blandy

There's a couple of points to pick up on First - whoever said this season is worse in part due to the pre-season expectation of something decent, well I disagree. My pre-season expectation was pretty much for the sort of shite season we're having. Second, under GT we could at least win at home 11 times, I think, but we were abysmal away. This time we're only rubbish away, but at home are much worse. Third - the playing squad. I don't think this season's is better at all. I'd say it's worse. Fourth - Last time we were reliant on the last game of the season, at home to Sunderland to confirm our safety. This time our last game is at home to Sunderland, and we're not yet safe.... I think, personally, that this season has been mostly more dispiriting, but more because of the worse(ning) state of the club off the pitch.

5 people got it right.

Ah Mr Anthony Pig. Good to hear from you. I wonder if Gerrard won't get it.

And only Allan turned up!

Barry, by a distance

Hallowed turf that, above. Don't want the small heath playing on it.

1. I haven't been proven right, yet, and may be totally wrong 2. I kept the posts, or at least the links, because, I was trying to do this "blog" thing, which I eventually managed. 3. Vanity - obviously, I'd have never mentioned it again if I was completely wrong, but I'm convinced that I'm not.

I said this would be the case in December "I am of the view that the price will need to come down for it to go ahead. And come down a fair bit. With Ellis no doubt wanting all kinds of things guaranteed and his place set out in stone, one side will have to budge a lot. It might happen, but it'll take a while. And then the shareholders have to vote on it. " In early Jan, I also said "...from Ellis' viewpoint. Basically he's in the end game, isn't he. He has some control over matters, but not the power of control he used to have. We all know this. The board know it to, as do the media. Thinking about it tonight, I feel more confident, rather than less that the deal will happen. Which isn't perhaps saying much, as I have been very, very, sceptical all along. To me it depends if he will accept a lower price, and if so how much lower. Maybe 5.40 would be his aim, now, realistically Maybe the Comers will be looking at around 4.80 as their ideal price. Split that, and you have around 5.10, or 56-7 million quid. We'll see. ----- Can't see any reason to change my mind, either.

Share price has dropped below 4 quid again, too. £3.95 now

Just to clarify - I don't think blocking people just because they are fans of another club is good, I like it when we get visitors, but the ad hoc way is best, in my view. Welcome any friendly visitors, but don't invite the world in, is what I meant.

Weaeeeeeaaaarrrrrrooooowwwwwwwnnnnnnngggggggsssssssssnnnnnnaaaaarrrrrr....kinellturnitofff. Nahhh. I like it when real people come on and share their views, but I don't want this to be anything other than a Villa site, personally. Invited articles, sure, but links and loads of "invaders" no thanks. Or have I misunderstood?

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.