Laivasse Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Still, 'gift' is an emotionally loaded term which maybe reflects people wishing to see Randy as a caring, paternalistic figure rather than the owner of a business. People pump money into their own businesses all the time without thinking of it as a 'gift' - rather, it is done because they want to put the business into a position where it can increase shareholder value. Even when it's just done to keep the business afloat, rather than maximise profits, it's still done with the aim of preserving the value of the business, for self-interest. The flipside of these 'gifts' is that they would not seem so much like hopeless charitable acts if they were better directed, ie. if they transformed into meaningful outcomes like better coaching, better management, better players. If Randy was showing solid business acumen, his investment wouldn't have the appearance of a 'gift' that produces nothing in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 21, 2012 It is a theory, but it's one supported by evidence. Not conclusive, but nevertheless reasonable. We are covering old group but that theory isn't the only one that is available and is reasonable. The only evidence we have is that he has invested in the club by way of a share issue. There is no evidence to support a conclusion this is a gift or that he views it as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 WISHFUL THINKING ALERT: What money would he need to put in for McLeish''s compensation payoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 21, 2012 It is a theory, but it's one supported by evidence. Not conclusive, but nevertheless reasonable. We are covering old group but that theory isn't the only one that is available and is reasonable. The only evidence we have is that he has invested in the club by way of a share issue. There is no evidence to support a conclusion this is a gift or that he views it as such. Maybe not, but it's definitely true that he's taken the money from somewhere else and put it into Aston Villa, and regardless of his motivation, it's hard not to see that as the kind of thing we like to see an owner do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 21, 2012 No argument on any of that from me OBE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Do the Browns run at a loss ? Or are they financially stable ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 To bypass the FFP rules? I thought these were to be adhered to full stop and this adherence was one thing that people were saying Randy was trying to do as a positive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 so how much has he loaned the club and how much have we paid back? obviously he is putting the odd £5m in here and there so presume it's going up and down. question is what has he put in and what has he got back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_Taylor Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Do the Browns run at a loss ? Or are they financially stable ? The NFL runs a lot differently than the Premier League. Pretty much every club runs at a profit. The main reason is that a lot of the money is collected centrally by the NFL (TV deals, NFL merchandise etc) and distributed evenly. So to run an example, obviously Man United sell shit loads more licensed merchandise than say Wigan. But if we used the NFL model then Wigan would get the same % of that money as every other club in the league including United. Also with salary caps and the draft system, teams are much more 'competitive' and it creates the notion that any team can win on 'any given sunday'. Slightly off track there but to answer your question, the Browns is probably profitable (in fact it different will be in terms of re-sale value) but that is largely due to the centralisation of the NFL and not the management per say of Lerner. (Obviously some clubs are worth more than others based on support e.g Cowboys, location e.g Jets/Giants, stadium, famous players, etc etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 23, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 23, 2012 To bypass the FFP rules? I thought these were to be adhered to full stop and this adherence was one thing that people were saying Randy was trying to do as a positive? No Richard. The (Any) club, under the FFP 3 year monitoring period, is (only) permitted losses of more than £5m each year if there is an injection of equity to cover that loss. In other words, loss making Villa can only comply with the rules if for losses of more than 5 mill, Randy puts in as equity, the amount in excess of the 5 mill. Randy putting in equity is not bypassing any rules, quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Any idea what profit the browns would make each year Perhaps we can use them as a vehicle to fund us ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 28, 2012 Author Share Posted January 28, 2012 Any chance Randy will be at The Emitates ? I'm intrigued by the free coaches initiative and it's timing Perhaps he's on a bit of a charm offensive and wants back in with the Villa faithful ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Do the Browns run at a loss ? Or are they financially stable ? Cleveland Browns pre tax profits are as follows 2006 $47m 2007 $21m 2008 $19m 2009 $20m 2010 $36m The value of the club is currnetly $1bn. The franchise was bought by Lerner for $530m so it seems he is doing pretty well with the Browns on the financial side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 28, 2012 Author Share Posted January 28, 2012 That's good, he will hopefully use some of the Browns Profits to rejuvenate the AVFC project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 28, 2012 The value of the club is currnetly $1bn. The franchise was bought by Lerner for $530m so it seems he is doing pretty well with the Browns on the financial side Er no... Randy Lerner didn't buy the Browns, he inherited from his late father who had owner and ran it for 4 years. Randy has owned it since 2002. As for the profits, they seem impressive but in isolation they mean absolutely nothing. We don't for instance know how they compare to other teams in the same period, we don't know how responsible he is for them, we don't know the financial climate of the NFL compared to the PL. So you can't really conclude he is doing pretty well from those figures, you can't really conclude anything other than they are making a profit and they are worth more now than they were previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 To bypass the FFP rules? I thought these were to be adhered to full stop and this adherence was one thing that people were saying Randy was trying to do as a positive? No Richard. The (Any) club, under the FFP 3 year monitoring period, is (only) permitted losses of more than £5m each year if there is an injection of equity to cover that loss. In other words, loss making Villa can only comply with the rules if for losses of more than 5 mill, Randy puts in as equity, the amount in excess of the 5 mill. Randy putting in equity is not bypassing any rules, quite the opposite. So there is in fact nothing to stop Sheik Mansour putting his own money in to Manchester City? I'm so confused by the FFP rules, it seems extremely convoluted and rather pointless in it's aims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 The value of the club is currnetly $1bn. The franchise was bought by Lerner for $530m so it seems he is doing pretty well with the Browns on the financial side Er no... Randy Lerner didn't buy the Browns, he inherited from his late father who had owner and ran it for 4 years. Randy has owned it since 2002. As for the profits, they seem impressive but in isolation they mean absolutely nothing. We don't for instance know how they compare to other teams in the same period, we don't know how responsible he is for them, we don't know the financial climate of the NFL compared to the PL. So you can't really conclude he is doing pretty well from those figures, you can't really conclude anything other than they are making a profit and they are worth more now than they were previously. Yeah I know Randy didnt buy it, I meant put Lerner snr, he paid $530 for the franchise. Randy has never made his own money!!!!!! Cleveland rate at 15th out of the 32 franchises it terms of value. 30 of the 32 franchises made profit in 2010 and 28 of them made profits of over $10m. Only Detroit -$2.3 and Miami -$8m made a loss NFL 2010 are as follows Dallas value $1.85bn pre tax profit $143m Washington $1.6bn $106m New England $1.4 bn £66m NY Giants $1.2bn $2.1m Houston $1.2bn $36m NY Jets $1.1bn $7.6m Philadelphia $1.1bn $35m Baltimore $1.1bn $45m Chicago $1.1bn $37m Denver $1bn $22m Indianapolois $1bn $43m Carolina $1bn $15m Tampa $1bn $56m Green Bay $1bn £10m Miami $1bn -$8m Pittsburgh $996m $18m Tennesse $994m $23m Seattle $989m 34m Kansas $965m $48m New Orleans $955m $36m San Francisco $925m £21m Arizona $919m $28m San Diego $907m $25m Cincinatti $905m $50m Atlanta $831m $35m Detroit $817m -$2.3m Buffalo $799m $28m St Louis $779m 29m Minnesota $774m $18m Oakland $758 $2.2m Jacksonville $725m $26m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Any news on the takeover yet? Or has this all been dismissed as utter tosh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Well fingers crossed the takeover is happening as so far everything is pointing towards either this or we're just cutting back massively. I do hope that come Feb/March something gets announced and then we bring in Mourinho in the summer. Ok that last bit was wishful thinking but I really hope we can get some more funding soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Why would an owner who is about to cut and run pay for 60 coaches for fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts