Risso Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Until today I was fairly convinced that there wasn't a sniff of an owner, but I heard something today about interest from somebody in India. Didn't get a name or anything else, so that's probably the crappest ITK ever, but there you are anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 16, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted May 16, 2014 I'm sorry but if Fulham are worth £200m then so are we, easily! That't not being biased. That is based on the following:- Biggest team in the Midlands and in the second city of England. I.e. massive catchment area to attract fans- Historically one of the top 4 or 5 teams in England- Ever present in the PL- One of the best grounds in the PL. 43,000 seater stadium- One of the best training grounds in the country. - One of the best academies in the country - Staff costs reduced to a more manageable level Most importantly potential! Potential to build an infastructure that is sustainable and successful for the long term. New scouting system, footballing hiearchy, new players, regular investment, new fans, sponsorship opportunities and an asset that can be sold in 5 to 10 years time for more than what you put in. Never, ever try for a job in corporate finance! Nobody's going to buy us for our history, as that hasn't translated into us being a 'brand' like Man U or Liverpool. "Brand" simply takes money to establish - just ask Man Utd. No. Man U had worldwide brand awareness long before the 'money era'. Munich tragedy, Busby babes, Best/Law/Charlton, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 There were thousands of people out in Birmingham the day United won the first title for twenty odd years in the early 90s. You don't get that unless you're a big brand already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 There were thousands of people out in Birmingham the day United won the first title for twenty odd years in the early 90s. You don't get that unless you're a big brand already. I never got why there were so many Man U fans when they hadn't won anything for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RoyalVilla Posted May 16, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2014 Having been abroad with little internet I have had a lot of catching up to do but one thing that TBAR guy is saying as gospel does not sound correct to me. Why would the guy selling the club pay compensation out to Lambert and Faulkner and not just let the new owners do that?? Any Corporate Lawyers around to shed light on that? Unless the new owner or a representative is also present.... It doesn't make any sense to sack Lambert & Faulkner, even if prospective owners are in attendance. What if the takeover falls through, as theses things can. What other manager or CEO are going to come in when there is no guarantee of who will be owning the club in a month, or six months, time? I've been involved in a bit of M&A work myself, including a deal that wouldn't be a million miles away from the size / complexity of the Villa sale. Now, I'm not an M&A expert; my role was a Programme Management one on the acquisition (and eventual integration) side. However, in my experience, the buyers would certainly want to meet with the senior / key management in place. In my example, it helped us define the new structure for the organisation and in that example some directors / senior managers exit terms were agreed as part of the deal and some stayed on (but left post-deal). The acquisition process isn't simple in terms of financial agreement and there are a lot of details to be sorted out as revenue and costs are fluid over time (day-to-day). I'm just speculating now, but I think it could certainly be plausible the PF and PL could be discussing, amongst other things, exit terms as part of facilitating the structure of the acquisition. There are many things new owners would want to discuss with them, even if they're not in their post acquisition plans. This makes sense when you think about it. Now, IMO, and this is purely my conjecture, we are in advanced stages of a deal. I think all the signs are there - the planned communications from Lerner, in particular the 'farewell' element from both his statement and GK's. The timelines seem to fit - communications after we're confirmed as safe, change of messaging re contract renewals from earlier this year. From a timeline point of view its possible we might hear something soon, but probably within the next 3-4 weeks (hopefully!). Anyway, I really hope the news is good. I'm not so bothered about the net worth of an individual / consortium who might want to buy us (though I'm hoping for significant investment like any fan). What I'm most concerned with is that we get buyers who have a good plan and commitment to taking the club forward. I think there's a lot of value and potential to be had for a club like Villa if we get the right owners / plan in place. Despite his faults, I think RL genuinely sees himself as a custodian, so I hope that is represented in the choice of buyers. Keeping fingers crossed - RV 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Good post above. Obviously we all want the best owners for the long term but we also need to remember that if no deal is done this summer the likelihood of us being relegated next season is very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catanzaro Posted May 16, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted May 16, 2014 Great post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savo9 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 That makes some sense, Savo9, but from Lambert's postion he was seemingly on the verge of getting a new contract 4 months ago, there would have been some chats. Now he's in the situation where the club may get taken over, the new people may not want him, so he would want to know whether he's getting a new deal, about to be potted, if he's wanted only for the short term, and if so what he's wanted to do by RL. In his situation I'd be weighing up my options, maybe trying to get a new contract, or at least understand if he's toast, shortly, and then I would be thinking about getting another job, with less hassle. No budget, little desire from most fans for him to stay, a very weak squad, no idea what's gonna happen with the club. Major uncertainty for him. He'd be mad not to be pushing for more certainty, and if he wants to stay, it would only be with some moeny for players to sort the problems. SO basically, while all the above you wrote is fine from the RL perspective, there's more than just him with things they would want to get sorted. Good point, I never really thought about it from PL point of view as to me RL is the man with all the power. Although I guess PL will want his future clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 For what it's worth these are my thoughts. I don't think for one second Lambert has flown to the USA to be sacked or for contract talks. All that stuff is normally done by agents and solicitors. However, in my opinion he has either gone for the following reason Just a normal end of season catch up (it is easier for Lambert to fly to the US rather than Lerner take time out of his busy schedule) To discuss next season (There is no new owner or sign of a new owner so they are discussing transfer targets and budgets etc...) We are close to being sold and the new owners want to talk to Lambert about the future. It is very unlikely that Lambert will be sacked until we get new owners. Lerner will want to keep the stability of the club until someone else takes over ... then it is their problem to sack or keep on. Just my thoughts ... For what it's worth these are my thoughts. I don't think for one second Lambert has flown to the USA to be sacked or for contract talks. All that stuff is normally done by agents and solicitors. However, in my opinion he has either gone for the following reason Just a normal end of season catch up (it is easier for Lambert to fly to the US rather than Lerner take time out of his busy schedule) To discuss next season (There is no new owner or sign of a new owner so they are discussing transfer targets and budgets etc...) We are close to being sold and the new owners want to talk to Lambert about the future. It is very unlikely that Lambert will be sacked until we get new owners. Lerner will want to keep the stability of the club until someone else takes over ... then it is their problem to sack or keep on. Just my thoughts ... 2 and 3 I think are most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 (edited) Royal said just exactly what I've been thinking. For him it's rooted in experience, for me it's reading tea leaves and and other hints I observe in the public statements of the club. But since I think it, I'm sure we'll all agree it's right. Edited May 16, 2014 by srsmithusa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AValon Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Cant believe how many serious replies Mendi gets, absolutely astonishing, And if he's right? Just saying.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I'm not so bothered about the net worth of an individual / consortium who might want to buy us (though I'm hoping for significant investment like any fan). What I'm most concerned with is that we get buyers who have a good plan and commitment to taking the club forward. I think there's a lot of value and potential to be had for a club like Villa if we get the right owners / plan in place. Despite his faults, I think RL genuinely sees himself as a custodian, so I hope that is represented in the choice of buyers. This, this and little more of this for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 **** all is going to happen. Getting your hopes up is purely idiotic. Ah, ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarpie Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 The company I worked for was one of the three biggest ones on their field in finland, and they bought smaller regional company, it took two months to get the deal sorted out so I wouldn't be surprised if aston villa deal would take the touted 4-6 weeks to finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Having been abroad with little internet I have had a lot of catching up to do but one thing that TBAR guy is saying as gospel does not sound correct to me. Why would the guy selling the club pay compensation out to Lambert and Faulkner and not just let the new owners do that?? Any Corporate Lawyers around to shed light on that? Unless the new owner or a representative is also present.... It doesn't make any sense to sack Lambert & Faulkner, even if prospective owners are in attendance. What if the takeover falls through, as theses things can. What other manager or CEO are going to come in when there is no guarantee of who will be owning the club in a month, or six months, time? I've been involved in a bit of M&A work myself, including a deal that wouldn't be a million miles away from the size / complexity of the Villa sale. Now, I'm not an M&A expert; my role was a Programme Management one on the acquisition (and eventual integration) side. However, in my experience, the buyers would certainly want to meet with the senior / key management in place. In my example, it helped us define the new structure for the organisation and in that example some directors / senior managers exit terms were agreed as part of the deal and some stayed on (but left post-deal). The acquisition process isn't simple in terms of financial agreement and there are a lot of details to be sorted out as revenue and costs are fluid over time (day-to-day). I'm just speculating now, but I think it could certainly be plausible the PF and PL could be discussing, amongst other things, exit terms as part of facilitating the structure of the acquisition. There are many things new owners would want to discuss with them, even if they're not in their post acquisition plans. This makes sense when you think about it. Now, IMO, and this is purely my conjecture, we are in advanced stages of a deal. I think all the signs are there - the planned communications from Lerner, in particular the 'farewell' element from both his statement and GK's. The timelines seem to fit - communications after we're confirmed as safe, change of messaging re contract renewals from earlier this year. From a timeline point of view its possible we might hear something soon, but probably within the next 3-4 weeks (hopefully!). Anyway, I really hope the news is good. I'm not so bothered about the net worth of an individual / consortium who might want to buy us (though I'm hoping for significant investment like any fan). What I'm most concerned with is that we get buyers who have a good plan and commitment to taking the club forward. I think there's a lot of value and potential to be had for a club like Villa if we get the right owners / plan in place. Despite his faults, I think RL genuinely sees himself as a custodian, so I hope that is represented in the choice of buyers. Keeping fingers crossed - RV Having been abroad with little internet I have had a lot of catching up to do but one thing that TBAR guy is saying as gospel does not sound correct to me. Why would the guy selling the club pay compensation out to Lambert and Faulkner and not just let the new owners do that?? Any Corporate Lawyers around to shed light on that? Unless the new owner or a representative is also present.... It doesn't make any sense to sack Lambert & Faulkner, even if prospective owners are in attendance. What if the takeover falls through, as theses things can. What other manager or CEO are going to come in when there is no guarantee of who will be owning the club in a month, or six months, time? I've been involved in a bit of M&A work myself, including a deal that wouldn't be a million miles away from the size / complexity of the Villa sale. Now, I'm not an M&A expert; my role was a Programme Management one on the acquisition (and eventual integration) side. However, in my experience, the buyers would certainly want to meet with the senior / key management in place. In my example, it helped us define the new structure for the organisation and in that example some directors / senior managers exit terms were agreed as part of the deal and some stayed on (but left post-deal). The acquisition process isn't simple in terms of financial agreement and there are a lot of details to be sorted out as revenue and costs are fluid over time (day-to-day). I'm just speculating now, but I think it could certainly be plausible the PF and PL could be discussing, amongst other things, exit terms as part of facilitating the structure of the acquisition. There are many things new owners would want to discuss with them, even if they're not in their post acquisition plans. This makes sense when you think about it. Now, IMO, and this is purely my conjecture, we are in advanced stages of a deal. I think all the signs are there - the planned communications from Lerner, in particular the 'farewell' element from both his statement and GK's. The timelines seem to fit - communications after we're confirmed as safe, change of messaging re contract renewals from earlier this year. From a timeline point of view its possible we might hear something soon, but probably within the next 3-4 weeks (hopefully!). Anyway, I really hope the news is good. I'm not so bothered about the net worth of an individual / consortium who might want to buy us (though I'm hoping for significant investment like any fan). What I'm most concerned with is that we get buyers who have a good plan and commitment to taking the club forward. I think there's a lot of value and potential to be had for a club like Villa if we get the right owners / plan in place. Despite his faults, I think RL genuinely sees himself as a custodian, so I hope that is represented in the choice of buyers. Keeping fingers crossed - RV Excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 The only scenario I can see new owners keeping Lambo is if a deal is done closer to when the season starts. For example if our new buyers completed the deal next week - they would have a reasonable amount of time to secure a new manager - If its all a rush mid August they might just keep Lamber whilst they asses various things and see how it goes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mendi Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 He wants the deal that was agreed few months ago, and with a clause fitted in to say the new owner cant sack him. He is free to quit, but he knows he will not get the money he is due . so its up in the air with him, I hope he gets the sacked, but Lerner isn't willing to pay up. That where are with this takeover matter. There are a few pretty massive things here He agreed to a contract that said a new owner couldn't sack him? Not a hope in hell that would even be considered. Jesus Christ. That'd be right up there with the greatest contract ever given to anyone. Any contract that was agreed in principle still isn't a contract until signed. This was not signed, ergo it doesn't matter what they agreed on. No contract = no contract How can someone simultaneously want a new contract and want new owners to put money into the club, and want to quit and not want the owner to sell? I've already made it clear that I don't believe a single thing you're saying, but at least have some bloody consistency in your nonsense. Everything is wrong with everything you say. You claim that in the space of a week you've managed to go from knowing nobody, to being privy to information that about 10 people know about, revolving around a massive business deal where confidentiality is key? It's always possible, I suppose, that you believe this, and someone else is having a tremendous laugh at your expense though I don't care what your think mate. I been sending letters and etc in the 12 months and than few weeks back things started picked up for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 In my opinion either a deal is currently going through and will be announced in the next few weeks or there will be no deal at all. Can't see prospective buyers taking over a team as poor as ours if they can't influence the manager and playing staff before the transfer window closes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Until today I was fairly convinced that there wasn't a sniff of an owner, but I heard something today about interest from somebody in India. Didn't get a name or anything else, so that's probably the crappest ITK ever, but there you are anyway. Better not be any relation to Venkys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 In my opinion either a deal is currently going through and will be announced in the next few weeks or there will be no deal at all. Can't see prospective buyers taking over a team as poor as ours if they can't influence the manager and playing staff before the transfer window closes. In that entirety feasible situation - what does Lerner do ? - give Lambert £10-15m to give us a fighting chance of staying up - or just hope for the best with loans and a few cheappies - and what of Lambert - does he take abuse from the fans week in week out - watch his own reputation and employee ability plummet - or does he jump ship now - and gamble of getting a decent championship club..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts