Big_John_10 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Come to think of it if the takeover is done late in the transfer window then Lambert probably will stick around until January at least. If it's done sooner and significant funds are available to spend before the season starts then I'd expect a new manager. Why? The takeover with Lerner wasn't fully complete till after the season started and we still got rid of DOL for Mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Lambert “My understanding is that at the minute nothing’s going to happen.” 6]In June, Holmgren reiterated the Browns were not for sale, responding to a rumor that Lerner had the team on the market. 6]"No, the Browns are not for sale," he said. "I talk to Randy all the time, and I assume he'd tell me. We have a very open, honest relationship. No, there's no truth to that." That quote has made me so happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 McLeash was sacked because if the fan reaction to him. Lambert is doing what the owner has asked so will get a letter of recommendation if there are new owners. New owners may well decide to give him a go rather than change everything at once. That seems to happen with most takeovers. How many of those takeovers took place in the summer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooh-Ah Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Lambert“My understanding is that at the minute nothing’s going to happen.” 6]In June, Holmgren reiterated the Browns were not for sale, responding to a rumor that Lerner had the team on the market. 6]"No, the Browns are not for sale," he said. "I talk to Randy all the time, and I assume he'd tell me. We have a very open, honest relationship. No, there's no truth to that." That quote has made me so happy. Is it not obvious that Lambert's quote should be translated as "Nothing is going to happen right now"? Just after that he says "Unless that changes when Randy makes his speech", presumably referring to the statement Lerner will make at the end of the season. I think Lambert is trying to stay on message, i.e. focus on staying up, deflect attention from the takeover. He isn't much of an orator and when his interviews are transcribed they read very poorly; he tends to speak in circles. I think he tries to be coy/evasive and he ends up sounding weird. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillakevBromsgrove Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I dont think RL will sell outright as the emphasis has always been to find investment. I think he will keep some of his money in the club and we will be owned by a consortium, My concerns are that if we have serious money to invest then PL is probably not the right man for the job. He has never shown any desire or ability to manage big name players, he always likes young and keen so he can work with them where as the top players are less inclined to take crap and not have an opinion. I think even if he stays on he will be gone by Christmas as behind the scenes problems will sign his fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Pelle Posted April 25, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted April 25, 2014 Having read through this thread in a couple of days now I have to say that I'm impressed about the knowledge about rich people. I haven't heard about anyone of them, apart from Bill Gates mentioned as a joke. This Ellison guy, who seems very unlikely to be the new owner, seems to be among the richest in the world and I haven't got a clue. I thought about looking him up on google but realised that I wasn't really interested. Unless he actually should buy us. But then there would be enough to read about him here. Anyway, I'm not really against Lerner. I don't kiss the ground he walks on and he's made his mistakes through the years, but he's also done some good things IMO. But I'd be happy, and a bit nervous, if he sold us as I think the whole club needs a new start. A refreshing start. We need to get behind the whole club again, which we ain't at the moment. The whole club, from top to bottom, from owners to fans, reeks of despair and fear. We need a new hope. Therefor I think we need a whole new team in the background with new owners. I don't necessarily want them to be loaded as that Ellison guy seems to be, but with a plan, a good plan, to take us forward. If it takes time then that's fine, as long as we can see some progress through the whole club. I want the whole club to go in the same direction, from the board, through the first team down to the kids. And that direction of course needs to mean progress, not down. I think that's essential. Even if we got an owner who could buy us the world we still need an ideology and some kind of stability to establish us where we aim to be. That's what I ask from a new owner, or Lerner if he doesn't sell up. Sometimes a new owner keeps the old manager to give him a chance, like Hughes at citeh, and sometimes they don't, like DOL for us. Guess the last one was mostly down to DOL's bad relationship with the fans. It's one thing that many fans don't want Lambert 'cause they think he's useless, a whole other thing if you say things that makes fans react with fury. And being a bad manager in their eyes at that. I wouldn't mind Lambert to stay, but I wouldn't cry if he went either. That's not really the most important thing for me now anyway. First I want to know who's going to own us after this season, and then I want to know the plans, then I want to know who the manager is going to be. But absolute first of all I want us to stay up. 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folski Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think Villa were initially going to be the one bit of success that Lerner crafted for himself, and it was going well for a while, but eventually the bottom fell out, and the kind of outlay required for him to get them where he initially wanted to be would now be insane, so he's faced with no choice really but to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 25, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 25, 2014 Having read through this thread in a couple of days now I have to say that I'm impressed about the knowledge about rich people. I haven't heard about anyone of them, apart from Bill Gates mentioned as a joke. This Ellison guy, who seems very unlikely to be the new owner, seems to be among the richest in the world and I haven't got a clue. I thought about looking him up on google but realised that I wasn't really interested. Unless he actually should buy us. But then there would be enough to read about him here. Anyway, I'm not really against Lerner. I don't kiss the ground he walks on and he's made his mistakes through the years, but he's also done some good things IMO. But I'd be happy, and a bit nervous, if he sold us as I think the whole club needs a new start. A refreshing start. We need to get behind the whole club again, which we ain't at the moment. The whole club, from top to bottom, from owners to fans, reeks of despair and fear. We need a new hope. Therefor I think we need a whole new team in the background with new owners. I don't necessarily want them to be loaded as that Ellison guy seems to be, but with a plan, a good plan, to take us forward. If it takes time then that's fine, as long as we can see some progress through the whole club. I want the whole club to go in the same direction, from the board, through the first team down to the kids. And that direction of course needs to mean progress, not down. I think that's essential. Even if we got an owner who could buy us the world we still need an ideology and some kind of stability to establish us where we aim to be. That's what I ask from a new owner, or Lerner if he doesn't sell up. Sometimes a new owner keeps the old manager to give him a chance, like Hughes at citeh, and sometimes they don't, like DOL for us. Guess the last one was mostly down to DOL's bad relationship with the fans. It's one thing that many fans don't want Lambert 'cause they think he's useless, a whole other thing if you say things that makes fans react with fury. And being a bad manager in their eyes at that. I wouldn't mind Lambert to stay, but I wouldn't cry if he went either. That's not really the most important thing for me now anyway. First I want to know who's going to own us after this season, and then I want to know the plans, then I want to know who the manager is going to be. But absolute first of all I want us to stay up. Post of The Thread. Totally agree, Pelle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2014 I dont think RL will sell outright as the emphasis has always been to find investment. I keep seeing this or variations of it and it just makes little or no sense to me. For a start, Lerner has seemingly at best got less interest in the club than he used to have he certainly attends far far less matches. At worst, well at worst I think people could make a case for saying on the football side of things he has completely lost interest. But the distinction between these two things isn't really important in relation to the above. Even if Lerner wanted to remain at the club as part of a consortium rather than sell, why on earth would anyone with the levels of wealth we are talking about want to invest bit part? People rarely invest in portions of clubs, the only times I can think of that happening are examples like Matthew Harding who as a fan came to Chelsea's aid or Liverpool where there is a consortium of owners. (Oh there was Carson Yeung of course and look how that one turned out but that was very very different in terms of those selling and buying ) Both cases are entirely different to the proposition of joining Lerner in ownership of Villa. Those being linked or likely to be interested in the club and wealthy enough to do something about it aren't likely to be Villa fans, please don't say 'Lerner was a Villa fan' because it simply isn't true even though he might have watched some games. His purchase of us was an investment which is why Faulkner said the pair of them looked at a number of clubs. The proposition of investing/shared ownership with Lerner is that a person or persons stump up their money for part ownership of the club, either with a minority or majority shareholding. So they would have shared ownership of a club with a man who has made a complete mess of running the club for pretty much his entire tenure. Doesn't sound an attractive investment to me that. As minority shareholders their investment would be in his hands, something I can't see people being comfortable with. While as majority shareholders they would be running the show and funding it but then he would be benefiting financially from any success. Again it doesn't really make a lot of sense to an investor. When Randy arrived he bought Ellis out and then set about purchasing the remaining diluted shareholdings, not because he needed to but because he wanted to. Because he had some sort of plan which he believed would see him being able to sell the club in around 10 years at a profit, trust me there are quotes out there about the 10 year time frame. So with this plan, he wanted all the shares so that he was the one who would get 100% of the profit generated by his work and investment. Plus him holding 100% of the shares would make disposal easier. Anyone looking at Villa now or in the future will have a similar view, they won't be looking to join Lerner they will be looking to replace him. Whatever Lerner's level of interest or his desire if he is to sell and I'm not yet convinced he will, I firmly believe it will be all or nothing. This reply isn't just in reply to the post I've quoted but the various posts I've seen suggesting this shared ownership model involving Lerner. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Trent I've thought the same thing when I see it mentioned but you put it in an excellent post. It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Of course Lerner has lost total interest-Its so obvious, a blind man can see it. The club is up for sale, not looking for new investors. The way the finances have been run down to a minimum to look cost effective for new purchasers is not what would have been done if you were looking to attract investors. Falkner looking to jump ship for the past 6 months is another indication that this particular gravy train is about to end for him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 He still owns 30% of the Browns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Only for a short period, 2 or 3 years max 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2014 He still owns 30% of the Browns. Ah yes, he does thanks for reminding me. I should have included reference to this. He retains 30% for a maximum period of 4 years I believe. However the 70% he sold cost the new owner £620m which puts the cost of outright ownership in the region of £886m if my maths is correct. Given that the new (majority) owner of the Browns has a net worth comparable to that of the names linked with us, the purchase price is significant. It is quite different spending £200-£250m of your £1.8b fortune on a purchase to it is spending £886m. It is reasonable to assume that in the case of the Browns the new owner hasn't taken outright ownership because there is a logical financial reason for them not to do so. However I don't believe the same logical reason would apply to someone worth £1.8b opting to buy 70% of Villa when the entire share holding potentially could be available for a far small percentage of their overall wealth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2014 ....People rarely invest in portions of clubs, the only times I can think of that happening are examples like Matthew Harding who as a fan came to Chelsea's aid or Liverpool where there is a consortium of owners. (Oh there was Carson Yeung of course and look how that one turned out but that was very very different in terms of those selling and buying )...Just as a point of order, it happens relatively often, doesn't it? -Obviously Villa before Randy being the closest example. and Arsenal. And Weirwolf and Pornodwarf at the Sty and then West Ham. Weren't there various different people owned ManUre? (those Irish horse whippers etc.). Palace at the moment, Everton, Norwich, Swansea, The Baggies, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Derby, Doncaster, Leeds, QPR, Reading, Yeoveil, Carlisle, Crewe, Rotherham, Sheffield Utd., Swidon, Accrington, Bristol Rovers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2014 No I don't think it does. Villa prior to Lerner really isn't an example, we were a club held privately by a small number of shareholders of whom Ellis was the largest and he issued more shares for a public float which were purchased by fans. Not really the same thing at all. As for Arsenal again, its a very different situation and one in which the two majority shareholders are hoovering up shares when they can to try and gain outright ownership which is what they seemingly want. Birmingham I made reference to, they wanted to sell the whole thing but he couldn't afford it and did the deal in two stages, or at least the holding company did and its rather hard to tell the difference between him and the holding company. Man United is again different as it was a publicly listed company rather than privately held. I really can't comment on most of the others you mention especially the lower league sides. But I've a feeling a number of them have been purchased by a consortium which is very different to purchasing a chunk of a club from an existing owner which I did try to make reference to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2014 So Jack Petchey buying all those Villa shares was a fan? Was he heck as like! (as they say round here). I named around 25 clubs which are currently in joint ownership. I think that counts as "relatively often" myself. Anyway, taking your point about Plcs, or non Plcs like arsenal even, people buy into football clubs for all sorts of reasons. It didn't used to be about making money, it used to be more about things like "it's my childhood club" or putting something back, or self promotion, or a certain status in a community. Now though it's more often about "I can make money here" (sadly). And then there's the even newer phenomenon of respectability and a kind of untouchable status from country of origin prosecution (Roman, Shinawatra) or National promotion (Qatar, Emirates, Abu Dabi). So even you were right about People rarely invest in portions of clubs" (which you're not) past behaviour is not guarantee of future behaviour and frankly there's nothing (other than Randy's judgement as to who if anyone, to sell to or sell partly to) to stop some moneyed group/nation/person getting a chunk of the Villa for whatever of the above variations they might wish to pursue. It seems to me it's more and more the way the game, with big clubs and leagues is going. Overseas TV rights are becoming more dominant, as are overseas "markets". The fact that were all looking not at some midlands bloke, but an American/Middle- Eastern/wherever consortium or individual tends to (I think) support the view that the game's long since lost it's local grounding and identity. It's now a money matter for global elites. So looking at it not as a fan, but just "a large-ish, UK Premier League football club, possibly for sale or investment opportunity" I can see no reason to feel that the possibility, or probability of additional "investors" being offered or wanting the chance to "get onboard" should be ruled out. The likes of us might want someone who will care for and nurture our club, but that train's long left the station. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2014 So Jack Petchey buying all those Villa shares was a fan? Was he heck as like! (as they say round here). I named around 25 clubs which are currently in joint ownership. I think that counts as "relatively often" myself. No granted he wasn't that is fair comment but nonetheless it was still a listed company which is still I think different to buying into a privately held company. As for the joint ownership point, my point wasn't that joint ownership was unusual, I thought I'd made that clear but obviously not, my point was that people buying into privately held clubs was unusual. And it is. A fair number of the clubs you identify were purchased under joint ownership so that really doesn't disprove that view. Anyway, taking your point about Plcs, or non Plcs like arsenal even, people buy into football clubs for all sorts of reasons. It didn't used to be about making money, it used to be more about things like "it's my childhood club" or putting something back, or self promotion, or a certain status in a community. Now though it's more often about "I can make money here" (sadly). And then there's the even newer phenomenon of respectability and a kind of untouchable status from country of origin prosecution (Roman, Shinawatra) or National promotion (Qatar, Emirates, Abu Dabi). So even you were right about People rarely invest in portions of clubs" (which you're not) past behaviour is not guarantee of future behaviour and frankly there's nothing (other than Randy's judgement as to who if anyone, to sell to or sell partly to) to stop some moneyed group/nation/person getting a chunk of the Villa for whatever of the above variations they might wish to pursue. Again, my point wasn't that people rarely invest in portions of clubs my point was people rarely, very rarely buy a controlling interest or minority interest in a club which is held by an individual. None of the examples you've given are examples of this as far as I'm aware but correct me if I'm wrong. And I agree people buy into clubs for all sorts of reasons, not just because its their team I made reference to that myself in relation to Lerner's purchase of Villa. As for the newer phenomenon your correctly identify, I think these sort of investors/buyers/owners/custodians call them what you will make partial ownership, purchase less not more likely. So I don't agree when you say I'm wrong but then down the years we have rarely agreed in relation to the ownership of the club or financial matters so that is no surprise or issue. I would though be interested if you can give specific examples of clubs that relate to what I'm talking about. A club held privately by an individual, not a group and not a PLC that has seen either a minority or majority interest sold privately to another individual(s). I think that would be far more relevant than the collection of clubs you previously stated which are under joint ownership which is quite different. If and I think it is a fairly sizable if, Lerner sells this summer I personally think he will sell the whole club not a percentage of it but until it happens there is no way of knowing who is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raver50032 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Imagine if we dont get taken over..... I'd piss myself Bugger that... I'd go the whole hog and 'shit myself with rage...' 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Imagine if we dont get taken over..... I'd piss myself Bugger that... I'd go the whole hog and 'shit myself with rage...' That's what we need a mass dirty protest at VP if Lerner doesn't sell! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts