Jump to content

2015 Takeover Thread


samjp26

Recommended Posts

 

Can I just add a comment on the Tom Fax love in....he game Lambert a 4 year contract essensually because of 3 wins in 4 games, let him run amok without an assistant or decent coaching staff for months, and sacked Lambert just in time.

Didn't Mr Fox say the Lambert contract was already being discussed before he took over?

 

 

He did. But if youre CEO of multi million pound business and you see something wrong, you have to act, you can't just sit idly by and play 'Im new here', it doesn't cut it at that level.

Im convinced Fox will move on in the not to distant future..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely disagree. These last 5 years have been for a reason. To get us on a sound financial footing and keep us in the league. If, when he had pulled the plug on finances, and wages/turnover ration remained as it was, we would have been in administration in next to no time given that the money Lerner pumping in to shore us up would have been withdrawn.

 

Randy Lerner gave it a bloody good go and then has ensured that we are on a sound financial footing to move forwards again. Yes, the last 5 years have been barren, with poor football and the McLeish decision was a shocker. However we have survived. Lerner's failings are that he hasn't been able to see through the project. However, we might not have a club to support if the cost cutting measures were not taken when they were.

 

I live in Leeds and what has happened to their club is truly disgraceful. Lerner has been good to his word and for that, he cannot be criticised. He always said that if he couldn't take us forwards, he would step aside. I'm just glad that he is doing it responsibly and not looking solely to the highest bidder. The man has lost a fortune and a large chunk/proportion of his wealth trying to make this work.

 

I don't think I'm as easly forgivable as some. He's pretty much left this club to rot for 5 years, no plan and out of pretty much laziness. Yeah his personal life has changed, all this should have been thought through when investing in a business so many people care about. It still stinks of a rich boys toy that's he's got bored of playing with.

I've always liked him as a person, but I can't forgive these last 5 years. If we win the cup on Saturday it will be little to do with him.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well Charlie Wijeratna was brought in, in February. Maybe this was with a view to eventually making Fox chairman. Although I suspect nothing will change really save for his job title.

 

Is the CEO not the guy who runs the club?  Is the chairman not the face of the club?  Just wondering would fox not be better staying in his current role as it is more important?

 

 

Yes Im sure he would be thrilled at having someone promoted over his head.

What has Tom Fox actually done at Aston Villa thats so great anyway ? he had no option to but to sack Lambert then recuited the easiest available option, hardly a great visionary is he ?

 

The CEO is the most important person within an organisation. The Chairman, invariably is a non-executive director. If the Principles of the Corporate Governance Code are followed, the role of a Chairman is as follows:

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-8215

 

The chairman

The chairman leads the board, sets its agenda and ensures it is an effective working group at the head of the company. He must promote a culture of openness and debate and is responsible for effective communication with shareholders (but note the role of the senior independent director as well. (See:Composition and structure of the board, an OUT-LAW guide.) And he must ensure that all board members receive accurate, timely and clear information.

The Code says the roles of chairman and chief executive should not be held by the same person.

“There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company between the running of the board and the executive responsibility for the running of the company’s business. No one individual should have unfettered powers of decision” – main principle A.2.

The chairman may not always be a part-time non-executive: many are full time and describe themselves as executive chairman, but the roles of chairman and CEO are at least distinct. In addition to the responsibilities described above, the chairman ensures there is a good working relationship between the executive and non-executive directors and sufficient time to discuss strategic issues.

By contrast, the chief executive has responsibility for the day to day management of the company and putting into effect the decisions and policies of the board.

Any big public company combining the roles of chairman and CEO will have to persuade shareholders that the right checks and balances are in place. (See the case study on Marks & Spencer below).

Equally to be frowned upon, according to the Code, is the previously widespread practice of a chief executive stepping up to become chairman of the same company. Those against the practice argue that a new chief executive is going to have a next to impossible job if his predecessor stays as chairman, constantly looking over his shoulder and perhaps disagreeing with any departure from past policies. Those in favour sing  the praises of a chairman who may have years of experience with the company, still has much to offer and who is quite capable of establishing a good working relationship with a new CEO.

The Code does concede that in exceptional cases the rule may be broken. Any board in breach should consult major shareholders in advance and set out its reasons for the appointment, both at the time and in the next annual report. Banks, in particular, have argued that only the incumbent CEO has the knowledge and experience of a large, multinational group’s operations to fulfil the chairman’s role.

This view received some indirect backing from the Walker Report, which argued for a greater emphasis on relevant industry experience among non-executive directors. And much play was made of the fact that of the three UK banks that failed in 2007–2008, RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock, none had a chairman with a banking background. In contrast, the chairmen of HSBC and Standard Chartered, which emerged relatively unscathed from the banking crisis, were lifetime bankers (and both had stepped up from the chief executive role).

Case study: How Marks and Spencer got its way

Marks & Spencer is a rare case of a major company where the roles of chairman and chief executive have been combined.

In 2008, the chief executive, Sir Stuart Rose, was handed the chairman’s job as well – in contravention of principle A.2. Shareholders muttered that this was contrary to the Code, but the company stressed that the roles would be split again when Sir Stuart retired in 2011. In the meantime, the new chairman’s dominance would be counterbalanced by the senior independent director, who was given special responsibility for governance issues.

When a resolution was tabled at the July 2009 AGM calling forthe early appointment of an independent chairman, it received an unusually high level of support, from 38 per cent of voting shareholders, but 62 per cent backed the board, and Sir Stuart remained in place. Despite that, a new chief executive joined in early 2010, and the roles were once again separated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i had a choice of owners id go for American.  Very cautious of a Chinese group giving the trouble our neighbors had and the alleged corruption in the country.

Small Heath have a Thai owner not a Chinese one. 

 

There is a world of difference between the two. 

 

I'd be more than happy with a Chinese buyout - being bankrolled by the PRC would be fantastic - think of the shirt sales alone. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well Charlie Wijeratna was brought in, in February. Maybe this was with a view to eventually making Fox chairman. Although I suspect nothing will change really save for his job title.

 

Is the CEO not the guy who runs the club?  Is the chairman not the face of the club?  Just wondering would fox not be better staying in his current role as it is more important?

 

 

Yes Im sure he would be thrilled at having someone promoted over his head.

What has Tom Fox actually done at Aston Villa thats so great anyway ? he had no option to but to sack Lambert then recuited the easiest available option, hardly a great visionary is he ?

 

The CEO is the most important person within an organisation. The Chairman, invariably is a non-executive director. If the Principles of the Corporate Governance Code are followed, the role of a Chairman is as follows:

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-8215

 

The chairman

The chairman leads the board, sets its agenda and ensures it is an effective working group at the head of the company. He must promote a culture of openness and debate and is responsible for effective communication with shareholders (but note the role of the senior independent director as well. (See:Composition and structure of the board, an OUT-LAW guide.) And he must ensure that all board members receive accurate, timely and clear information.

The Code says the roles of chairman and chief executive should not be held by the same person.

“There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company between the running of the board and the executive responsibility for the running of the company’s business. No one individual should have unfettered powers of decision” – main principle A.2.

The chairman may not always be a part-time non-executive: many are full time and describe themselves as executive chairman, but the roles of chairman and CEO are at least distinct. In addition to the responsibilities described above, the chairman ensures there is a good working relationship between the executive and non-executive directors and sufficient time to discuss strategic issues.

By contrast, the chief executive has responsibility for the day to day management of the company and putting into effect the decisions and policies of the board.

Any big public company combining the roles of chairman and CEO will have to persuade shareholders that the right checks and balances are in place. (See the case study on Marks & Spencer below).

Equally to be frowned upon, according to the Code, is the previously widespread practice of a chief executive stepping up to become chairman of the same company. Those against the practice argue that a new chief executive is going to have a next to impossible job if his predecessor stays as chairman, constantly looking over his shoulder and perhaps disagreeing with any departure from past policies. Those in favour sing  the praises of a chairman who may have years of experience with the company, still has much to offer and who is quite capable of establishing a good working relationship with a new CEO.

The Code does concede that in exceptional cases the rule may be broken. Any board in breach should consult major shareholders in advance and set out its reasons for the appointment, both at the time and in the next annual report. Banks, in particular, have argued that only the incumbent CEO has the knowledge and experience of a large, multinational group’s operations to fulfil the chairman’s role.

This view received some indirect backing from the Walker Report, which argued for a greater emphasis on relevant industry experience among non-executive directors. And much play was made of the fact that of the three UK banks that failed in 2007–2008, RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock, none had a chairman with a banking background. In contrast, the chairmen of HSBC and Standard Chartered, which emerged relatively unscathed from the banking crisis, were lifetime bankers (and both had stepped up from the chief executive role).

Case study: How Marks and Spencer got its way

Marks & Spencer is a rare case of a major company where the roles of chairman and chief executive have been combined.

In 2008, the chief executive, Sir Stuart Rose, was handed the chairman’s job as well – in contravention of principle A.2. Shareholders muttered that this was contrary to the Code, but the company stressed that the roles would be split again when Sir Stuart retired in 2011. In the meantime, the new chairman’s dominance would be counterbalanced by the senior independent director, who was given special responsibility for governance issues.

When a resolution was tabled at the July 2009 AGM calling forthe early appointment of an independent chairman, it received an unusually high level of support, from 38 per cent of voting shareholders, but 62 per cent backed the board, and Sir Stuart remained in place. Despite that, a new chief executive joined in early 2010, and the roles were once again separated.

 

 

Jeremy Peace is chairman of the albion - he runs the show - Likewise Ashley at Newcastle.

 

If you own a business, you can have staff employed calling them what you want, and performed tasks roles you state. What you have quoted would seem to be best practice guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Charlie Wijeratna was brought in, in February. Maybe this was with a view to eventually making Fox chairman. Although I suspect nothing will change really save for his job title.

 

Is the CEO not the guy who runs the club?  Is the chairman not the face of the club?  Just wondering would fox not be better staying in his current role as it is more important?

 

Yes Im sure he would be thrilled at having someone promoted over his head.

What has Tom Fox actually done at Aston Villa thats so great anyway ? he had no option to but to sack Lambert then recuited the easiest available option, hardly a great visionary is he ?

The CEO is the most important person within an organisation. The Chairman, invariably is a non-executive director. If the Principles of the Corporate Governance Code are followed, the role of a Chairman is as follows:

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-8215

 

The chairman

The chairman leads the board, sets its agenda and ensures it is an effective working group at the head of the company. He must promote a culture of openness and debate and is responsible for effective communication with shareholders (but note the role of the senior independent director as well. (See:Composition and structure of the board, an OUT-LAW guide.) And he must ensure that all board members receive accurate, timely and clear information.

The Code says the roles of chairman and chief executive should not be held by the same person.

“There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company between the running of the board and the executive responsibility for the running of the company’s business. No one individual should have unfettered powers of decision” – main principle A.2.

The chairman may not always be a part-time non-executive: many are full time and describe themselves as executive chairman, but the roles of chairman and CEO are at least distinct. In addition to the responsibilities described above, the chairman ensures there is a good working relationship between the executive and non-executive directors and sufficient time to discuss strategic issues.

By contrast, the chief executive has responsibility for the day to day management of the company and putting into effect the decisions and policies of the board.

Any big public company combining the roles of chairman and CEO will have to persuade shareholders that the right checks and balances are in place. (See the case study on Marks & Spencer below).

Equally to be frowned upon, according to the Code, is the previously widespread practice of a chief executive stepping up to become chairman of the same company. Those against the practice argue that a new chief executive is going to have a next to impossible job if his predecessor stays as chairman, constantly looking over his shoulder and perhaps disagreeing with any departure from past policies. Those in favour sing  the praises of a chairman who may have years of experience with the company, still has much to offer and who is quite capable of establishing a good working relationship with a new CEO.

The Code does concede that in exceptional cases the rule may be broken. Any board in breach should consult major shareholders in advance and set out its reasons for the appointment, both at the time and in the next annual report. Banks, in particular, have argued that only the incumbent CEO has the knowledge and experience of a large, multinational group’s operations to fulfil the chairman’s role.

This view received some indirect backing from the Walker Report, which argued for a greater emphasis on relevant industry experience among non-executive directors. And much play was made of the fact that of the three UK banks that failed in 2007–2008, RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock, none had a chairman with a banking background. In contrast, the chairmen of HSBC and Standard Chartered, which emerged relatively unscathed from the banking crisis, were lifetime bankers (and both had stepped up from the chief executive role).

Case study: How Marks and Spencer got its way

Marks & Spencer is a rare case of a major company where the roles of chairman and chief executive have been combined.

In 2008, the chief executive, Sir Stuart Rose, was handed the chairman’s job as well – in contravention of principle A.2. Shareholders muttered that this was contrary to the Code, but the company stressed that the roles would be split again when Sir Stuart retired in 2011. In the meantime, the new chairman’s dominance would be counterbalanced by the senior independent director, who was given special responsibility for governance issues.

When a resolution was tabled at the July 2009 AGM calling forthe early appointment of an independent chairman, it received an unusually high level of support, from 38 per cent of voting shareholders, but 62 per cent backed the board, and Sir Stuart remained in place. Despite that, a new chief executive joined in early 2010, and the roles were once again separated.

 

Jeremy Peace is chairman of the albion - he runs the show - Likewise Ashley at Newcastle.

 

If you own a business, you can have staff employed calling them what you want, and performed tasks roles you state. What you have quoted would seem to be best practice guidelines.

If Lerner got another Chairman in he would still run the show as you put it as he's the owner. He wouldn't be making day to day decisions and probably hasn't for a while that's why you employ people. The reason he would want another Chairman in is to do even less of this. Fox probably speaks to him on the phone on a regular basis but that's not good enough at times you need that figure head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Well Charlie Wijeratna was brought in, in February. Maybe this was with a view to eventually making Fox chairman. Although I suspect nothing will change really save for his job title.

 

Is the CEO not the guy who runs the club?  Is the chairman not the face of the club?  Just wondering would fox not be better staying in his current role as it is more important?

 

 

Yes Im sure he would be thrilled at having someone promoted over his head.

What has Tom Fox actually done at Aston Villa thats so great anyway ? he had no option to but to sack Lambert then recuited the easiest available option, hardly a great visionary is he ?

 

The CEO is the most important person within an organisation. The Chairman, invariably is a non-executive director. If the Principles of the Corporate Governance Code are followed, the role of a Chairman is as follows:

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-8215

 

The chairman

The chairman leads the board, sets its agenda and ensures it is an effective working group at the head of the company. He must promote a culture of openness and debate and is responsible for effective communication with shareholders (but note the role of the senior independent director as well. (See:Composition and structure of the board, an OUT-LAW guide.) And he must ensure that all board members receive accurate, timely and clear information.

The Code says the roles of chairman and chief executive should not be held by the same person.

“There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company between the running of the board and the executive responsibility for the running of the company’s business. No one individual should have unfettered powers of decision” – main principle A.2.

The chairman may not always be a part-time non-executive: many are full time and describe themselves as executive chairman, but the roles of chairman and CEO are at least distinct. In addition to the responsibilities described above, the chairman ensures there is a good working relationship between the executive and non-executive directors and sufficient time to discuss strategic issues.

By contrast, the chief executive has responsibility for the day to day management of the company and putting into effect the decisions and policies of the board.

Any big public company combining the roles of chairman and CEO will have to persuade shareholders that the right checks and balances are in place. (See the case study on Marks & Spencer below).

Equally to be frowned upon, according to the Code, is the previously widespread practice of a chief executive stepping up to become chairman of the same company. Those against the practice argue that a new chief executive is going to have a next to impossible job if his predecessor stays as chairman, constantly looking over his shoulder and perhaps disagreeing with any departure from past policies. Those in favour sing  the praises of a chairman who may have years of experience with the company, still has much to offer and who is quite capable of establishing a good working relationship with a new CEO.

The Code does concede that in exceptional cases the rule may be broken. Any board in breach should consult major shareholders in advance and set out its reasons for the appointment, both at the time and in the next annual report. Banks, in particular, have argued that only the incumbent CEO has the knowledge and experience of a large, multinational group’s operations to fulfil the chairman’s role.

This view received some indirect backing from the Walker Report, which argued for a greater emphasis on relevant industry experience among non-executive directors. And much play was made of the fact that of the three UK banks that failed in 2007–2008, RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock, none had a chairman with a banking background. In contrast, the chairmen of HSBC and Standard Chartered, which emerged relatively unscathed from the banking crisis, were lifetime bankers (and both had stepped up from the chief executive role).

 

Case study: How Marks and Spencer got its way

Marks & Spencer is a rare case of a major company where the roles of chairman and chief executive have been combined.

In 2008, the chief executive, Sir Stuart Rose, was handed the chairman’s job as well – in contravention of principle A.2. Shareholders muttered that this was contrary to the Code, but the company stressed that the roles would be split again when Sir Stuart retired in 2011. In the meantime, the new chairman’s dominance would be counterbalanced by the senior independent director, who was given special responsibility for governance issues.

When a resolution was tabled at the July 2009 AGM calling forthe early appointment of an independent chairman, it received an unusually high level of support, from 38 per cent of voting shareholders, but 62 per cent backed the board, and Sir Stuart remained in place. Despite that, a new chief executive joined in early 2010, and the roles were once again separated.

 

 

Jeremy Peace is chairman of the albion - he runs the show - Likewise Ashley at Newcastle.

 

If you own a business, you can have staff employed calling them what you want, and performed tasks roles you state. What you have quoted would seem to be best practice guidelines.

 

This is best practice guidance however I would expect RL to follow this guidance given his experience with large MNCs and the fact that so much faith has already been put on the Fox. He may appoint an executive chairman although I would imagine that the Fox's role wouldn't change to much and would continue to have the balance of power (as he currently appears to have with RL as chairman and business related decisions).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If i had a choice of owners id go for American.  Very cautious of a Chinese group giving the trouble our neighbors had and the alleged corruption in the country.

Small Heath have a Thai owner not a Chinese one. 

 

There is a world of difference between the two. 

 

I'd be more than happy with a Chinese buyout - being bankrolled by the PRC would be fantastic - think of the shirt sales alone. 

 

 

Do they? Who's that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We should judge him by who he sells to.

After spending 200 million of his own money and seeing "Lerner Out" banners held up by fans, you'd forgive him for flogging the club to the first half broke loan shark with a leveraged buyout deal. It's really to his great credit that he probably isn't going to do such a thing.

He hasn't JUST spent 200m and that is all though, has he? That is half the story and the rest is a nightmare - caused by his own doing - not the fans who have suffered.

 

 

The thing is that it's not about who your owner actually is, but how much money they're willing to throw at their team.  If he chucked more money at the problem and we finished 10th rather than 16th in the last 4 seasons, people would be far more forgiving of Lerner - despite Aston Villa being in a far worse financial state.

 

People are actually calling for an oil baron to be our next owner.  It's a huge shame.

 

 

I don't expect millions to be spent, but I also do not expect us to face such terrible cuts, a manager appointed who just relegated our neighbours and to then give a four year contract to a manager who has broken so many unwanted records.

 

As for the cuts, we are told that it has to happen as we were living above our means (spending was 6th on wages, jeesh), so the chairman who came in without a plan, threw money at nothing and then got the chills. HE made the decisions, nobody else. He was to blame, he is to blame and he should absolutely get stick from the fans.

 

It seems he agrees too - that he got a lot wrong. And fair play to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question for everyone: If a potential owner canvassed the fans now and said "I want to try and get Villa to the Champions League and I am prepared to throw £200m at transfers and pay high wages for 3 yrs to try and break in, if I don't succeed, I will have to make the club self sustaining and will look for additional, outside, investment. Would you want that owner to take over from Lerner?

 

My answer would be yes. What would everyone else's answer be? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair play to Lerner, he's held his hands up and admitted it's not working. That's not an easy thing to do for a high profile businessman with a lot of different interests.

I think we're all quick to forget the good things he has done as well, improving the infrastructure of the club and investment in Bodymoor and The Holte Pub are significant for me. And there have been many many worse chairman / owners in the Premier League while we've had Randy.

We do need something new, but I will miss Lerner. It's similar to Lambert going for me, a reluctant but necessary break up.

How can you miss him? Really don't understand this Lerner love in Edited by Arj Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question for everyone: If a potential owner canvassed the fans now and said "I want to try and get Villa to the Champions League and I am prepared to throw £200m at transfers and pay high wages for 3 yrs to try and break in, if I don't succeed, I will have to make the club self sustaining and will look for additional, outside, investment. Would you want that owner to take over from Lerner?

 

My answer would be yes. What would everyone else's answer be? 

 

i would also say yes.

 

and for that i don't blame Lerner at all.   He did everything expected from a good owner in that respect. 

 

He hasn't grown the club as well as expected though, and some decisions have been poor. 

 

I'd give him a 6/10 - tried hard, but wasn't talented enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question for everyone: If a potential owner canvassed the fans now and said "I want to try and get Villa to the Champions League and I am prepared to throw £200m at transfers and pay high wages for 3 yrs to try and break in, if I don't succeed, I will have to make the club self sustaining and will look for additional, outside, investment. Would you want that owner to take over from Lerner?

 

My answer would be yes. What would everyone else's answer be? 

 

Not possible anymore with FFP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so one blue nose owner has tarred 1,357,000,000 people...

 

Sure has  :) and also two former top executives of the Football Association of China were arrested and prosecuted for taking bribes.

Mr Tan his Thailand neighbour hasn't helped my worries either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hypothetical question for everyone: If a potential owner canvassed the fans now and said "I want to try and get Villa to the Champions League and I am prepared to throw £200m at transfers and pay high wages for 3 yrs to try and break in, if I don't succeed, I will have to make the club self sustaining and will look for additional, outside, investment. Would you want that owner to take over from Lerner?

 

My answer would be yes. What would everyone else's answer be? 

 

Not possible anymore with FFP.

 

 

Forget FFP, 200 million wouldn't do it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â