Jump to content

The 2016 Takeover Thread


Sam3773

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Yeah, that was about a week ago. Their investigative journalist met with Xia. 

That's some serious cash, don't even think Lerner had that. Be fantastic if so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

That's some serious cash, don't even think Lerner had that. Be fantastic if so. 

Lerner had around that kind of money before his divorce. In effect his disposable income went from the tens of millions to millions, i.e. not enough to continue investment in a large football club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

That's some serious cash, don't even think Lerner had that. Be fantastic if so. 

It was money from the sale of one of his companies. 

I don't really get the doubts over his wealth to be honest. There were some doubts after the whole 5 companies fiasco but that was cleared up satisfactorily for me. 

Other than that, I don't really understand what the fuss is all about. I'm sure it will go through, or I've no legit reason to think it won't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

I really hope we don't.

I really hope we don't have to, too.

That's shoddy as.

I hope that none of Xia, Samuelson or anyone else is a 'bend[sic] ****' but if they were to be so then I'd want them nowhere near

 

Nice to see someone taking a stand against corruption.

Just out of interest SC, would you object to "probably legal but devious" means to circumvent FFP restrictions, such as the sort of massive sponsorship we have seen elsewhere? Or would you prefer us to stay out of the obscene spending brigade  - and so probably out of the world's top 3 :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what grasshopper is saying. It's not like he wants us to have a CEO who drowns kittens in rivers on his way home from work each day before forging pound notes in his basement, but perhaps a bit of a tight/ tough/ mean bastard who can help give Villa the bite that we've sorely missed in recent years, whilst also complying with relevant laws.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BigJim said:

Nice to see someone taking a stand against corruption.

Just out of interest SC, would you object to "probably legal but devious" means to circumvent FFP restrictions, such as the sort of massive sponsorship we have seen elsewhere? Or would you prefer us to stay out of the obscene spending brigade  - and so probably out of the world's top 3 :) 

 

I'd hope that most people would object to anything 'devious'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

I'd hope that most people would object to anything 'devious'.

We can always stand and watch while:

ManU hedge-owned with a loan of over half a billion

ManC circumvent FFP by signing a deal with themselves for 400mill stadium sponsorship (no word of how long - so they can re-sponsor it for another 400mill whenever they fancy)

Chelski fc owing C holding plc 750mill interestfree underwritten by RM

Then there is WHU given a new stadium for free (because Sir Trev - an ex-WHU - was in the FA)

How should anyone compete without "Bending the rules to fit"?

Football/Global business has no morals.

So Lets just join the club.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is I give zero **** about the rules provided we never get caught bending them. These days playing it proper gets you nowhere and it's getting to the point where the only place being legit will get you if Championship or lower. I mean look into how many clubs in the Premier League have sister/feeder clubs even though the FA doesn't allow it, for instance Man City have like 13 other teams assisting them in all sorts of ways. The future is in being slightly dodgy and personally I'm for that cause I don't really want to see us in League Two as a complete nothing team no one gives two shits about but us. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While obviously it is a bonus with Dr Tony having that kind of cash at his disposal, the real figure will be how much cash is in then private holding company that actually owns us, from what I have read this would be substantially more that the cash Dr Tony has under his own name. It would appear he see us as an expense anyway of his other branches of his companies, which means profit isn't his agenda but on the pitch success leads to further wealth creation for his other companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Folski said:

While obviously it is a bonus with Dr Tony having that kind of cash at his disposal, the real figure will be how much cash is in then private holding company that actually owns us, from what I have read this would be substantially more that the cash Dr Tony has under his own name. It would appear he see us as an expense anyway of his other branches of his companies, which means profit isn't his agenda but on the pitch success leads to further wealth creation for his other companies.

Which is how some other clubs in China have been run. For instance Guangzhou Evergrande I believe it was them anyway, the owner on behalf of Evergrande Real Estate pumped £2-3 billion into the club knowing that success would put his main company on the map in China. I think his company was worth like £2 billion when he bought Guangzhou Evergrande and is now worth over £10 billion. I am likely getting a few things wrong here as all the research and stuff was done like 3-4 weeks ago when it was rumoured our owner was Chinese, but it could very well be that we will be treated similarly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â