Re: AVFC Takeover Thread, Rumours, Gossip and Hearsay...all goes here

by smetro Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:27 pm

DaveAV1 wrote:I think this FFP relaxing for only new owners is a red herring. The reason UEFA are relaxing it, is due to pressure from rich clubs with expensive lawyers. So why would the likes of Man City, Chelsea, PSG etc call off the legal dogs when there's no gain for themselves?

In practice those that want to spend , DO - Those those don't want to spend cite FFP - for example if FFP was totally abolished it wouldn't make any difference to how much Randy would spend ?

by smetro Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:29 pm

kimbo wrote:
smetro wrote:
kimbo wrote:
smetro wrote:
kimbo wrote:
smetro wrote:
DN1982 wrote:Would a new owner sit tight until UEFA have met at the end of this month to see if they are going to relax FFP for new owners? The last thing you'd want to do is miss out on being able to invest. Also isn't it clever practice to try to do transfer business before a buy out so clubs don't up the price? Just a couple of little theories on why if we are sold nothing's come out

I keep asking this but never get answer.

Could our new owner (or even Randy) - now invest a considerable amount without breaching FFP as it stands ? - thought we were a good distance away from accumulating the losses that would put us in breach of it.

Really don't see FFP as an issue for the takeover, if we got Man City style owners they would pay the fines and work around it - if we get middling owners they can improve the squad without breaching FFP

[Happy to be corrected on any of the above by FFP guru's]
If we got Man City style owners and they could spend what the want without any fines provided they wait a little, I'm sure they'd do that.

Of course, the irony is that as we're not in Europe it wouldn't even be an issue in the short-term. But I'm sure Europe would be a target ASAP and depending on how the FFP rules pan out, it may pay to hold the deal off for a few weeks.

I'm hardly an 'FFP Guru' but surely "Wait a month and potentially save millions of pounds" isn't overly complicated?

But under what scenario does it cost us millions ?

A middling owner - could still invest considerably and not breach FFP ?

It only becomes an issue if we have owner who wants to go nuclear with the cash right from the off - I don't believe such an owner would hang around for FFP.

IMO the probability of FFP holding up any takeover is very small.

I would have agreed with you up until recently but the new rules coming in could easily mean people want to hold on the deal. I'm not saying it will happen but to me it could easily, absolutely be a scenario.

But would you also agree that it would only hold up takeover if we have owners of the Man City ilk ? - I mean lets say it was Bob rich - he could takeover tomorrow and spend £40m on players without breaching FFP...?
No. I'd agree it's one of the possible scenarios, but not the only one. Even a middling owner might want to splash some serious cash in the short term.

But I thought it was losses over a 3 year period ? - so the new could splash the cash short term ?

by Villa_Dan Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:35 pm

We could spunk £60m this summer and £40m next summer and still be within current FFP

by gdav Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:41 pm

On a positive note England are playing some amazing cricket at the moment, another cracking performance tonight. cheers

Back to takeover.......

by smetro Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:42 pm

Villa_Dan wrote:We could spunk £60m this summer and £40m next summer and still be within current FFP

Exactly !

by Guest Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:46 pm

One thing is for certain, if we sign Huddlestone Monday as claimed on Twitter then we a) aren't close to a takeover or b) the new owner isn't worth anything close to the investment needed.

by villabromsgrove Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:49 pm

gdav wrote:On a positive note England are playing some amazing cricket at the moment, another cracking performance tonight.

Back to takeover.......

It's just finished and it was brilliant entertainment. I can't wait for Saturday's decider at Durham. Er, Takeover!

by ViewFromT2 Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:54 pm

Joppe84 wrote:One thing is for certain, if we sign Huddlestone Monday as claimed on Twitter then we a) aren't close to a takeover or b) the new owner isn't worth anything close to the investment needed.

Interested in how you arrive at your conclusion, assuming you wouldn't be shallow enough to base I on the fact you don't rate Tom Huddlestone?

by kimbo Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:00 pm

smetro wrote:
Villa_Dan wrote:We could spunk £60m this summer and £40m next summer and still be within current FFP

Exactly !

We've already made losses the last 3 years. Not entirely sure on the rules but my understanding is we're already sailing close to the wind on that basis.

by Guest Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:07 pm

ViewFromT2 wrote:
Joppe84 wrote:One thing is for certain, if we sign Huddlestone Monday as claimed on Twitter then we a) aren't close to a takeover or b) the new owner isn't worth anything close to the investment needed.

Interested in how you arrive at your conclusion, assuming you wouldn't be shallow enough to base I on the fact you don't rate Tom Huddlestone?

I don't rate him at all. If you are to be in a takeover position with a lot of money you don't go shopping free transfers and get a static overpaid shitehawk from a relegated side. Just my opinion, not in the know. Signing any spurs rejects will automatically make me dislike TS. From the point that happens I will support bringing in a new manager.

by Dgrizzle7 Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:10 pm

Pesonally I think Hudlestone will be a good addition, he bings more to the table then Westwood.

imo

by smetro Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:12 pm

Dgrizzle7 wrote:Pesonally I think Hudlestone will be a good addition, he bings more to the table then Westwood.

imo

Depends on the fee - £2-3m yes id take him - the rumoured £6m ...no sure...

by Guest Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:12 pm

Typical grass is greener scenario if you ask me. Westwood is easily just as good. Easily.

by DN1982 Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:12 pm

The whole point of the last few years was to stop us falling foul of FFP and putting us in a position that if new owners come in they could spend a bit. I'm not sure how much we've lost over the last 3 years but we are on course to break even which theoretically means a new owner can throw in £100m over the 3 years. I'm not exact on the figure.

by kimbo Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:14 pm

DN1982 wrote:The whole point of the last few years was to stop us falling foul of FFP and putting us in a position that if new owners come in they could spend a bit. I'm not sure how much we've lost over the last 3 years but we are on course to break even which theoretically means a new owner can throw in £100m over the 3 years. I'm not exact on the figure.

I don't know the exact figures off the top of my head, but I'm pretty certain that the last lot of losses were much less than the previous two seasons

by Villa_Dan Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:16 pm

I don't know where FFP starts from - eg we made heavy losses 2-3 years ago, but only £5m last year. So start from last year? Spend bitches. Start before last year and we could still fall foul

by Cha Ching Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:16 pm

I think wages is a problem though under ffp. You can only increase wages by a certain amount year on year.

by Dgrizzle7 Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:25 pm

Joppe84 wrote:
ViewFromT2 wrote:
Joppe84 wrote:One thing is for certain, if we sign Huddlestone Monday as claimed on Twitter then we a) aren't close to a takeover or b) the new owner isn't worth anything close to the investment needed.

Interested in how you arrive at your conclusion, assuming you wouldn't be shallow enough to base I on the fact you don't rate Tom Huddlestone?

I don't rate him at all. If you are to be in a takeover position with a lot of money you don't go shopping free transfers and get a static overpaid shitehawk from a relegated side. Just my opinion, not in the know. Signing any spurs rejects will automatically make me dislike TS. From the point that happens I will support bringing in a new manager.

I disagree Micah on a free is a no brainer absolute bargain.

I'd much prefer Huddlestone to some of our pevious transfers Sila, Tonev AVFC Takeover Thread, Rumours, Gossip and Hearsay...all goes here - Page 33 1662365926

AVFC Takeover Thread, Rumours, Gossip and Hearsay...all goes here - Page 33 1662365926

by Mazrim Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:28 pm

Joppe84 wrote:
ViewFromT2 wrote:
Joppe84 wrote:One thing is for certain, if we sign Huddlestone Monday as claimed on Twitter then we a) aren't close to a takeover or b) the new owner isn't worth anything close to the investment needed.

Interested in how you arrive at your conclusion, assuming you wouldn't be shallow enough to base I on the fact you don't rate Tom Huddlestone?

I don't rate him at all. If you are to be in a takeover position with a lot of money you don't go shopping free transfers and get a static overpaid shitehawk from a relegated side. Just my opinion, not in the know. Signing any spurs rejects will automatically make me dislike TS. From the point that happens I will support bringing in a new manager.

I don't really understand this. It will never be a bad dea to sign good players on free transfers, regardless of how much you have to spend. It basically means you have money to spend elsewhere, plus, committing to a large salary, plus signing fee no doubt, is a major investment, even without a transfer fee.

I'm not sure Huddlestone is the right player for us either, but any prospective owner hasn't really any right to decide on transfers yet. They also would be unwise to upset any plans the manager has at this stage. When they get the keys, sure.

So in summary, I haven't seen any reason to doubt a takeover is happening. On the contrary, Micah Rchards isn't a player Lambert would have been allowed to sign, or would have wanted to sign. So I think something is afoot. It could be Lerner loosening the purse strings of course, but I doubt it.

by Guest Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:31 pm

No problems with Micah, but I just don't think he would be the CB signing we would go for if we had money following a takeover. There are better players, more expensive players that would have been an option.

by Suits Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:34 pm

Richards is a massive step up and a bit of a coup for a team that have just finished 17th. I really don't see how signing him on a free could be a negative for Villa. If he does play at CB he's arguably better than any of the options we currently have there.

by Mazrim Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:42 pm

Its not what you spend, its what you get for your money. I think Richards would make pretty much any squad in the league and all but a few starting XIs. That's my opinion. Therefore, I think him choosing Villa above the plenty of other options he must have had, says a lot.

Maybe he misses Birmingham. Maybe he loves being stuck in traffic on the fucking poxy ring road. But maybe he thinks/knows there are good times ahead for Villa.

by Dgrizzle7 Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:43 pm

I also don't think Lambert would have been given the green light to sign Richards.

We would have heard something more like " We cannae compeat fur thaim type o' players"

If I was buying I'd want the deal kept quiet, let the manager bring in his required targets and then booo!! release to the press. Stops the prices being inflated

by Guest Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:45 pm

He is a good RB signing for us, but personally I think we already got three better CBs. Signing him as a replacement for Vlaar which has been mentioned frequently in the media, would be a downgrade. He simply isn't a good CB. He's an athlete with pace, but rubbish positioning. But I guess people won't see that until we lose the first match in August. Add spurs rejects to the mix and I will drop a grand at the bookies that we will get relegated. Recipe for disaster

by ViewFromT2 Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:46 pm

Joppe84 wrote:
ViewFromT2 wrote:
Joppe84 wrote:One thing is for certain, if we sign Huddlestone Monday as claimed on Twitter then we a) aren't close to a takeover or b) the new owner isn't worth anything close to the investment needed.

Interested in how you arrive at your conclusion, assuming you wouldn't be shallow enough to base I on the fact you don't rate Tom Huddlestone?

I don't rate him at all. If you are to be in a takeover position with a lot of money you don't go shopping free transfers and get a static overpaid shitehawk from a relegated side. Just my opinion, not in the know. Signing any spurs rejects will automatically make me dislike TS. From the point that happens I will support bringing in a new manager.

Ah..so you have based your assumption on the credibility of the takeover/owner on the fact you don't like Huddlestone then!!

Quality...looking forward to more 'debate' with you!

by Sponsored content