug or someone at the club hadn't contacted him. His tone alone indicates to me he is angered by this. Why should Ellis or AVFC talk to them at that stage? Rothschilds were talking to them, acting as they rightly should as the liaison between the parties, and as the inital point of contact surely this is all AV06 could expect at this point. Second - AVFC would have to announce any formal offer to the LSE before any other announcement is made. What on earth makes AV06 and Padfield think they should be given this information? When so many fans understood these rules, its shows they are naive at best, not at all competent in their bid at worst. Forgot another point I meant to add. I don't think Ellis would like the comments that he hadn't got back to AV06 either and that would likely put him off them. Again his own ego coming into play Frankly the more I look at AV06's attempts the last couple of days, the more I beginning to wonder if they are good enough to even place a bid.

We must stay with Lerner Truls, I think that quote is from December last year God its amazing how long this saga has been going on for! ianrobo1 - I was also interested to read the Indie's report today that they actually quote Padfield (unlike the Mail) and some comments are almost identical. Makes me wonder if Padfields group did say those things - and if they didn't I would have expected a denial in the Indie statement. Unless they (AV06) actually say they haven't said this - the lies are coming from them not The Mail...... which in my eyes makes it worse. Of course, the reality is we don't know if it was The Mail or AV06 saying those things - but your right, the fact still is lies were reported when other facts from Lerner completely contradicted the comments and that shouldn't be condoned.

Not like the writers of todays letters in the Mail then? :winkold:

So far I've not read or heard anything about Padfields consortia that has given the impression of them wanting to be proactive. If anything, I've only ever read or heard reactive statements from them. Completely the wrong way to conduct business imo.