villan_007 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Havn't we already missed the window of opportunity to benefit from mega rich owners? Seems UEFA are intent on closing the door to the big boys club before any other clubs get ideas of being the new Citeh. In fact aren't Citeh now starting to address their spending to ensure they can at least look like they're going to comply with the financial fair play regs? There's no way we could start splashing the cash next summer and still hope to pass any UEFA audit of our accounts. The new rumors I've read today state they are well aware of the new rules and it wouldn't be a Man City style rebuild - it would be over a number of seasons but the money isn't going to be a problem again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Havn't we already missed the window of opportunity to benefit from mega rich owners? Seems UEFA are intent on closing the door to the big boys club before any other clubs get ideas of being the new Citeh. In fact aren't Citeh now starting to address their spending to ensure they can at least look like they're going to comply with the financial fair play regs? There's no way we could start splashing the cash next summer and still hope to pass any UEFA audit of our accounts. To be fair to the bloke, he actually talks about it in depth and makes sense... QIA is owned by a family. Theres no rule stopping each member of the family having their own football club. Research the owners of PSG and Malaga. It'll all become apparent. When you get taken over there will be serious investment, it wont be to City's standards however. Expect lots of 10-25million players bought over time, and a proper team to be established. QIA have done serious research into football, they know success can be bought in two ways. Either quickly (City-esq) or over time with constant investment. He's not suggesting they will throw £200m at the team.* *And im not suggesting this is 100% a go'er! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Why did Randy forcibly buy back the shares sold to supporters? To increase his sale value? Other than that, those shares have no value to Randy at all!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It all points to a sale and possibly being true - but I've been a Villa fan all my life - I know how this ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irreverentad Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Is this a recent thing where Randy has gone for the leftover shares? or did he do this as soon as he bought the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Why did Randy forcibly buy back the shares sold to supporters? To increase his sale value? Other than that, those shares have no value to Randy at all!?!? Rules of governance relating to a PLC. Once he held 29% of shares he MUST then make offer to all remaining shareholders and once he got 80% he could just snatch the remainder. He wanted full control clearly so he could feck it all up in 5 years without someone telling him NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanthemanisgod Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 But isn't the issue, and the reason behind Randy's cut backs, not the fact we're skint but that in line with the money we bring in we cant continue to pay the amount of money we do on wages and still be compliant with the rules? That's how I've understood the rational behind the austerity measures but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it is regardless of whether we spend £200m in a oner or over a few seasons we still need to prove that money came into the club via one of the permitted sources of income. And if we can do that we then need to balance the wage bill against our approved income, and the problem with £10-25m players is most of them are accustomed to receiving fairly big wage packets. Dont get me wrong it certainly wont hurt to have owners with a few more quid in the bank, but I'm not convinced it'll mean a significant change in our fortunes and standing in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irreverentad Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 But isn't the issue, and the reason behind Randy's cut backs, not the fact we're skint but that in line with the money we bring in we cant continue to pay the amount of money we do on wages and still be compliant with the rules? That's how I've understood the rational behind the austerity measures but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it is regardless of whether we spend £200m in a oner or over a few seasons we still need to prove that money came into the club via one of the permitted sources of income. And if we can do that we then need to balance the wage bill against our approved income, and the problem with £10-25m players is most of them are accustomed to receiving fairly big wage packets. Dont get me wrong it certainly wont hurt to have owners with a few more quid in the bank, but I'm not convinced it'll mean a significant change in our fortunes and standing in the league. Loop holes will always be found. eg stdium sponsorship, trainig ground sponsorship, training top sponsorship etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanthemanisgod Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Yes but we'll be in a completely different situation to Citeh when the use of such loop holes get examined. As it stands there's no guarantee that UEFA will accept that the £400m or whatever it was Citeh got for the naming rights of their ground as the genuine market value, but even if they do at that point, Citeh will almost def be back in the CL and may even be Champions of England. Villa will be a club that has flirted with relegation for 2 (probably) seasons and last won a trophy in 1996, would be a lot more difficult to argue that the rights to naming our ground etc are worth anywhere near the value of the bigger clubs. That's before you've even got into the fall out that would occur if they tried change the name of Villa Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Selling the name of the stadium a la Man City... Didnt Randy own a 96% stake of the shares before he recently brought the remaining 4%? So that he didnt have to reveal the sale to anyone (including the stockmarket) before a sale? Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irreverentad Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Selling the name of the stadium a la Man City... Didnt Randy own a 96% stake of the shares before he recently brought the remaining 4%? So that he didnt have to reveal the sale to anyone (including the stockmarket) before a sale? Just a thought... Cheers Wiggy, So this compulsory purchase of the remaining 4% of shares is a recent action then? eg in the last few months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 No he bought up ALL shares shortly after hetook over - I have the stamped share certificate to prove it - and I didn't want to sell them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irreverentad Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Fair enough. Then the shares thing is a non story then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOne Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I can see him selling the 'Villa Park' name in the near future. And we won't see any money used on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 No he bought up ALL shares shortly after hetook over - I have the stamped share certificate to prove it - and I didn't want to sell them That's odd, one of the (non-'itk') guys on the other linked forum said he recently got a letter about the mandatory sale of his shares. Is it possible Randy bought up to 96% of the shares soon after buying the club, then recently bought up the remaining 4%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I just hope that if it is true our prospective new owners demand that AMC is booted now and a decent manager is brought in and funded in January so that we're not in the Championship when we get taken over. Wishful thinking set to MAXIMUM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Wrong Denis, Randy Lerner brought 96% at the time of purchase...your shares would have been included in this percentage being as you had a certificate. There was a remaining 4% which was outstanding which he brought towards the end of November. Once he owns 100% he can remove the club from the stock market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I can see him selling the 'Villa Park' name in the near future. And we won't see any money used on the team. If we struggle to get a shirt sponsor, and go back on the 'principle' of not accepting gambling companies for same, can you really see a queue of willing sponsors for naming rights to the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 No he bought up ALL shares shortly after hetook over - I have the stamped share certificate to prove it - and I didn't want to sell them That's odd, one of the (non-'itk') guys on the other linked forum said he recently got a letter about the mandatory sale of his shares. Is it possible Randy bought up to 96% of the shares soon after buying the club, then recently bought up the remaining 4%? I too had a similar letter about 3 weeks back now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 I can see him selling the 'Villa Park' name in the near future. And we won't see any money used on the team. If we struggle to get a shirt sponsor, and go back on the 'principle' of not accepting gambling companies for same, can you really see a queue of willing sponsors for naming rights to the ground? The Qatar Airlines Stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts