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 Fair enough. I only report what I know. If you choose not to believe it, that's cool. Notice the Maybe he has had his new jet done up in cammo and fitted missiles 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. 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. He did and I agree with you but neither do I think he did it any of it as a gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. No he hasn't and no I certainly haven't. I agree he has invested as well as loaned I don't accept the notion that his investment wasn't actually an investment but a gift. I responded to someone else (not Blandy) who claimed Randy had given/gifted money to the club saying I didn't agree, Blandy then disagreed with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 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.Yes, there really is, mate. It's in the fecking accounts! I can be absolutely certain, even as a non-bean counter, that Randy has, via equity transferred money from his personal funds to those of the club. That is in layman's terms, to all intents and purposes "giving the club money". It is also the means, by the by, that UEFA under their financial fair play rule allow owners to put in money, precisely because it is not a loan, and can't be just taken back out, (other than effectively selling all or part of the club. And as I mentioned, there is no realistic prospect of getting it all back, even then). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 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. No he hasn't and no I certainly haven't. I agree he has invested as well as loaned I don't accept the notion that his investment wasn't actually an investment but a gift. I responded to someone else (not Blandy) who claimed Randy had given/gifted money to the club saying I didn't agree, Blandy then disagreed with me.He has put money in, whether he is motivated by profit or on field success is IMO by the by, they are interlinked. If he wants to speculate his own money to make us a success that's a good thing. Football isn't philanthropy, if anybody on previous pages described the investment as a gift, then that is probably incorrect - but it's not a black mark against Randy surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 Yes, there really is, mate. It's in the fecking accounts! I can be absolutely certain, even as a non-bean counter, that Randy has, via equity transferred money from his personal funds to those of the club. That is in layman's terms, to all intents and purposes "giving the club money". That isn't proof that it is a gift that is simply your view but I've already answered that. And as I mentioned, there is no realistic prospect of getting it all back, even then). At this moment in time. It doesn't mean he didn't think there was at the time or that it won't be possible in the future. As I said it comes down to nothing but opinion mate and mine is different to yours. There isn't much point us both repeating them over and over as neither of us is going to change our view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 He has put money in, whether he is motivated by profit or on field success is IMO by the by, they are interlinked. I agree I've never argued that he hasn't and I will argue with anyone who says he is no different/better than Ellis because of that very point (amongst others) If he wants to speculate his own money to make us a success that's a good thing. Football isn't philanthropy, if anybody on previous pages described the investment as a gift, then that is probably incorrect - but it's not a black mark against Randy surely? Yes it is and no it isn't we agree. Someone did described it as a gift or being given to the club which is what I disagree with and on that Blandy disagree's with me. Perhaps I should add I don't expect him to give his money to the club either but I just don't accept the suggestion that this is what he has done because he might not get a return on his investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Trees, you might lose some cred here There's no way he's been in Afghanistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Trees, you might lose some cred here There's no way he's been in Afghanistan Because.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Because.... Private plane landing in Kabul without fighter escort - hmmmmm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Because.... Private plane landing in Kabul without fighter escort - hmmmmm! Cant say I know the rulings on landing in Afghanistan but who mentioned Kabul why not Kandahar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Exactly, absolutely laughable scenario You do not take a private jet into Kabul just now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Exactly, absolutely laughable scenario You do not take a private jet into Kabul just now So what are the restrictions and current rulings that have been imposed with regards to chartering a private plane to Afghanistan? I dont think he mentioned Kabul though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Been bought by the Taliban could be intriguing as doubt many the players be going on the lash before/after the game and not only would it increase our profile in Asia(which some people are craving) Im sure we be known all over the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Straight swap? Heskey for another 80kgs of dope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Trees, you might lose some cred here There's no way he's been in Afghanistan I refer you to my previous posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtelower Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 He could be in Afganistan. I mean , lets face it, if the troops think Jim Davidson is funny, then they will piss themselves when they meet a guy who paid 3.8 million quid for Emile Heskey ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots 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 !!!! I agree. A good CEO would be someone with experience of a niche sporting/leisure/entertainment business of at least £100m turnover. However, it would be useful if there was someone on the board/acting in an advisory capacity who had specific knowledge of the football world and how things move/happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSufferingVilla Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Perhaps the General had some business in Afganistan and Randy allowed him to borrow the jet. The Billionaire equivalent of a mate asking to borrow your car for a trip to Basingstoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2011 Perhaps the General had some business in Afganistan and Randy allowed him to borrow the jet. The Billionaire equivalent of a mate asking to borrow your car for a trip to Coventry. Fixed it for you ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts