In The Interests Of Balance Re.Foreign Owners.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

Its to early to say whether Villa''s new owners are good or bad, imo we are far more likely to get a decent idea if they dont get promoted this season and the threat of parachute payments being cut comes to the fore. On this forum as soon as a new owner takes over at a club theres a tendency for it to be held up as something amazing . New owners in the early stages often look good, it doesnt take much for things to turn sour look at Nottingham Forrest, Blackburn, Hull, Ipswich even West Ham (whose fans are currently not impressed with Gold-Sullivan) all of these looked pretty promising to begin with.

Thats not saying Villa''s wont be one of the good ones, i must say i''m surprised by the figures as from the outside it looked like they spend a shed load of cash and i couldnt see where the savings were made, even with the help of the article.

[king canary 7,607]

As yellowbeagle says its a bit too early to assess Villa''s owners.

However, where Til has a point is that plenty on here were holding up Villa as a basket case with an owner who lacked any sense and couldn''t keep his mouth shut on twitter. Yet despite that they''re looking a good bet to go back up before we do.

The whole foreign v local debate is pointless as there are examples of both being good and bad. However there are some who can''t fathom the idea of a non local owner having intentions of anything other than asset stripping or money laundering which just doesn''t stack up with what we see.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]However there are some who can''t fathom the idea of a non local owner having intentions of anything other than asset stripping or money laundering which just doesn''t stack up with what we see.[/quote]

The argument is not just about the first non-affiliated investor who comes in - but for the one who comes in after that, or the one ater that.....once you have set yourself on that path, it is only a matter of time before a club gets a bad apple.  Going down the chasing money route may seem the only way forwards to some people, but to others it is a poisoned chalice.

[TIL 1010 4,748]

[quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="OldRobert"].  If you have a complaint about a remark made ''elsewhere'', make it ''elsewhere''.[/quote]There is a long history of you making jibes about the Pink Un in general and posters '' elsewhere '' so before handing out lectures i suggest if you have a grievance about some of the stuff on here you practice what you are now preaching. [/quote]Perhaps you''d be good enough to put forward the evidence of this ''long history'' of jibes against this publication and more importantly posters ''elsewhere''.  I think you are getting a little confused, my complaint on here was when you made a remark referring to me when I had not posted, or made any reference to anything on this thread.  You used me as part of some stupid feud you have with Fenway Frank, to which I objected, so don''t lecture me.  Keep your asinine feuds to yourself, and don''t involve others who are not involved, hadn''t said a word, and who don''t give a damn.  End of.[/quote]More amusing than ''the other place'' atm.There you go and there are plenty of others.

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

I’d have thought today was a decent place to shelve this nonsense. There we were, the poor relation, punching hard but ultimately being put in our place by the loaded local neighbours.

But then our ramshackle bunch squeezed an equaliser out of our empty pockets. A goal created by a player we can’t keep, one we’ve bought and scored by one we can’t afford.

Yet, what did we witness? An on loan out of position wing back running the touchline punching the air. An on loan goalkeeper running the pitch like his Dad did to chin Alan Smith. A want-away centre half doing a lap because he knows what it meant.

We won’t make the top 6. The foundations are there though. In the unlikely event we manage to retain Leitner and the seeming impossibility that James Maddison pulls on a yellow shirt for one more season, then maybe...just maybe.

In the meantime we have Godfrey and Cantwell our on loan. The lad from Aberdeen continuing to learn. Thompson to recover and return and then maybe Tetts for another year?

Booooo

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Indy"]I’d say about 20 odd million, but we are still having to sell our best players to fund a yearly debt, in the second division Til, we’re happy to stick with the current owners and say they’re doing a good job? Why it’s no better than back in 1993, our first premiership season, with respect how many top flight clubs are uk owned? How many don’t have debt against them?

Until football it’s self changes we’re just about treading water, how many years before we’re down to 18,000 average gates and building debt because we don’t have the next Maddison to sell?

Just pointing out we’re in the second tier, our shortfall would have been 7 million had we not made profits on transfers the past two windows, were no better off as a club 21 years later, yet we’re happy and contented why is my question, just because football has moved on? Shouldn’t our club moved with it? Or are we now saying we’re just a mid table championship club and what fat Bob did was really successful to give us 9 seasons of top flight footy, 3rd in the premiership and Europe......wow he did a great job and to only run up 6 million debt including buying land and Colney?[/quote]

I am with you Indy. Why haven''t we kicked on like all the other clubs have? Take the inaugural Premier League season. There we were, thanks to the sainted Lord Bob of Breezeblocks, with 23 other teams. Leaving aside the giants, such as Everton and Liverpool, the Manchester clubs and Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea from Loddon (or is it London?)  there is no reason why we should not have done as well as the 14 others.Yet without exception they have all stayed permanently in the Premier League, and many have won either the Champions League or the Europa Cup, or both, not to mention domestic cups by the score.Well, apart from Aston Villa, who seem to be in the Championship now. But apart from...oh, I was forgetting Blackburn. They are not with us so they must still be in the PL, although I can''t actually see them there. And then there is Coventry City. I get a bit confused but wasn''t there something about not even playing in Coventry? Obviously they couldn''t fit their mega- Euro crowds in so had to shift to Wembley or the Maracana.As for Ipswich, there was apparently yesterday some generous clapping to celebrate the 16th anniversary of some achievement of longevity that has presumably been way beyond our poor capabilities.But apart from those...damn, now I look again at this season''s Championship Middlesbrough are there, and Forest? That MUST be a mistake. Didn''t they win the European Cup very recently? Twice? Or was that Leeds? And both Sheffield clubs? And QPR, with a whole shedload of ludicrously rich owners? And Oldham are somewhere below the Championship. And Wimbledon seem to have disappeared off the face of football. But apart from all those...

[Badger 2,405]

I have nothing against Aston Villa per se but I think that accounts are rather more troublesome than the BBC link provided suggests. Kieran Maguire (the Price of Football) reports that,"The accounts being reviewed by media sources and fans alike are not the

ones used to determine the true extent of Villa’s finances..." the accounts don''t "cover all of the activities of Villa, and certain costs, most notably player wages, are excluded from the costs."To get a truer picture you have to look at the accounts of the holding company (Recon Group UK Limited) which show an operating loss of £41.1m and that it was only player sales that managed to bring this down to £14.5m. Like all relegated clubs, their financial future will be determined by their ability to regain Premier league status. If they don''t go up this year, they will have to make further cuts.http://priceoffootball.com/

[Indy 3,300]

Regardless of other clubs Purple, it’s fact that I’ve stated, we’ve not moved on, who gives shite of other clubs, we had better times under Chase, I’m sure your arguments are the same for all those clubs you’ve mentioned, back in their day, Forrest certainly had better times late 70’s, as did Leeds, etc.

So what have I said that isn’t right? After your sarcastic response? I suppose like Numpty you must have hated all those seasons under Chase, must have been so frustrating for you!

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Let''s hear about some glory days Bindy. Regale us about all the stars on your shirt and all the England managers you had at your club before my kids were born let alone my grandkids. The grandkids are teenagers now and they have never experienced a derby defeat and after yesterday they wonder if they ever will.....

[Punctured Bicycle on a hillside desolate 0]

I just want the be bought by a stinking rich Chinese owner and be an established premier league club

What is wrong with that?

Seems much better that mediocrity and a Suffolk cook!

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

Let’s cut to the chase. Five obvious facts from my vantage point

1) the current board love the club and have given us some magic moments.

2) the board has been in place a long time now and one senses a need for fresh ideas. It is stale and we are back where we began.

3) sentiment has no place in business. There is a time to rule and a time to step down. It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom option

4) football has moved on. The local model is dead as we are now in a global era of investment. The current board cannot compete. For that reason alone they need to step down and let a new era begin

5) the clock is ticking. Once Maddison etc are sold to plug gaps- the gaps will remain but the assets will not. That equates to Roeder era football every time. For whilst it is possible to mess up despite healthy investment it is not possible to succeed for long without it these days.

Conclusion= thanks for the memories board - now is the time to go gracefully

[TIL 1010 4,748]

[quote user="Dean Coneys boots"] It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom option [/quote]At the end of an awful first half on Sunday the whistle was greeted with virtual silence and mutters from the crowd as they made their way to the refreshment areas or just stood there trying to think of a worse first half of football v The Scum in recent years. The directors box shuffled off to the boardroom but not Mr & Mrs Smith Jnr as they stood above the players tunnel clapping loudly and enthusiastically !The acceptance of mediocrity is worrying.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Dean Coneys boots"] It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom option [/quote]At the end of an awful first half on Sunday the whistle was greeted with virtual silence and mutters from the crowd as they made their way to the refreshment areas or just stood there trying to think of a worse first half of football v The Scum in recent years. The directors box shuffled off to the boardroom but not Mr & Mrs Smith Jnr as they stood above the players tunnel clapping loudly and enthusiastically !The acceptance of mediocrity is worrying.[/quote]So what you''re saying is thier attempt to rally the players for a better second half worked.

[Badger 2,405]

DCB - 1) the current board love the club and have given us some magic moments.

Generally agreed but as you say below, sentiment doesn''t enter into it.2)

the board has been in place a long time now and one senses a need for

fresh ideas. It is stale and we are back where we began.

Stale? New structure and model - sporting director; foreign manager etc - stale is hardly an accurate description?3)

sentiment has no place in business. There is a time to rule and a time

to step down. It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom

option Nepotism is not at all an unusual

model in private limited companies and sale of the club would be

insurance against such an eventuality if this is a significant element

in your case.

4) football has moved on. The local

model is dead as we are now in a global era of investment. The current

board cannot compete. For that reason alone they need to step down and

let a new era begin

There is no clear evidence that global

investment is any more successful in terms of football as a model than

any other. Investors by definition aim to take money out of a club - it

is unclear why you feel that the club would be more successful in the

long term by having money removed. 5) the clock is ticking. Once Maddison etc are sold to plug gaps- the gaps will remain but the assets will not. Even

clubs with rich investors sell players as part of their model - e.g.

the fact that Southampton are only £60 million in debt is down to their

heavy player sales

That equates to Roeder era football every time. WHY?

We were in an even worse position financially after relegation, but

then experienced half a decade of our most exciting recent history.

Clearly this is simply wrong.For whilst it is possible to mess up despite healthy investment it is not possible to succeed for long without it these days. It

is certainly possible to mess up healthy investment and there are

numerous examples. Despite the external investment the "laws of football

gravity" remain - this year we will still see clubs that have rich

investors relegated - it is no guarantee! Indeed if they are subsidised,

the rules of FFP make them even more dependant upon quick promotion

than we are. Conclusion= thanks for the memories board - now is the time to go gracefullyIn

the first place you have not established your case at all + in the

second, the assumption that there is automatically a "good" external

investor happy to pump money into the club readily available. The fact

that we are "debt free" would make us very attractive to asset

strippers, unless the current owners demanded a very high price for the

club.I''d love us to have a Father Christmas -  a donor/ patron/

benefactor, rather than an investor though, because I''d prefer someone

to put money into the club rather than take it out. However, as an

adult, I have a natural scepticism about people promising that they are

going to give me everything that I want for nothing in return. They do

exist - but there aren''t that many and they are more than outnumbered by

"wolves in sheeps'' clothing." Some of the posters on here are best described as "optimistic" or perhaps more accurately as credulous - though not necessarily yourself btw.

[TIL 1010 4,748]

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Dean Coneys boots"] It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom option [/quote]At the end of an awful first half on Sunday the whistle was greeted with virtual silence and mutters from the crowd as they made their way to the refreshment areas or just stood there trying to think of a worse first half of football v The Scum in recent years. The directors box shuffled off to the boardroom but not Mr & Mrs Smith Jnr as they stood above the players tunnel clapping loudly and enthusiastically !The acceptance of mediocrity is worrying.[/quote]So what you''re saying is thier attempt to rally the players for a better second half worked.

[/quote]So what you are saying is that the players sat in the dressing room and thought let''s do this for Tom ?

[king canary 7,607]

@Til

I''m no fan of Tom but it is a bit of a stretch to say him showing support to the players is an ''acceptance of mediocrity.''

[Jack Flash 13]

Good points, well made Badger. There are some short memories on here about the Chase era - just ask Martin O''Neil what it was like and why he couldn''t wait to get away.

[Punctured Bicycle on a hillside desolate 0]

If anyone thinks for a second that nepotism Tom is the answer either do not understood the question or is stark raving mad.

The future unless ownership changes is very bleak indeed

Delia out stinking rich Chinese investor in

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Dean Coneys boots"] It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom option [/quote]At the end of an awful first half on Sunday the whistle was greeted with virtual silence and mutters from the crowd as they made their way to the refreshment areas or just stood there trying to think of a worse first half of football v The Scum in recent years. The directors box shuffled off to the boardroom but not Mr & Mrs Smith Jnr as they stood above the players tunnel clapping loudly and enthusiastically !The acceptance of mediocrity is worrying.[/quote]So what you''re saying is thier attempt to rally the players for a better second half worked.

[/quote]So what you are saying is that the players sat in the dressing room and thought let''s do this for Tom ?[/quote]No, I was taking the **** out of you because you deserved it.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user=" Badger"]DCB - 1) the current board love the club and have given us some magic moments.

Generally agreed but as you say below, sentiment doesn''t enter into it.2)

the board has been in place a long time now and one senses a need for

fresh ideas. It is stale and we are back where we began.

Stale? New structure and model - sporting director; foreign manager etc - stale is hardly an accurate description?3)

sentiment has no place in business. There is a time to rule and a time

to step down. It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom

option Nepotism is not at all an unusual

model in private limited companies and sale of the club would be

insurance against such an eventuality if this is a significant element

in your case.

4) football has moved on. The local

model is dead as we are now in a global era of investment. The current

board cannot compete. For that reason alone they need to step down and

let a new era begin

There is no clear evidence that global

investment is any more successful in terms of football as a model than

any other. Investors by definition aim to take money out of a club - it

is unclear why you feel that the club would be more successful in the

long term by having money removed. 5) the clock is ticking. Once Maddison etc are sold to plug gaps- the gaps will remain but the assets will not. Even

clubs with rich investors sell players as part of their model - e.g.

the fact that Southampton are only £60 million in debt is down to their

heavy player sales

That equates to Roeder era football every time. WHY?

We were in an even worse position financially after relegation, but

then experienced half a decade of our most exciting recent history.

Clearly this is simply wrong.For whilst it is possible to mess up despite healthy investment it is not possible to succeed for long without it these days. It

is certainly possible to mess up healthy investment and there are

numerous examples. Despite the external investment the "laws of football

gravity" remain - this year we will still see clubs that have rich

investors relegated - it is no guarantee! Indeed if they are subsidised,

the rules of FFP make them even more dependant upon quick promotion

than we are. Conclusion= thanks for the memories board - now is the time to go gracefullyIn

the first place you have not established your case at all + in the

second, the assumption that there is automatically a "good" external

investor happy to pump money into the club readily available. The fact

that we are "debt free" would make us very attractive to asset

strippers, unless the current owners demanded a very high price for the

club.I''d love us to have a Father Christmas -  a donor/ patron/

benefactor, rather than an investor though, because I''d prefer someone

to put money into the club rather than take it out. However, as an

adult, I have a natural scepticism about people promising that they are

going to give me everything that I want for nothing in return. They do

exist - but there aren''t that many and they are more than outnumbered by

"wolves in sheeps'' clothing." Some of the posters on here are best described as "optimistic" or perhaps more accurately as credulous - though not necessarily yourself btw.[/quote]Excellent, Badger. I was going to post something similar. I would just add to the "staleness" point about the board that Balls is still a comparitive newcomer, and unless I am mistaken was the driving force behind the radical switch to the sporting director/head coach model. Added to which, although Stone and Webber are not directors it was said when they were appointed that both would attend all board meetings, so in effect they are two new members.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="Jack Flash"]Good points, well made Badger. There are some short memories on here about the Chase era - just ask Martin O''Neil what it was like and why he couldn''t wait to get away.[/quote]

Chase didn''t want O''Neill from the start, which was his downfall.

Chase needed support from his Number 2 (Barry Lockwood I think) to get things through the board (i.e over 50% share) However, when it came to O''Neill, Chase couldn''t rely on his number 2 who voted for O''Neill, so Chase was isolated.

(This is always worth mentioning on this site, because this couldn''t happen now. Delia has a veto, used at the end of 2016 for example when the board voted for Neil to be sacked)

I digress. Chase got his own back by making O''Neill position unworkable, so he upped and went to Leicester. Megson was called on by Chase two weeks before O''Neill left... His football wasn''t great, but had every chance of getting us back up to the PL.

Chase never recovered and the rest as they say is history.

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Dean Coneys boots"] It would be a backward step to embrace the nepotism Tom option [/quote]At the end of an awful first half on Sunday the whistle was greeted with virtual silence and mutters from the crowd as they made their way to the refreshment areas or just stood there trying to think of a worse first half of football v The Scum in recent years. The directors box shuffled off to the boardroom but not Mr & Mrs Smith Jnr as they stood above the players tunnel clapping loudly and enthusiastically !The acceptance of mediocrity is worrying.[/quote]

“Accepting mediocrity” - I’ve heard that before somewhere...

How would Tom have “not accepted mediocrity” in your opinion?

Shuffling off to the boardroom? A cacophonous boo from the directors box? How about a four-letter laden tirade of abuse at the players and manager as they made their way to the tunnel?

The whole concept of “accepting mediocrity” is one of the most stupid I’ve come across when discussing football anywhere. If showing support and encouragement is “accepting mediocrity” then the opposite - what you seem to be advocating - is to not show support and to discourage the players?

Do you believe that the board sit there delighted that we’re mid table in the Championship? That their thought process is “well, at least we won’t go down and we’ll get to play the derby again next year..”? “Oh goody, we can look forward to selling our best players and watching them play for someone else...”?

There’s a “Flat Earth Society” group on Facebook that has some inconceivable guff posted on it and this notion of “accepting mediocrity buh” wouldn’t look out of place.

[Mello Yello 2,294]

Tom''s the future......You can always judge a person by the way they clap.......

[Jack Flash 13]

komakino - if that is the case then why on earth appoint a Manager in the Summer then let him walk just 6 months later with the Team in a good position just needing that one more player in the Managers opinion. No, I think you''ve got that wrong mate.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="komakino"]Delia has a veto, used at the end of 2016 for example when the board voted for Neil to be sacked)[/quote]Is that a fact or an assumption?

[komakino 272]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]Delia has a veto, used at the end of 2016 for example when the board voted for Neil to be sacked)[/quote]Is that a fact or an assumption?[/quote]

Fact. Sadly. I thought it was common knowledge as it was a while ago now, but those who know, know the veto does exist.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]Delia has a veto, used at the end of 2016 for example when the board voted for Neil to be sacked)[/quote]Is that a fact or an assumption?[/quote]Or a confusion, accidental or deliberate. The comparison with Chase not having a majority of the shares and Smith and Jones having such a majority, and linking that to how votes in the boardroom are decided is false, certainly in the strict sense.Boardroom votes are decided by a simple show of hands, with the majority winning. Having most shares does not make Smith and Jones'' votes count double, or give them a veto.If Smith and Jones argued strongly for or against a particular course of action that might sway the argument, even perhaps against the better judgment of other directors (and if thwarted Smith and Jones always have the nuclear option of then sacking recalcitrant directors and appointing new ones, although by its very nature that would be very damaging). Being owners no doubt gives Smith and Jones great influence in the boardroom. That is not the same as having a veto.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="komakino"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]Delia has a veto, used at the end of 2016 for example when the board voted for Neil to be sacked)[/quote]Is that a fact or an assumption?[/quote]

Fact. Sadly. I thought it was common knowledge as it was a while ago now, but those who know, know the veto does exist.[/quote]Do you know which board members wanted him gone then? I assume it was Moxey, Foulger and Phillips v Delia, MWJ and Tom with Balls having the casting vote. If that''s the case, she''s more of a dictator than Chase was.

[Woodman 92]

Was Tom on the Board at that time?

[TCCANARY 263]

https://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2016/january/thomas-smith-im-proud-to-give-something-back/He joined the board in Jan 2016.