Stevo985 Posted May 18, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted May 18, 2015 It was a bet for a £100 wasn't it? I'm sure Sherwood can afford to lose a £100. I don't think the money was the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I still think it will happen this summer. I am confident even though I don't mind the current setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dounavilla Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 He bet we won't be taken over by the time they return to pre-season training ,however there is no reason not to assume it will happen just after this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 When he made the bet he also said he hasn't got a clue what's going on behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 My interpretation of the sherwood bet was just plain old disinformation, just like Fox did in his interview - there looks to be a clear strategy to say black is white until the season is finished - which you would think seems an obvious thing to do while we still have something to win. That or they speaka de truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeVillan Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Yeah they could be lying or telling truth... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The bet wasn't that we wouldn't see a takeover just that we wouldn't see one before July 6th. Which ties in with the Smith consortium stories which stated a takeover could take up to two months to complete, I'd presume there'd be a similar time frame for any other interested parties too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (Translated): Michel Platini will soon announce some news that should delight PSG. The UEFA President confirmed that the idea of financial fair play planning is in the air , but does not challenge this measure. "I think that the regulations that have been made are fine. The Financial fair play was voted by the clubs . The French press called that because it is not normal (...) In France, one can not buy players, and on the other hand, French want stricter enforcement if Qatar buys AC Milan, "he explained. Thus, Michel Platini said that "things will be eased," but said that "it will be the executive committee of the decide. You'll know at the end of June . " http://www.rtl.fr/sport/football/fair-play-financier-michel-platini-annonce-que-les-choses-vont-etre-allegees-7778397443 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Just before a transfer window with rumours of PSG wanting to spend big, nope nothing dodgy about that at all. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 If they're going to make it genuinely fair and able to do what it's stated goal is (ie. No more Portsmouth situations), it should be about clubs ability to take on debt compared to their revenue. Why they are preventing billionaires from pumping money into the sport I have no idea. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post BOF Posted May 18, 2015 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted May 18, 2015 Why they are preventing billionaires from pumping money into the sport I have no idea. Not sure if serious. It's because the current elite, the almost static annual list of CL qualifiers, want their positions in that competition and by extension their annual incomes to be protected from having some upstart come in with the audacity to put their positions in jeopardy. The most powerful clubs in Europe are the ones who decide what happens. FFP is in under the guise of preventing a Portsmouth and yes that is one of the collateral benefits, but by doing so it largely maintains the status quo and makes it very difficult to consistently break into the next level. You might have a brief foray but you'll more than likely be back in your box sooner rather than later. 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Agreed, I think FFP's exclusionary aspects gets UEFA as close to the coveted "Super League" as they can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 FFP will have to change. QPR will contest the football league one and as soon as one gets thrown out they will all collapse unless it's refined. Owners should be banned from saddling clubs with debt but should be allowed to spend their money as they see fit. Hopefully it might be getting changed just at the right time for us. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Not sure how any of them would collapse. They're the rules of entry into the tournaments in question. Abide by them or look elsewhere, simple as that really 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Interesting Jeremy Peace in tonight's programme regarding any takeover for WBA; confirms a couple of parties are in due diligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Interesting for WBA fans maybe. I was hoping we'd get some news of our own by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubbs Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Can intesteted parties be in due diligence with more than one club at a time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernova26 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) I thinking the easing of the rules maybe in relation to the sponsorship deals. I.e. you can have them way above the actual clubs value. If the owners guarantees a sponsor (or more accurately a false third party funder) why shouldn't the owners be able to invest that money into a club? It's safeguarded cash income. FFP has done it's job in regards to stopping clubs going bankrupt by spending above their means but it's also created a ring-fence around the more established clubs. Example:- New owner of Villa gets Mullier Fruit Corner to sponsor us across 10 years for £200 million pound. Atm under FFP they UEFA will say jog-on Villa ain't worth that much. Maybe after the changes they will say ok you fund us to that value the club gets a stable secure income and gets to compete. It's your (owners) money after all. Edited May 18, 2015 by supernova26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Example:- New owner of Villa gets Mullier Fruit Corner to sponsor us across 10 years for £200 million pound. Atm under FFP they UEFA will say jog-on Villa ain't worth that much. Maybe after the changes they will say ok you fund us to that value the club gets a stable secure income and gets to compete. It's your (owners) money after all. I don't think they do say jog on, and if they do you just get inventive and push it past precedents by including the academy and the local train station etc in to the deal I think part of the point is they knew the market would become artificially inflated by the likes of psg and city but that the mega clubs would be able to ride that wave, would utds adidas deal be worth £80m or whatever it is a year without FFP? Would they have huge deals for their training kit? It's legitimately given a reason for those at the top table to flood football with even more money than before, if villas shirt deal is worth £200m then utds, Chelsea's, arsenals etc would still all be worth more, exponential growth or whatever it's called That's why I think gill wanted it, no matter how FFP played out man utd would have ended up as one of the main beneficiaries Edited May 18, 2015 by villa4europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I wonder it our potential new owners have asked Platini for some advice on how the changes that they would want made to FFP might happen in the same way he or others might possibly have been asked for advice on how a 2022 World Cup bid might be won! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts