stewiek2 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Its right what someone wrote on another thread , instead of reporting good news about someone who has actually spoke to Lerner and discussed his plans (namley Mr Fear), we get a report from some twirp that still wants Ellis in charge and likes the sound of his own voice . Why are the Mail still in buisness ?????? This bloke is living in cloud **** cookoo land. Ellis has stated himself he wants out and has sold. So his dream of wanting Ellis in charge still are at best ill-dreamt and worst **** delugional. Let the Mail ask me for comment, I'll tell them exactly what I think of the Ellis years and the prospect of Lerner. GO ON MAIL- ASK ME WHAT I THINK?!?!?! No surprise that Graham Hill's articles are concise and well written yet as soon aas Baggie Bill gets back off his hols it's all bollocks reporting again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I am woried about reaching the 75%, especially if most of the shares are held by fans in small scale - ie. 1 or 2. I suspect a lot can't be bothered filling out forms for just 1 share. Do any of you have an idea of how many shareholders there are? i was just thinking actually. If 10% are AWOL. then 75% is harder to reach isnt it? and how may do you think will be held by small institutions? 75% might sound quite a lot, but in reality, it is only another 18.2% or thereabouts. I would suspect this figure has been arrived at knowing that some of the larger shareholders are happy to sell. For example I do know NTL had just under 10% and if sold, they are already well on their way to that figure (I don't know if NTL still do own their shares btw but this is for example) - So I would imagine Lerners advisors have already spoken to the other main holders to reach agreement. The odd one or two shares we hold is in fact peanuts - a mere drop in the ocean when you consider nearly 21% of shares are over 2.25 million in number! Ultimately I suspect that while those of us with a very very small stake sending them back might help, its the larger holders of shares who really make the difference and you can bet they have already been sounded out somehow. Now this is something I forgot - did Villa not buy back the shares from NTL? And if so does does the board acceptence of the bod include the shares owned by Villa or is that a matter for the shareholders? As a reply to Rune, I don't think there are any other major shareholders than JP and Doug. As I understand it JP got his shares from the few institutions that held shares in Villa - correct me if I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 As a reply to Rune, I don't think there are any other major shareholders than JP and Doug. As I understand it JP got his shares from the few institutions that held shares in Villa - correct me if I am wrong. You are correct Furthermore, it is important to note that the 75 and 90% figures only apply to traceable shares from what i can gather. So assuming that 10% are missing out of the total 11m. Missing and therefore discounted: 1.1m Remainder: 9.9m Irevocable undertakings already in palce for 58%: 6.38m (64% of those required) Therefore lerner would need, from the small shareholders A MAXIMUM of 3.52m shares, and if the rumours of the missing figure being 18% or higher are true, considerably less, perhaps as little as 2.5m to reach the 75% figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink_chimp Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I know this has probably been asked before but I can't find it, so if Lerner doesnt get that 75% he wont be able to have the Villa or am i just being stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I know this has probably been asked before but I can't find it, so if Lerner doesnt get that 75% he wont be able to have the Villa or am i just being stupid? Then the offer is off. He can stay if he want, but his is not forced to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? I think when the plc bought the shares back, they were dissolved weren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? I think when the plc bought the shares back, they were dissolved weren't they? I guess that makes sence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Missing and therefore discounted: 1.1m Remainder: 9.9m When you say missing, is that because people have moved? If that is the case how can you disregard them? They are still shareholders, even if they are not registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? Villa never sold the shares IIRC The deal was cancelled before the time when the shares would actually be issued I think not 100% sure though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Missing and therefore discounted: 1.1m Remainder: 9.9m When you say missing, is that because people have moved? If that is the case how can you disregard them? They are still shareholders, even if they are not registered. if they arent registered then they cant vote, as such they have to be discounted. at least, this is my understanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runetune Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 As a reply to Rune, I don't think there are any other major shareholders than JP and Doug. As I understand it JP got his shares from the few institutions that held shares in Villa - correct me if I am wrong. You are correct Furthermore, it is important to note that the 75 and 90% figures only apply to traceable shares from what i can gather. So assuming that 10% are missing out of the total 11m. Missing and therefore discounted: 1.1m Remainder: 9.9m Irevocable undertakings already in palce for 58%: 6.38m (64% of those required) Therefore lerner would need, from the small shareholders A MAXIMUM of 3.52m shares, and if the rumours of the missing figure being 18% or higher are true, considerably less, perhaps as little as 2.5m to reach the 75% figure. Thanks for this PB - If indeed you are right and it is traceable shares, then it looks more likely there isn't going to be a problem getting to this figure. Like I said before, somehow I don't even imagine someone like Lerner would go for a figure unless he felt it was perfectly obtainable - after all, he has invested a lot into this already. He must be pretty confident to get to required amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? Villa never sold the shares IIRC The deal was cancelled before the time when the shares would actually be issued I think not 100% sure though It was an OPTION to buy shares that Doug bought back before NTL could exercise their rights. The share price was low so they had something like £10m off NTL but bought back for £2m. How much of that was Dougs idea and how much was Ansells is open to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runetune Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? Villa never sold the shares IIRC The deal was cancelled before the time when the shares would actually be issued I think not 100% sure though I thought I had read they were bought back at some point - but I wasn't sure. I really wanted to use it as illustration rather than trying to work out who had what shares. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? Villa never sold the shares IIRC The deal was cancelled before the time when the shares would actually be issued I think not 100% sure though You may be right PB but I think there was a fuss on here or on FTT when it was alleged that Doug was using plc money to buy the shares back and thereby increase his percentage holding.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardCanning Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Thanks for this PB - If indeed you are right and it is traceable shares, then it looks more likely there isn't going to be a problem getting to this figure. Like I said before, somehow I don't even imagine someone like Lerner would go for a figure unless he felt it was perfectly obtainable - after all, he has invested a lot into this already. He must be pretty confident to get to required amount. think your right runetune, when you look at the Glazer buying Man U thing and how quickly that happened and that was despite an uproar amidst Man U fans about the takeover, whereas most villa fans are for Lerner. Once he owns Doug & petchey's holding I think it won't be long before he holds 75% and soon after that the 90% he needs to take the club private if he wants to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Missing and therefore discounted: 1.1m Remainder: 9.9m When you say missing, is that because people have moved? If that is the case how can you disregard them? They are still shareholders, even if they are not registered. if they arent registered then they cant vote, as such they have to be discounted. at least, this is my understanding That does not make any sence - did RL not want 75% of the shares? if so that will have to include all shares, even those that are not registered, since they can be "reregistered". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 PB did Villa buy back the NTL shares? and if so are they under the same deal taht JP and Doug have? Villa never sold the shares IIRC The deal was cancelled before the time when the shares would actually be issued I think not 100% sure though You may be right PB but I think there was a fuss on here or on FTT when it was alleged that Doug was using plc money to buy the shares back and thereby increase his percentage holding.... More that if the options were converted into real shares it would DILUTE his holding in % terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 It was an OPTION to buy shares that Doug bought back before NTL could exercise their rights. The share price was low so they had something like £10m off NTL but bought back for £2m. . Correct, thanks for the clarification - except I think ti was £27m that NTL paid for the option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardCanning Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Correct, thanks for the clarification - except I think ti was £27m that NTL paid for the option Without doubt the best bit of business Doug did for Aston Villa Football Club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts