The NSWE Board

[bannedfromHandV]

21 hours ago, MaVilla said:

ye dont mean that, but didnt Derby sell their stadium to their owner for 60m?, if thats the case surprised villa park is worth less than derby's stadium?

It’ll be the land that will drive most of the cost, pride park is probably valued at higher cos it could more easily be replaced with a retail setup of some sort.

[useless]

I've no idea how it works exactly, but apparently the lower Villa Park is valued at the less we have to pay in order to rent it back, so I'm guessing that's why they paid what seems like a pretty low price for it.

[Eastie]

On 28/06/2019 at 18:09, stewiek2 said:

Coventrys problem was a club who barely got 20-25k crowds thought they could fill an all purpose 30-35k stadium in a part of Coventry with shit public transport connections whilst gambling it all on staying in the premier league. Once they got relegated any money trickling down had to go to paying the ground off rather than stabilise the club/team to regroup and get up. They put all their eggs in one basket and it blew up in their faces massively. Mind employing Gordon Strachan as manager as well didn't help.

They never ever owned the Ricoh which actually is right next to the m6 and in a very good location for access - the ground was opened several years after their relegation - they were tenants and didn’t pay their bills so were rightly booted out .

As for us this is a good move to evade ffp and a sound business move as it’s still owned by the NSWE group 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Eastie

[VillaJ100]

3 hours ago, Gillz said:

Whilst i know i shouldn't look back hypothetically, but could you imagine if these guys had come in when Doug first sold us to Lerner.

When the Top 4 weren't as unassailable as they are now and 10m got you a good quality player. Just imagine if our first push and investment had been overseen by people as capable as NSWE rather than Randy and MON

We'd have at least been as competitive as Spurs. Potentially even Man City as their owners might not have bothered. They basically just got in before the drawbridge came up. 

[thabucks]

My understanding is Mel Morris brought Pride Park for £80million through one of his subsidiaries then subsequently Derby paid half of it back as rent or whatever. Not sure why some sort of accounting Jiggery pockery ....  I’ll try and find the article 

[terrytini]

As it’s come up in the Mings thread I thought I’d recap.

(First off, shareholders don’t ‘own’ companies by the way...but ok it’s the commonly used term)...

Anyway...

Lets take Edens...he is a shareholder in 9 Villa related Companies. 

But to cut a long story  one that “ matters” ( in that it’s the one most would call the “ owners”) is Recon Group UK Ltd.

As of January Xia was declared to be “ no longer a person with significant control” of this Company. In effect, it means no control.

Additionally, the ULTIMATE controlling party is NWSE SCS ,  Registered in Luxembourg, with majority shareholders Eden’s and Sawiris.

Hope that helps !

[terrytini]

Not much point posting a confused face without saying why 

[Rob182]

13 minutes ago, terrytini said:

As it’s come up in the Mings thread I thought I’d recap.

(First off, shareholders don’t ‘own’ companies by the way...but ok it’s the commonly used term)...

Anyway...

Lets take Edens...he is a shareholder in 9 Villa related Companies. 

But to cut a long story  one that “ matters” ( in that it’s the one most would call the “ owners”) is Recon Group UK Ltd.

As of January Xia was declared to be “ no longer a person with significant control” of this Company. In effect, it means no control.

Additionally, the ULTIMATE controlling party is NWSE SCS ,  Registered in Luxembourg, with majority shareholders Eden’s and Sawiris.

Hope that helps !

Why do you not consider shareholders as owners? In my opinion, that's exactly what they are. You don't pay for a club by just buying shares, but when someone pays £100m for a football club, it will be part of the agreement that they take on the shares, or whichever percentage has been agreed. That's the legal way it is documented, so it's as good as the same thing.

A person with significant control on Companies House is considered as someone who either has the majority share, or has over 25%. So, in effect, Xia can still have 0-24.99% of ownership of the club. Control is a different thing entirely.

There being an ultimate controlling party also doesn't mean there are no other controllers/ owners/ shareholder, however you want to define it. The ultimate controlling party could have 85%, they could have 100%, they could have 40% with the remaining 60% being made up of 1% shareholders.

[blandy]

Just now, Rob182 said:

Why do you not consider shareholders as owners? In my opinion, that's exactly what they are.

The Law begs to differ. It's not exactly a clear cut thing, who legally owns a business. It sort of depends on what you mean by "owns" (apparently). The linked article puts it one way

Quote

... English shareholders are definitely not owners. The Court of Appeal declared in 1948 that “shareholders are not, in the eyes of the law, part owners of the company”. In 2003, the House of Lords reaffirmed that ruling, in un­equivocal terms.

Just finding this out myself. 

[Rob182]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

The Law begs to differ. It's not exactly a clear cut thing, who legally owns a business. It sort of depends on what you mean by "owns" (apparently). The linked article puts it one way

Just finding this out myself. 

I agree, it's not clear cut. I imagine there are numerous different definitions of ownership. In my line of work, the commonly agreed criteria is split between ownership and control. Someone could own 99% of the shares, but their shares might have no voting rights, so they have no control of what the business actually does.

I'd imagine Dr Tony's shares (which is how this discussion started in the Mings thread), have been diluted right down, meaning that his control and his ownership will both be minor now. I'd wager that his voting control of what happens at the club is next to nothing now, too.

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I agree, it's not clear cut. I imagine there are numerous different definitions of ownership. In my line of work, the commonly agreed criteria is split between ownership and control. Someone could own 99% of the shares, but their shares might have no voting rights, so they have no control of what the business actually does.

I'd imagine Dr Tony's shares (which is how this discussion started in the Mings thread), have been diluted right down, meaning that his control and his ownership will both be minor now. I'd wager that his voting control of what happens at the club is next to nothing now, too.

I believe he is less than 20% now and fully expect this to continue to decrease

[terrytini]

Ok

1: it’s not what “ I consider”. It’s a fact. It can’t be your opinion, it’s a legal situation. A shareholder is exactly that, a shareholder. Shares in British Airways doesn’t mean I can walk up and ask to use the plane - which I could if I owned it. A limited company is a person in it’s own right, with rights, obligations, duties.  It can be prosecuted separately to its Directors. You can’t own a person. The power of shareholders with sufficient shares to play a part in appointing the Board of Directors ( the controlling mind of the Company) means they can exercise control, but it’s not ownership. 

2: I don’t know what you mean when you say “ when someone pays for a Club, part of the agreement is they take on shares “ ? They don’t “ pay for a Club”, then “ take on shares “.......they buy sufficient shares in the limited company which owns the assets, full stop.

3. A “ person with significant control” is exactly that. If you don’t have it ( ie Xia) you don’t exert significant influence or control. It couldn’t be clearer so I’m not  sure what you mean by  “ control is another thing entirely “ ?

As for your last point the ultimate controlling party is not a question of shares, but of both legal and economic control, and an evaluation of the interests, rights,  and powers of the people involved.

Hope that  clarifies !

[terrytini]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

The Law begs to differ. It's not exactly a clear cut thing, who legally owns a business. It sort of depends on what you mean by "owns" (apparently). The linked article puts it one way

Just finding this out myself. 

It’s a common misconception.

[terrytini]

16 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I agree, it's not clear cut. I imagine there are numerous different definitions of ownership. In my line of work, the commonly agreed criteria is split between ownership and control. Someone could own 99% of the shares, but their shares might have no voting rights, so they have no control of what the business actually does.

I'd imagine Dr Tony's shares (which is how this discussion started in the Mings thread), have been diluted right down, meaning that his control and his ownership will both be minor now. I'd wager that his voting control of what happens at the club is next to nothing now, too.

It is clear cut. A shareholder of a limited company is not the owner. You can’t own another person, a limited company is another person.

 

[Rob182]

I can't be arsed to even argue with you.

Hope that helps

[terrytini]

17 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I agree, it's not clear cut. I imagine there are numerous different definitions of ownership. In my line of work, the commonly agreed criteria is split between ownership and control. Someone could own 99% of the shares, but their shares might have no voting rights, so they have no control of what the business actually does.

Shareholders very very rarely have any control over what a limited company does.

The controlling mind of a limited company is its Executive Officers...an MD, other Directors ( But not all), and in some rare cases other people. It is this controlling mind which controls what the business does.

So, for a simple example..... if British Airways Ltd  falsely claim something in an advert....who is liable ? 

1: British Airways. They are a legal person. Ok, now, you need to interview them. How do you interview BA ? Do you interview all the shareholders ? No.

Do you interview the “ staff” ? Well, Yes, in order to establish evidence of what led to the offence, but “the staff” aren’t BA.

So who ?  You interview a person who is authorised to speak ON BEHALF of BA. Usually an MD or Finance Director, But there are others.

Who do you prosecute ? Youprosecute BA Ltd, not the MD.

But.... if the MD ( as part of the controlling mind of the Company) caused BA Ltd to commit the offence, then HE can be prosecuted separately, in addition to, or instead of, BA Ltd.

The shareholders will almost never be told the Company was even prosecuted., 

[TheStagMan]

7 hours ago, Rob182 said:

I'd imagine Dr Tony's shares (which is how this discussion started in the Mings thread), have been diluted right down, meaning that his control and his ownership will both be minor now. I'd wager that his voting control of what happens at the club is next to nothing now, too.

Dr Fraudster's shares were converted to non voting, fixed value shares some months ago. He has no control or say and does not benefit from an increase in value of the club.

[villabromsgrove]

13 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

Dr Fraudster's shares were converted to non voting, fixed value shares some months ago. He has no control or say and does not benefit from an increase in value of the club.

Correct.

The nominal value of Xia's shares are one pound each.

They will not increase in value no matter how well the club does, and they are non voting shares which can have no influence on AVFC's future decisions..

[Mazrim]

So, another 40 odd million injected today through a shares issue.

[sidcow]

3 minutes ago, Mazrim said:

So, another 40 odd million injected today through a shares issue.

To pay off Xia?