samjp26 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Texas Rangers lost 16-2 to the White Sox last night Booooooooooooooooo Davis and Simpson out They won 5 in a row before that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TrinityRoadSteps Posted April 21, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2014 Texas Rangers lost 16-2 to the White Sox last night Booooooooooooooooo Davis and Simpson out They won 5 in a row before that Davis and Simpson back in 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2014 Just as Lerner wanted the entire holdings when he arrived so too would anyone buying the club from him. They wouldn't want him involved even as a silent partner especially with the monumental mess he made of his tenure. The fact that the Texas Rangers are jointly owned indicates they may be somewhat open to a share agreement with Randy. The reason for my hunch, is that Randy is a shrewd businessman looking to recover most of his investment - if under new ownership the club's profile was raised, a small share owned by Randy may in the future allow him to recover some of his debt - in effect, such a deal would also reduce the initial outlay for any new owners, sweetening any prospective deal. Just a hunch. I may be being a bit thick here, but how does keeping a small holding help Randy recover his debt? He'd sell the club and the debt anyway wouldn't he (effectively writing off the debt and adding it to the price of the club). As an investment, it's possible that the new owners might increase the value of the club and therefore the value of a share in it, but I don't see why they'd allow him to get a free ride whilst they put their money in to increase the value of the club. If he wanted to help carry the load, then surely he'd be asked to invest at the same sort of proportional rate as the others - it's not like there's a hope in hell that anyone's going to be running this club at a significant profit in the near future. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I live in Dallas and follow the Rangers closely. Here are my initial thoughts, for whatever they're worth: These guys will stay quiet and behind the scenes. Don't expect them to say much or do interviews (unlike Liverpool's owner, Henry). They will want to field a competitive team. The Rangers' General Manager (who is essentially in charge of the team, strategically) has said that he has never asked to spend money and been turned down. That said, I wouldn't expect these guys to come in and spend bucket loads of money on transfers. We wouldn't be the new City, or really anything close to it. I'd be happy with that. I don't want an owner who sees ownership as a platform for projecting his/their own ego(s) on the world and is looking for the spotlight and column inches. STFU, stay in the background, get a good executive team in place, who have the right combination of football and commercial knowledge and experience, who will ensure the appointment of the right team manager and I'll be happy. Assuming that this elite team are given the funds to deliver the goods, of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted April 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 21, 2014 £4bn would make our new owners five times wealthier than Liverpool's owner. But a fraction of what Fulham's owner is worth. That would suggest the wealth of a football club's owner is largely irrelevant at this level? It's irrelevant when there's enough of it. It's not irrelevant if owner's wealth is 1 billion USD. Isn't RL worth more than a billion currently - yet we're fighting relegation. Liverpool's owner is worth less than a billion and they've all but won the title. In premier league terms it's irrelevant. Not if you want to really spend, Man City style. If you're worth 1 billion, you're not going to buy a team in Birmingham for 200 mill and spend another 200-300 mn on players while losing a big amount annually. Initial investments would be half your wealth. If you're worth 5 billion, it's only 10 %. Big difference. Randy has enough money to run the team responsibly, if he wanted to. He's just not interested any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGregor1888 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 £4bn would make our new owners five times wealthier than Liverpool's owner. But a fraction of what Fulham's owner is worth. That would suggest the wealth of a football club's owner is largely irrelevant at this level? It's irrelevant when there's enough of it. It's not irrelevant if owner's wealth is 1 billion USD. Isn't RL worth more than a billion currently - yet we're fighting relegation. Liverpool's owner is worth less than a billion and they've all but won the title. In premier league terms it's irrelevant. Guys, forget about the worth of the people "fronting" ownerships. The crucial thing to understand is that these are "groups" of people financing the investments. John Henry's wealth is immaterial - he is fronting a group of people with access to money. Likewise, it would appear - if the Texas Rangers model is anything to go by- Simpson and Davis are heading a group of investors. How much they are worth collectively or (more importantly) how much they are willing to invest in Villa is anyone's guess. This figure of a collective worth of four billion for the two men heading the deal is fairly meaningless in the context of their "group's" worth and ambitions. It will be interesting to see how this develops. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Just as Lerner wanted the entire holdings when he arrived so too would anyone buying the club from him. They wouldn't want him involved even as a silent partner especially with the monumental mess he made of his tenure. The fact that the Texas Rangers are jointly owned indicates they may be somewhat open to a share agreement with Randy. The reason for my hunch, is that Randy is a shrewd businessman looking to recover most of his investment - if under new ownership the club's profile was raised, a small share owned by Randy may in the future allow him to recover some of his debt - in effect, such a deal would also reduce the initial outlay for any new owners, sweetening any prospective deal. Just a hunch. I may be being a bit thick here, but how does keeping a small holding help Randy recover his debt? He'd sell the club and the debt anyway wouldn't he (effectively writing off the debt and adding it to the price of the club). As an investment, it's possible that the new owners might increase the value of the club and therefore the value of a share in it, but I don't see why they'd allow him to get a free ride whilst they put their money in to increase the value of the club. If he wanted to help carry the load, then surely he'd be asked to invest at the same sort of proportional rate as the others - it's not like there's a hope in hell that anyone's going to be running this club at a significant profit in the near future. I don't get it. Maybe I'm being a bit thick or my memory is deceiving me but hasn't the debt already been converted to equity? That is, it would be all wrapped up as part of the sale price and he would recover most, if not all, of what he has laid out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) I think a Davis / Simpson combo has been seen before.... Edited April 21, 2014 by StanBalaban 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2014 Maybe I'm being a bit thick or my memory is deceiving me but hasn't the debt already been converted to equity? That is, it would be all wrapped up as part of the sale price and he would recover most, if not all, of what he has laid out? I think so - £90m of it anyways - and I don't see the point of new owners allowing Lerner to hold onto the rest of the debt rather than just buying it out initially - the generous interest rates mean it's not worth Lerner holding on to it either I'd have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villan4Life Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 So who would be reputable names to advise the new owners of how to move forward? Nicola Cortese would be my choice as CEO! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Why is the wealth of the owners being discussed in such detail. They certainly won't rock up and spunk the whole lot on villa anyway. $1bn and $4bn makes little difference. The key question is how much of their wealth they are prepared to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Considering the mess he left Southampton in financially, why on earth would you want him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Just as Lerner wanted the entire holdings when he arrived so too would anyone buying the club from him. They wouldn't want him involved even as a silent partner especially with the monumental mess he made of his tenure. The fact that the Texas Rangers are jointly owned indicates they may be somewhat open to a share agreement with Randy. The reason for my hunch, is that Randy is a shrewd businessman looking to recover most of his investment - if under new ownership the club's profile was raised, a small share owned by Randy may in the future allow him to recover some of his debt - in effect, such a deal would also reduce the initial outlay for any new owners, sweetening any prospective deal. Just a hunch. I may be being a bit thick here, but how does keeping a small holding help Randy recover his debt? He'd sell the club and the debt anyway wouldn't he (effectively writing off the debt and adding it to the price of the club). As an investment, it's possible that the new owners might increase the value of the club and therefore the value of a share in it, but I don't see why they'd allow him to get a free ride whilst they put their money in to increase the value of the club. If he wanted to help carry the load, then surely he'd be asked to invest at the same sort of proportional rate as the others - it's not like there's a hope in hell that anyone's going to be running this club at a significant profit in the near future. I don't get it. Maybe I'm being a bit thick or my memory is deceiving me but hasn't the debt already been converted to equity? That is, it would be all wrapped up as part of the sale price and he would recover most, if not all, of what he has laid out? Yeah, that £90m or whatever it was is now part of Aston Villa Football Club. The club no longer owe it to Lerner's company. I'm assuming that considering he wanted £200m+ for the club anyway, he erased that £90m of debt to get his sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) I've actually got a feeling it won't be these guys. Apparantly Randy retained shares in the Cleveland Browns. The thing of him saying that he'd explain his role at the club once the season's ended made me think he might stay on in some sort of capacity. Edited April 21, 2014 by useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Davis and Simpson bought Rangers for $593 billion in 2010, now valued by Forbes at over $1 billion http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ml-rangers&tid=26948 Blimey. Obvious typo, of course it's wasn't bought for 593 bn, it was bought for 593 million. Thanks for clarifying. Definitely required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I've actually got a feeling it won't be these guys. Apparantly Randy retained shares in the Cleveland Browns. The thing of him saying that he'd explain his role at the club once the season's ended made me think he might stay on in some sort of capacity. Maybe he is selling the majority share but still wants to be involved. Being new to the sport, maybe the new guys want Randy around for a while to help getting to grips with a new sport in a new country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villan4Life Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Just thought of something, who was that non-exec director who joined with Charles Krulak when Randy took over!! Wasn't he called Bob Simpson as well? Not the same guy was it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdomlahor Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 One thing is for damn sure - they won't rock up here and not invest heavily in the playing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 If Randy sells AVFC for £200 million, and then you add in payments made to RAL by AVFC, Lerner should just about cover his investment. Not bad given the mismanagement that he and PF have been responsible for over the past few seasons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain-from-Texas Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Agreed that we shouldn't speculate about these guys would or wouldn't do based on their net worth. Their net worth doesn't tell us much of anything. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts