Takeover rumours

[PeterWithe]

Lets not rewrite history, RL has given us some good times and we always do the right thing off the pitch, I reckon him a good bloke. He seems to have lost interest now but that happens and I wouldnt be against the right new owner coming in if he can be found. Slagging him off as some kind of opportunist is just plain wrong though.

[saunders_heroes]

Lets not rewrite history, RL has given us some good times and we always do the right thing off the pitch, I reckon him a good bloke. He seems to have lost interest now but that happens and I wouldnt be against the right new owner coming in if he can be found. Slagging him off as some kind of opportunist is just plain wrong though.

It's been a long time since he gave us any good times though.  These last 4 seasons have been appalling. If it was Ellis that was in charge now he'd have been hunted down and hung drawn and quartered by now.

[dave.woodhall]

I can see no other logical reason for the hugely risky cost cutting that we've seen over the last few years other than RL preparing the club for sale

How about because we were spending more than we were earning?

Is that the case now?

Doubt it, how much do sky put in, then there is sponsor, ticket sales, corporate etc

Obviously I can't prove it but Randy must be making a fair bit of money these days.  Doesn't he also charge a management fee?

Yet again - the club's accounts are freely available. Have a look at them and see if you can find this "fair bit of money".

[dicedlam]

As for the point about TV money being distributed at the end of the season, the clubs all know its coming, and many are spending with that knowledge.

Why Lerner let his manager gamble with a major asset that he holds, by bringing in players with no proven pedigree was/is risky to say the least.

My view is that, from the beginning Randy thought that there were riches to be had by achieving the 'Holy Grail' of qualifying for the champions League. When that went tits up and O'Neill had spunked a good chunk of his money away, he knew that for a few years at least there would be no way to recover the majority of his outlay.
However, now I believe he see's his situation somewhat better financially and at this time probably thinks that the majority of his investment could be recouped  even if we were to get relegated.

Maybe he is relaxed by it all. Whatever the outcome..

[dave.woodhall]

I can see no other logical reason for the hugely risky cost cutting that we've seen over the last few years other than RL preparing the club for sale

How about because we were spending more than we were earning?

Is that the case now?

Doubt it, how much do sky put in, then there is sponsor, ticket sales, corporate etc

Obviously I can't prove it but Randy must be making a fair bit of money these days.  Doesn't he also charge a management fee?

When Doug was running the club like a corner shop, ( ie cant spend more than you earn ), you were one of his harshest critics Dave, what's the difference now?

The main difference (apart from the European Cup-to-relegation in five years that Ellis always has to first be judged on) is that there were so many obvious things that were either done badly or not at all in his time. I expounded on this at length in the missed opportunities thread a few weeks ago, but basically, outside factors (football clubs briefly being the Stock Exchange darling, NTL, no local rivals worth bothering with, untapped markets to exploit) contributed to make it possible for us to get up there and stay. Maybe not at the level of Manchester United, but we could have certainly given Arsenal and Harding-era Chelsea a run for their money. As Bruce Langham said, "There's wriggle room here and we have to exploit it." The world has changed now and the things that are outside our control seem to work against us.     

[Ad@m]

I very much doubt we're spending anything like what our income is at present and the wage to turnover is probably quite low. One of the lowest.

What's this based on? Other than guesswork.

The last accounts published were the ones for the TSM season and they showed our wages at almost 90% of turnover. 

And since then we've off-loaded or are loaning out high-earners such as Darren Bent, Stephen Ireland, Richard Dunne and Shay Given. There are probably others as well that I've forgotten about. There is no way on this planet that the accounts for the current period will show wages accounting for anywhere near 90% of turnover.

As for the point about TV money being distributed at the end of the season, the clubs all know its coming, and many are spending with that knowledge.

The ratio almost certainly won't be 90% but it also won't be one of the lowest in the league either.  The players you've listed there were all on our books last season so we had another year of paying them what was probably an average of £50k each per week.  That's £10m.  At the same time, over the past season and a half we've bought in 18 players, excluding loan signings.

As for clubs spending the TV money up front - over the summer we had the 12th highest net spend in the league.  In January only four clubs have bought anyone - Chelsea and Man U because they can; Fulham and Palace because they're desperate.  So I don't exactly see the rest of the league throwing the new TV money around while Randy sits at home counting it.

[Jimbo]

I don't think for a minute that the reason we've not been sold is because Randy doesn't want to sell. it's because nobody wants to buy. See also Everton.

Yep I think Randy would sell but there's no-one available to buy. I think we need a new owner or investment but I doubt it's out there.

As long as there exists such a place as Qatar, there is a potential buyer for a 'big' Premier League club.

This Everton comparison is a red herring, in my opinion. We might be similar in terms of history and size, but that's where the comparison ends. We're the number one team in the second largest city in the country. A city with the best transport links in the country. That city has a large migrant population with little or no affinity with the local clubs - yet. Until they start winning things. There's much greater potential here.

The right people could find everything they need to pitch against the big boys. It doesn't take long to turn a team around if you have all the money in the world to do it, and just like Man City, Qatar aren't looking for a financial return on their investment. They're looking for status, acceptance and respectability. Above all, legitimacy.

With our 'proud history', charity connections and track record of doing things the right way, we'd be perfect for them. All they'd have to do is follow the Man City model. Would many of us object to that?

[Tuscans]

After reports in a tabloid newspaper that Aston Villa's American owner Randy Lerner is prepared to sell the club for £200m, BBC Sport's Pat Murphy tells BBC Radio 5 live: "Randy Lerner has treated that story with disdain.

"I have just spoken to Aston Villa's chief executive Paul Faulkner; he says he has spoken to Lerner and the story is nonsense, there's no truth in it.

"Faulkner says he speaks to Lerner three or four times a day and he watches every game, no matter where he is in the world.

"He (Faulkner) added that Lerner had put £250m into the club and has no intention of walking away."

Thoughts, Villa fans?

[Ad@m]

I think the idea Faulkner talks to Randy 3 or 4 times a day sounds a bit far fetched!

[dave.woodhall]

I think the idea Faulkner talks to Randy 3 or 4 times a day sounds a bit far fetched!

It wouldn't surprise me at all. Randy always seems to value personal relationships highly; when he arrived there was the story (if I remember it right) that he'd cancelled a lucrative TV contract because the station had intruded into his family over a fatal accident. 

[JUAN PABLO]

Shame there is not 200 million of us on here as we could throw in a pound each to buy us.

[ozzjim]

Why? If i owned the villa i would talk to my CEO at least that!

[Ad@m]

Why? If i owned the villa i would talk to my CEO at least that!

If I spoke to my boss 3 or 4 times a day one of two things would happen - either he'd get so unbelievably pissed off that I was apparently incapable or making a decision alone he'd sack me, or I'd get so unbelievably pissed off my boss appeared to have absolutely no trust in me whatsoever I'd quit.

[Monty]

The only real problem with Randy and Faulkner is that they don't appear to know very much about football. On commerce, they're fine; on tradition, exemplary; on spending, well, we can like it or not but they're not easing off without having thought hard about it. The only problem is that they appear to have a very poor understanding of the actual sport - they must do, or they'd never have entrusted MON with so much money having seen the earlier results of his overpriced Britisher splurges, nor hired McLeish having failed to hire Martinez (an entirely inexplicable and incongruous move). As a result, if Lambert goes to them and says '30% posssesion per match doesn't mean anything', they'll believe him. They're too trusting for their own good and their knowledge of the game always leaves them open to making really bad decisions.

[ozzjim]

What if the relationship is not like that though?