Jump to content

Aston Villa finances YE 2014


jackbauer24

Recommended Posts

Add in personal stuff aswell like his divorce around I think 2010 which fits in nicely with the austerity starting here.

 

Our problems started exactly around divorce time. I remember hearing about the divorce and thinking it was likely to be bad news and so it has proved. I think apart from anything else (money), it put RL in a position where his mum felt entitled to question his expenditures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How much has he received on average per season since 2006, Inc all Gate receipts, Merchandise, Sponsorship deals, TV packages etc?

 

Not meaning to prod at this post, or the poster, but do people still actually honestly believe that the money a club makes goes into the pocket of the owner? Business simply doesn't work that way. The owner pays himself a (usually very low) salary, aims to run the company as being profitable, and then looks to make their payday if/when they sell. AVFC's income doesn't go into Randy Lerner's bank account, and if it did he'd be looking at a nice stretch in jail

 

I do find it strange that, with all the money we've lost over the last few years, people still think that Lerner is making money from the club. When in reality it's the total opposite.

 

Which, as we've already said, is his own fault. I don't have any sympathy for him. But it's bonkers to suggest he's somehow siphoning money out of the club.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, but it's still "his" money for the sake of this conversation really

It isn't really, is it?

If it's some sort of family trust then it's likely to be set up for a reason rather than just being a repository for the funds of Mr Lerner (trading as family Lerner formerly called Lerner snr).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, but it's still "his" money for the sake of this conversation really

It isn't really, is it?

If it's some sort of family trust then it's likely to be set up for a reason rather than just being a repository for the funds of Mr Lerner (trading as family Lerner formerly called Lerner snr).

It's a moot point though.

For the sake of the conversation its the money that Lerner has put it.

Where he got that from is a totally separate conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a moot point though.

For the sake of the conversation its the money that Lerner has put it.

Where he got that from is a totally separate conversation.

It's only 'moot' if you want it to be, surely.

It isn't Mr Lerner's money. It's from the Lerner trust, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure on US trust rules but in the UK it would be very difficult for RL as a beneficiary to demand someone else's share whether they are absolutely entitled or whether it is at the trustees discretion.

A trust fund would be controlled by the trustees whoever that is. Like I said the rules in the US will work differently and this may not be a trust structure like what we have here in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a moot point though.

For the sake of the conversation its the money that Lerner has put it.

Where he got that from is a totally separate conversation.

It's only 'moot' if you want it to be, surely.

It isn't Mr Lerner's money. It's from the Lerner trust, no?

 

Nobody is disagreeing with you. But it's the money that Lerner has put into the club, regardless of who actually owns it. Which as P3te said, for the sake of the conversation is what he meant by "his"

 

Your point is a valid one, but like I said it's a completely separate discussion.

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember someone (probably Risso) explaining the trust and why it's used as a vehicle for the family money or for rich people who need access to money that they want to keep safe from the taxman or some such. Sadly, I can't remember exactly what he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The price Lerner paid for Villa has been misreported though. In August 2006 he paid 62.6m for 60% off the club's shares, not for the whole club. That means he had to go buy the remaining 40%, he wouldn't have gotten that for free. Based on the cost paid for the 60%, the remaining 40% would've cost a ballpark of another 40m, putting the outlay for full club ownership at around 100m...

that's completely wrong, sorry. The cost wasn't misreported like that. He made a bid of an amount per share, the number of shares times that price came to the 62 odd million. The full price for all the shares.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But it's the money that Lerner has put into the club, regardless of who actually owns it.

Ye wot?

If x doesn't own y then x doesn't own y.

 

Come on, snowy. You're just being awkward.

 

I didn't say he owns it. I said he'd put it into the club.

Regardless of who owns it, it was his decision to use it for the club, therefore he "put it in".

 

And, again, this is completely beside the original point so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering :D

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Add in personal stuff aswell like his divorce around I think 2010 which fits in nicely with the austerity starting here.

 

Our problems started exactly around divorce time. I remember hearing about the divorce and thinking it was likely to be bad news and so it has proved. I think apart from anything else (money), it put RL in a position where his mum felt entitled to question his expenditures.

 

Since the divorce though he has received $700m for selling the browns and is due another $300 in 2016 from that deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm right in saying that all the money from the sale of The Cleveland Browns goes into the Lerner Family Trust. I don't know if that would be the case with the sale of Aston VIlla, if it is then his Mother and Sister probably have a say in how much they'd be willing to accept for the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The price Lerner paid for Villa has been misreported though. In August 2006 he paid 62.6m for 60% off the club's shares, not for the whole club. That means he had to go buy the remaining 40%, he wouldn't have gotten that for free. Based on the cost paid for the 60%, the remaining 40% would've cost a ballpark of another 40m, putting the outlay for full club ownership at around 100m...

that's completely wrong, sorry. The cost wasn't misreported like that. He made a bid of an amount per share, the number of shares times that price came to the 62 odd million. The full price for all the shares.

No that bid bought 60% of the club. He later bought the remaining shares

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The price Lerner paid for Villa has been misreported though. In August 2006 he paid 62.6m for 60% off the club's shares, not for the whole club. That means he had to go buy the remaining 40%, he wouldn't have gotten that for free. Based on the cost paid for the 60%, the remaining 40% would've cost a ballpark of another 40m, putting the outlay for full club ownership at around 100m...

that's completely wrong, sorry. The cost wasn't misreported like that. He made a bid of an amount per share, the number of shares times that price came to the 62 odd million. The full price for all the shares.

No that bid bought 60% of the club. He later bought the remaining shares

 

I think Blandy might be right, although I wouldn't bet any money on it. But I'm sure someone has posted evidence to that effect on here before.

 

Lerner's bid valued the club at 62 odd million.

 

The amount he paid Ellis would have been whatever Ellis was due out of that

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we are

 

important bit:

 

American Randy Lerner is set to take full control of Aston Villa after acquiring 85.5% of shares in the club.

Lerner had owned 59.69% of the club after his £62.2m takeover in August, but must reach 90% stakeholder support before the takeover can be complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â