David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Great bizz for NTL......?, to bad it all went to the stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runetune Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 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! Yeah if you use Man Utd as comparison. As I understand it the timeline was along these lines: March 03 - They had around 2.9% stake in club June 04 - Glazer's stake in club nears 20% October 04 - United confirms bid approach from Glazer, as his stake nears 30% At some point here I also remember he ousted some of the board members. Dec 04 - He made a revised bid that was rejected. April 05 - I remember something else happened, but not too sure what. Beginning of May 05 - His shares were around 57% End of May - They had over 76% and control of the club! So in the course of a couple of weeks, once the major shareholders were bought - it was very quick to complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonstone Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 All this talk about missing shares seems to be wide of the mark. According to the Offer Document in front of me: "The records of Aston Villa's Registrars show that the aggregate...of the shares held by Shareholders are 9,375 shares less than are required to reach the issued share capital of 11,449,245. This shortfall ...has been in existence for many years...". This shortfall is only 0.08% of all shares, so is hardly worth worrying about. Another urban myth?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardCanning Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 The key point for Glazer was when he bought out McManus and Magnier which is why i believe that the key point for Lerner will be when he buys out Ellis & Petchey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 All this talk about missing shares seems to be wide of the mark. According to the Offer Document in front of me: "The records of Aston Villa's Registrars show that the aggregate...of the shares held by Shareholders are 9,375 shares less than are required to reach the issued share capital of 11,449,245. This shortfall ...has been in existence for many years...". This shortfall is only 0.08% of all shares, so is hardly worth worrying about. Another urban myth?? if that is true, then yes, another urban myth at face value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 All this talk about missing shares seems to be wide of the mark. According to the Offer Document in front of me: "The records of Aston Villa's Registrars show that the aggregate...of the shares held by Shareholders are 9,375 shares less than are required to reach the issued share capital of 11,449,245. This shortfall ...has been in existence for many years...". This shortfall is only 0.08% of all shares, so is hardly worth worrying about. Another urban myth?? So that leaves us with a situation were RL has to get his hands on more than 8.580.000 shares. He now has around 6.4 mill of those. He needs more than 2.1 mill aditional shares and we all agree that there are no other major shareholders. This is why the AV06 quotes are so bad - some shareholders might decide to hold on to there shares - and we need all that can be bothered to react. Why did he insert the 75% clause? does it give him any speciel options? He controls the club with 56% so why the need for 75%. I know that if he gets to 90% he can get the rest - but 75% - does someone have a clue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villafan306 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 He didn't insert any 75% clause - that is the LSE reulgation I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runetune Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 The need for 75% plus one share is I believe the LSE rule to then allow you to delist the club and take it private again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 The need for 75% plus one share is I believe the LSE rule to then allow you to delist the club and take it private again. not quite, it enables you to suspend the club from the stockmarket, preventing open trading of shares i think. You can still buy and sell Villa shares privately, but not via the LSE With 90% you can delist completely and take the club private by compulsory purchase of the other 10% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyvilla Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 He didn't insert any 75% clause - that is the LSE reulgation I think. Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 The need for 75% plus one share is I believe the LSE rule to then allow you to delist the club and take it private again. Correct. AV06 have, as I said, muddied the waters because of their affect on the 2.1M shareholding in the public realm. Their very public demonstration of their offer was extremely bad and I would think it will preclude them from making a bid, something they must have been aware of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowVilla Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Well, if no bids comes within the required period, then the supposed 'disaffected' shareholders will be pretty much in the place where they started. Sell, or don't sell. There'll be no better offer coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 No I am confussed, is it not a condition for the RL deal to go through that he gets 75%? If so why - since that can't be the LSE forcing him to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runetune Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 The need for 75% plus one share is I believe the LSE rule to then allow you to delist the club and take it private again. not quite, it enables you to suspend the club from the stockmarket, preventing open trading of shares i think. You can still buy and sell Villa shares privately, but not via the LSE With 90% you can delist completely and take the club private by compulsory purchase of the other 10% I was told it is actually allowing you to delist not just suspend and allows you to end the PLC status. I then understood it was just under 98% to force any remaining shareholders to sell their shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 David, his condition is that he wants to delist. To do that he needs 75%. Well thats how I interpret it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villafan306 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 No I am confussed, is it not a condition for the RL deal to go through that he gets 75%? If so why - since that can't be the LSE forcing him to do that. No condition for that. If he gets up to 75% that is relating to him taking the club of the Stock Market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowVilla Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 RL isn't forced by anyone to do anything IMHO. If he wants to go private, he needs 75%, otherwise it'll remain floated on the stock market with him as majority shareholder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 75% to delist 90% to compulsory purchase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runetune Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 No I am confussed, is it not a condition for the RL deal to go through that he gets 75%? If so why - since that can't be the LSE forcing him to do that. Because it is a figure that allows him to delist from the LSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Back to Trevor Fisher for one moment People are asking who Trevor fisher is ... Well my dealings go back to AVISA. He regulary contributed to H&V and I thought he had ideas I could use in aVISA and he had experience of organising political stuff .... To be honest never had a problem with him, in my view he is anti ellis and believes in the real Madrid/Barca model of ownership which is unrealsitic for clubs in this country IMHO. He has an olf fashioned socialist woulld not care for either Americans nor mega wealthy people... The more relevant question is why the Mail group wants to portray a log of negative feelings on it all. Have they got the feeling under Randy they could be frozen out ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts