The Randy Lerner thread

[Grasshopper]

3 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Sorry but I think you are wrong and I'm afraid the car theory isn't really transferable.

The debt is the debt and it will need to be repaid, with interest (low though it is) and a management fee each year.

It isn't even clear if the money is Lerner's personally or from the family trust and so family money.

He isn't going to flog us for £164m and write the debt off but I'll bow out at this point I think.

I appreciate that accounting wise the debt has to be managed.

my main point was that as RL owns Villa the debt remains an internal factor within his control of calculating it into the running of the club.

when the club is sold a line in the sand will be drawn

a new owner will pay £xxxx to RL lock stock & barrel. Who would buy "stock & debt" in this case?

how "the debt" is managed in the time till sale will be determined internally as profi/loss->debt/interest/management fees

x - x + x = ?

RL will either

1) sell and accept the hit

2) till sale, get as much out as possible so his evetual hit is less

we are ****** till he's gone, anyway

[TrentVilla]

There is only so many ways I can say I don't agree.

I understand some might not agree or might not like it but that's my view on it. If the debt was going to be written off at the supposed asking price, with the new TV deal I think someone would have taken Lerner's hand and half his arm off. 

Anyway, as I've said sever times we will see in time. What I find slightly odd is the degree of absolute certainty in the counter argument that this won't happen.

I recall similar absolute certainty from those saying he would spend again or we would be sold last summer, those things didn't happen either.

As I said, we'll see but I don't think it will be any time remotely soon.

[OLDVILLAIN]

It is fairly obvious to me that a few months ago randy lerner decided that he was going to change the business model for the club.

His plan was to downgrade all the operations including player signings and loans for the incoming inevitable relegation.

He brings in a liquidation expert from kpmg as chairman whose sole job is to downsize operations on a financial basis and to rebuild to a better model more suited to the championship.

It will not be a suprise to me when the squad is weakend by sales and loans and not incoming players as so many people are praying for in this window.

The Villa we all love and know is changed now and only time will tell if its for the better.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

And despite all this talk about the debt, the following questions remain unanswered:

- How much is the debt owed?

- What interest is it attracting? How much got paid in interest for the most recent payment?

- How much was the last payment made on this debt and when was it last paid?

- How much are the management fees? When did they last get paid. 

I'm happy to believe there is debt, but I'm yet to see any figures. All you see is debt being mentioned and comments like "becareful because some aren't willing to acknowledge any debt".

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe

[TRO]

4 hours ago, VillaCas said:

Lerner's reign has been catastrophic.  It matters little whether he is better or worse than Ellis but my view is that he had better intentions than Ellis but not the ability to see those intentions through. 

It has never been clear why he bought Villa in the first place. My best guess is that he thought he could have a little fun and turn a small profit by demonstrating a little good-old American business expertise to those backward Brits - he dramatically underestimated the size of the challenge

For me he made a fatal error; Relying on clowns like Krulak rather than surrounding himself with football expertise, this meant that spending under MON looked only at the here and now rather than also building for the future. By the time he woke up to the fact we had begun a downward spiral. Houllier's health made his appointment a real gamble, McLeish was a stop gap intended to control costs and Lambert looked a good appointment but one that ultimately didn't work (how much due to Lambert's abilities and how much due to lack of investment we'll never know). Sherwood worked short-term but never looked a good long term appointment,

Now we have Garde - he will need to cobble together a squad on a shoestring and hopefully get us back to lower mid-table, which will be the pinnacle of Lerner's ambition.

We have hit the buffers (duffers?) at exactly the wrong time. In the past a well supported club like Villa could have recovered their position by outspending rivals who attracted lower gates, but in today's model TV money means that smaller teams are at little disadvantage - Stoke and Leicester for example are likely to earn £40-£50m more prize money than we do. a few seasons like that and you're in real trouble.

A small crumb of comfort is that TV money means little in the Championship so the better supported teams regain their advantage (but only if the owner then spends that money on the team)

Make no mistake these are desperate times for us. I think that many are under the belief that we will have a nice little holiday in the championship, win it at a canter and return to our "rightful" position refreshed.  That is absolutely not the case. We desperately need a new owner and one who can inject £100m into the squad, until then we could well struggle to come back up and even if we do we could easily become a yo-yo club.

 

Was the controlling of costs by McLeish that you mention, more specifically the rectification financially of the poor return we had from so many signings during the MON & Houllier stewardship?

[Stevo985]

16 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

And despite all this talk about the debt, the following questions remain unanswered:

- How much is the debt owed?

- What interest is it attracting? How much got paid in interest for the most recent payment?

- How much was the last payment made on this debt and when was it last paid?

- How much are the management fees? When did they last get paid. 

I'm happy to believe there is debt, but I'm yet to see any figures. All you see is debt being mentioned and comments like "becareful because some aren't willing to acknowledge any debt".

 

I don't know the answer to those questions because I can't be bothered to check.

But it's all in the accounts, which are freely available.

People talk about this stuff as if it's top secret confidential information. It's not.

[TRO]

If I was put on the spot and asked what part of Randy Lerner do you feel has been the most detrimental to the club

• His Investment in players
• his ability to appoint the right people to run his club.

I have to exclude Remi as its too soon to tell.

i would undoubtedly say his ability to appoint the wrong people has been the downfall and as importantly not linking himself with the right people for advise.

In terms of investment in players I think the criticism is less clear, his appointments have been instrumental in the effect on how much money he has spent.

I believe he should have got a much better return than what he has got, admittedly that could be his own fault.....given that it is his fault, does he keep spending and making the same errors.......?

[AvfcTheObsession]

30 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

And despite all this talk about the debt, the following questions remain unanswered:

- How much is the debt owed?

- What interest is it attracting? How much got paid in interest for the most recent payment?

- How much was the last payment made on this debt and when was it last paid?

- How much are the management fees? When did they last get paid. 

I'm happy to believe there is debt, but I'm yet to see any figures. All you see is debt being mentioned and comments like "becareful because some aren't willing to acknowledge any debt".

 

From an article March 2015, shortly after our most recent accounts were released:

''Gross debt of £104 million mainly comprises owner debt of £86 million (£69 million owed to the parent undertaking and £17 million of loan notes), though the bank loan and overdraft is up from £13.6 million to £18 million.''

Even if Lerner waives the interest, that's nearly 70 million we owe to him, not a good situation.

[TRO]

29 minutes ago, OLDVILLAIN said:

It is fairly obvious to me that a few months ago randy lerner decided that he was going to change the business model for the club.

His plan was to downgrade all the operations including player signings and loans for the incoming inevitable relegation.

He brings in a liquidation expert from kpmg as chairman whose sole job is to downsize operations on a financial basis and to rebuild to a better model more suited to the championship.

It will not be a suprise to me when the squad is weakend by sales and loans and not incoming players as so many people are praying for in this window.

The Villa we all love and know is changed now and only time will tell if its for the better.

Certainly something to consider.....I must confess that while I do have a bit of a handle on business, it's not my bag, so I have to bow to those that are the experts.

It would be nifty if any posters have accountancy experience to mention it in those kind of posts, so idiots like me don't put their foot in it.

[Grasshopper]

13 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

There is only so many ways I can say I don't agree.

I understand some might not agree or might not like it but that's my view on it. If the debt was going to be written off at the supposed asking price, with the new TV deal I think someone would have taken Lerner's hand and half his arm off. 

Anyway, as I've said sever times we will see in time. What I find slightly odd is the degree of absolute certainty in the counter argument that this won't happen.

I recall similar absolute certainty from those saying he would spend again or we would be sold last summer, those things didn't happen either.

As I said, we'll see but I don't think it will be any time remotely soon.

I didnt come in here for hitting on the head lessons :-)

i believe that the reason we are not sold is because of the money RL has invested (including the debt) has not increased the value of the club (possible sale price), therefore a realistic sale price would mean RL would take a hit.

he clearly doesnt want this (would anyone?)

so his "model" is dictated by his theory that he can eventually reduce or recoup his invested (debt included) monies.

he wants to sell

but cant because his price is unrealistic for potential buyers

so he cant/wont sell atm

i think he gambled on his cutbacks still keeping us in the PL till the TV deal kicked in often enough to bail him out (over 2,3 or even more seasons)

now he employs an Auditor as Chairman to counter his miscalculations.

we can only sit it out and wait - which is what RL is effectively doing - untill AVFC gets it right under RL or someone buys us with RL taking an almighty hit.

There's always the chance that the CEO Chairman DoF manager and players work miracles, and obviously the chance that we tread water. But it can also go the way that our situation is made worse by these appointments.

but hey, at least we have something to argue about on VT.

And we're not BCFC stinking out small heath

[terrytini]

I've said it before but I'm not the only one repeating myself so.....

It doesn't matter whether it is called Shares, debts, loans, purchase price, or wombles.

Randy has in total, spent X. He is willing to take a fee of Y. Nobody is willing to pay Y.

He should therefore reduce Y to a point where somebody buys, however low that needs to be.

But he won't.

Therefore he is not keeping his word, that if he could no longer look after the Club he would move on.

Unfortunately if he won't do that now, there seems little chance he ever will.

Therefore it will be run in whatever way causes him least loss, which is what the new guy is for.

As such, in my view, the only sensible option as a group is for a total boycott of the Club ( I know it won't happen) along the lines of " drop the price or we stay away "...this is also the only alternative to us as individuals.

Failing that, it is time people accepted the position and wrote off their aspirations for a very long time.

That's my view anyway.

Edited January 19, 2016 by blandy
incorporated poster correction

[DCJonah]

40 minutes ago, AvfcTheObsession said:

From an article March 2015, shortly after our most recent accounts were released:

''Gross debt of £104 million mainly comprises owner debt of £86 million (£69 million owed to the parent undertaking and £17 million of loan notes), though the bank loan and overdraft is up from £13.6 million to £18 million.''

Even if Lerner waives the interest, that's nearly 70 million we owe to him, not a good situation.

So we owe Lerner more than he actually paid for the club?

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't know the answer to those questions because I can't be bothered to check.

But it's all in the accounts, which are freely available.

People talk about this stuff as if it's top secret confidential information. It's not.

I'm fully aware that's it's not top secret. I was just wondering whether, amidst all this talk of debt, anyone had actually bothered to download them from companies house and pick through them to find the exact figures. 

It's too easy talk about this debt wiithout having any figures or understanding of what's owed and what's being repaid annually.

i just thought that someone might have them to hand and could answer those questions I asked. 

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe

[blandy]

6 hours ago, VillaCas said:

many are under the belief that we will have a nice little holiday in the championship, win it at a canter and return to our "rightful" position refreshed.  That is absolutely not the case. We desperately need a new owner and one who can inject £100m

Totally agree with the first part. Say Newcastle and Sunderland also go down - they too will have PL parachute money. Other clubs (Derby, Boro, Sheff Wed, etc.) will also be in the division, and have promotion standard squads. Coming back up is far, far from certain.

On the second part - a new owner with 100 mill - the FFPS rules don't allow any club to spend beyond self generated means. It ain't that simple any more.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

3 hours ago, AvfcTheObsession said:

From an article March 2015, shortly after our most recent accounts were released:

''Gross debt of £104 million mainly comprises owner debt of £86 million (£69 million owed to the parent undertaking and £17 million of loan notes), though the bank loan and overdraft is up from £13.6 million to £18 million.''

Even if Lerner waives the interest, that's nearly 70 million we owe to him, not a good situation.

Taken from the Swiss Ramble in which the writer (a neutral with a career in finance and an interest in football finance) actually talks very favourably (his opinion, I guess) about Lerner in terms of funding and money put into the club.

Here:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/aston-villa-lost-in-supermarket.html?m=1

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe

[terrytini]

We can't be massively funded by a new owner. We need someone genuinely interested in growing the Club and competent to do so. There are over 4 million people within an hour of Villa Park, and we have no powerful competition. Even with the shambles of Lerner's reign we can still get 35000...if only him or Ellis had had the guile, interest, and enthusiasm for it we could be selling 50000.

Again, though, it isn't going to happen, because he wants his millions.

[VillaCas]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

On the second part - a new owner with 100 mill - the FFPS rules don't allow any club to spend beyond self generated means. It ain't that simple any more.

I agree although a few clubs have done so (not to this extent) like Bournemouth and seemed to escape sanction.

Oh to have that problem anyway with a new owner desperately trying to find loopholes by which to pump money into the club!!

[TrentVilla]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

On the second part - a new owner with 100 mill - the FFPS rules don't allow any club to spend beyond self generated means. It ain't that simple any more.

Small point of order but that isn't the case, they can but the extent to which they can is limited.

[DCJonah]

3 hours ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

Taken from the Swiss Ramble in which the writer (a neutral with a career in finance and an interest in football finance) actually talks very favourably (his opinion, I guess) about Lerner in terms of funding and money put into the club.

Here:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/aston-villa-lost-in-supermarket.html?m=1

 

It's not always been a lack of funding that's the issie. I think everyone accepts there's been period where Lerner has been prepared to make decent money available. But that's one part of owning a club, hes managed to **** up nearly every aspect at one point or another. In recent years the money invested on the playing squad, with wages and fees has been poor. 

[Dodgyknees]

And the plan seemed to be 'throw money at it' with plan b being 'oh ****' and plan c as 'panic' which is why we are where we are!