villadom

OK won't bother in future

dont be so sensitive....you have to keep bothering. thats what we all do beacuase we are Villa fans.....i only pointed it out because people specifically look at the songs and chants thread for songs and chants

OK

OK won't bother in future

During the Arsenal game, I was in a bar playing the Oasis song "Wonderwall"

It struck me in this way:

So maybe

You're gonna be the one that saves me

So go on and score

Agbonlahor

Reo-Coker seems not to be part of a chain involving several clubs, if what is predicted comes to pass, who has the better deal, and who has the worst deal?

West Ham: Scott Parker for Nigel Reo-Coker

Newcastle: Joey Barton for Scott Parker

Villa: Nigel Reo-Coker for (Gavin McCann?)

Man City: Joey Barton for 5.5M

he would be joining, just as soon as we agreed a fee.

Surely we need to agree a fee before talking to him, or it is deemed 'tapping up'

Apart from Gareth Bale (them) and Nigel Reo-Coker (us) Wink

OK, but there seems to be a "Spurs are linked in the press therefore we have no chance" sort of attitude. I'm just saying there is no evidence we are up against them for anyone, nor have we won or lost in that scenario.

Takomara made a fortune for Eindhoven when he played there.

But was he any good?

it was about 200 pages ago - are you not paying attention?

After 600 or so pages here is a reflection:

Main themes:

West Ham are aggressive in the transfer market - this is based on what, signing Scott Parker for 7m (which seems about right) to replace Nigel Reo-Coker?

Spurs are in for everybody and Villa cant compete - Spurs haven't made a bid for anybody, and nor have we.

We are looking to buy the top players from the 2nd division (Championship or whatever its called these days) which seems to translate into half of the Bagladies squad.

We are looking to buy whoever Liverpool are looking to unload.

We will only buy from Celtic.

We are looking to buy top players from Germany or Holland (as long as nobody else is interested).

The press (and us) have no idea what Villa's targets are, nor what level we are aiming for.

We worry about signing Bramble and dream of Sneijder.

Nobody has any idea what "top class signings" means in the minds of MON or Richard Fitzgerald and are unsure whether the first signing we make will be a portent for what is to come.

The most reliable source for transfer rumours is the X-box community.

Reading it again I think you're right, I was trying to tease out a why Villa rather than Newcastle or Everton etc.

Isn't it great that we have a direct line to our directors!

General,

Thanks for the quick reply, I'm over the moon about the result and where we are in the league, let's hope it lasts, but I don't think you answered my question. It's OK if you don't want to.

Mr Krulak,

It's been a while since we have been third in the league (I know we are way behind second and goal difference from fourth) . The difference from looking towards a relegation battle and perhaps some hope for the future is immense. This is due to Martin O'Neill, Randy Lerner and yourself - So thank you.

I have a simple question - Why did Randy Lerner buy this club?

From a business point of view it makes little sense, there is only one way to make a small fortune in football and that is to start out with a large fortune. Purely financially, it makes no sense, as very few football teams make money, even if you are successful the subsequent wages etc to keep you there are such that very few teams actually turn a profit on a regular basis. There are better ways of investing 60 or so million pounds in the short, medium and long terms.

Mr Lerner has stated that he is not a long term Villa fan and it would be disingenuous for him to suggest otherwise - so this discounts the heart over head approach to investment.

So again I ask - Why did Randy Lerner buy this club?

"Global Brand"...ABSOLUTELY!!! As an example, we are on our way to Soccerex in Dubai just for that reason...

Do you need someone to show you around or buy you a pint?

Rangers won the Cup inners Cup in 72, but it introduces another aspect, the star is arbitrary especially since the European cup became not just for the league winners.

There is no rule or recognised etiquette.

OK so we can have a star for European Cup wins, this means -

Liverpool - 5 stars

Manchester Utd - 2 stars

Nottingham Forest - 2 stars

Villa - 1 star

But why stop there, lets have Cup Winners Cup, its a European competiton after all.

Chelsea - 2 stars

Arsenal - 1 star

Man Utd - 1 star

Everton- 1 star

Man City - 1 star

West Ham - 1 star

Spurs - 1 star

How about the EUFA Cup,

Liverpool - 3 stars

Spurs - 2 stars

Ipswich - 1 star

The Fairs Cup (I know!),

Leeds - 2 stars

Arsenal - 1 star

Newcastle - 1 star

In Italy they have stars for winning the championship 10 times, if we did this it would mean:

Liverpool - 1 star

Man Utd - 1 star

Arsenal - 1 star

Winning the league or FA cup is a bit common, but the double is a good historical point so :

Arsenal - 3 stars

Man Utd - 3 stars

Liverpool - 1 star

Spurs - 1 star

Villa - 1 star

Preston - 1 star

So overall to celebrate each team's major achievements we should have:

Liverpool - 10 stars

Man Utd - 7 stars

Arsenal - 6 stars

Spurs - 4 stars

Nottingham Forest - 2 stars

Villa - 2 stars

Chelsea - 2 stars

Leeds - 2 stars

Everton - 1 star

Man City - 1 star

West Ham - 1 star

Ipswich - 1 star

Newcastle - 1 star

Preston - 1 star

Interesing debate, however I was quoted in the original post and think my basic point was missed.

The badge issue was something I raised as an illustration of the irrelevance of certain issues to a basic point raised in respect to class.

The initial argument was about Gallas stating that Chelsea had no class, followed by a series of measures which would apparently give us an aura of class. I basically disagreed with most of the points made, but perhaps did not make myself clear.

The issues raised were about the colour of the kit and the area around the stadium, whilst predicating this around Gallas's statement about Chelsea. I thought all of the arguments whilst in some way valid were irrelevant in the context of the original premise.

What constitutes class for a football club? Is it consistency in kit design, the quality of finish in the stands, the inviting nature of the surrounding area and its architecture or the badge and it's star or not?

Gallas's statement was nothing to do with the kit or the ground, it was to do with the way the club projected itself (in the media and on the field) and its relations to it's players. Chelsea are not the only ones, Alex Ferguson does not exude class when he defends players like Rooney or lambasts any decision that goes against him, Man Utd have had a consistent kit colour and probably common fonts throughout the ground as do Chelsea. .

In my mind, Chelsea have no class, nor do Man Utd or Real Madrid, Liverpool have some and Barcelona have it in spades - not really sure why (I've been to all of their grounds over the years).

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

Ok sorry I missed that, 38-39% seems to be the number generally bandied about for Ellis's holding, just thought I'd check (and sorry about the lack of spell checking)

Not sure where the 38% came from. In last years accounts (to 31/05/05) Ellis held 33.61% and Trefick Ltd(Petchey) 20.12%.

As far as I understand it any body can sell their shares at any time without recourse to the LSE even if the company is lised on said bourse. Th takeover panel is only required for (complete) company purchases(i.e one ompany takes over another) for personal shareholdings this is not an issue. If Randy Lerner as a private individual purchases Doug Ellis's (a private individual) shares this can happen immediately as a normal stock market transaction, the only stipulation being that if the shareholding is greater than 29.9% of the total company stock, an offer of the same value must be made to all shareholders with a timescale of at least 21 days.

Sometimes, as in the case of Sunderland the buyers will stipulate a minimum percentage of the total stock must be purchased within the 21 day period for their initial offer to be valid (normally 95% which is required to delist) this is only relevant in a takeover(company to company) stock sale and can be waived by the purchaser at any time.

If a private individual bought out the holdings of D Ellis and Trefick Ltd, thus gaining a 53.73% holding in AVFC plc, they would need to offer the selling price to all shareholders for 21 days and call an EGM with 21 days notice in order to change the board (a formality if the new owners hold more than 50% of the shares). Therefore an effective takeover could take place wthin 21 days with the backing of HDE and Petchey. A delisting would depend on a lot of small shareholders and may take longer.

So if a bid is recommended by the board tomorrow, the 28th is the earliest it can be concluded.

Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months. - Oscar Wilde