blandy

I chuffin' hope not, Totti.

There's also a clause allowing Lerner, effectively, to respond to another bid. - this bid's deadline is 1 pm 4 sept, but he has the ability to revise it for reconsideration for a further 14 days from any revision, but not after 29 Sept (though if the 14 days passes 29 sept, then the later date is the "deadline for acceptance of his revised offer. There's a complete final date of 1 pm 13 October. But the whole detail of the document is pretty complex for a novice to undersatnd

according to the document, RAL has agreement to buy 3,683,414 shares from Ellis 1000 from Stride 2,200 from Owen 63,500 from Hales 196,400 from Peter Ellis 2,396,909 from Petchey 165,000 from Heidi Ellis Total 6,508,423 from the total of 11,449,245 (with 9,375 of these "missing") The percentage for which RAL has agreement is 56.84% of the total (or 56.89% of the total minus the missing shares). Other snippets - Ellis will get a pay off (and confidentiality clause) of £300,840 on top of the money for his shares. The other non-retained directors will get the rest of their years salary paid up (each NED is paid £15K p.a). Stride stays on.

I think a large percentage of English (and other Europeans) really really don't like the Government of the USA, but generally we do like the ordinary American people a lot. It's a big difference. When Clinton was President, the image of the US in Europe was much much more positive. The people haven't changed, just the Government and its that that's perhaps led to the fears you have? I've been to the U.S. a few times, and to different parts, and have been thoroughly impressed with the people I've met. They (you) are a great bunch.

Don't get me wrong, talking to fans groups is positive. But where's the minutes? What was discussed? What promises were made? Talking to fans is absolutely positive. Understanding how your potential future customers feel about the way the club is run now, how it could be improved, all that kind of thing should be a top priority of any bid that is interested in growing the club, in treating it as what it is - a sporting club, there for the purpose of competing in professional sport and entertaining and brightening the lives of it's paying followers. It may be possible to deduce that any bid that did not do that might be more interested in other reasons for owning the club. Self promotion, making a quick profit, asset stripping, whatever. Now on the recording of any such meetings, during the assesment as to whether to bid, the formulation of that bid, the submitting and so on, the discussions would need to be done in complete confidence - any leaks or such like would be detrimental to the bid. While the bidder might outline overall plans, reasons for the bid and so on, as much to guage reaction as to simply inform the fans they were talking to, the activity would need to be mainly a listening exercise, but with focused questions - "what if...?" or "how do you think people would view..." In the future, should a bid be successful, if the bidder had found that talking to fans was a good thing and was helpful, then I'd imagine that they'd surely want to continue to do so, only without the previous constraints of secrecy. We understand from the Browns fans that this is exactly what happens in the USA with Cleveland Browns. It is better to have a real open informal dialogue with fans than to have a neutered and ignored nominal fans rep on the board. In other words it's not what you say you will do, it's what you actually do and how you go about it. In choosing to talk to who they have, the Lerner team identified, in my view, the best people to speak to. They found articulate, passionate and committed supporters to talk to, and people who were worthy of being trusted with sensitive information. People whose only agenda was the betterment of the club. People who were aligned with the need for a change of ownership and had campaigned for such, and who weren't constrained for example by a legal requirement to comply with the framework of a Government organisation (supporters direct), or by other baggage.

We know nothing about the two, really as you say, rune. Thing is, though, I have a distaste for agents - people who make their money by, er, leeching from football in many cases. The best ones I'm sure do a lot for footballers and so on, but I'd be very wary of having one as an owner/CEO. IF he's just a frontman for a consortium IF there is one, then maybe. Big IF though.

Oh and another thing quoting from the times article Neville believes that raising his offer is valid because Villa have the makings of a top-six side but, more importantly, some of the extra money spent could be recouped from the development of land around Villa Park. So Neville will pay more because the club has some land that could be developed which he'd then use to get his money back, taking it OUT of the club. Not promising at all. Wasn't the land there last week, anyway? Like I said, blundering numpty at best.

Aye I know. My post was badly put. I was trying to say that the motives are basically the same - they would (if we take them charitably) want to make a success out of the club, and make money, too. So why are the motives different? MN doesn't have much money, Lerner has shed loads. Lerner owns a US sporting club, Neville has no experience at all of owning a professional club. Lerner's said nothing, Neville's said plenty, but done what exactly?

Why doesn't he ask him next time he offers to withdraw if his costs are paid by Lerner? He comes across like a blundering numpty. {edit MN, not GT} What's Neville's motive for "buying Villa" What's Lerner's motive? What are the differences?

Publically is the key word here IMO Maybe then the fans who make the claims about what Ellis said to Lerner and vice versa are making it up? Interestingly these are the same fans who knew the bid was coming in advance of it being in the media. The same fans who have "allowed" the rumours of transfer budgets to be made general "knowledge" Now I know that possibly these people wont like to think they have had their opinion "managed", but sometimes thats life, there's nothing sinister in it just a guy going about his business is a very professional way. People who have met or dealt with Lerner have a very high opinion of him. That good word spreads. But it's not IMO "management" of his image or whatever, it's simply a reflection of his (as you say) professional and thorough approach and good nature. There's no "I know best" more like "let's find out what's what, from the best people to ask and then go from there". It's been reported by PM on the bbc that Larner met O'Neill and O'Neill is very impressed with him. Did Lerner "manage" his image with MO'N, or is it simply a case of O'Neill finding him to be excellent (or whatever) and then telling PM this? We're kind of going over the same stuff, but I think it's important to understand whether he is an arch/skilled manipulator, or a "straight guy" I believe it's the second of these.

I don't think either Lerner, or any of his people have publicly said a dicky bird have they? There's not even been any "sources close to.." type stuff reported, really. Other than Sky and BBC reporting him being sighted at VP a couple of weeks ago, and the observation of his mood when he left, there's been nothing. Essentially, what has happened is that since the club leaked that he was possibly interested, various people have commented on him based on 1. He's done well in the USA with the Browns 2. He's very rich 3. He was cross 2 weeks ago when he left VP There hasn't been any management of fan opinion by Lerner, unless you count complete silence. Or am i missing something, Pete? Happily the others have also now shut up (apart from Athol Still who has also had the dignity to remain quiet throughout). There's been a media circus, lose talk and speculation, but for me silence is golden. When or if anyone bids, then is the time to talk publicly, but briefly, perhaps.

Does that mean there has been a change in the landscape since last night Blandy? Or just that we wouldn't know if there had been? I used last night, because there was no LSE statement made yesterday, therefore it was confirmed fact. I have not the slightest idea what if anything/nothing has/might happen today.

Until last night at least no-one had submitted a formal bid for the company. Several indicative bids ("I might take this further if...this that and other...") had been submitted. Neville has several times indicated he was going to bid, but.....well he hasn't (up to last night).

And I'd go the other way, Brian. If your job makes you miserable, then no amount of money will change that. Though I suppose if you're miserable 'cus you've got no money, then a crap job might change it for a while, but only if you're desperate.

Good questions, Gringo. I'm neither an accountant, nor a lawyer, but I'll have a guess Yes. Assets aren't taxed individually, are they? They could claim its value has gone up from 100K to 7 mill (or 5.8) as they have evidence of buyer wishing to pay that for it. Other assets have devalued. It's not the law of the land, it would be a contactual situation. Do I win a prize?

Only bruises and a minor mark to my face (probably would've been worse if the airbag hadn't come out), no broken bones or serious injuries for either so thats good. I have come to the conclusion that it is karma that i've had a car crash and MON were appointed on the same day, god knows what I have to go through to makke the takeover happen though :shock: This is most unfortunate......if it had been serious I was hoping to make a claim for your telly [seeing as the car's knackered]. If you do develop complications and die, can I have it? Er, get well soon, Richard , bad luck mate. (that wasn't insensitive was it? )

Blandy the garden snob Hardly - my back yard is full of junk. though I did clear out the rusting old pushbike, but left the cooker... I call it social observation rather than snobbery

Who has he borrowed from, Mike? He doesn't have the money himself - you've only got to see his garden furniture to know that!

the 38% refers to Murdoch, not Ellis, Dom.

Murdoch owns Sky in the way that Ellis owns Villa - i.e. he doesn't. He owns (via News International, his company) around (from memory) 38% of the shares in Sky.

No it isn't. There's actually a fair bit of very accurate, if also very guarded, reporting in the article. Equally, some of it might not be 100%. Crikey, that sounds v. on the fence, but hey....

Just on Jonathan and not being allowed in to the Press Conference. JF knew he might not be allowed in, before he went. Sure the TV might have wanted him to be in attendance, so they could then guage his reaction to what went on, but I suspect that he knew that because he has stuck his head above the parapet and fronted up as a representative of some of the fanbase he would not exactly be popular with the current regime at VP (given that almost all the fans want Ellis out). You could say he was not allowed in because he is not an accredited journalist with any of the invited media organisations, and that's fair enough. Other people could take the view that he wasn't actually allowed in because he's critical of Doug Elliis and the way the club has been run. Equally fair enough. In the end it doesn't matter. JF wasn't bothered, though he'd have have liked to have been in there, as I guess a lot of fans would, too. Whether it was the fair application of a policy, slightly officious, or downright wrong, just really, really, doesn't matter at all. Jonathan spoke well about Villa situation outside the ground, to the camera. The "alternative" view of so many fans got mainstream media airing, as did the "official" view. Now that matters. - BOTH sides of the divide (and it is a divide) got put out. It didn't used to be like that. It's genuine progress. People can make their own minds up as to how they percieve the situation at the club, but it's grand that they're presented with differing views to consider, rather than just AVFC "Pravda" (no that's not a type of expensive handbag). To concentrate on whether he was allowed in or not, or why, is not really relevant to much at all in my book. The sooner the divide is narrowed between fans and "club", the better. Today's other, rather more important, events are a big step in the right direction.

So far (arguably) sure. We're a play thing for Ellis, and have been for donkeys years. We'll be a play thing, in one sense or another for someone else, soon. It's how it is. The whole media frenzy is only there because us lot, devotees, are interested and it sells papers and catches viewers, listeners and advertisers. I hope the next person for whom Villa is a play thing treats "us" with rather more care than the current owner.

Just on this, I listened to him on the radio and thought that he sounded like someone who had been contacted by Rothschilds, or as a result of Rothschilds talking to one of his backers (who then asked him to front up) and who is not really bothered one way or t'other. He didn't sound at all concerned, or hurried. I guess he knows that "he" is behind in the "race" and it's like "if it happens to develop, then we'll see where it takes us, if not I've got court in the morning" His answers were considered and unrevealing in word. Yet I felt that, as others have said, he sort of stuck the knife in to Neville. But mainly he seemed to know not so much, and 'fessed up to not having hardly started or considered much at all. Non starter, I reckon. caveat: QC's are very, very, clever. They can have you believing exactly what they want, without aparently leading you at all.

I wrote a long answer, then deleted it, and was gonna say refer Martin Samuel's article in the Times a couple of weeks ago, then i thought, of an analogous situation Rich people from the UK buy run down Vineyards, or Villas in France, or Tuscany. They do so not because they want a semi derelict property somewhere abroad, but because they see themselves sat on a veranda in the sun, looking out over the sun setting behind the Olive trees, as crickets chirp. Perhaps drinking a glass of locally produced wine. They also have an eye that the value of the property could treble as "the area catches on". They've maybe read or heard of an early mover from their town who has taken the plunge. It's about a dream and an interest and the allure of a return on the investment. It's about being one step ahead of the crowd. But all that's just a dream and "maybe one day", then some documents from Rothschilds land on your doormat "For Sale, ancient property, scope for improvement, price reduced due to poor state of property, this type of offer doesn't come round often..." Then you look into it, find there's a cantankerous old scrote occupying the property, along with a few faithful retainers. You see that they can't manage to look after it properly, even though they like the prestige of being the owner of the Big House....." With experience in your own country of reviving a similar property, with money in the bank, who wouldn't be interested? Here ends the middle class analogy. Another Gin & Tonic, Cyril?