The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[Legion]

They are still smaller than we are. Just richer.

[silhillvilla]

Imagine 15 or 16 seasons in the championship ! Would be like a stretch in prison.

[richard moore]

The Oliver Kay article in today's Telegraph summarises exactly why Lerner is doing what he is doing with the club.He voted against FFP because he knew the disparity between the Champions league clubs and the rest would be impossible to breach.That is when he decided he wanted out and not spend any more than the absolute minimum.The danger is we are now in a critical state regarding relegation and the end result of all this could be disaster for a club that should be competing with clubs that not many years ago were smaller than we are.

Good article, 'Money talks, ambition walks for Villa'

However, it is in the Times rather than the Telegraph!

[Stu]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

[dave.woodhall]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

Serious question here, which says a lot about the modern world. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

[Damo70]

Imagine 15 or 16 seasons in the championship ! Would be like a stretch in prison.

The amount of times we get f***ed against our wishes in the PL is more like prison I would guess.

[Stu]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

Serious question here, which says a lot about the modern world. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

No problem with paying for content, I just think they could provide a couple of free articles in the same way that the NY Times does, for example. Let folk preview their content a bit and perhaps people would be more likely to sub?

[dave.woodhall]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

Serious question here, which says a lot about the modern world. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

No problem with paying for content, I just think they could provide a couple of free articles in the same way that the NY Times does, for example. Let folk preview their content a bit and perhaps people would be more likely to sub?

I bloody well don't. Get your hand in your pocket a bit more.

[cdbearsfan]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

Bearing in mind that there's an election coming up, I have no problem with the majority of the Murdoch press being off limits to most people.

[pauliewalnuts]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

Serious question here, which says a lot about the modern world. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

No problem with paying for content, I just think they could provide a couple of free articles in the same way that the NY Times does, for example. Let folk preview their content a bit and perhaps people would be more likely to sub?

Top tip.

If you are a spotify premium subscriber (9.99 a month), you'd get a better deal with the Sunday Times which does their tablet edition (or printed, you choose) plus a web subscription to The Times, plus Spotify Premium for what works out at 8.50 a month.

Good deal.

They give you a voucher code for Spotify, which you enter and which cancels your existing payments but doesn't result in you losing playlists or anything account related.

[Stu]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

Serious question here, which says a lot about the modern world. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

No problem with paying for content, I just think they could provide a couple of free articles in the same way that the NY Times does, for example. Let folk preview their content a bit and perhaps people would be more likely to sub?

I bloody well don't. Get your hand in your pocket a bit more.

I did. I bought the Times yesterday, found the article, read it, then took it to the pub with me to let everyone else read it for free.

[Stu]

The Times paywall really is shit. Not even allowed to look at one free article? Fuck off, Murdoch.

Serious question here, which says a lot about the modern world. Why shouldn't you pay for it?

No problem with paying for content, I just think they could provide a couple of free articles in the same way that the NY Times does, for example. Let folk preview their content a bit and perhaps people would be more likely to sub?

Top tip.

If you are a spotify premium subscriber (9.99 a month), you'd get a better deal with the Sunday Times which does their tablet edition (or printed, you choose) plus a web subscription to The Times, plus Spotify Premium for what works out at 8.50 a month.

Good deal.

They give you a voucher code for Spotify, which you enter and which cancels your existing payments but doesn't result in you losing playlists or anything account related.

Thanks, Paulie.

[Richard E]

'Onest 'Arry is open to the idea of leading a consortium to buy a club. Randy, please take Villa off the market immediately!

[old man villa fan]

The Oliver Kay article in today's Telegraph summarises exactly why Lerner is doing what he is doing with the club.He voted against FFP because he knew the disparity between the Champions league clubs and the rest would be impossible to breach.That is when he decided he wanted out and not spend any more than the absolute minimum.The danger is we are now in a critical state regarding relegation and the end result of all this could be disaster for a club that should be competing with clubs that not many years ago were smaller than we are.

Lerner knew that with FFP it would be very difficult to sell the club as it meant that the drawbridge had already been pulled up behind the top clubs and nobody else would be able to throw money at it.

The article seems to make it sound as though it has been a financial success for Lerner with increased revenue and an increased value of the asset.  It fails to mention that costs have gone up considerably as well so there is little income/profit to play with.  Although theoretically his asset has gone up in value, he has to be able to sell it to realise the gain.  It also fails to mention his investment in the club since he bought it which has probably been around four times as much as the original purchase price.

I am surprised that Lerner has not looked at another way to get out, this may have been down to get close to selling the club as was rumoured in the summer.  The time may have come where he has to water down his ownership and look for like-minded investors who want to own a football club but do not want to put up the mind-blowing amounts now necessary to do so.  FFP is still a barrier to direct spending on the team with the current 'transparent' revenue and expense.  I am sure if there is a will to get around FFP, brighter minds than mine will find a way around it.  Man City have chipped away with the naming of their ground.  Red Bull appear as though they are trying to buy up clubs around the globe to be able to 'transfer' assets in the future.  Payment for image rights of players looked to be a way of reducing direct costs to clubs if it was done by a third party company.

Would Villa as part of a larger sporting company covering various sports in different countries muddy the financial waters enough to get around FFP.

Villa are in a very difficult position and it is going to take us years to get to a stable position in the top half of the PL.  The current structure of the club is not fit for purpose, too few people trying to control too many things.

[mr underhill]

sadly there is little evidence to suggest control at all; the club is seemingly drifting rudderless to the oblivion of the Championship.