ahamaad Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 When is the so called 48 hours up? Will we know by the weekend? I have more or less given up hope of anything happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Ok Bob, if Ellis wants the money it is what I call the Ellis premuium and if I was any buisnessman I would not pay it IF I knew Villa will not be relegated AND i knew Ellis had a short life span. I would wait and when he dies the family wouldn't get it would they ?? And I agree with you Bob his pride and ego plays a large part in this so he is NOT acting in the best interests of Villa is he ? It is as usual with Ellis all self .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Ok Bob, if Ellis wants the money it is what I call the Ellis premuium and if I was any buisnessman I would not pay it IF I knew Villa will not be relegated AND i knew Ellis had a short life span. I would wait and when he dies the family wouldn't get it would they ?? And I agree with you Bob his pride and ego plays a large part in this so he is NOT acting in the best interests of Villa is he ? It is as usual with Ellis all self .... The first statement is only valid if there is no one else interessted. They are not guaranteed a better price if he dies. Others might make offers as well and the family might decide to sell to the highest bidder. So best case they get a lower price, worst case someone else will outbid them. He is acting in the best interests of Aston Villa PLC which is ensuring shareholders will get the highest price possible for their shares. There is no conflicting interest. Don't forget we're a PLC and not only a football club anymore. It's the chairmans responsibility to maximise shareholders return on investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 It's the chairmans responsibility to maximise shareholders return on investment. Anybody wish to comment on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 It's the chairmans responsibility to maximise shareholders return on investment. Anybody wish to comment on this? Money breeds success breeds money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 It's the chairmans responsibility to maximise shareholders return on investment. What about those that invested £11 per share? Not necassrily the case you see. It is his responsibility to act as stewared of the company for shreholders and stakeholders. Return on investment is never guaranteed. The value of shares can go down as well as up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 shreholders and stakeholders Stakeholders. I take that word to include me, as a fan. And he's not doing what I expect of him. I'm pretty sure a few shareholders feel the same in their position too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Stakeholders. I take that word to include me, as a fan. And he's not doing what I expect of him. I'm pretty sure a few shareholders feel the same in their position too. Stakeholders are anyone with an interest in the company. So fans are included, as are employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I agree Jon with you I think his faamily are driving this because frankly I don't think they want teh hassle of selling them when he dies ... Ian, you have said this on a few occassions. Is there any evidence to support this view or just something you have made up? Why should the family want to sell? Does Peter not want a go? Could just appoint a CEO and let the dividend cheques roll in every 6 months. So for all the reasons they might want to sell, there are reasons they may not want to sell. So it is basically a mute point, unless of course you have some evidence to back such a point of view up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 the evidence is simple, why is Peter ellis not involved now ? where are his other two sons ? why do you think Peter and Dad fell out ? (clue, Peter wanted to sell to the Mirror group) Seen any of his family at VP lately ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 It's the chairmans responsibility to maximise shareholders return on investment. What about those that invested £11 per share? Not necassrily the case you see. It is his responsibility to act as stewared of the company for shreholders and stakeholders. Return on investment is never guaranteed. The value of shares can go down as well as up. Well, what about them? As you say there are no guarantees for profit. Those that bought shares at £11 did it at their own risk. I fail to see why this has anything to do with Ellis holding out for a higher price? Isn't he making sure they're getting the best possible return on investment by seeking the highest price possible? Even though it's less than the original cost for the shareholders, it would still be the best possibile return on investment in the current market. If a shareholder think the offer is to low and want to keep his shares, he could still choose to do that. But those choosing to sell will get the highest price possible. But I'm not here to defend Ellis. I made the remark when Ian wrote Ellis were only looking after himself and not the best for Villa. He is looking after the best deal for the shareholders. That's what he should do as chairman. And there is no conflicting interest between what's best for Villa and what's best for Ellis here. What's best for the shareholders is what's best for Villa. We as fans are only paying customers and he has no responsibilty towards us, except moral responsibilty. So to be fair I can't hold it against him that he is looking for a high price. If that's his valuation, then fine. If the Comers disagree they can show it by simply withdraw their interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I think there's more to it than price. My comment on the £11 was that I doubt very much whether Ellis takes his responsibility to shareholders very seriously at all. I suspect he sees them as a hinderance. As such if I believe that he ignores his responsibility to them, then I cannot see how he is working with their interests at heart now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 what responsbility does he have now, a PLC without a FD or CEO is in breach of all it's commitments to codes of compliance and clearly th4ese will noy be replaced .... Nevermind a PLC for any company for the ccounts to be signed off by an non-exec director is farcical and if he was interested in maximising shareholder value, why have we kept hold of the two pieces of so called valuable land or not even borrowed off the back of them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I think there's more to it than price. My comment on the £11 was that I doubt very much whether Ellis takes his responsibility to shareholders very seriously at all. I suspect he sees them as a hinderance. As such if I believe that he ignores his responsibility to them, then I cannot see how he is working with their interests at heart now Well, then again it's only your opinion. There are a number of issues regarding how the football "industry" has developed over the last year that could not have been predicted and that the club/PLC has had no controll over. One thing being Abramovich. He has spent £300m to take Chelsea to the top. So to compete we would have to spend a similar amount of money (more or less). Which he haven't got, so our chances for success is less now than a few years back. Thereby decreasing the value of the club. I don't have any statistics to back this with, but I also believe that average transfer fees has gone down. For decent quality players that is. The price for top quality has increased. And the wage level has increased all over. So in the end we can't compete with the very best because we can not afford to. It's less likely that we will get any substantial cash injections from selling players, as there are more players available as free agents which are pushing prices down and fewer clubs are able to pay substantial amounts of money for more or less average players. Unless the quality of the team improves we can't really charge higher ticket prices or sell more merchandise either. In the end this influence the value of the club. And you can't really blame Ellis for it either. On the other hand it could be said that the club is in good financial shape compared to similar clubs. There is still a huge potential here, and the price for becoming the best of the rest would not be that high. There is at least one, perhaps two, Champions League spots that we could realisticly compete for with an extra £30m or so to spend. And a combined cost of £100m or so for a club with a realistic chance at CL qualification doesn't seem to expensive. As I said I'm not here to defend Ellis, but it's actually quite fun to act as the Devil's advocate :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 13, 2006 Moderator Share Posted January 13, 2006 On the other hand it could be said that the club is in good financial shape compared to similar clubs. There is still a huge potential here, and the price for becoming the best of the rest would not be that high. There is at least one, perhaps two, Champions League spots that we could realisticly compete for with an extra £30m or so to spend. And a combined cost of £100m or so for a club with a realistic chance at CL qualification doesn't seem to expensive. So it's taken him the best part of 40 years to make us a reasonably attractive proposition for a new buyer, who he may or may not choose to sell to. Not really a solid track record for the Chairman of a £65m company is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex7783 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Interestingly the share price has plummeted today and is now the lowest its been since the approach statement by the club was made. Not sure what this means but it seems a bit strange to me. If the city were expecting a takeover shortly then surely the price would be going up. Is this perhaps an indication that the comer bid is well and truly dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myb Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Silent_Bob wrote: On the other hand it could be said that the club is in good financial shape compared to similar clubs. There is still a huge potential here, and the price for becoming the best of the rest would not be that high. There is at least one, perhaps two, Champions League spots that we could realisticly compete for with an extra £30m or so to spend. And a combined cost of £100m or so for a club with a realistic chance at CL qualification doesn't seem to expensive. So it's taken him the best part of 40 years to make us a reasonably attractive proposition for a new buyer, who he may or may not choose to sell to. Not really a solid track record for the Chairman of a £65m company is it? And in that period of time has also turned a team that was the greatest in Europe, into a team of lower half also rans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfcinwales Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 On the other hand it could be said that the club is in good financial shape compared to similar clubs. Such good shape we can't afford a new bus, we can't afford to keep Bakke, we can't afford to bring in a centrehalf, we need to find extra finance to complete the Bodymoor Heath Development and now it seems we need to sell players to pay our way. Money from player sales will not be used to fund new purchases says O'leary. Please advise who these other clubs in the Prem are As I said I'm not here to defend Ellis, but it's actually quite fun to act as the Devil's advocate :-) Devils advocate????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 nottingham forst are spending more than us and look where the are. ellis you a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Bob Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 As I said I'm not here to defend Ellis, but it's actually quite fun to act as the Devil's advocate :-) Devils advocate????? Sorry. http://tinyurl.com/6cc89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts