sne Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, romavillan said: 1.1bn nailed on, just after Sneijder and Defoe sign for Ancelotti's claret and blue army. Hear hear! I expect nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 8, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 8, 2018 On 05/11/2018 at 18:01, Made In Aston said: People need to separate Sawiris from Adidas as it is irrelevant. He has a tiny shareholding of 6%,which gives him next to no power to provide villa with any preferential financial treatment. Adidas shares are massively fragmented so he would need to gain the support in the form of at least 45% of the remaining share pool to make major decisions, which could be 100's of shareholders - most of whom have no allegiance to villa. This won't happen. Best case scenario is that he can pull a few strings and suggest that Adidas sponsor villa(at the market rate). He is the largest shareholder and sits on their board. If you think he has no power you are deluded. He has enormous influence at Adidas. A decision on whether or not to sponsor a football club is not going to a shareholder vote. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, sidcow said: He is the largest shareholder and sits on their board. If you think he has no power you are deluded. He has enormous influence at Adidas. A decision on whether or not to sponsor a football club is not going to a shareholder vote. I think, I stand to be corrected, that this is a widely accepted misnomer when he is described as being on the board at Addidas. In Germany (where Addidas is still listed) all PLC’s must have two boards, a management board and a supervisory board. The later is representative of the shareholders and oversees the former and decides who the CEO and management board members are in order to ensure the best interests of shareholders. So yes Sawiris is on a board, although he is one of 16 members of this board. So I’d say he has influence rather than power irrespective of his personal holding. I certainly don’t think he is in a position to push through unfavourable deals above market value between Addidas and another business he owns. Wouldn’t mind an Addidas kit though... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-R Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 (edited) If you go to board meetings and your in with the top dogs and have only 0.5% you still have power, your in that room for a reason and that's to talk shop with the rest of the dogs in the room. Whoever thinks Nas doesn't have power seriously need to rethink why he would be sitting in a room full of others who do have power. 6% is alot still and gives him say so over what happens with addidas. Take Ubisoft for instance, they couldn't stand vivendi coming in and buying up parts of there company, which I totally understand given the shady approach of vivendi. Ubisoft have been independent for far too long, yet when vivendi started snapping up % in Ubisoft, ubisoft as a company do still have to listen to whatever vivendi have to say as they have a stake in the company now. Also if Nas put a plan in place to the board like this season's kits solt extremely well like 750% better than previous seasons, then don't see why it wouldn't go ahead. So long as the addidas board see money making opportunities and good return, they would sign a kit sponsor all day long, what company wouldn't with a 750% boost. All Nas would have to really do is make a claim that using Luke to design the shirts for next season is what made that 750% boost, addidas would be daft not to do a collaboration on that and the boost could and should be significantly higher, because who wouldn't like a luke/addidas shirt??? I would.. Edited November 8, 2018 by Dave-R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 8, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 8, 2018 2 hours ago, TrentVilla said: I think, I stand to be corrected, that this is a widely accepted misnomer when he is described as being on the board at Addidas. In Germany (where Addidas is still listed) all PLC’s must have two boards, a management board and a supervisory board. The later is representative of the shareholders and oversees the former and decides who the CEO and management board members are in order to ensure the best interests of shareholders. So yes Sawiris is on a board, although he is one of 16 members of this board. So I’d say he has influence rather than power irrespective of his personal holding. I certainly don’t think he is in a position to push through unfavourable deals above market value between Addidas and another business he owns. Wouldn’t mind an Addidas kit though... I'm not suggesting that he can sign off unfavourable deals above market value (we couldn't accept one anyway) I'm not even suggesting that we will have any Adidas deal at all. However he most certainly will have the clout (call it power or influence whatever you want) to get a generous deal signed off by Adidas of he wants to. I doubt Adidas have even glanced our way in the last 10 years and without him probably wouldn't now either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 8, 2018 9 hours ago, sidcow said: I'm not suggesting that he can sign off unfavourable deals above market value (we couldn't accept one anyway) I'm not even suggesting that we will have any Adidas deal at all. However he most certainly will have the clout (call it power or influence whatever you want) to get a generous deal signed off by Adidas of he wants to. I doubt Adidas have even glanced our way in the last 10 years and without him probably wouldn't now either. You’ve lost me mate. On the one had you say you aren’t suggesting he can sign off an unfavourable deal and then you say you think he could influence a generous one? Isn’t that the same thing? I don’t think even with him Addidas would be interested, no currently and I certainly don’t think he could influence them to pay over the market value to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 minute ago, TrentVilla said: I don’t think even with him Addidas would be interested This, if we were in the top six in the premier league maybe but big global brands don't give a shite about the championship. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 14 hours ago, sidcow said: He is the largest shareholder and sits on their board. If you think he has no power you are deluded. He has enormous influence at Adidas. A decision on whether or not to sponsor a football club is not going to a shareholder vote. The Adidas board has an obligation, under corporate governance, to provide the best value for shareholders and are personally accountable for doing so. If the board was to pay over the odds for Villa sponsorship they would be in breach of these obligations and could be sued, face fines, be banned from future directorial appointments or even criminal charges (depending on the nature of the breach). The important thing to understand is that the individual board members are accountable, independent of the company. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 8, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 8, 2018 2 hours ago, TrentVilla said: You’ve lost me mate. On the one had you say you aren’t suggesting he can sign off an unfavourable deal and then you say you think he could influence a generous one? Isn’t that the same thing? I don’t think even with him Addidas would be interested, no currently and I certainly don’t think he could influence them to pay over the market value to do so. Generous is not the same as unfavourable. Adidas can sponsor us from any amount from the bare minimum a championship team would accept from Umbro to the best realistic deal a team who are as everyone knows are bigger than anyone in The Championship. If FFP didn't exist than I am certain he could use Adidas to artificially pump money into us. I am sure he would have enough influence to transfer funds within their own corporate governance rules to get money into us. With FFP he will be able to direct Adidas to sign the best deals with us that the market allows. The best deals the market allows I would say are generous compared to what they would offer if our owner was not their biggest shareholder and board member. This is all my opinion only but I don't see what's hard to follow in this superstition. It seems pretty logical to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 8, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Made In Aston said: The Adidas board has an obligation, under corporate governance, to provide the best value for shareholders and are personally accountable for doing so. If the board was to pay over the odds for Villa sponsorship they would be in breach of these obligations and could be sued, face fines, be banned from future directorial appointments or even criminal charges (depending on the nature of the breach). The important thing to understand is that the individual board members are accountable, independent of the company. Of course they do but there is a difference between mis management and signing a deal with Villa which perhaps Adidas might not have otherwise have done. He is not going to sign off £1.2 bn. But he could sign off more than we might otherwise have got. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 9, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2018 9 hours ago, sidcow said: Generous is not the same as unfavourable. Adidas can sponsor us from any amount from the bare minimum a championship team would accept from Umbro to the best realistic deal a team who are as everyone knows are bigger than anyone in The Championship. If FFP didn't exist than I am certain he could use Adidas to artificially pump money into us. I am sure he would have enough influence to transfer funds within their own corporate governance rules to get money into us. With FFP he will be able to direct Adidas to sign the best deals with us that the market allows. The best deals the market allows I would say are generous compared to what they would offer if our owner was not their biggest shareholder and board member. This is all my opinion only but I don't see what's hard to follow in this superstition. It seems pretty logical to me. In my view they are the same, if Addidas sign a deal that is over market value (generous) because of his association it is automatically unfavourable to them and their shareholders. I think it’s impossible not to reach that conclusion. FFP existing doesn’t stop him pumping money into us (as Man City and Everton do through spurious deals) as our accounts this week show as we’ve had a large cash injection. I don’t though for one moment think he could put Addidas money into us. But that’s just the view of someone who doesn’t believe in rabbits feet bringing good luck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: In my view they are the same, if Addidas sign a deal that is over market value (generous) because of his association it is automatically unfavourable to them and their shareholders. I think it’s impossible not to reach that conclusion. FFP existing doesn’t stop him pumping money into us (as Man City and Everton do through spurious deals) as our accounts this week show as we’ve had a large cash injection. I don’t though for one moment think he could put Addidas money into us. But that’s just the view of someone who doesn’t believe in rabbits feet bringing good luck How large we talking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 (edited) To be honest I’d be happy with just a shirt sponsership from Adidas at market value. Which included kit manufacturer. Not a fan of Luke gear. Edited November 9, 2018 by Vive_La_Villa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 9, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2018 20 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said: How large we talking? £11.5m injected by way of a conversion to shares. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIVillan Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 5 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: To be honest I’d be happy with just a shirt sponsership from Adidas at market value. Which included kit manufacturer. Not a fan of Luke gear. Nor me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 23 hours ago, sidcow said: Of course they do but there is a difference between mis management and signing a deal with Villa which perhaps Adidas might not have otherwise have done. He is not going to sign off £1.2 bn. But he could sign off more than we might otherwise have got. You are going to have to trust me on this Sid - it ain't happening! Absolutely no chance. Time to let it go mate . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 13 hours ago, TrentVilla said: £11.5m injected by way of a conversion to shares. Reducing Tony's shareholding % maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 9, 2018 Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2018 24 minutes ago, Made In Aston said: Reducing Tony's shareholding % maybe? Yes and covering our losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 16 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said: To be honest I’d be happy with just a shirt sponsership from Adidas at market value. Which included kit manufacturer. Not a fan of Luke gear. I actually like the Luke Kits alot. However no doubt Adidas is another level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted November 10, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2018 On 08/11/2018 at 23:27, sidcow said: Generous is not the same as unfavourable. Adidas can sponsor us from any amount from the bare minimum a championship team would accept from Umbro to the best realistic deal a team who are as everyone knows are bigger than anyone in The Championship. If FFP didn't exist than I am certain he could use Adidas to artificially pump money into us. I am sure he would have enough influence to transfer funds within their own corporate governance rules to get money into us. With FFP he will be able to direct Adidas to sign the best deals with us that the market allows. The best deals the market allows I would say are generous compared to what they would offer if our owner was not their biggest shareholder and board member. This is all my opinion only but I don't see what's hard to follow in this superstition. It seems pretty logical to me. Absolutely no chance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts