Big_John_10 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Debt paid off and now a massive earner off the wage bill. Running out of excuses. Yeah I know! Ireland is gone, what, 3 hours? FFS Randolph! He's got a couple of weeks. And I'm sure the club were aware this was going to happen before tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2014 Don't worry. My tongue was firmly in my cheek. WRT to the masterplan though, I'd be more looking at a summer splurge, what with the relative lack of value for money floating around in January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2014 I agree that it would make a difference to Fair Play Rules, if we needed to concern ourselves with that, that is. On the bigger point, I'm afraid it really doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans. It's all Randy's money in one way or another, and it's possible that the money to buy the shares has come from the trust as well. If the cash is paid in, then goes straight out to pay off loans, we're no better off cash wise. The accounts say that the loans are from "the parent undertaking" so if it is the trust, then they must own Reform Acquisitions LLC as well. from the original takeover docs and other docs, I'm pretty sure the trust doesn't own RAL, Martin edit - here's the detail RAL, a company incorporated in England and Wales, was formed on 31 July 2006 exclusively for the purpose of making the Offer. Since its incorporation, RAL has not traded. The current directors of RAL are Randolph Lerner, Michael Martin and Michael Keenan. RAL is a wholly owned subsidiary of RALLC. RALLC, is a limited liability company incorporated in the State of Delaware and is wholly owned by Randolph Lerner. end edit . As such the trust would not be the source of the new 90 mill unless things have changed from back then. And turning debt into equity does make the club better off financially. 90 million of the mortgage has gone, in effect, surely. It doesn't make the club rich, but it makes it less indebted. Accepting its unclear at this point that the new money has been used to pay off loans due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2014 A trust has a legal duty to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries, not the trust itself. The interest was just written off as far as I'm aware, and not actually physically repaid. the beneficiaries are not just Randy, so if the trust acts in his interests only, that is potentially counter to the interests of his sister etc. this was my point. He doesn't control the trust, the trustees do and they are obliged to safeguard other interests too and just writing off 90 mill lent to RL means his sister etc lose out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Aston Villa Red Bulls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Before this happened I wrote this The club doesn't really owe the owner any money for his spending in any meaningful way. Effectively, all he's done is increase the amount of money he's paid for the club...it only really affects the profit or loss Lerner will make when he sells the club. Ultimately, it's his problem rather than ours. I wish that were so. I don't think it quite is though. Money borrowed from the Family Trust has to be paid back. He could pay it back from his own money, but that lent money is not "his". I think I'm right in saying that the people who run the trust legally have to safeguard the money it holds. So yes they can agree to lend it out, but they also have a duty to recover it. If that's right, then it'll have to be paid back. I think what he did was write off all the interest on the loans, by paying it himself, rather than the club having to pay it back, but I still think the actual capital will have to be repaid, and that'll (I think) come from operating profit. In other words, now the wages are under control, the profit the club makes will in part if not in full go to paying back those loans, and probably over a period of years, unless he either sells up, or decides to pay it from his personal funds. . Which was and is my thinking - by doing that last bit - paying it off himself, it meanspotentially the money the club makes could goto playingresources instead of being used to pay off the debt he's now paid off himself. That's a major, major plus. A trust has a legal duty to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries, not the trust itself. The interest was just written off as far as I'm aware, and not actually physically repaid. Risso Does this part of the tweet make sense... RT @KingEightyOne: @proudvillan the personal loan RL gave villa expired so he has turned the amount owed at this point into shares « Spot on As the rumor goes those shares would become Randys and he'd sell the remiander to Red Bull at the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Clubs these days are seen as the ultimate marketing tool for promoting a company or region. Malaysia, Africa, The Middle East... Etihad, Emirates. So far, not one has needed to change the name of the club i order to achieve their goals, and should Red Bull take over a team I think this would be the same too. The other Red Bull owned teams are in more pliable leagues with far less history - but also far less global exposure. If Aston Villa were the team to be taken over, they'd still be named Aston Villa IMO. We may play at Villa Park too - although likely to be The Red Bull Arena in the fashion that Ashburton Grove and The City of Manchester Stadium are dubbed The Emirates and The Etihad Stadium whilst they're being sponsored. I couldn't envisage them getting away with a home strip change either, but their white and claret does make for good away kit. In short, were we to be taken over by a corporation, as a premier league team due to the sheer exposure of the league, the need to change everything about the club isn't as necessary as it is for clubs owned in less viewed leagues. We're probably not being taken over however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 ...in the fashion that Ashburton Grove ... dubbed The Emirates I honestly didn't even know this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 My mom just got told by someone at Red Bull that they are selling Red Bull at a shop near the Villa ground, make of that what you will. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Would vodka red bull become available at half time if they took us over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) We've all got wings We've all got wiiiiiiings We're Aston Villa and We've all got wings Edited January 10, 2014 by villan_007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wasn't Paul McCartney in Wings? What was that other band he was in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 A trust has a legal duty to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries, not the trust itself. The interest was just written off as far as I'm aware, and not actually physically repaid. the beneficiaries are not just Randy, so if the trust acts in his interests only, that is potentially counter to the interests of his sister etc. this was my point. He doesn't control the trust, the trustees do and they are obliged to safeguard other interests too and just writing off 90 mill lent to RL means his sister etc lose out We don't know anything about the trust whatsoever though Pete. I deal with lots of them over here, and if his is anything like most HNW family trusts, then yes, the trustees are obliged to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries as a whole, but most would operate according to how the money was generated. So taking a hypothetical situation, if there's say £500m in the trust, the trustees would use that according to how it was generated, so if £300m was Randy's, and £200m was his sister's, then the trustees would let them act accordingly, hence the loan interest being written off. I could have a family trust that I set up, that would have me, the wife and kids as beneficiaries, but if it was my money that was settled into the trust, then it would be me letting the trustees know how I wanted it to be run. On the point about rhe American holding company, I'd be enormously surprised if Randy owned that personally and not through a trust, just as I'd be surprised if the £90m came from his personal funds. Billionaires with trusts and Delaware companies don't usually have it sitting in their own name, it's standard asset protection and tax planning tactics to use trusts wherever possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 It's also worth pointing out that Randy Lerner is a trustee of the family trust..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papillon Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wasn't Paul McCartney in Wings? What was that other band he was in? The Wings, the band the Beatles could have been, according to Alan Partridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 . As such the trust would not be the source of the new 90 mill unless things have changed from back then. And turning debt into equity does make the club better off financially. 90 million of the mortgage has gone, in effect, surely. It doesn't make the club rich, but it makes it less indebted. Accepting its unclear at this point that the new money has been used to pay off loans due. We're probably getting into semantics now, but if you set up Blandy Limited with a £1 share capital say. You then stick £99 in as further share capital. You have £100 in the bank, and a £100 share capital. Or in scenario 2, you put the £99 in as an interest free loan from yourself. You still have £100 in the bank, so are not better off financially. The only difference is that you have a loan that technically has to be paid back to you at some point, compared to a shareholding that you'll only get back if you sell the shares. As it's all "you" in some shape or form, it doesn't make a whole ot of difference. Your trading performance will still be the only thing that affects the Profit and Loss account, which ultimately is what makes a company better off or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 10, 2014 ...The only difference is that you have a loan that technically has to be paid back to you at some point, compared to a shareholding that you'll only get back if you sell the shares. As it's all "you" in some shape or form, it doesn't make a whole ot of difference. Your trading performance will still be the only thing that affects the Profit and Loss account, which ultimately is what makes a company better off or not. Thanks for all the bean-counting knowledge etc. The bit quoted is to me the thing I like - And currently it may only be semantics or a technicality, but Randy only getting the money back if he sells is better than a loan that has to be paid back, regardless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSV Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Red bull would be a disaster. Randy. Sell to someone rich who will protect our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa-revolution Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Great posts Risso. Clear & concise. Take a bow son, take a bow! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Don't worry. My tongue was firmly in my cheek. WRT to the masterplan though, I'd be more looking at a summer splurge, what with the relative lack of value for money floating around in January. We really need to bring in some quality in the summer, as I am sure there are many like me whose support is being strained. I do not even need a `splurge', though that would be good, but just a loosening of the purse strings so that we can see that progress is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts