P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 And here On 14 August 2006, it was confirmed that Randy Lerner, owner of the Cleveland Browns and native Ohioan had reached an agreement of GB£62.6 million with Aston Villa for a takeover of the club. A statement released on 25 August to the LSE announced that Lerner had secured 59.69% of Villa shares, making him the majority shareholder. He also appointed himself Chairman of the club. ... Randy Lerner took full control on 18 September as he had 89.69% of the shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 27, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I don't fully know how it works but to me those two quotes don't make it any clearer. It doesn't say he paid £62 million for his 60%. It says the takeover was worth £62 million Edited February 27, 2015 by Stevo985 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So he spent just under £95m on the club? If my maths is right. I remember seeing an article on Bham Mail saying that he had spent £300m altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't fully know how it works but to me those two quotes don't make it any clearer. It doesn't say he paid £62 million for his 60%. It says the takeover was worth £62 million He paid 62m for the controlling share (including Ellis' share) on August 16th, he needed the rest (well, 90%, which he didn't actually get, but he was so close it was allowed, with a shade under 90%) for a full takeover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 27, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't fully know how it works but to me those two quotes don't make it any clearer. It doesn't say he paid £62 million for his 60%. It says the takeover was worth £62 million He paid 62m for the controlling share (including Ellis' share) on August 16th, he needed the rest (well, 90%, which he didn't actually get, but he was so close it was allowed, with a shade under 90%) for a full takeover Did he though? Because those articles you've quoted don't say that. I'm not being an idiot on purpose here. I'm genuinely curious because in my head I had it the way you're describing, but I'm sure somebody posted on here previously disproving that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't fully know how it works but to me those two quotes don't make it any clearer. It doesn't say he paid £62 million for his 60%. It says the takeover was worth £62 million He paid 62m for the controlling share (including Ellis' share) on August 16th, he needed the rest (well, 90%, which he didn't actually get, but he was so close it was allowed, with a shade under 90%) for a full takeover Did he though? Because those articles you've quoted don't say that. The first one says: Lerner had owned 59.69% of the club after his £62.2m takeover in August Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Surely he could only takeover by getting the 90%, thereby a £62m takeover by definition means he paid £62m to takeover the club i.e. the 90% share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I think the '£62.2m' figure was just a forecast of how much the takeover would cost when complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Surely he could only takeover by getting the 90%, thereby a £62m takeover by definition means he paid £62m to takeover the club i.e. the 90% share? the 59.69% gave him the controlling power in Villa, as majority shareholder. Which would equate to takeover in pretty much every way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Ok I see for full control he needed 90% rather than for a takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Ok I see for full control he needed 90% rather than for a takeover. Exactly. The 90% let him take the club off the public market among other things without having to get approval from anyone, and had him as the defacto owner. At 59.69% he was the chairman and majority shareholder Edited February 27, 2015 by P3te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I think the '£62.2m' figure was just a forecast of how much the takeover would cost when complete. That's possible, but try as I might I haven't been able to find the volume of Villa shares existing at that time. The only thing I found regarding that was on the LSE release, which gives the amount of shares agreed to be purchased for the 62m, but not the complete share volume of the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 27, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I don't fully know how it works but to me those two quotes don't make it any clearer. It doesn't say he paid £62 million for his 60%. It says the takeover was worth £62 million He paid 62m for the controlling share (including Ellis' share) on August 16th, he needed the rest (well, 90%, which he didn't actually get, but he was so close it was allowed, with a shade under 90%) for a full takeover Did he though? Because those articles you've quoted don't say that. The first one says: Lerner had owned 59.69% of the club after his £62.2m takeover in August Which was my point. That doesn't say he paid £62.2m for 59.69% It says he owns 59.69% after his takeover which was a £62.2m takeover Put it like this. Aston villa have a million shares. Lerner says "i'll give you £62.20 per share" The board accepts. That values the club at £62.2 million. But he only pays £62.20 x 596,900 shares You may well be right, but I can't find anything to confirm either way Edited February 27, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Yeah that could well be right, but it wouldn't be a 62m takeover then, it'd be Lerner paying 37.13m for 60% - a figure that's not reported anywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 27, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 27, 2015 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 You are mistaken Pete The offer was Recommended Cash Offer for Aston Villa plc ('Aston Villa') by Reform Acquisitions Limited ('RAL') Summary and Highlights The Boards of RAL and Aston Villa are pleased to announce the terms of a recommended cash offer by RAL to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Aston Villa. RAL, is an English company, which was newly incorporated for the purposes of making the Offer and which is ultimately controlled by Mr Randolph Lerner, owner of the Cleveland Browns Football Club, USA.The Offer will be 547 pence in cash for each Aston Villa Share, valuing the existing issued share capital of Aston Villa at approximately £62.6 million. ....The Board of Aston Villa intends unanimously to recommend that Aston Villa Shareholders accept the Offer, as the Aston Villa Directors (and certain members of their immediate families) have irrevocably undertaken to do in respect of their own beneficial shareholdings of Aston Villa Shares. Those holdings amount, in aggregate, to 4,111,514 Aston Villa Shares, representing approximately 35.91% of the existing issued share capital of Aston Villa. In addition, RAL has received an irrevocable undertaking to accept the Offer from Trefick Limited in respect of a further 2,396,909 Aston Villa Shares, representing approximately 20.94 per cent. of the existing issued share capital of Aston Villa... .... 3. Irrevocable undertakings RAL has received irrevocable undertakings to accept the Offer in respect of a total of 6,508,423 Aston Villa Shares representing, in aggregate, approximately 56.85 per cent. of the existing issued share capital of Aston Villa, comprised as follows: (a) from each of the Aston Villa Directors (and certain members of their immediate families) in respect of their entire beneficial holdings which amount, in aggregate, to 4,111,514 Aston Villa Shares representing approximately 35.91 per cent. of the existing issued share capital of Aston Villa; and (b ) from Trefick Limited in respect of its entire holding of 2,396,909 Aston Villa Shares, representing approximately 20.94 per cent. of the existing issued share capital of Aston Villa.... There were 11,449,000 shares in total. I still have the documents. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I think the '£62.2m' figure was just a forecast of how much the takeover would cost when complete. That's possible, but try as I might I haven't been able to find the volume of Villa shares existing at that time. The only thing I found regarding that was on the LSE release, which gives the amount of shares agreed to be purchased for the 62m, but not the complete share volume of the club The volume of the shares was 100% valued at £62.2m. I am 99.9% sure of that. Ellis did not walk away with £62.2m all to himself. Unless you mean share value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So then it was misreported, just the opposite way I thought I think the '£62.2m' figure was just a forecast of how much the takeover would cost when complete. That's possible, but try as I might I haven't been able to find the volume of Villa shares existing at that time. The only thing I found regarding that was on the LSE release, which gives the amount of shares agreed to be purchased for the 62m, but not the complete share volume of the club The volume of the shares was 100% valued at £62.2m. I am 99.9% sure of that. Ellis did not walk away with £62.2m all to himself. Unless you mean share value? nah I meant volume, as in how many shares there were, not percentage shares of the takeover. Blandy has cleared it up. Ellis only had 39% or something like that to begin with anyway 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Jack Petchey was the other major shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Swiss Rambler should be sniffing around us soon. He did quite a big piece on us a few years ago when we dropped our spending off a cliff. Don't hold your breath. He's not done much at all in the last year and has said what he does from now on won't be the same type of approach. Risso will need to figure it out instead. Shows what I know... KOC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Really good piece but depressing at the same time. Still think we are in for a few more tough seasons, our income through sponsorship is pretty poor reading too but not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts