VillaChris Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Zatman said: true but MON took over a team with Mellberg, Barry, Angel, Laursen and few more solid pros. also had decent youngsters blooded by DOL season before at moment we have nothing like that Laursen was injured for the whole of that season, Angel was past it (although he did have a few decent games for O'Neill at the start of the year), someone mentioned Bouma but he was very poor in his first season and took a while to break through under MON. The squad wasn't as good as people think, it was akin to what we had under McLeish and we had a similar season in terms of league finish and points tally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: MON joined with 100% certainty - he was approached by Lerner, met with Lerner and Lerner's people, signed a contract drafted up by Lerner on behalf of a football club which Lerner was absolutely committed to already owning and came to work at Villa Park for Lerner. The fact that Ellis was still on the leather chair when he arrived was entirely inconsequential. Lerner actually wanted Klinsmann didn't he....but was persuaded that MON would be a better fit which was obviously good advice at the time. RDM is clearly Dr Tony's man given how we went cold suddenly on Pearson when that appointment looked likely so yeah I find it hard to believe there hasn't been in depth discussions in the last week at some level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godders Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, BOF said: The club wouldn't agree to that @Godders because in the scenario where Dr.X doesn't pass the F&P test, Lerner then has to effectively compensate a manager that someone else chose. The current ownership would never agree to that, nor should they. But why would Lerner sell to someone who's not guaranteed to pass the F&P test? He has nothing to gain by it at all. If you were offered a 100% chance of getting £75million and getting rid of the albatross around your neck, or a 75% chance of getting £75million, and a 25% chance of getting nothing and keeping that albatross, which would you chose? Assuming RL and SH are thinking rationally, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they're certain Xia will pass the F&P tests. Therefore, the club could agree to that clause since there's no chance of having to pay any compensation, and it's in the best interests of both Dr X (since it's his choice) and RL (since he gets more money from promotion) which is exactly what Hollis's job as chairman is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, VillaChris said: Laursen was injured for the whole of that season, Angel was past it (although he did have a few decent games for O'Neill at the start of the year), someone mentioned Bouma but he was very poor in his first season and took a while to break through under MON. The squad wasn't as good as people think, it was akin to what we had under McLeish and we had a similar season in terms of league finish and points tally. I agree with most of this except the bolded bit - if I've understood the point correctly. In MON's first season, we finished 11th on 50 points; in McLeish's only season we finished 16th on 38, So not really similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Godders said: But why would Lerner sell to someone who's not guaranteed to pass the F&P test? Therefore, the club could agree to that clause since there's no chance of having to pay any compensation Well you don't want to sell to someone who won't pass, but as it's not Lerner performing the test, he doesn't know if he is or not. And to the second point, again, Lerner isn't the one making the decision on the F&P so he is not in any position to know what the chances of compensation are or not. And in a scenario where someone else (the PL & FA) is deciding whether you get put into a position where you may have to pay compensation to someone who you did not choose, I say again, Lerner will not, and should not, put himself into that position. To do so would be beyond stupid. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godders Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 @BOFI agree with you that it's not Lerner's test, I don't agree that he hasn't (well his lawyers) put Xia through an F&P test with the same criteria as the leagues'. Likewise, I would expect that Xia's lawyers have put him through an F&P test as well. I would expect that this would all have been done as part of due diligence. In fact, I would go so far as to say that both sides of this deal are absolutely certain as they possibly can be that Xia will pass the F&P test. I do note your point that RL doesn't want to put himself in the position where he has to pay compensation in the event the test is failed, but if the risk of waiting another 2 months for a manager outweighs the risk of having to pay compensation to RDM if the takeover fails, then get the clause in the contact. My opinion is that there is a far greater risk in waiting to get RDM in post than there is the takeover failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: Why Hollis? At this point, surely Hollis isn't making any more decisions? Hollis ? Because he will have assessed whether the new owners would be accepted, he knows what's what as regards prs- season, he knows about players contracts, he knows we need a Manager, he knows the Manager needs coaches and assistants, he knows pretty much everything, and he is still running the Club. It's his responsibility to ( have planned for) all the permutations which are being discussed here. He will know the consequences of a sale not proceeding, he will know the 'proper person's procedures, the timetable. He will know how long an incoming Manager will need. He will know how long the chosen guy is prepared to wait. In short, he will know everything that's being debated here and far more, unless - as I said - he's an idiot. Now, if he's an idiot, he will have just gone on his holidays, hoped the sale goes through, and said " it's nothing to do with me". But I don't think he is, and I think, as happens so often, ( as happened over the doubts as to Hollis original statement about being in the process of selling ) people are taking an absence of information as being a sign of absence of activity. But, we shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 19 minutes ago, terrytini said: Hollis ? Because he will have assessed whether the new owners would be accepted, he knows what's what as regards prs- season, he knows about players contracts, he knows we need a Manager, he knows the Manager needs coaches and assistants, he knows pretty much everything, and he is still running the Club. It's his responsibility to ( have planned for) all the permutations which are being discussed here. He will know the consequences of a sale not proceeding, he will know the 'proper person's procedures, the timetable. He will know how long an incoming Manager will need. He will know how long the chosen guy is prepared to wait. In short, he will know everything that's being debated here and far more, unless - as I said - he's an idiot. Now, if he's an idiot, he will have just gone on his holidays, hoped the sale goes through, and said " it's nothing to do with me". But I don't think he is, and I think, as happens so often, ( as happened over the doubts as to Hollis original statement about being in the process of selling ) people are taking an absence of information as being a sign of absence of activity. But, we shall see. Agree that Hollis is the one with the most knowledge of the club atm but I'm sure he doesn't know everything. As far as I'm aware he hasn't actually been chairman of a football club before, he hasn't exactly been here for very long and he wouldn't necessarily know the ins and outs of pre season etc. Hes a businessman. He'll know the business and how to sell it on efficiently. But don't think for a second he knows what Aston Villa as a football club needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, briny_ear said: I agree with most of this except the bolded bit - if I've understood the point correctly. In MON's first season, we finished 11th on 50 points; in McLeish's only season we finished 16th on 38, So not really similar. No the season under O'Dreary we finished 16th with I think 42 points so the team MON inherited was akin to what Lambert had if you judge it on the previous season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, BOF said: I say again, Lerner will not, and should not, put himself into that position. To do so would be beyond stupid. He has form over the last decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted May 30, 2016 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, terrytini said: Hollis ? Because he will have assessed whether the new owners would be accepted. Agreed. He will have assessed whether the new owners would be accepted. That's his job - he was brought in specifically to sell the football club in my opinion. Quote He knows what's what as regards prs- season. I don't think he'll be interested in pre-season, he's not a football man, he has no experience or interest in that side of the business. He's not a commercial man and he's not qualified or experienced in that area of pre-season friendlies. Quote he knows about players contracts. His knowledge of players contracts will I would assume be limited to what the clubs lawyers told him and what those people who he employed to look after these things told him before they left. His hands on involvement in this area would be negligible I would have thought, at best he'll be collecting information for the new board. Quote he knows we need a Manager, he knows the Manager needs coaches and assistants. He knows that other than rubber stamping arrangements for the new board in their absence he'll have absolutely no involvement in getting a manager or assistants - and also that he shouldn't have any involvement, he knows less about the game than most of us and the people he employed to make these decisions for him have left. Quote he knows pretty much everything, and he is still running the Club. I would say he's selling the club. I don't think anyone is 'running' it in terms of planning next season or the future. There are some people still in place doing their jobs, the ticket office, the store on New Street, the club hospitality and tours, that sort of thing, but no one is really planning the football future of the club right now - least of all an accountant with absolutely no football knowledge or experience. Quote It's his responsibility to ( have planned for) all the permutations which are being discussed here. I don't think it is. I think it's Dr Tony's responsibility to plan for most of those - I'm pretty confident that Hollis's responsibility is to sell the club and get out. Quote He will know the consequences of a sale not proceeding. Which are most likely the sack for him. Quote He will know the 'proper person's procedures, the timetable. He'll know the timetable very well, I'd imagine he gets paid a pretty sum at the end of it. Quote He will know how long an incoming Manager will need. He will know how long the chosen guy is prepared to wait. He might have an idea of that, but only if that info has been passed on by the former football board or Brian Little and I don't think he'll care much anyway - that's again not his problem, that's the good Doctors problem. It's Dr Xia's responsibility to be mindful of how long his manager will wait, not the man selling him the club. I just don't see this as an area Hollis is interested in. Do you remember when we had two boards? One was running the football club, one was selling it. The one running it left, the one selling it found a buyer - those two things weren't unrelated. We're left with no board running the club until the new one arrives after the ratification of the sale - in that regard, Hollis has a vital role to play in preparing us for the new season and our future - he has to make sure that sale goes through as quickly as possible so that it can start. Hollis is good at this, it's what he does for a living. God help us if we end up in a position where he has to try to run the club - he buys and sells companies, he's got a very limited experience of running them and none whatsoever of running a football club - you'd need to be stark staring mental to appoint him to do that [insert you own Randy Lerner joke here] - I think he's selling and I think he's doing okay at it - but running the club? Pffft. As evidence I offer this - there are no dates arranged for pre-season training, to the point where the players are confused, there is no release date for the kit, there is no commercial manager, there are no pre-season fixtures, we haven't appointed a manager, we haven't appointed a staff, we haven't done a single thing with any of the contracts from the end of last season, even those that you'd think were pretty straight forward, like Eric Black - we're not clearing the decks for the new owner, we're not starting small things that he'll pick up when he gets here, we're not doing anything at all. The reason for that in my opinion is that we don't currently have anyone that has the experience, ability, inclination or task of running this football club. The longer we sit here with just Hollis waiting for the football cavalry, the more difficult next season becomes - I hope he does his only job very well. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: MON joined with 100% certainty - he was approached by Lerner, met with Lerner and Lerner's people, signed a contract drafted up by Lerner on behalf of a football club which Lerner was absolutely committed to already owning and came to work at Villa Park for Lerner. The fact that Ellis was still on the leather chair when he arrived was entirely inconsequential. Except for one key thing. There had to be a contingency that the contract would be honored in full, including whatever backing/funding lerner had promised, even if the sale fell through. Doug had to agree to every word in the contract Lerner wanted. My guess is that RDM wants a contract that includes a salary or a promised transfer kitty of X pounds. In order for it to be signed and enacted now, Lerner would have to agree to the salary and the backing that is in the contract should the deal fall apart under fit and proper. Lerner won't sign off on committing himself to the salary, or the backing, or the release clause, or the funds for coaching staff, or scouting rebuild, or some other part of the contract. So we wait for the fit and proper to be done before there can be any contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2016 57 minutes ago, srsmithusa said: Except for one key thing. There had to be a contingency that the contract would be honored in full, including whatever backing/funding lerner had promised, even if the sale fell through. Doug had to agree to every word in the contract Lerner wanted. My guess is that RDM wants a contract that includes a salary or a promised transfer kitty of X pounds. In order for it to be signed and enacted now, Lerner would have to agree to the salary and the backing that is in the contract should the deal fall apart under fit and proper. Lerner won't sign off on committing himself to the salary, or the backing, or the release clause, or the funds for coaching staff, or scouting rebuild, or some other part of the contract. So we wait for the fit and proper to be done before there can be any contract. So is that O'Neill having 100% certainty and Di Matteo not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I wont requote the whole post OBE but its my view that he is aware of all the issues and, unless he is daft, is either making sure they will be addressed or has contingency plan, or is in no doubt that matters will be dealt with in sufficient time, or is indeed aware that those things are being dealt with (how do we know, for example, whether RDM - or whoever -isn't already effectively at work ?) - as I say, just because we haven't heard of tours /contracts/whatever doesn't mean nothing is happening. My point is the absence of information creates a space which people tend to fill with negatives and problems, whereas for all we know the issues concerning people are being addressed. I wasn't trying to say he is a football man, but he must be aware of all the things we have between us mentioned - I just don't think its all being unattended to, I think he would be an idiot to do that, and I don't think he's an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: Absolutely - but you'd said the opposite when you'd said MON was a manager who had come in without 100% certainty on a change of ownership. Provided the takeover is where we hope it is and where it should be, I don't see any benefit in delaying an appointment. There is very little difference in percentage between where we were with the Lerner takeover and where we are currently with this one. Lerner wasn't 100% & neither is this one. So MON did indeed join without 100% certainty in ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2016 TT, I agree with you on the way in which the vacuum creates a space which people fill with negatives and problems (i'm probably guilty of it myself) - but I really don't think it matters to Hollis either way on stuff like the new manager - if the sale goes through, then he's out of it and if it doesn't then someone will be brought in to take care of it - I just don't think it's his remit. I'm very hopeful that Dr Xia and his board are working hard somewhere on ensuring that contracts and plans and commercial arrangements are progressing so that they can hit the ground running - that would seem to be a sensible way to run a football club - but I think the weight has already been passed. I simply don't think that the footballing future is of much interest to Hollis in his role or that it's particularly necessary for the new owners to keep him informed on how they're looking to manage it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Butterfingers said: There is very little difference in percentage between where we were with the Lerner takeover and where we are currently with this one. Lerner wasn't 100% & neither is this one. So MON did indeed join without 100% certainty in ownership. They were different situations - Lerner bought a publicly listed company, so the buying process was a little different - but I'd broadly agree with what you're saying, other than the stipulation on Martin O'Neill, who wouldn't have been anywhere near the club unless he had 100% guarantees. I'd say the Lerner takeover was a little further forward than this one currently is - but I'm hoping it won't be too long at all until this one is in the same place and we can get started with a new manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 5 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said: The Lerner deal was virtually done when MON was signed up, in fact the whole unveiling of MON, with Doug at the press conference, was pretty much an ego thing, with Lerner allowing Doug to pretty much act as though this was all him. Clearly MON had the green light from Lerner, and the press conference was just a nice gesture to an elderly, ego-maniacal outgoing chairman. But I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not necessarily saying that the club shouldn't appoint a manager now. What I'm saying is that from a prospective managers point of view things are risky right now, and until the takeover has been completed it's unlikely we'd even have anyone want to join us until the future of the club is clear. It's most likely the case that RDM is for all intents and purposes rapped up, but the entire deal is conditional on Dr X getting approval. No immanent approval, no RDM, it's as simple as that. "virtually done" is not 100% This current deal is actually done. It simply awaits rubber stamping. Do you think that if we hadn't been bought out and Hollis offered RDM the job, he would turn it down? The vast majority of these managers we're being linked to would crawl on their hands and knees to BMH to get the chance to manage Villa-Its still a massive job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2016 Whereas O'Neill would have run a mile sooner than work for Ellis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said: Whereas O'Neill would have run a mile sooner than work for Ellis. I don't blame him. Still doesn't escape from the fact that at the time he joined, it wasn't 100% certain. The difference this time around is that we are not looking at managers in the MON category. Pearson, RDM et all would not run a mile if offered the Villa job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts