blandy

There's the Law (which is very weak on Corporate Governance and responsibilities) and Guidance which is quite explicit, but not completely compulsory. Law states that "Directors must act bona fide in the interests of the company and must not exercise their powers for any collateral purpose. A director must not place himself in a position where his duty to the company and his personal interests conflict and he must not profit from his position as a director. In addition, a director must exercise reasonable care and such skill as might reasonably be expected of a person of his knowledge and experience." (this includes N.E.Ds who ARE part of the board. Corporate Governance Guidance is a bit clearer and a lot more detailed. here's a pdf file for example. Anyone who does read it is likely to conclude that the "effort" at VP falls a long long way short of best practice.

For all the entirely valid comments about Ellis's control freakery and self serving ego based leadership, the board of Aston Villa Plc has legal responsibilities. Yes there's no "capable" Chairman. Sure the CEO left and wasn't replaced, and the same applies to the post of Finance director, and yes this is down to Ellis. BUT The remaining board members have a duty to run the business in the best interests of the Company, not defer to the interest of one of the shareholders. It is highly questiojnable whether they are actually discharging that responsibility. I have no doubt that marion Stringer is working hard in the way she sees best, but that's not the point. It's like somone whose house is on fire running around pouring cups of water on the fire. You can't criticise their effort, but you have to wonder whther a call to the Fire Brigade (experienced firefighters) might not be absolutely essential. The board must in my view change their focus from "trying to muddle along, best we can, waiting for something to happen" to actively taking control of the the club again. If this means concluding that Ellis is not fit to perform his paid job - and he clearly isn't - and reconstituting the board with a new CEO, Chairman and all the rest, then that is what they have to do. They have Rothschilds looking for new owners, but no-one seems to be looking for taking responsibility for addressing the current failings.

Courtesy of my mate Steve A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender. The robot pours him the perfect pint, and then asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man replies "150" and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, quantum physics and spirituality, biomimicry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nanotechnology, and sexual proclivities. The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool." He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?" The man responds, "about a 100." Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, rugby, supermodels, favourite foods, guns, and women's body parts. Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?" The man replies, "Er, 50, I think." And the robot says... real slowly, "So............... do ya think your gonna beat the Albion on Saturday ?"

What list?

Well it wasn't fecking Emule Heskey, was it?

One or two people said, when the Comer rumours started - about October/November last year - that 64 mill was too high a price and it wouldn't happen at that price. As far as I can see nothing's changed. If anything the (real) price will have been depressed a tad by the performance of the club in all respects since then. I don't mean to be "I told you so"-ish, but I don't know any other way than to say I agree with the point you're making, and I thought the same thing a good while ago, even when a lot of others were claiming that "we" are worth a lot more etc etc. A company with a stock Market value of less than 50 million - about 46 - that hasn't made a profit for a good few years and which, despite desperate claims from the stock market best practice ignoring Chairman/CEO/Finance Director/everything else, has assets totalling a net book value of less than 50 million (from memory, without checking) is not going to be bought by anyone with any senswe of value for more than the amount you say. And if it is they're so fiancially stupid that we really shouldn't want them looking after our club. The more so when the present incubment is, ahem, "unwell". There's, in estate agent terminology, a cracking [Club] with opportunities for expansion and improvement and all the rest, but only an eejit would pay over I reckon 52-54 million at the absolute max, and that's factoring in "Villa obsession" into the equation, really.

All top quality on this page. WHat a thread.

9-2-5 ? You would though, even though it'd be very wrong....

It's the area of Swindon with the Ikea shop and Volvo dealership.

Non-monetary incentives are every bit as valuable as they sound.

Nah! Personally speaking my only scepticism is that it's the club paying, not Ellis - it is after all Ellis's shares they're touting, on Ellis's behalf, at the behest of Ellis, essentially. The sceptisicm is that if he doesn't want to sell ( I don't share this view - I think he does want to sell) then by appointing someone to "ask for bidders/provide ideas" he isn't perhaps just holding off criticism. Like I say it's not a view I share, though I understand why people do have that doubt. Anyway, when the plc announced it to the LSE, it has to be true. Indeed.

I'm not knocking H&V or the poster on there who wrote that, but it seems like a statement of the bleedin' obvious. Rothschilds have been appointed by the club to sell Ellis's shares for him (how very generous of the club to do that, btw) and Woah! they've only gone and told people that there's a sale on down VP way! Strewth. Who'd-a-thunk it! In the next revealing episode, viewers, we learn how estate agents circulate details of houses for sale..... What did he expect Rothschilds to do - put an ad in the classifieds of the Evening Mail? Print off one black and white copy the details and loan it out to anyone who came knocking at their door?

I sort of worked it out on the same basis, except I assumed that Pompey are half way down, so it's sort of 1.5 in 6 or 1 in 4.

And there's a chance we could go down this season - maybe a 1 in 4 chance, I reckon. Which is not how it should be.

oh and another thought, (OT, sorry again) but taking the piss out of CV is to be encouraged, but the originality is, er, absent after the first few hundred times of repetition of the same theme.

fecks sake, Al. It's Thatch....Oh, the other guy, sorry...

I'm trying my best, Gringo. I thought people meant, y'know, people - folk in general - not "person" sorry. It's been a long day.

Bollex. Foiled again. Grrrrr :evil:

exclusive - small heath board's reaction to Andy Pandy transfer back to Spain revealed

following his "hugely successful" e-bay sales enterprise, LV inspects his newly acquired fleet of luxury limos

Er...how do people know which rumours are true or false? If they are rumours, then they are by definition "of uncertain (or doubtful) truth". People worry about all sorts of sh*t, but unless you think you can do something about it, then don't bother worrying would be my view.

Looking at Soccerbase, he's spent around 17-18 million net in his 2 and a half seasons, the squad is no larger (Ellis's dictat) and the league position no better. Cup results are so far no better. OK he spent most of the dosh this summer, but we are doing worse this year than last and did worse last year than the year before. I agree wit Michelsen, in that his buys have largely seemed quite good. Given the level he has traded at, they're perhaps better than that, even, but still, we're no better. Maybe it's bad luck with injuries, maybe it's not. He's OK for a sucfffling mid table ambition, or trying to stay up, but he's not top class. SO if we had a serious budget, then no, he's not the right man. If we had a decent budget, and a different owner, then he's maybe OK, if we have no budget (as now) then frankly, no, there's better people able to do better than him under those circs. But then we really ought not to be in that position. But we are. Change the owners, change the way the club is run, understand the revised constriants and conditions, and then make the decision.

Ellis is primarily an Ellis fan.

There's a lot in that article that I completely agree with. I know I've said it before, but the club is not worth 64 million, does not have a good revenue stream and has outgoings which are currently higher than we can afford. The reasons for this last part in particular are down to Ellis, and I believe, unlike the writer, that the club could be marketed a whole lot better. Equally, the best marketing tool by a mile is the team's results and performances (good ones, not the current scuffling by type). And that requires a business plan based around football, not around "apples half sold" or around house building. Ellis is in my view not fit to be running the club. We need, as a club a new person(s) to run it. It's far from clear though that the proposed buyers are those people. We simply know next to nothing of their plans or style or ambitions or motives. Frankly I find hoping that Ellis will change his ways, hoping that we'll find an indulgent benefactor or hoping we'll find an excellent professional executive board to run the club equally unlikely/likely. The possibility that shysters or clowns will come in also exists. So we need information. Lots of information. We don't get it from Ellis and we don't get it from the Comers or Neville. C'est la vie.

Not exactly, no. From his point of view ( not one that I necessarily share) he might claim that the best share price he can negotiate benefits all the shareholders. His motives for getting the best price may or may not be entirely selfish, and to some extent you can't blame anyone for asking whatever they want for something they want to sell. However on planet capitalism, reality has to set in, and a reasonable price be agreed if a sale is to be agreed. I would suspect that Ellis would like to have certain "priveleges" as part of any deal for his shares. If these personal demands prevent any deal, then he would be acting against the best interests of the shareholders, but (bizzarely) could claim they were in the overall best interests of the club (retain board position...experience...benefit new people...) Whether people see him as a deluded fantasist, a selfish egotist, or a genuinely charming and delightful man, or a mixture of all 3 and more is entirely up to them. I know what I think.