$200 Million Takeover

[P3te]

 

That isn't how it works

 

 

I think you're correct actually, however the injection of £90m being for this reason still seems to apply

 

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

 

Premier League

Maximum Permitted Loss: £105m over 3 seasons

Maximum Loss if Owner Does Not Inject Equity: £15m over 3 seasons

Wages Restriction: No restriction if wages are below £52m pa. If anove, max increase is £4m pa, plus any increased revenue from new commercial deals

Overspend Monitored: Annual accounts and projections

Sanctions: Points deductions (plus other sanctions yet to be confirmed)

First Punishments: TBC, Expected to be Dec 2014 for wages/equity breaches, Dec 2016 for exceeding loss limits

 

That site doesn't go into a breakdown of the PL, but it does for the Championship and it's explained as:

 

Losses below £3m > No sanction or fine

Losses between £3m and £8m > Owner requested to inject equity to cover loss above £3m > If owner does, no sanction > If owner doesn't, transfer embargo imposed until club shows spending is acceptable

Losses over £8m > If club gained promotion they must pay Fair Play Tax (club pays maximum of £6,681,000 on first £10m loss above £8m, and 100% of the loss above that figure) > If club didn't gain promotion, transfer embargo

 

So based on the Championship examples, and the PL rules, it would most likely work out as:

 

Losses below £15m over 3 years > No sanctions

Losses above £15m over 3 years > Owner has to inject amount equaling loss over £15m (so if the club lost £100m over 3 years, the owner would have to pay £85m to be compliant. That money would ONLY be able to service that debt and not be used for anything else) > Owner doesn't pay means sanctions (possible point deduction)

Losses above £105m over 3 years > Gets a bit more confusing here and this is the bit I don't  follow. It says there'll be sanctions then, but if you were £114m in debt after those 3 years and the owner put in £100m, you'd actually fall £1m under the £15m required for sanctions

 

So does the owner have to inject enough money for the club NOT to read any more than -£14,999,999 for the given 3 year period, or is the club basically out of luck if they lose £105,000,001 over the same period? It's not very clear there.

 

Also, for anyone interested, amortization comes into play over signings. If we sign a £10m player on a 5 year deal, we don't lose £10m from our available money under FFP, we lose £2m per year he remains at the club (plus whatever his wages are). So a £10m signing on a 5 year deal would only "cost" £6m in terms of transfer fee for the monitoring period

 

Another thing is that it looks like our wage bill for the 2013-14 season will dictate what our wage cap is from here on in. If it's £60m (for example) this year, next year it can be £64m, the next year £68m and so on. If it's £52,000,001 this year, it can only be £56,000,001 next year. That means City, with their ludicrous bill, are allowed to keep increasing it, technically, by £4m a year, the exact same amount as us, so essentially no matter how much money we had, we could never, ever, ever be allowed to spend the same amount of money on wages as City, unless it's based on the previous year only. Which would mean if City's dropped by £10m between this season and next, it could only go up £4m from that point for the next season, but if it dropped another £10m instead, the next season the maximum wage allowed would be £16m less than it was the first season.

 

So was the attempt to lower the wage bill last season badly timed? Should it have happened this season instead so that we had more wiggle room in the transfer market this summer?

 

I sure  as hell give up trying to understand it lol

[suttonpaul]

Yea that's how it works there is different rules for equity injected vs straight debt it just doesn't mean they can spend willy nilly if we take FFP serious as per your first post.

 

The wage bill is set UNLESS you sign new deals commercially that increase revenue then they can go up by that amount so say we signed a 20m a year stadium deal that would allow us another 20m on top of what you mentioned.

 

That site is useful for anyone trying to understand FFP someone sent me there half a year ago it opened my eyes to quite a lot.

 

On a further note I made a post on the Lerner thread ref FFP which I think modestly is worth a read and Niall Quinn on Sky Sports before our game with City clearly said ....

 

When we voted for FFP it was clearly set out as a rule that would stop clubs like Leeds and Portsmouth getting into unsustainable debt it was NOT about spending what you earn which is what it has become. It stops prospective and current owners investing in their business and only helps the status quo if that is to continue.

 

That pretty much sums it up for me debt = bad big spending = not bad as long as it is funded by owner equity.

[suttonpaul]

Ah by the way the whole amortization thing is pure stupid to include if it does include that I'm even more pissed off.

[AstonMartin82]

 

 

 

 

 

If PA was genuinely interested in buying Villa and also genuinely interested in investing hundreds of millions to turn us into competitors again, then why wait for Lerner to go through the pain of stripping out the high earners. Having a massive negative PL wouldn't affect his willingness to purchase us if he is the guy to pump millions into us.

 

Sorry, but I just don't see any dreams being built here.

Isn't it obvious why? If you're selling a club then you get the books in order. Villa are a blank canvas at the moment. Perfect for a take over. The last thing a new owner would want is to come in and sort out a high earners mess regardless of their wealth. You don't get that rich by needlessly spunking money away. Having almost no big contracts to pay off is a lot more inviting than being left with a financial mess.

Makes perfect sense to get the house in order.

 

Then, isn't it obvious that if the "new" owner was waiting for the current owner to get his house in order then he isn't going to be the one spunking millions on us turning us into title contenders?

 

If the "new" owner was waiting in the wings for a clear out then that tells me that we are going to have another Lerner in charge. Nothing spectacular, and nothing worth getting too exicted over.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd be glad Lerner is leaving but all this hype and excitment is very premature IMO.

Why would a new owner want to pay off a number of contracts and then spend more money on new ones? They're businessman. It would decrease the value of the sale.

Not sure why you don't see that, but horses for courses I guess.

Just because these guys are loaded doesn't mean they throw money away.

 

I see this perfectly well... I don't think you are understanding my point. A few people are getting excited by us being potentially bought out by a guy who has $11b in his bank. If this person was going to do something exceptional to us and turn us into title challengers he wouldn't be interested in getting value for money as he is going to be losing £100m's on the project anyway.

 

If he is interested in getting value for money then he isn't going to be the one to turn us into title challengers and as such isn't worth getting so excited about... unless of course P3te's excellently written post and point above comes into play.

Of course he wants value for money, just because he has money doesn't mean he is prepared to throw it away, it doesn't work like that. Man city had a financial plan in place, they didn't just throw money away for the sake of it. They spent heavily initially to get the ball rolling but the spending has tailed off. I'd be more concerned having some numpty come in and chuck money at because that is how we've ended up in this mess.

 

 

Man City lost £60m a year even after you take into consideration their £400m sponsorship deal which is being paid for by the same family that owns Man City and has been done simply as a tool to navigate around the FFP rules. If you took this out of the equation their losses would be colossal. They will never make this money back and seem happy to consistently pump money into Man City and are quite clearly not looking for value.

 

So, "of course he wants value for money" and "it doesn't work like that" isn't actually the case in all instances my friend.

 

My point is quite simple... I wouldn't get too excited if we got bought out by a multibillionaire. If they were going to be interested in making us into a world force they wouldn't have waited for all cost cutting to take place.

 

QPR are owned by one of the richest families on the planet, as are I believe Deportivo La Coruna. These teams aren't even in the top division in their countries and have no plans to do anything special. If we were bought out by a filthy rich man it seems clear to me it won't be as exciting as some people are hoping. This is the only simple point I am making.

[PhilGibson]

Totally agree with Aston Martin, Chelsea are owned by abramovich as a play thing, similar to a super yacht,

Man city are owned by the mansour family as a means to market Abu Dhabi on the world stage, so that when the oil runs dry they have enough assets and prestige brands that the country maintains a position on the world stage.

Liverpool owned by the Fenway group are a structured investment with potential hopes of a financial return in the future.

If we are purchased by US investors then I am guessing that we will be more the Liverpool way than man city or Chelsea.

I am fine with that but don't expect to be blown away with signings.

[VillaForever1970]

This statement had better be worth waiting for.

Its Villa, what do you reckon?

[romavillan]

 

This statement had better be worth waiting for.

Its Villa, what do you reckon?

 

 

It'll be a devastating new flavour of pie to propel us back to the top where we belong.

[Raver50032]

Here's my take- The club was to be sold upon securing Premier League status. So people have been putting pen to paper all week, and I believe those people to be a consortium fronted by Philip Anschutz. The more I think about Klinsmann, the more I think it could be possible. The USA team is a headache with no quick fix, and not even a medium-term fix. He could be getting frustrated. Anschutz will be well aware of him, and I'm sure they've met. 

 

So there ya go folks, my expert opinion. Anschutz with Klinsmann as manager. 

Interesting and my reply is off topic to a degree so I apologise for that.

 

If Klinsmann is available, why wouldn't he be poached by Spurs? <sherlock emote>

 

Back on topic - there was a lot of stuff said in the media (which could be or might not be total testicles) about the requirement for Villa to still be a Premier League club come next season in order for a take over to go ahead. I currently buy in to the premise that with our safety assured for this season, then the door is now open for a quick, done sale.

 

That is my hope.

[Raver50032]

So, upon reading yesterday evening's posts, those looking to understand how the debate has progressed, it seems that Lerner could actually announce that he is to stay on with a plethora of other, more wealthy backers behind him. To help make this possible, Lerner has done some cleaning at the club to make us look more sparkly and new.

 

So, if Lerner stays and continues with his tasks, is it fair to assume that he will be dressed in a French Maid's outfit complete with claret and blue bra and knickers?

 

Allegedly...

[kurtsimonw]

 

Here's my take- The club was to be sold upon securing Premier League status. So people have been putting pen to paper all week, and I believe those people to be a consortium fronted by Philip Anschutz. The more I think about Klinsmann, the more I think it could be possible. The USA team is a headache with no quick fix, and not even a medium-term fix. He could be getting frustrated. Anschutz will be well aware of him, and I'm sure they've met. 

 

So there ya go folks, my expert opinion. Anschutz with Klinsmann as manager. 

Interesting and my reply is off topic to a degree so I apologise for that.

 

If Klinsmann is available, why wouldn't he be poached by Spurs? <sherlock emote>

 

 

Because he has very little experience in club management? And in his one season, did a very poor job in Munich. I'd stay far away from Klinsmann.

[GENTLEMAN]

 

Randy Lerner leaves Aston Villa in the dark RANDY LERNER is not expected to fly in next week and will announce Aston Villa's future from 3,000 miles away at his New York home. Villa's senior management are in the dark about what billionaire Lerner intends to do with the club. And they do not expect him to be getting on his private jet and be at the club in person to say whether he is selling.

Only a statement, filed to the club's media department, is expected from him.

Lerner has become more and more reclusive since buying Villa for £62million eight years ago. He was regularly at games for his first three years of ownership but is rarely at matches now, watching instead on satellite TV at his luxury home in Amagansett, New York.

He did make a visit to the club and training ground recently but kept the trip secret, spoke to no media and said via a statement, printed verbatim, that he would announce his plans for the club when the season finishes.

Lerner did not confirm or deny he was selling, leaving Villa in limbo but is thought to be looking for buyers himself.

Now the team is safe in the Premier League after another poor season there is no reason why Lerner, who is worth £1.5bn, could not bring forward his address to the nation to this week, but there is no likelihood of that happening.

There is no comment from the Villa board on the situation and manager Paul Lambert admits he does not know what is going on.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/474812/Randy-Lerner-leaves-Aston-Villa-in-the-dark?

[smetrov]

 

Here's my take- The club was to be sold upon securing Premier League status. So people have been putting pen to paper all week, and I believe those people to be a consortium fronted by Philip Anschutz. The more I think about Klinsmann, the more I think it could be possible. The USA team is a headache with no quick fix, and not even a medium-term fix. He could be getting frustrated. Anschutz will be well aware of him, and I'm sure they've met. 

 

So there ya go folks, my expert opinion. Anschutz with Klinsmann as manager. 

Interesting and my reply is off topic to a degree so I apologise for that.

 

If Klinsmann is available, why wouldn't he be poached by Spurs? <sherlock emote>

 

Back on topic - there was a lot of stuff said in the media (which could be or might not be total testicles) about the requirement for Villa to still be a Premier League club come next season in order for a take over to go ahead. I currently buy in to the premise that with our safety assured for this season, then the door is now open for a quick, done sale.

 

That is my hope.

 

 

Sadly I think we will find that people willing to invest £200m+ in a non london football club are in short supply.

 

I think Lerners statement is to convince us that we have change or a ' new chapter ' - when in reality its more of the same.

[ShafterAVFC]

Anyone think he might sell the stadium to AEG? and stay in control of the club?

[Djemba_Villan]

Anyone think he might sell the stadium to AEG? and stay in control of the club?

 

Nah.

 

None of his actions since owning us have been anything other than respectful to the traditions of the club, or generally philanthropical (Pub, Statues, 1982 team, Museum etc, Acorns, Art Gallery donation, Petrov etc.). He's not about to  undergo a complete personality transplant.

[sharkyvilla]

Basically nobody knows except Lerner and probably whoever he is selling to. It's a bit like listening to the transfer gossip, it's all bollocks because we're tight as the proverbial when it comes to leaking info. We will just have to wait.

[smetrov]

 

Anyone think he might sell the stadium to AEG? and stay in control of the club?

 

Nah.

 

None of his actions since owning us have been anything other than respectful to the traditions of the club, or generally philanthropical (Pub, Statues, 1982 team, Museum etc, Acorns, Art Gallery donation, Petrov etc.). He's not about to  undergo a complete personality transplant.

 

 

Except that one decision........

[smetrov]

Basically nobody knows except Lerner and probably whoever he is selling to. It's a bit like listening to the transfer gossip, it's all bollocks because we're tight as the proverbial when it comes to leaking info. We will just have to wait.

 

Howard Hodgson posted a good article on TBAR - listing all things as why he beleives a takeover is happening - the equity transfer, cost cutting, last chance to sell as a premier club etc. - its pretty convincing. - However my take is that Lerner has done everything possible to make us attractive to a buyer - Unfortuntaley I don't beleive it follows that such a buyer has been found.

 

How much of that Lerner puts in his statement remains to be seen - but I will be staggered if he has kept a £200m deal under wraps - and spills the beans next week.

[GENTLEMAN]

Lerner said he will be addressing his personal role at the club and the sale rumours.

[useless]

I reckon the statement will say something like that the club are in talks with several consortiums and talks are at a very early stage but that the club is planning for next season as normal and Lerner is fully committed should nothing come from the talks.

[Don_Simon]

 

 

Anyone think he might sell the stadium to AEG? and stay in control of the club?

 

Nah.

 

None of his actions since owning us have been anything other than respectful to the traditions of the club, or generally philanthropical (Pub, Statues, 1982 team, Museum etc, Acorns, Art Gallery donation, Petrov etc.). He's not about to  undergo a complete personality transplant.

 

 

Except that one decision........

 

 

And what a decision it was. He must have been on some serious meds when that was decided.