TrentVilla Posted December 4, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2011 This nonsense that it is all in loans, he will only get all his money back if he gets what he payed for it, plus what he has put in, hes not likely to get that, so in effect he has given money to the club, and we should be grateful for that. No he hasn't. He has loaned it and has charged interest, at a rate which is pretty favourable I'd imagine. Not correct Trent. He has put in his own money as equity, and he has also loaned money. And the interest is paid at at a standard rate of LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) plus 2%, which is currently very low at 1.05%. As Risso has mentioned previously on a few occasions, in 2009 what appears to be a one off, management charge of £7.7m was shown as being due to Reform Acquisitions (Randy basically). I don't know if the money was actually paid out to him or not. The accounts also say that none of the directors receive remuneration in relation to their services to [Villa]. It's not a case of being grateful or whatever, it was his choice and his lookout. He's not a saint, and nor should we expect him to be, but basically he's a sort of mildly hard nosed benevolent owner, financially. The equity he has put in, he'd get back when the club is sold, the loans are 9 year loans and a bean counter I know told me "It's about the best way of doing things" No I'm sorry Pete what I posted is not incorrect please read the original post to which I responded in which he was suggested that he had put money in as some sort of gift. Now that is incorrect. (edit - in my view) Obviously I'm aware that he purchased the club with his own money but that is not a gift, that is purchase as you say for equity. That is not the same thing as putting his money into the club as some sort of gift, it is held in equity he will some day release and walk away with what it cost him and probably a great deal more. That leaves the loans, again these are not a gift. I wasn't aware of the rates of interest charged so thanks for that information and I admit it is less than I thought however I'm sure you will agree it is still a significant figure as is the management charge. Therefore in my opinion there was nothing incorrect about what I said, he hasn't "in effect given money to the club" nothing like it in fact. He has purchased equity in it as you correctly point out and he has loaned the club money which we are now seemingly paying back and on which he has made a profit. So he hasn't given money he has loaned it and charged the club for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 No, what you posted is incorrect, no matter how many times I read it. In response to a claim "he has given money to the club" you stated that "No he hasn't, he has loaned it and has charged interest". I have detailed exactly how he has both loaned the club his own money and also put his own money into the club. The notional means by which he could theoretically ever get that "given" money back, would be in the event of a sale, but even then, only if the sale price is at a level or above what he has put in. This is realistically unlikely. Same as with Abramovic at Chelsea, to a smaller degree of course, but RL has to all intents and purposes "given" the club money by issuing new shares and then buying them himself - he already owned 100% of the shares, he is just putting money in. The final sale price for the club is realistically going to be unaffected by him putting money in which is then spent on players, or wages. I agree we owe him no obligation of gratitude for it, but it's untrue to say he has only loaned the c,lub money. he has also directly put money in, via the only way it can be done and comply with financial and tax law (I believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honest_bertie Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Personally I think AM and PF are the two are the major problems at Villa and both need to go. Randy needs to acknowledge he f**ked up by appointing them and he now needs to show he's got the balls and get rid and start again. He needs to appoint a decent CEO who could take command of the club and get in a manager that is in keeping with the "proud history" of the club, someone that actually understands the game and can really work within financial constraints if necessary, some one like (but not necessarily) Lambert @ Norwich. If he did that I would be happy enough and would be prepared to accept there maybe some tricky times ahead short term but maybe long term there was hope and along the way we'd at least have a team playing some decent football and looking like they know what they are supposed to be doing. We need someone at the top with some real experience of running a top level football club, someone that is a bit more cut throat and less of a yes man than PF, some one that would have balls to stand up to RL and say he was wrong if needed. If Randy can't see or accept this then maybe its time he sold up and headed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Blandy wrote The equity he has put in, he'd get back when the club is sold, the loans are 9 year loans and a bean counter I know told me "It's about the best way of doing things" Best for whom Pete? Not the club I bet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Back on topic, Mr L is on his way back to Birmingham. Not sure whether he is staying, or just on a gas and go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Back on topic, Mr L is on his way back to Birmingham. Not sure whether he is staying, or just on a gas and go. So where has he been for his Christmas shopping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 He's staying otherwise he'd have filled up in Luton where it'd cheaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuse Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Back on topic, Mr L is on his way back to Birmingham. Not sure whether he is staying, or just on a gas and go. Can yuo divulge where he has been please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Back on topic, Mr L is on his way back to Birmingham. Not sure whether he is staying, or just on a gas and go. Can yuo divulge where he has been please? Afghanistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Back on topic, Mr L is on his way back to Birmingham. Not sure whether he is staying, or just on a gas and go. Can yuo divulge where he has been please? Afghanistan He's been to get the General!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuse Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Back on topic, Mr L is on his way back to Birmingham. Not sure whether he is staying, or just on a gas and go. Can yuo divulge where he has been please? Afghanistan ARMS deal witht he Taliban ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 No, what you posted is incorrect, no matter how many times I read it. In response to a claim "he has given money to the club"you stated that "No he hasn't, he has loaned it and has charged interest". No Pete it isn't you may think differently to me you might hold different opinions but that doesn't make me incorrect. At this moment in time the money is loaned to us, we are paying interest and we are being charged a management fee. That is fact. To my knowledge there is nothing other than personal beliefs to support the notion the money he has invested isn't an investment but a gift. I have detailed exactly how he has both loaned the club his own money and also put his own money into the club. The notional means by which he could theoretically ever get that "given" money back, would be in the event of a sale, but even then, only if the sale price is at a level or above what he has put in. This is realistically unlikely. No Pete you have given your opinion and it is one I don't share. He has loaned money to the club and he has invested in equity, there is no gift. You have absolutely no way of knowing if he will see a return on the investment as and when he opts to sell the club. Granted he wouldn't if he sold it today but he isn't going to. You might think it unlikely but who knows what the situation would be at the end of those loans in terms of the value of the club, we might even have repaid the loans in full by that time. Same as with Abramovic at Chelsea, to a smaller degree of course, but RL has to all intents and purposes "given" the club money by issuing new shares and then buying them himself - he already owned 100% of the shares, he is just putting money in. The final sale price for the club is realistically going to be unaffected by him putting money in which is then spent on players, or wages. You are right it won't but had the money he invested been used more wisely, had we taken our opportunities, had Man City not come along, had Harry not sorted out Spurs, had the economic melt down not happened he just might. Just because it doesn't look like he will get the money back he has invested in equity does not mean he never intended/hoped to do so or that he perhaps won't in the future. It might turn out to be a bad investment that he writes off but there is very little to support the belief that these loans were gifts and there is not really anything to support the belief the investment in shares was either. When Randy and Faulkner arrived they bought a club that was under valued in the market and by their own admission thought through careful investment they could improve the value and income. That it hasn't panned out that way doesn't mean the intention was never there and that it was a gift. I agree we owe him no obligation of gratitude for it, but it's untrue to say he has only loaned the c,lub money. he has also directly put money in, via the only way it can be done and comply with financial and tax law (I believe). Yes he has invested money as well as loaned it I don't think I've ever said otherwise but I refuse to accept this notion that he has gifted the club money because there is absolutely nothing to support that other than personal belief. The truth it neither of us can be sure our options are right but there really is nothing on which you can say I'm incorrect even if you don't agree. Ironically despite my criticism of him I'm actually grateful to him for buying the club, for the loans and for the subsequent further investment. Despite his mistakes and faults he was I believe the best option we had and certainly better than what went before. Regardless of this I simply do not share you view of Randy as being a philanthropic owner, he is a business man buying the club was largely a business decision (we weren't the only club he considered) that it hasn't turned out a particularly good investment doesn't change the fact in my view it always was an investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Aghanistan = my ARSE! Given the restrictions on military aircraft landing at Kabul there is no chance of his Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 In response to a claim "he has given money to the club" you stated that "No he hasn't, he has loaned it and has charged interest". I have detailed exactly how he has both loaned the club his own money and also put his own money into the club. The notional means by which he could theoretically ever get that "given" money back, would be in the event of a sale, but even then, only if the sale price is at a level or above what he has put in. This is realistically unlikely. Seems fair enough to me. No Pete you have given your opinion and it is one I don't share. He has loaned money to the club and he has invested in equity Erm...isn't that the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuse Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Maybe he went to Khazakstan and has just agreed a deal to bring back John Gregory as manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 Erm...isn't that the same thing? No because I believe he intended to get it back I don't believe it was a gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Aghanistan = my ARSE! Given the restrictions on military aircraft landing at Kabul there is no chance of his Fair enough. I only report what I know. If you choose not to believe it, that's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Dont get me wrong, I think the issue at the Villa is 100% the fault of Faulkner and would rejoice in the streets if he quit / was sacked. But I don't buy this "we need a CEO who knows football" line. Just coz they know football, does not mean they will be any good. I mean, Ray Ranson became a multi-millionaire in his businesses and played nearly 500 games at the highest (apart from when he was at the Blues) level. Didn't make him any good for Coventry did it. Look at all the good CEO's and they have no connection to football. What they do have in common though is they listen to the managers who actual do know !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Erm...isn't that the same thing? No because I believe he intended to get it back I don't believe it was a gift. I think that he did say at the time that he bought the club that there were a lot better, and easier, ways of getting a return on £60m+. Most finance people concurred with that view at the time, so I don't think that he viewed buying the Villa as the way to a fast, or even medium term, buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Erm...isn't that the same thing? No because I believe he intended to get it back I don't believe it was a gift.Only briefly looking at the last two pages of debate with you and Blandy, I've only seen you use the term 'gift'. On the point of 'has he invested money', blandy has given an evidenced argument which shows he has, and you have agreed. I have no problem with his speculating his own money to try and make us successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts