The Randy Lerner thread

[TrentVilla]

He didn't wipe £100m of debt or interest, I've read some tosh before but that might just be the biggest load ever. No wonder there is no link to that 'quote' because it isn't a quote or even taken from a credible article, it is taken from Wiki.

 

All he did was wave interest owed by his very badly run business to himself in order to avoid putting his own business further into debt.

 

Sorry, that doesn't really impress me.

[neil3241]

What Lerner did by not giving, but loaning the club the money to embark on 'his' initial plan has damaged the club massively.

 

And to be frank, unless an oil sheik comes along the debt will always hold us back.

 

The answer isnt more debt. So unless the clubs revenues can be raised to compete then it's either make do or hope an owner who is willing to subsidize the club comes along.

 

That's why Lambert gives me so much hope, making do of the situation in the best way, although the start of the season has dented that hope. Because it's looking like the only option.

[thetrees]

Is it not commonplace for owners to loan money, rather than give it?

Abramovich certainly loaned money to Chelsea, although I believe that he subsequently wrote it off.

If Mr Lerner is waiving any interest, then I don't see that it makes too much difference. Certainly not too many people were complaining when he 'embarked on 'his' initial plan' and we were signing big money players for fun.

[Big_John_10]

Is it not commonplace for owners to loan money, rather than give it?

Abramovich certainly loaned money to Chelsea, although I believe that he subsequently wrote it off.

If Mr Lerner is waiving any interest, then I don't see that it makes too much difference. Certainly not too many people were complaining when he 'embarked on 'his' initial plan' and we were signing big money players for fun.

Why would you expect people to have complained back then?

[neil3241]

Well loaning then writing off, isnt the same as loaning and then suspending interest payment. Depending on the time frame of course. But given the time frame of the Lerner loans then I would suspect the suspension to be temporary and his intention was to have the business by the balls from the start.

 

But yeh who would complain about jam today. Isn't that why the capitalist world is so fooked up today.

[thetrees]

Is it not commonplace for owners to loan money, rather than give it?

Abramovich certainly loaned money to Chelsea, although I believe that he subsequently wrote it off.

If Mr Lerner is waiving any interest, then I don't see that it makes too much difference. Certainly not too many people were complaining when he 'embarked on 'his' initial plan' and we were signing big money players for fun.

Why would you expect people to have complained back then?

I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't expect people to complain now about back then

[Morpheus]

 

Which is why I said a few pages back that Lerner will be happy that fans like you believe this.

 

And as I said before, none of us here have inside knowledge on club strategy, so stop trying to pass off your opinion as fact and stop talking down to people who don't share the shame interpretation of the current club strategy as you do.

 

Oh the irony of that statement.

 

HH has already alluded to a lack of funding for the manager and there have already been major cutbacks at the club which would  substantiate what BJ10 is saying and thats why he has questioned you on the ambition of the club.

[neil3241]

 

 

Which is why I said a few pages back that Lerner will be happy that fans like you believe this.

 

And as I said before, none of us here have inside knowledge on club strategy, so stop trying to pass off your opinion as fact and stop talking down to people who don't share the shame interpretation of the current club strategy as you do.

 

Oh the irony of that statement.

 

HH has already alluded to a lack of funding for the manager and there have already been major cutbacks at the club which would  substantiate what BJ10 is saying and thats why he has questioned you on the ambition of the club.

 

 

Where will the funding come from to make it not a lack of funding?

Edited September 27, 2013 by neil3241

[Morpheus]

[OutByEaster?]

Well loaning then writing off, isnt the same as loaning and then suspending interest payment. Depending on the time frame of course. But given the time frame of the Lerner loans then I would suspect the suspension to be temporary and his intention was to have the business by the balls from the start.

 

But yeh who would complain about jam today. Isn't that why the capitalist world is so fooked up today.

 

I'd agree with this if I thought there was a chance of him coming out of it with a profit. 

 

I see no jam.

[suttonpaul]

waaa waaa!!!!

 

Grow up he owns the club and can do as he sees fit.

 

Don't like it then done spend money on its products or watch tv games that contribute to the clubs coffers like a sky subscription.

 

Fact is he doesn't want to throw money at a COMPANY he owns for it to make losses.

 

Move on if someone wanted to buy the club who was super rich they would anyway therefore no one does.

[NoelVilla]

He is not rich enough for my liking.

He made mistakes in his first years, not having a football man who could stop MON signing Heskey and more.

He should have started his ownership with the approach he have now cause he cover our financial losses every year still, not enough money though see first sentence.

Should we protest against him? Im not there yet. 

[markavfc40]

 

Well loaning then writing off, isnt the same as loaning and then suspending interest payment. Depending on the time frame of course. But given the time frame of the Lerner loans then I would suspect the suspension to be temporary and his intention was to have the business by the balls from the start.

 

But yeh who would complain about jam today. Isn't that why the capitalist world is so fooked up today.

 

I'd agree with this if I thought there was a chance of him coming out of it with a profit. 

 

I see no jam.

 

 

I am in no doubt he will stick around long enough to see a little bit of jam. He paid around 60 mill for us which even at that time was a good price. If he can continue along the cost cutting path he has embarked on for some time now and keep us in the Prem then in a couple of years time he will sell us for 140 mill +.

 

The jam however should have been success on the pitch for this great club. Instead it seems likely he will leave us in a similar position to how he found us. Such a waste.

Edited September 27, 2013 by markavfc40

[John]

Kbdrum88 said: "he invested about 20m into the club on March 2013 and waived off the 100m interest owed to him by Aston Villa due to the fact Villa were struggling financially".

Although the figures quoted as have been said are open to question what sort of interest rate would that represent on the money he has put into the club he owns and does that include the money he paid Deadly for it & the £20m extra he agreed to put in for new players when buying?

[TRO]

I never profess to know the financial state of the club like more clued up people on here who have financial acumen do.

Randy Lerner for me is like the curates egg good in parts and I find him more palatable the the previous incumbent , despite HDE still attending matches and indigenous of these shores.

I still believe we have more football issues than financial ones, despite me understanding that there has to be a link at some stage.

When trying to explain a point give one example and its an isolated case , give many and you a whinger, so here goes.

I believe our basic problem over the years have been signing too few players with pitch craft, similar to ring craft.

Example: We played West Ham in a mid week game and got turned over by a bulldozing centre forward display from a certain Marlon Harewood..impressive on the night, but pitch craft, not sure about that, all muscle for me, but hey someone at Villa Park was suitably impressed to sign him for 4miilion...true to form did we ever get a performance like that from him......no.

Did we ever recover our signing on fee .....no

Basically multiply that many times over has been one of our main problems for many years.

Edited September 27, 2013 by TRO

[Big_John_10]

Is it not commonplace for owners to loan money, rather than give it?

Abramovich certainly loaned money to Chelsea, although I believe that he subsequently wrote it off.

If Mr Lerner is waiving any interest, then I don't see that it makes too much difference. Certainly not too many people were complaining when he 'embarked on 'his' initial plan' and we were signing big money players for fun.

Why would you expect people to have complained back then?

I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't expect people to complain now about back then

What a stupid thing to say.

We didn't have all the facts back then and we didn't see what it would do to the club.

I actually can't believe you wrote that.

Is it not commonplace for owners to loan money, rather than give it?

Abramovich certainly loaned money to Chelsea, although I believe that he subsequently wrote it off.

If Mr Lerner is waiving any interest, then I don't see that it makes too much difference. Certainly not too many people were complaining when he 'embarked on 'his' initial plan' and we were signing big money players for fun.

Why would you expect people to have complained back then?

I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't expect people to complain now about back then

What a stupid thing to say.

We didn't have all the facts back then and we didn't see what it would do to the club.

I actually can't believe you wrote that.

[Big_John_10]

waaa waaa!!!!

Grow up he owns the club and can do as he sees fit.

Don't like it then done spend money on its products or watch tv games that contribute to the clubs coffers like a sky subscription.

Fact is he doesn't want to throw money at a COMPANY he owns for it to make losses.

Move on if someone wanted to buy the club who was super rich they would anyway therefore no one does.

Wow.

[neil3241]

 

Well loaning then writing off, isnt the same as loaning and then suspending interest payment. Depending on the time frame of course. But given the time frame of the Lerner loans then I would suspect the suspension to be temporary and his intention was to have the business by the balls from the start.

 

But yeh who would complain about jam today. Isn't that why the capitalist world is so fooked up today.

 

I'd agree with this if I thought there was a chance of him coming out of it with a profit. 

 

I see no jam.

 

 

The jam was the MON era.

 

Just to clarify, by jam I mean the 'good times' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_tomorrow

 

But his intentions from the start have been clear. Any money must be paid back.

Edited September 28, 2013 by neil3241

[RunRickyRun]

Is it not commonplace for owners to loan money, rather than give it?

Abramovich certainly loaned money to Chelsea, although I believe that he subsequently wrote it off.

If Mr Lerner is waiving any interest, then I don't see that it makes too much difference. Certainly not too many people were complaining when he 'embarked on 'his' initial plan' and we were signing big money players for fun.

Yep you're correct. The owner and business are treated as separate entities so that any money put into the club by the owner is shown on the company's books as a debt to be repaid by the business to the owner (either in the form of loan notes or equity).

 

Off topic but Abramovich is still owed 700m+ by Chelsea (via his holding company)

[Morpheus]

I never profess to know the financial state of the club like more clued up people on here who have financial acumen do.

Randy Lerner for me is like the curates egg good in parts and I find him more palatable the the previous incumbent , despite HDE still attending matches and indigenous of these shores.

I still believe we have more football issues than financial ones, despite me understanding that there has to be a link at some stage.

When trying to explain a point give one example and its an isolated case , give many and you a whinger, so here goes.

I believe our basic problem over the years have been signing too few players with pitch craft, similar to ring craft.

Example: We played West Ham in a mid week game and got turned over by a bulldozing centre forward display from a certain Marlon Harewood..impressive on the night, but pitch craft, not sure about that, all muscle for me, but hey someone at Villa Park was suitably impressed to sign him for 4miilion...true to form did we ever get a performance like that from him......no.

Did we ever recover our signing on fee .....no

Basically multiply that many times over has been one of our main problems for many years.

The highlighted line of text saved me the trouble.