Silent_Bob

How?

But that doesn't fit with the not Villa statement...

Is it a deadline for when the takeover approach has to be concluded, one way or the other? LSE must have some rules regarding this?

A quick look at the table tells us that we are 10 points clear of relegation atm. We're closer to 7th place than we are to the bottom three. Sunderland is already relegated. Pompey will struggle not to be relegated. SHA look very likely to be relegated. I can't see how any of those teams will pick up 20+ points in their last 12-13 games, as they haven't managed to in their first 24-25 games. 10 more points for us this season mean we will avoid relegation. And I can't see us not winning at least three of our remaining 12 games. What is certain though is that we slowly are on our way down. That can be prevented, but to do so we need to get rid of Ellis.

We can ask, but they can't answer because of the same reasons they can't answer the Mail or any other news source. If we start protesting, it will seem as if we're chasing DE out of VP. That would feel good, but I'm afraid we need DE's cooperation here. It would do more bad than good I feel.

I think you see a conspiracy that isn't there Ian. I don't think the Mail knows something and want the club to confirm it. My guess is that they have very limited information, have tried to get some more through their regular sources, but find that they are not talking. They may be guessing that the reason for this is that the Comers have walked away. So they print this article to try to put pressure on the club to confirm or deny this. But the editor would be stupid if he expected an answer to these questions. Let's look at them. Q1: Is the Comer deal dead and buried? If so, why? If we for a moment neglect that this is price sensitive information, how could the club answer this if allowed to? It is a leading question and the question should be asked to the Comers, not the club. Ellis has allready confirmed that he would accept an offer from them, so if the deal is off it's the Comers that should be explaining this. And it could only be "need to pursue other interests instead", "price too high" or "sorry for the inconvenience, but we just recently found out that we didn't have the money", but regardless the real reason they would answer "price too high". Obviously the deal isn't dead and buried yet, as the Comers themself haven't declared that they no longer want to buy the club. Why would the club confirm that the deal is dead and buried if the Comers doesn't confirm this themself? How often do you hear sales people say "this deal is dead and buried" before the potential buyer says so? Q2: Are Villa closer to finding another buyer? If so, who? The editor would be really stupid if he for a second believed they would answer this one. The first question is very vague and the answer is yes. By appointing Rothchild they are closer. How close is obviously another matter. But to ask the club name people or groups of people that migth have made informal approaches to either Rothchild or Ellis directly...? Q3: Does Doug really want to sell the club? If not, what's the plan for the future? This has allready been answered by Ellis confirming he would have accepted a bid from AVIL and by appointing Rothchild. So this is nothing more than trying to sell more papers. They don't have a story. They try to create one by "demaning answers on behalf of loyal supporters". They say they want answers and won't stop asking until they get them. If they really mean this, they should start asking the right questions to the right people. The Mail is obviously more interested in selling papers than getting answers. Today they will print the club statement, added with some information from "reliable sources" asking the club to either confirm or deny.

Well, they could issue a statement. But if they feel it's not in their interest, why do it? Who can guarantee that someone in the Evening Mail doesn't use the information, if given, for personal benefit? It's against the rules. The club will make an announcement through the proper channels when there is anything to announce. Not before. And The Evening Mail should know this. In my view they look rather stupid right now. They admit they don't know anything so they print an article where they demand to be kept informed. The club responds with "If we inform you we will be breaking LSE rules, which we wont do, and you should know that".

A couple of hours ago I was about to write a piece on that the Comers couldn't have walked away from the deal without the press finding out about it. Before my duties at work sadly interupted me. This article confirms that they don't have a clue of what's going on atm. So well done to Rothchild for not leaking anything to the press. If the journos, even though lazy, can't find out anything, then surely all claims that the Comers have walked away etc is pure speculations only. Of course they could end up being right, but atm it's not based on firm knowledge, only speculations. If I should make a guess that would be that Rothchild hold talks with both AVIL and Ellis separatly, trying to find out if a deal is possible. But at the same time also look for other possible buyers. I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we heard was that a deal has been done with either AVIL/Comers or someone we've never even heard been mentioned. I hope for the last, as I don't think there is too much difference between a corner shop and a comer shop.

You're not the only one I assure you. It's gone very quiet lately. Appointing Rothchild to act as advisers is a good thing. It signals Doug's intention to sell. It's no longer a question IF he will sell. Only to who and for how much.

Well, they don't call him the grim reaper for nothing I suppose.

Let's hope that's how the rest of the world sees it as well.

The name mentioned was Peter Vidmar. There is no Norwegian with that name. Not on a list over rich Norwegians. Not on Google. Not even in the phonebook.

It's not my business what other people choose to do. But it seems strange to complain about the club's lack of funds for players, while not attending games. The club need the money. If 5000 don't go for 19 home games, that's around £2.5m lost. As an example.

Which team was that? We won the cup, but we were no more the greatest team in Europe in '82 than Liverpool were last season.

Devils advocate????? Sorry. http://tinyurl.com/6cc89

Well, then again it's only your opinion. There are a number of issues regarding how the football "industry" has developed over the last year that could not have been predicted and that the club/PLC has had no controll over. One thing being Abramovich. He has spent £300m to take Chelsea to the top. So to compete we would have to spend a similar amount of money (more or less). Which he haven't got, so our chances for success is less now than a few years back. Thereby decreasing the value of the club. I don't have any statistics to back this with, but I also believe that average transfer fees has gone down. For decent quality players that is. The price for top quality has increased. And the wage level has increased all over. So in the end we can't compete with the very best because we can not afford to. It's less likely that we will get any substantial cash injections from selling players, as there are more players available as free agents which are pushing prices down and fewer clubs are able to pay substantial amounts of money for more or less average players. Unless the quality of the team improves we can't really charge higher ticket prices or sell more merchandise either. In the end this influence the value of the club. And you can't really blame Ellis for it either. On the other hand it could be said that the club is in good financial shape compared to similar clubs. There is still a huge potential here, and the price for becoming the best of the rest would not be that high. There is at least one, perhaps two, Champions League spots that we could realisticly compete for with an extra £30m or so to spend. And a combined cost of £100m or so for a club with a realistic chance at CL qualification doesn't seem to expensive. As I said I'm not here to defend Ellis, but it's actually quite fun to act as the Devil's advocate :-)

What about those that invested £11 per share? Not necassrily the case you see. It is his responsibility to act as stewared of the company for shreholders and stakeholders. Return on investment is never guaranteed. The value of shares can go down as well as up. Well, what about them? As you say there are no guarantees for profit. Those that bought shares at £11 did it at their own risk. I fail to see why this has anything to do with Ellis holding out for a higher price? Isn't he making sure they're getting the best possible return on investment by seeking the highest price possible? Even though it's less than the original cost for the shareholders, it would still be the best possibile return on investment in the current market. If a shareholder think the offer is to low and want to keep his shares, he could still choose to do that. But those choosing to sell will get the highest price possible. But I'm not here to defend Ellis. I made the remark when Ian wrote Ellis were only looking after himself and not the best for Villa. He is looking after the best deal for the shareholders. That's what he should do as chairman. And there is no conflicting interest between what's best for Villa and what's best for Ellis here. What's best for the shareholders is what's best for Villa. We as fans are only paying customers and he has no responsibilty towards us, except moral responsibilty. So to be fair I can't hold it against him that he is looking for a high price. If that's his valuation, then fine. If the Comers disagree they can show it by simply withdraw their interest.

The first statement is only valid if there is no one else interessted. They are not guaranteed a better price if he dies. Others might make offers as well and the family might decide to sell to the highest bidder. So best case they get a lower price, worst case someone else will outbid them. He is acting in the best interests of Aston Villa PLC which is ensuring shareholders will get the highest price possible for their shares. There is no conflicting interest. Don't forget we're a PLC and not only a football club anymore. It's the chairmans responsibility to maximise shareholders return on investment.

I disagree Ian. £3m might not seem like a lot for money to you. But if I were Ellis I would spend an additional couple of months trying to get as much of those £3m as possible. And why shouldn't he? The Comers don't need any charity. Anyway, it's not only Ellis who owns shares. The board has a responsibilty to get the best deal possible for all shareholders, not only Ellis. And I don't think it's about the money only. You can argue that Ellis wont have time to spend all his money anyway. But I believe that Ellis sees himself as a successfull businessman and selfmade millionaire. If he get an extra £3m it will not change how he would be able to spend the rest of his life. But his ego would benefit from it. He would obviously also be able to leave more money to his family when he dies. But as I have said, it's more about pride than hard cash. And I disagree also that he doesn't give a shit about the club. He does, but what Ellis thinks is the best for the club might be very different from what we as fans would want. If he were only in it for the money he would have sold the club a long time ago. People bought shares at £11 each not so long ago remember.

Which is probably why the deal hasn't been completed yet. Since they're still negotiating, it's likely that both parties still feel they can reach an agreement. Otherwise one of the parties would have walked away by now.

To be fair I think Ellis has every right to make sure he get's the best deal possible for himself as well. I think he wants to sell and I think he will sell. But he is dealing with people more than capable of paying £64m for the club. Why would he give a £10m (15%) discount to people reported to be worth £1bn just to speed up negotiations a bit? It's not a charity, and I don't think it will influence how much money that would be made available for team strengthening.

No, I believe this is correct. It adds to claims earlier that Ellis hasn't received confirmation that the consortium in fact has enough money to complete the takeover. The Comers obviously has enough money, but if they remain willing to spend it after going through due dilligence is obviously another matter. So it seems the Comers are out of the consortium led by Mr Neville. If he manages to find other investors remain to be seen, but new investor will obviously then want to go through our books themself. So Mr Neville continues to negotiate with Doug, but need to find other investors before making a formal bid. In other words, this could drag on for ages.

Kiddybloke. To be fair it's not impossible that Ellis' valuation is more or less correct But the Comers are obviously looking for a profit here. The land might be worth around what Ellis thinks. But for property developers, not a football club. I choose to look upon this as some kind of test for our potential new owners. If they walk away because they can't have a profit on our assets, then I'm happy that it now seems they won't be our new owners. I would prefer someone who were attracted by the club itself, rather than someone who were attracted by the value of our assets.

I'm in Norway. But I'm not going to buy the club. Can't see any other Norwegians doing that either. John Fredriksen might, but it's no point coming here to discuss, as he lives in his £100m house in London. He has previously invested a lot in Norwegian club Vaalerenga. Which is my Norwegian team. He's worth around £3bn, but I don't think he is looking for an English feeder club. Where in Norway are you Drat?

Silent Bob I really can't see the rationale for this statement. Whether we like it or not premiership football is "business" and we know that anyone that buys Villa is not being purely altruistic. Also we knew from the outset (or at least assumed) that the Comer Brothers were not just in it for the fun of it. You then go on to talk about the land AVFC owns and say even though it's less than the £20m that Ellis seems to want for it. If this is true do you not think that the Comer Brothers are right to play hard ball (if this is what they are doing) and lets face it, both they AND ellis are "in it for the money" £60 odd million is a lot of dosh and frankly I would want to analyse in AVFC finances in minute detail after ellis had been in charge for 23+ years. Aston Villa have a lot of assets. One of them being the brand "Aston Villa" that has a lot of potential customers. It's very hard to put a spesific value on the brand. So since the Comers spend months on due dilligence it must mean that they don't value the brand, but are instead looking at more physical assets like the land. Ellis values the land at £20m, but it is probably a lot less. But even if it's only £10m it's still something you get on top of Aston Villa FC. If we accept it's worth £10m then they are only paying £54m for the club. Not to much imo, as the potential for increased turnover and profit is high. We are a big club with a squad capable of a top half finish. There aren't that many clubs of our size available for a takeover. If Portsmouth is worth £30m then I don't think £54m for Villa is too much. Because Villa is a much bigger club than Pompey. They would most likely have to spend the difference of £25m on players alone to be able to get around 50 points in the Premiership. We allready have a squad capable of that. We don't have any debts to be cleared, there is no need to expand Villa Park further atm and our training facilities are to be upgraded to state-of-the art for a total cost of £8m if what I've read earlier is correct. Our long term financial potential is much higher than Pompey's and there are no extra costs except for strengthening the squad. So compared to Portsmouth £54m for the club and £10m for the land doesn't seem too bad, does it? So if they still disagree on the value, they are looking for a profit only. And even though I would still welcome them as new owners, I don't think they are here for the long term. And I'm not convinced they are the owners we actuallt would want if we could choose freely.