Godders

2 minutes ago, PaulC said:

The lower pound may mean we may not be able to attract the really top european players.

How so??

18 minutes ago, TRO said:

and what do they say?....is there any comment from them?

Well he's training with the 1st team, so I can't imagine they've had anything bad to say.

Forex markets are open 24hrs globally which is how the £ has taken a battering. Literally right after declarations started suggesting Brexit would win.

It would have an impact, same way as it has an impact on all imports and exports, and anyone changing currency for their holidays.

That said, this is simply the markets reacting to the result. In a week or 2, they'll be back up again.

The interesting thing for me is to see what we'll do around visas etc.

Since we've voted out of the free movement of labour tenet, strictly speaking all players coming in from the EU will need a work permit to play here. We all know how well that turned out last time we applied for one.

Just heard on SSN he's taking part in pre-season training with the 1st team

19 minutes ago, backofthenet said:

would be nice if you could find something he has done right within a football club?

i think some villa fans are so desperate to be the next man city or chelsea they are willing to accept anything that dr xia says as gospal

So here are my arguments re Samuelson:

Firstly, In our society, everyone is always assumed to be innocent unless they're proven otherwise. Samuelson has never been proven guilty of any wrongdoing. Therefore, Samuelson is assumed to be innocent of any wrongdoing. 

Secondly, although Samuelson has been involved in some financing schemes of clubs that have fallen through, there is no evidence that he acted inappropriately in any of these deals. There are articles, blogs, fan forums etc that link Samuelson to these deals, but none of these provide any evidence as to how Samuelson himself screwed these clubs over. I would also hazard a guess that these are all biased in that they'd be written by folks with links to the club, as opposed to an independent view from outside the parties involved. Therefore, we cannot reasonably assume, based on what Google tells us about these deals, that Samuelson acted inappropriately. Therefore, we cannot reasonably assume that Samuelson is acting inappropriately now. 

Thirdly, the article you posted this afternoon links Samuelson to a deal with Everton. You've intimated that the content of this article suggested he acted inappropriately (as per my argument above, you can't draw that conclusion from the article). That article states that Wyness was CEO of Everton when Samuelson came on board. If Samuelson acted inappropriately with Everton, why is Wyness willing to work with Samuelson now?

As you can see, I'm not "so desperate to be the next Man City or Chelsea..." as you suggest, but I've reached my conclusion through consideration and reasoning.

You seem to be an intelligent chap who's done his homework on Samuelson, so I'm sure you've reached your conclusions that Samuelson is only here to screw AVFC over through careful consideration and reasoning as well. Would you care to share your conclusions in support of your stance and the facts you've used to arrive at them?

2 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I think he was looking for facts to back up the wild accusations that he's the actual owner and Xia is just a front man. 

Sounds like something Shelley Ozzy might conjure up in one of her wilder moments. 

Edit - that and these two other bids. 

Think we're probably also after evidence that Samuelson has ever actually done anything wrong. 

25 minutes ago, backofthenet said:

this is only rumour but some people have suggested that samuelson has borrowed money to buy villa with xia as the front man and that any parachute payments and player sales would be funding us going forward, if promotion is then not achieved we could find ourseleves in alot of financial trouble in 18-24 months time

Who please?

22 minutes ago, daggy_333 said:

Absolutely none at all, was just a question pal

Fair enough! In which case no. I don't think he will as there's absolutely no reason to suggest they will fail. It's just a formality.

2 hours ago, daggy_333 said:

I wonder if Dr Tony has a plan B should Wyness and Samuelsson fail the fit and proper test?

Why? What evidence do you have that they won't pass it?

58 minutes ago, rubberman said:

But I'd also like a cherry on top of the cake

Well played, sir! 

26 minutes ago, backofthenet said:

 the fact Samuelson has filled the board with associates of his and not xias worrys me tremendously

I think it's reasonable to assume that Xia's associates won't know the first thing about running a football club. Look at how well it worked out the last time we filled the board with folks who had no industry knowledge!

11 minutes ago, BOF said:

People are basing their opinions on what he has actually done.  An assumption would be to assume he has grown up.  He has shown no evidence of that.  Assumptions are the hypotheticals.  You're dealing in hypotheticals with your last sentence.

I think assumptions is the right word- taking something to be true or certain without proof. He could have had an epiphany this morning, and vowed to change his character. We won't have proof of whether or not he's still immature until he does something immature.

That said, i fully accept that his previous transgretions suggest with almost full certainty that he's still a douche. I'm not really trying to argue against that. Im just pointing out the slim possibilty that he could have grown up, and if he has, it would follow that he would be a good character to have in the dressing room.

There's a lot of assumptions here that Ravel Morrison is still as immature as he's ever appeared to have been. 

As someone has said here already, characters like Joey Barton and others have grown up.

If Morrison has grown up, he could be a very good member of the changing room if he reaches his potential on the pitch, and can lead by reformed example off it

So when are we expecting the takeover to go through?

7 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

Not really because if a player demanded a £3m loss on a release clause I would either tell him don't worry about the wage reduction or to **** off.

So, as chairman, you'd be happy with a premier league wage bill in the championship, or not signing any players at all?

So all the lawyers, bankers, advisers in this deal didn't think to actually check whether Dr X can actually afford us?!!

I seem to remember someone on here emailled whichever bank was handling the takeover initially about a fan buyout, and they were told that proof of funds is required up front.

I know RL has made some questionable decisions in his time with us. I doubt he's stupid enough to sell an asset without first checking the interested party actually has the money to pay him.

Smells like bs to me

34 minutes ago, Richard said:

Those test apply only to the person under investigation for the fit and proper person test, the owner

Directors as well I believe. Anyway, even if there was a separate directors test with different criteria to the owners test, my point still stands since a separate directors test would be less stringent than the owners test, not more. The leagues would not allow an owner who would be disqualified as a director.

5 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

QED

Really? A quick search of the fit and proper person test for the PL (which is stricter than the football league), throws up the following criteria:

• Either directly or indirectly he is involved in or has any power to determine or influence the management or administration of another club or Football League club 

• Either directly or indirectly he holds or acquires any Significant Interest in a club while he either directly or indirectly holds any interest in any class of shares of another club 

• He becomes prohibited by law from being a director 

• He is convicted on indictment of an offence set out in the Appendix 12 Schedule of Offences or he is convicted of a like offence by a competent court having jurisdiction outside England and Wales 

• He makes an Individual Voluntary Arrangement or becomes the subject of an Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order, a Bankruptcy Restriction Order or a Bankruptcy Order 

• He is a director of a club which, while he has been a director of it, has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency 

• He has been a director of two or more clubs or clubs each of which, while he has been a director of them, has suffered an Event of Insolvency.

Which of these will Samuelson fail?

I'm with @limpid on this one. Nothing in his past that has been divulged on here would seem to suggest he's going to fail the F&P test.

@BOFI agree with you that it's not Lerner's test, I don't agree that he hasn't (well his lawyers) put Xia through an F&P test with the same criteria as the leagues'. Likewise, I would expect that Xia's lawyers have put him through an F&P test as well. I would expect that this would all have been done as part of due diligence. In fact, I would go so far as to say that both sides of this deal are absolutely certain as they possibly can be that Xia will pass the F&P test. I do note your point that RL doesn't want to put himself in the position where he has to pay compensation in the event the test is failed, but if the risk of waiting another 2 months for a manager outweighs the risk of having to pay compensation to RDM if the takeover fails, then get the clause in the contact. My opinion is that there is a far greater risk in waiting to get RDM in post than there is the takeover failing.

Looks like I'm wrong @Sam3773. Apparently the FA vet all applications now before passing onto the Government for the work permit so probably was the FA that rejected it.

2 minutes ago, BOF said:

The club wouldn't agree to that @Godders because in the scenario where Dr.X doesn't pass the F&P test, Lerner then has to effectively compensate a manager that someone else chose.  The current ownership would never agree to that, nor should they.

But why would Lerner sell to someone who's not guaranteed to pass the F&P test? He has nothing to gain by it at all. 

If you were offered a 100% chance of getting £75million and getting rid of the albatross around your neck, or a 75% chance of getting £75million, and a 25% chance of getting nothing and keeping that albatross, which would you chose?

Assuming RL and SH are thinking rationally, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they're certain Xia will pass the F&P tests. 

Therefore, the club could agree to that clause since there's no chance of having to pay any compensation, and it's in the best interests of both Dr X (since it's his choice) and RL (since he gets more money from promotion) which is exactly what Hollis's job as chairman is.