Jump to content

Time for a takeover


Jareth

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Okonokos said:

I haven't the first clue what any of these documents on companies house mean. In layman's terms does anybody have any idea what this Statement of capital following an allotment of shares document means?

I would like to know too...but regardless I am getting excited... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Okonokos said:

I haven't the first clue what any of these documents on companies house mean. In layman's terms does anybody have any idea what this Statement of capital following an allotment of shares document means?

Shares are owned by tony in a state for sale... that doesn't mean he has to sell all of them.  Bottom line IMO Tony is looking to sell some shares to raise cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hippo said:

Shares are owned by tony in a state for sale... that doesn't mean he has to sell all of them.  Bottom line IMO Tony is looking to sell some shares to raise cash.

I prefer to look at it from a different angle, that we are being bought by somebody so rich that he distorts worldwide transfer fees!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/tony-xia-owner-aston-villa-14833584

Quote

Aston Villa’s precarious future could soon be resolved as Tony Xia discusses takeover bids with two interested parties.

BirminghamLive understands that Xia rejected a 51 per-cent offer from a European bidder yesterday.

It's happening! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

ME. Especially considering the currant regime are broke, driven the club to near administration AND intend to keep Bruce anyway. I think that's a bit of a 'no brainer' IMO.

Edited by Supervillan78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

Ultimately yes I would, we need new owners more than we need to get rid of Bruce. I'd question their business sense immediately, but yes 100%

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

Is this a real question?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nigel said:

Is this a real question?

That's what I thought. 

I'm not a Bruce fan, but when the alternative is potentially going bust,  zthe manager is the least of my worries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

100% in favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

A very real possibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

Lol, of course we would be in favour.

However I think the possibility of a "Super Wealthy Investor" coming in and seeing Bruce as the pinnacle is as realistic as Germany making a comeback in the final 16 of this World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/06/2018 at 17:38, Nigel said:
On 28/06/2018 at 17:27, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

Is this a real question?

Well I’m guessing yes and no as it is hypothetical after all, so 50/50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/06/2018 at 17:27, Lerner's Driver said:

Purely hypothetically, if we were to get well intended, wealthy new owners, but they predicated their offer on retaining Steve Bruce because he has an excellent record of getting clubs promoted from the Championship, who would be in favour?

The FFP issues we have would prevent wealthy new owners from splashing the case. So them wanting to keep bruce would be an instant worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

The FFP issues we have would prevent wealthy new owners from splashing the case. So them wanting to keep bruce would be an instant worry.

#NewOwnersWhoeverTheyAreOut! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â