blandy Posted February 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 29, 2012 End of the day Peter, the club paid him some money. If they were 100% sure of their case an offer would not have been made.End of the day Richard, MO'N dropped his claim. If he was 100% sure of his case he wouldn't have dropped it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 That is certainly an opinion someone can hold. Not one I share when you consider he actually walked and wasn't sacked so why he had a claim in the first instance one can only guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Agreed Risso and Dickie.... We can now see how the club had no intention at all of making either Young or Downing serious offers to keep them here, the plan clearly was to sell to get in the cash and I believe they will do the same with Bent (ankle aside) and then all the damily jewels will have gone leaving us in a right mess. And in response to Stevo, ok maybe not totally useless just 98.3463% useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Darkest days in the clubs history How has this happened I happen to agree with the majority of the posts you make on here, but you are the most negative poster on this forum. Things are not as bad on the pitch or financially as you think. You're not getting away with that. You need to stop deluding yourself with garbage such as "Things are not as bad on the pitch or financially as you think" I'm struggling to think how in the last 3 years we have racked up debts of +£120m. Next year wont be a whole lot better for the reasons outlined by many posters on here. That will be at least another £30m loss. As for things on the pitch, we are one of the dullest teams in top flight European football to watch. We haven't won at home in over 4 months. If we dont get relegated this season we will next. We've got one of the worst managers in our entire history who will probably cost us another £5m if we sack him We have an absentee owner and a clueless CEO and finance director The club is a laughing stock and an utter shambles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Darkest days in the clubs history How has this happened I happen to agree with the majority of the posts you make on here, but you are the most negative poster on this forum. Things are not as bad on the pitch or financially as you think. You're not getting away with that. You need to stop deluding yourself with garbage such as "Things are not as bad on the pitch or financially as you think" I'm struggling to think how in the last 3 years we have racked up debts of +£120m. Next year wont be a whole lot better for the reasons outlined by many posters on here. That will be at least another £30m loss. As for things on the pitch, we are one of the dullest teams in top flight European football to watch. We haven't won at home in over 4 months. If we dont get relegated this season we will next. We've got one of the worst managers in our entire history who will probably cost us another £5m if we sack him We have an absentee owner and a clueless CEO and finance director The club is a laughing stock and an utter shamblesBut on saying all that, just think what Mcleish could do under an owner that backed him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Villa will be one of those companies that ends up getting sold for a nominal amount like £1. Which is £1 more than I'd pay for it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Villa will be one of those companies that ends up getting sold for a nominal amount like £1. Which is £1 more than I'd pay for it right now.A fairly controversial statement to make there, but one I concur with actually on reflection, certainly in terms of not even paying £1 for it now. You may attract some criticism for it mind you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Because its a totally mis-leading statement, you aren't paying £1 for a football club alone, you are also inheriting the liabilities of +/- £170m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted February 29, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 29, 2012 won't someone please think of the children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Because its a totally mis-leading statement, you aren't paying £1 for a football club alone, you are also inheriting the liabilities of +/- £170m Loss making companies are often sold for a token consideration Nothing misleading about it, loads of companies have been sold for a peppercorn amount, eg Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1, and BMW sold Rover for a tenner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Darkest days in the clubs history How has this happened I happen to agree with the majority of the posts you make on here, but you are the most negative poster on this forum. Things are not as bad on the pitch or financially as you think. You're not getting away with that. You need to stop deluding yourself with garbage such as "Things are not as bad on the pitch or financially as you think" I'm struggling to think how in the last 3 years we have racked up debts of +£120m. Next year wont be a whole lot better for the reasons outlined by many posters on here. That will be at least another £30m loss. As for things on the pitch, we are one of the dullest teams in top flight European football to watch. We haven't won at home in over 4 months. If we dont get relegated this season we will next. We've got one of the worst managers in our entire history who will probably cost us another £5m if we sack him We have an absentee owner and a clueless CEO and finance director The club is a laughing stock and an utter shamblesBut on saying all that, just think what Mcleish could do under an owner that backed him The owner isn't absentee, he has been here the past couple of days (just correcting a misconception) McLeish has been backed. He spent getting on for £20m in fees on three players last summer. His job is football manager, the players are the tools, so it is up to him to sort them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 End of the day Peter, the club paid him some money. If they were 100% sure of their case an offer would not have been made.End of the day Richard, MO'N dropped his claim. If he was 100% sure of his case he wouldn't have dropped it. Going to court is a straightforward commercial decision. Even if you think that you are completely in the right, there is a chance that you could lose, so it is always better to settle. Also, judges take a dim view of relatively simple cases that are brought into their court where mediation has not been explored, thus making the outcome even more shakey. O'Neill said that he didn't break his contract. HDE has been heard in Four Oaks circles to say on more than one occasion that he was sacked. What happened is probably somewhere in that grey bit in the middle. Me, I'd have kicked the leprechaun's arse out of the club two years earlier and told him to go **** himself for his compensation (but then I would probably have ended up settling out of court) :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villianusa Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The only way that this situation is possibly going to improve is if Lerner sells. It's clear that while he remains in charge we're on a downward spiral. 100%, been saying similar for approaching 3 years now. That is one option but not the only option. 1. Improvement will be had by getting rid of the high earners that MON and Lerner brought in 3-4 years ago. This will happen over the next two years with them all running out their contracts. Quite a few of them will be gone by the end of the season so that will help. 2. Not swapping managers every season could bring that down some also. 3. Purchasing players from the continent on lower wages. This is will need our scouting system to actually work and find some of the hidden gems other clubs seem to find. 4. Continue with the youth coming through the club and hope they can help us turn things around. 5. Continue to get further exposure worldwide like we have with the China deal recently. 6. Increase ticket prices (wouldnt be very popular) 7. Find investors for the club. There are more but I'm happy with that for now. Lerner has made mistakes with HIS MONEY and he will count the cost of that down the line. I believe he is doing the right thing now by cutting costs. It may take a while to turn things around off and on the field. Being a Villa fan I have experienced highs and lows many times before so I'm okay with waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Because its a totally mis-leading statement, you aren't paying £1 for a football club alone, you are also inheriting the liabilities of +/- £170m Loss making companies are often sold for a token consideration Nothing misleading about it, loads of companies have been sold for a peppercorn amount, eg Ken Bates bought Chelsea for £1, and BMW sold Rover for a tenner. Just pointing out the buyer takes on all the debts for the so-called £1 purchase price. So in our case £170,000,000.00 + 0.01p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Lerner has made mistakes with HIS MONEY Correct - but with OUR club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villianusa Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Lerner has made mistakes with HIS MONEY Correct - but with OUR club! Technically it's his club due to the money he stumped up for it. But yes it is our club from a supporters stand point. We have the right to pick and chose if we support the club or not. What we don't have it the right to dicate how someone spends their money. I'm not saying things haven't be done wrong (in my opinion) but all we can hope is the changes being made will correct the trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Lerner is merely the custodian of the club, and I'm certainly in the camp now that sees him as a very bad one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Villianusa remember this quote August 2006 - I do! 'I'm what you call the custodian. There have been plenty of custodians of Aston Villa since 1874 and if I can't make it work, I will do what the others did, move on and let someone else try.' 'People like me come and go. The fans will always own Aston Villa because they never leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 29, 2012 End of the day Peter, the club paid him some money. If they were 100% sure of their case an offer would not have been made.End of the day Richard, MO'N dropped his claim. If he was 100% sure of his case he wouldn't have dropped it. Going to court is a straightforward commercial decision. Even if you think that you are completely in the right, there is a chance that you could lose, so it is always better to settle. Also, judges take a dim view of relatively simple cases that are brought into their court where mediation has not been explored, thus making the outcome even more shakey. That may be true but they didn't go to court, MO'N took Villa to the Premier League Managers' Arbitration Tribunal. There's a big difference. Premier League managers' contracts contain a clause requiring the parties to mediate their differences in the event of a dispute and, if the dispute cannot be resolved at mediation, that the case moves forward to the Premier League Managers' Arbitration Tribunal. The LMA says: "The tribunal is ideally placed to resolve disputes, combining the skills and experience of prominent individuals from football and the law." The commercial implications don't lie in the costs incurred so much as in the verdict. The winner would be seen as "vindicated" and the loser as "wrong" with subsequent impact on profession reputation. For the manager that would be very damaging and for the club (any club) it would damage their ability to attract high profile managers in future. Arguably the risk is greater for the manager, as there are always managers willing to work for clubs, whatever their boards reputation - see Leeds for an example, or Small Heath, or etc. It's also worth looking at the savaging Keegan got, even though he won his Newcastle case, because the evidence showed him up badly in several aspects. Managers are often very sure of themselves, very high in self belief and so on. The clever ones (and MO'N is clever) will perhaps realise that pursuing a case to the end isn't actually likely to be of benefit to them unless they are nigh on certain to win. The "chat" is that MO'N chose to walk away from Villa, that he instigated the departure, but believed that there was a degree of constructive dismissal, as the board was curtailing his freedom to control transfers as he saw fit. Particularly over the Milner money, which the club was allegedly not allowing him to spend on another winger - that they were saying "you can buy players, but not that one". The "chat" is that the club felt that they were supporting the manager, that the constraints on spending were agreed, and that as an employee who had agreed to these constraints, he threw his teddy when they insisted on them being enacted and should not have walked out. Whatever, he dropped his case after negotiating with the club for a reduced amount. From the point of view of us lot having a clear "winner and loser" we ended up disappointed, many wanted MO'N to lose the case feeling the timing of his leaving was vindictive, and that he had been hot headed and behaved badly. Others wanted the Club to lose because they felt the club was/is wrong to "force him out" in their view. I was happy with MO'N as manager, but I don't like the way that the message somehow got round that "MO'N" won a tribunal case, or that the Club was "found" to have "lost". Neither is true. Finally the buggers are paid far too much, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The owner isn't absentee, he has been here the past couple of days . To be honest mate, I get the feeling he just likes flying around. Nothing productive seems to be coming out of these two day midweek trips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts