VillaIRE

yes

Rumour has it Randy is considering selling some space on our scoreboard to help with the weekly wage bill

Seems like Sanchez found his smile again!

Things aren't really so bad ...

This. No, not that at all. Benteke is one of the best talents we've had at VP for a long, long time. Right now he's playing in a team creating virtually nothing week after week. Granted, he switches off - but even I do that during games these days. If we do want a capable team, we add quality to it, don't take it away. When he does eventually leave, I for one will look back fondly and be glad we ever had him.

Aston Villa manager Paul Lambert vows to fight on, declaring: "I'm certainly not going to roll over." http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-manager-paul-lambert-8419766?

Here it is ... http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30673475

Lambert's tactics getting the job done! Excellent work.

We're in dire straits if that's our best solution ...

Lambert does that. His attacking front three are based on a row of onions. or two headless chickens and a beansprout

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYh2YU8bKxw

The shot definitely clipped Westwood's boot. The call was okay.

... I think he's on about new players coming in understanding the situation. He is talking about transfers in at the time. Lambert said "we saw people ... oh uh, there's nothing there..." I don't think that's about transfers.

WBA winning, too.

The fact that the Texas Rangers are jointly owned indicates they may be somewhat open to a share agreement with Randy. The reason for my hunch, is that Randy is a shrewd businessman looking to recover most of his investment - if under new ownership the club's profile was raised, a small share owned by Randy may in the future allow him to recover some of his debt - in effect, such a deal would also reduce the initial outlay for any new owners, sweetening any prospective deal. Just a hunch. I may be being a bit thick here, but how does keeping a small holding help Randy recover his debt? He'd sell the club and the debt anyway wouldn't he (effectively writing off the debt and adding it to the price of the club). As an investment, it's possible that the new owners might increase the value of the club and therefore the value of a share in it, but I don't see why they'd allow him to get a free ride whilst they put their money in to increase the value of the club. If he wanted to help carry the load, then surely he'd be asked to invest at the same sort of proportional rate as the others - it's not like there's a hope in hell that anyone's going to be running this club at a significant profit in the near future. I don't get it. I understand what you're saying. I'm working off the premise that Randy sells his share in the future at a higher price. Small slice, big pie, so to speak. I think a stumbling point in any potential takeover negotiations would be the discrepancy between Randy's purchase of Villa at ~ £60m, versus his purported asking price of ~ £200m. A deal keeping Randy as a minority share, may allow the value of the club including its debts to be factored, while allaying the initial investment of any prospective owner(s). Any such deal would obviously see future investment in a pro-rata sense, which would reduce Randy's financial burden at the club. I think it's win-win (maybe not for us), but who knows what these billionaires think. That being said, if Randy could recoup close to all his investment, I agree he may be happy to run. Will the new owners want to repay his £140m of debt, however? Maybe they're all good buddies ...

The fact that the Texas Rangers are jointly owned indicates they may be somewhat open to a share agreement with Randy. The reason for my hunch, is that Randy is a shrewd businessman looking to recover most of his investment - if under new ownership the club's profile was raised, a small share owned by Randy may in the future allow him to recover some of his debt - in effect, such a deal would also reduce the initial outlay for any new owners, sweetening any prospective deal. Just a hunch.

I have a feeling Randy won't leave completely - maybe he'll significantly dilute his share in Villa to these new owners, but will remain 'in' to recover some of his debt, assuming the new owners manage to raise the profile of the club.

Haven't posted here in a while and have been a supporter of Lambert in the past given the restrictions imposed on him by Lerner, but today he has lost my support. He adopted a negative line-up/formation from the outset and appeared content to play for 0-0. Every bit as bad as McLeish. - the Palace goal was coming for a long time and nothing was done to turn things around. Another season of this and we'd surely be relegated.

Could use this for one of those "Spot the ball" competitions.

Actually, the Premier League and FA rules do not mention any restriction on the number of loans which may be made between clubs in the same competition. It certainly appears to be a maximum of four domestic loans per season, with no more than one loan from any one team (barring the exceptions). It is, however, ambiguous as to whether a maximum of two long-term loans may be made per window - the rules state that no more than two loan players may be registered at the same time (two loans per window equates to a maximum of four per season, but does same time mean same window?!). The FA rules also make a clear distinction between short-term loans (28-93 days) and emergency loans (available to conference national clubs), but both these loan types do not appear to be possible for Premier League clubs, unless that player to be loaned is outbound from the Premier League club. While the FA rules do not explicitly exclude Premier League clubs being able to loan players on the short-term basis, (28-93 days), the Premier League rules make no mention of the short-term loan whatsoever. In fact, this article muddies the waters further, amalgamating short-term loans and emergency-loans into one emergency loan window, which is possible for the 72 football league clubs existing outside the Premier League. I admit defeat with the rules and will now bow out, shamefully Someone call in an expert, or at least someone able to make sense of it all. Sorry!

Neither Holt or Bertrand are season-long loans though... They would be considered "long-term" loans if they are here until June, or greater than 93 days. This means we are able to loan 2 more players until the end of the season, but they cannot originate from Chelsea or Norwich, unless we have agreed to buy Holt or Bertrand at the end of the loan agreement, or agree to buy the new loanee. Congruently, this means we will not target a loan deal for Hoolahan unless we agree to buy him in July, or have already agreed to buy Holt. Norwich? Holt is from wigan remember. Sorry, yes - you're correct!

Neither Holt or Bertrand are season-long loans though... They would be considered "long-term" loans if they are here until June, or greater than 93 days. This means we are able to loan 2 more players until the end of the season, but they cannot originate from Chelsea or Norwich Wigan, unless we have agreed to buy Holt or Bertrand at the end of the loan agreement, or agree to buy the new loanee. Edit: Corrected mistake

I doubt that's true It's not. West Ham took Roger Johnson on loan barely two weeks previous. I'm still unsure on the rules. The above doesn't seem to clear anything up. If anyone is that interested perhaps an email to the FA would clear things up. Sorry, I will try to summarise my take on the rules: 1) A maximum of 4 "temporary players" or "Long term loans" are permitted per club with the minimum period defined as being that between two consecutive windows: i.e., between August-January, or January-June. Per the FA: "Long Term Loan Transfers shall be for a full Playing Season; or from any date prior to 31st August to any date between 1st and 31st January; or from any date between 1st and 31st January (the January transfer window) to the end of the Playing Season." 2) A maximum of 12 "short-term" loan players per season, with the loan period being a minimum of 28 days and a maximum of 93 days. These are not considered "temporary players" or "long term loans" since the maximum period for these loans is shorter than the minimum period described in 1). 3) No more than 2 players may be loaned from clubs within the same division and no more than 1 loan from the same team, unless that player is either a) a goalkeeper or where there is an agreement in place between clubs that the loaned player is purchased at the end of the loan agreement. 4) "Foreign loans", i.e, players originating outside the The Premier League, The Football League, The Football Conference, The Isthmian Football League, The Northern Premier League and The Southern Football League, are not considered loan signings by the FA (even though a loan agreement is made between clubs), and thus do not count to the quotas above. I am open to correction, but I believe these are correct.