juanpabloangel18 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 So some random poster on some random Villa forum says we're being bought out next year....people are really giving this the time of day? You know it makes sense :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 It is panto season after all ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Let's just wait and see what happens. We got top 10 to finish in - woohoo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony_Tony_Daley Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 So some random poster on some random Villa forum says we're being bought out next year....people are really giving this the time of day? You'd rather discuss the same ol stuff like..Collins kills birds with a football...Mcleish is a shite manager, Dunne has a couple of chins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 WWII Fighter Plane Found On Moon (next to Mitre Football) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegiddygambler Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The reason Villa are struggling isn't primarily due to McLeish. It's due to Lerner's vanity project, "do an Ambramovich" and when it failed, rather than face up to it and lick his wounds for half a decade, VILLA must pay for it IMMEDIATELY. He spent shit loads of his own money chasing a dream. When it failed and reality set in, Villa became a selling club overnight geared up solely for correcting Lerner's extravagance. From 2006-09 he behaved like Abramovich. Of course he never had the long term means for doing this. Yes it's a shame he's lost a lot of £ but he knew what he was doing. The truth is Villa could pay him back in any case over a longer period of time. BUT NO, the vain cretin is using Villa to quickly get his cash back. Cash he foolishly squandered. Not many will agree with me, so be it. UTV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 From 2006-09 he behaved like Abramovich no he didnt. We were making reasonably priced signings while Abramovich spent 14 million on a manager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegiddygambler Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The reason Villa are struggling isn't primarily due to McLeish. It's due to Lerner's vanity project, "do an Ambramovich" and when it failed, rather than face up to it and lick his wounds for half a decade, VILLA must pay for it IMMEDIATELY. He spent shit loads of his own money chasing a dream. When it failed and reality set in, Villa became a selling club overnight geared up solely for correcting Lerner's extravagance. From 2006-09 he behaved like Abramovich. Of course he never had the long term means for doing this. Yes it's a shame he's lost a lot of £ but he knew what he was doing. The truth is Villa could pay him back in any case over a longer period of time. BUT NO, the vain cretin is using Villa to quickly get his cash back. Cash he foolishly squandered. Not many will agree with me, so be it. UTV So illuminating that pravda deem ANY topic not pro Randy must all be incubated into the same thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegiddygambler Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 From 2006-09 he behaved like Abramovich no he didnt. We were making reasonably priced signings while Abramovich spent 14 million on a manager The one summer we were the 2nd or 3rd highest spending team in Western Europe. If you wish to be pedantic though fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 not being pedantic but Chelsea transfer fees and wages blows Randy input out of the water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Haha not really, it's just take a visit to sunderlands forum or put your wellies on and go to sha's forum, really badly organised with umpteen topics discussing the same subjects with 4/5 responses in each rather than a proper discussion in one place as for your opinion, pretty unfounded, like someone else said he hasn't spent anywhere near Romans money, I think he must have known there was no way in hell we would be profitable but read some tony fernandez interviews from when he bought qpr, said he'll lose money on them but every single other business he owns will see growth because of the prem club link it's really hard IMO to gauge what Lerner wants to achieve, playing billy big bollocks must come into it somewhere but IMO wouldn't have been the sole reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2011 Explain therefore why after years of not giving a shit about the other 4% equity, Lerner is sending letters out stating he will be purchasing the last 4%, which it will not alter his ownership of the club whatsoever? I thought Lerner was looking after the costs, and suddenly he's paying for an extra 4% that doesn't give him anymore power or control than when he owned 96%. The logical conclusion is: A) He has done so as he intends to sell quietly, or cover legitimate interest up, as he'd be legally obliged to share such information with any other shareholder/s. He's going to put his debt into the club and sell it off, mentioned by Pete, I believe? Not disputing anything you've said but who owns this other 4% of the equity? It can't just be people like me who never actually cashed the cheque for their shares? I was under the impression he owned the club 100%, is that not correct? I thought we were forced to sell to Lerner whether we liked it or not, just because I didn't cash the cheque didn't alter that. Why would owning the supposed other 4% make a difference to a sale? He could still sell his 96% regardless and still make as much money. If there is still 4% of the equity out there, why haven't we had an AGM each year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegiddygambler Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 not being pedantic but Chelsea transfer fees and wages blows Randy input out of the water Of that I'm well aware. In relation to the % of their personal wealth that the two of them were spending, Lerner's was undoubtedly higher. He was recklessly chasing a dream, that is my argument. When it failed, he decided Villa must suffer and suffer quickly, all because of his own stupidity! Nobody asked him to spend his personal wealth so recklessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegiddygambler Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Haha not really, it's just take a visit to sunderlands forum or put your wellies on and go to sha's forum, really badly organised with umpteen topics discussing the same subjects with 4/5 responses in each rather than a proper discussion in one place as for your opinion, pretty unfounded, like someone else said he hasn't spent anywhere near Romans money, I think he must have known there was no way in hell we would be profitable but read some tony fernandez interviews from when he bought qpr, said he'll lose money on them but every single other business he owns will see growth because of the prem club link it's really hard IMO to gauge what Lerner wants to achieve, playing billy big bollocks must come into it somewhere but IMO wouldn't have been the sole reason When I said he was "doing an Ambramovich" it wasn't said to mean he was spending on par with RA. More a case that he was spending very heavily to aspire to a similar level, Champs Lge football. The biggest indicator isn't what he spent, but the % of his wealth that was spent. That exceeds RA's spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 But one of the main things you have missed is who owned man city when this spending started? If man city had been bought 1st I don't think Lerner would have come anywhere near us and I wouldn't blame him, like I don't now, it's a very different league to the one randy bought in to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegiddygambler Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 But one of the main things you have missed is who owned man city when this spending started? If man city had been bought 1st I don't think Lerner would have come anywhere near us and I wouldn't blame him, like I don't now, it's a very different league to the one randy bought in to I agree with you that he would've likely bulked if the sheikh was in charge at City yes. I don't see how I have missed it out. It wasn't in Lerner's thinking but City's emergence didn't mean CL was in any way impossible. It undoubtedly dampened his enthusiasm to spend. He spent like a bloody fool for 3 years and grew dissillusioned with it when rewards never followed. He wishes he could turn the clock back. He isn't going to go bankrupt any time soon and Villa's financial turmoil is all his own doing. Rather than saying, "right I've fcuked up big time, let me construct a plan to get this cash back over 10 years, all us fans must help him get the cash back he lost by going games to watch increasingly rubbish players. Sky £ is going the same way. It's wrong and I'm surprised so many still seem to be happy with it. SELL,SELL,SELL undermines the belief in the remaining players you have on the books. We'll never get anywhere with RL now IMO. That's not something I enjoy staying but it's what I conclude from what I see via actions. I'd be happy for him to get his £ back if he did it in a respectful way over an extended period of time. He isn't doing that IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makouns_grin Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Oh why do I let myself believe these things? Speaks volumes that the greatest thing Lerner could possibly achieve is selling the club. Well done randy, shit load of cash spent and no better off thanks to your idiotic decisions and poor financial control of your investment. Superb!! If its so easy why are you or all the other folk on here abusing him not doing it? No owner is perfect, yet ours was perfectly acceptable when spending money, has tried to improve the info structure of the club when the money was there and the timeframe to spend it. Now doesn't have enough money to continue to do it and is messing it up somewhat. Its easy for us to sit at a keyboard saying sack him, hire him its so easy. The same way fans suddenly suggesting having NRC back, hindsight makes it so easy (although not because he is still shit anyway..) For all we know sacking the manager or the anit christ of a chief exec might mean we cannot sign players for another couple of transfer windows. Again you'll shout, well a decent owner or cheif ex would never be in that position! Bollocks, nobody is perfect, we dont know all the ins and outs. New owner, more money. New owner in, not enough money.. Oh. New owner, more money blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 Take it he's not coming tonight then? Trees any sign of a Falcon8000 at BHX ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Explain therefore why after years of not giving a shit about the other 4% equity, Lerner is sending letters out stating he will be purchasing the last 4%, which it will not alter his ownership of the club whatsoever? I thought Lerner was looking after the costs, and suddenly he's paying for an extra 4% that doesn't give him anymore power or control than when he owned 96%. The logical conclusion is: A) He has done so as he intends to sell quietly, or cover legitimate interest up, as he'd be legally obliged to share such information with any other shareholder/s. He's going to put his debt into the club and sell it off, mentioned by Pete, I believe? Not disputing anything you've said but who owns this other 4% of the equity? It can't just be people like me who never actually cashed the cheque for their shares? I was under the impression he owned the club 100%, is that not correct? I thought we were forced to sell to Lerner whether we liked it or not, just because I didn't cash the cheque didn't alter that. Why would owning the supposed other 4% make a difference to a sale? He could still sell his 96% regardless and still make as much money. If there is still 4% of the equity out there, why haven't we had an AGM each year? Supporters etc. owned the remaining 4% which he brought back about 3 or 4 weeks ago (our very own JimmyGreaves confirmed he recieved a letter about this). All of these remaining 4% have now been brought by Randy Lerner. The remaining 4% does not increase his power or control of the club one bit, what it does now mean is that he can conduct his business with out consulting anyone ie. he could broker a deal to sell the club, without informing the shareholders (he is now the only shareholder) and he would not have to reveal any details of a deal until it was complete (sale value, outstanding debts etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 Did the owners of the remaining 4% HAVE to sell? Was there an option for them to keep their shares ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts