Exciting news from the club ?

Ianrobo submitted the following;

I have always kept an eye on the financial reports at Villa. These reflect the true state of the situation at the club and any move could be significant.

Today, Reform Acquisitions Ltd, which is the vehicle Lerner uses to own the club, posted what I think could be a significant change. They have changed their memorandum of associations to remove the restriction on authorised share capital.

Now this could mean nothing at all or it could mean a lot. I have asked an accountant to comment on this but maybe some time before he replies so I am asking the wider community if this is significant.

I do think any move of this type is not done for a simple move but would have a meaning behind it. It could be the lifting of this restrictions allows Randy to swap some shares for debt (not a bad thing) or it could allow for other investment (also not a bad thing).

Of course it could be nothing at all, I’ll allow you to judge that.


Page 1 of 1
  1. BWS
    BWS December 19, 2013 at 7:39 pm . Reply

    This help matters?

    Authorised Share Capital: Simplified Process Introduced
    Position under the Companies Act 1985

    Under the previous Act, a company’s Memorandum had to state the amount of share capital the company was registered with. This was usually a sentence at the very end of the Memorandum along the lines of ‘The Company’s share capital is 1000 GBP divided into 1000 Ordinary shares of £1 each’.

    If a company had several classes of shares, such as A, B or C shares, then the sub-division in each class also had to be stated.

    In practice for many companies, this may not have been an issue as directors were free to allot shares within the limit of the authorised share capital, provided they had authority. The directors’ authority was either given under the company’s Articles, which lasted for five years, or by ordinary resolution of the shareholders.

    If the directors of the company wanted to issue shares above the authorised share capital, then this had to be increased by an ordinary resolution of the shareholders.
    Position under the Companies Act 2006

    The new Act repeals those sections of the 1985 Act, so companies no longer require an authorised share capital.

    Another significant change is that the directors of a private company will no longer need shareholder’s authority to issue shares, provided that the company has only one class of share and that there is no restriction in the Articles.

    Private companies incorporated after 1st October 2009 can choose to place a restriction in their Articles on the number of shares that can be issued.

    Companies Incorporated under the 1985 Act

    Companies incorporated under the old Act have three choices:

    Pass an ordinary resolution to remove the restriction contained in the company’s Memorandum. If there is also a restriction in the Articles, then options two or three should be used.
    Pass a special resolution to adopt new Articles that make no reference to an authorised share capital.
    Pass a special resolution amending its Articles to remove the reference to authorised share capital.
    This is good opportunity for companies who wish to abolish their authorised share capital to undertake a review and consider adopting new Articles to bring them in line with the Companies Act 2006.

  2. ianrobo
    ianrobo December 19, 2013 at 7:41 pm . Reply

    thanks BWS so we had a limit of £200M and now there is not one. Whilst it may be a technical move I believe it was a move they did not have to do …

  3. giddyvillan
    giddyvillan December 19, 2013 at 8:08 pm . Reply

    Well done lads you’ve totally lost me.is he selling up?

    1. Bill Pearson.
      Bill Pearson. December 19, 2013 at 8:21 pm . Reply

      Fucked if I know giddy they lost me with the first sentence, it might mean new investment could come in ?

  4. giddyvillan
    giddyvillan December 19, 2013 at 8:27 pm . Reply

    Bill i hope it’s got fuck all to do with this red bull link mate.

    1. BWS
      BWS December 19, 2013 at 8:36 pm . Reply

      Off topic but just heard on Talkshite that Malky McCoy is on the verge of leaving Cardiff so its a pretty safe bet he’ll be down the Hawthorns.

  5. giddyvillan
    giddyvillan December 19, 2013 at 8:39 pm . Reply

    He’s been given 2 options by tan resign or be sacked bbc sport.

  6. Colonius81
    Colonius81 December 19, 2013 at 9:27 pm . Reply

    i don’t understand that all? is it that the owner was unaware millions of pounds were being spent in summer? or he is just fed up or he wants media coverage? or what exactly? How will Cardiff gain from this?
    what kind of a manager would want to work under a chairman like that?

  7. DSVilla
    DSVilla December 19, 2013 at 9:36 pm . Reply

    Tan is the worst kind of owner. Whilst many fans may resent the perceived lack of investment by Lerner, he is so much better than what we could end up with.

  8. Paul Taylor
    Paul Taylor December 19, 2013 at 10:48 pm . Reply

    Sorry to piss everyone off but i don’t care if he sells to red bull or whatever,I just want money,stupid amounts to be spent on the club,£500 million to start with,sort the north stand out and buy world class players and pay them the wage they want,I fed up of watching little clubs like man shity and Chelsea in the champions leauge ,fuck off and let a proper club have a go,I don’t care what redbull do to us to show us the ££££’s

    1. Lou Reed and Iggy Pop
      Lou Reed and Iggy Pop December 20, 2013 at 3:12 am . Reply


  9. Villan1
    Villan1 December 20, 2013 at 7:40 am . Reply

    If only we could get Red Bull, life is too short, I’d love to see it personally. Just someone with a bit of ambition to succeed, this whole Lerner-Lamberk era is draining the energy out of the club. We need some exciting news badly.

  10. Jay Dee
    Jay Dee December 20, 2013 at 8:11 am . Reply

    Who gives a pish

    1. ianrobo
      ianrobo December 20, 2013 at 10:09 am . Reply

      you should as this impacts what you see on the field.

  11. kun
    kun December 20, 2013 at 11:12 am . Reply

    i’m an accountant (granted not a very good one) but this just looks like a move to help issue more shares, which would improve the company’s capital gearing ratio. Gearing ratio is the proportion of the company that is financed by debt (D) compared to equity(E) (the equation is usually D/D+E). Companies normally prefer to have a low gearing ratio (ie. lower proportion of debt to equity) because debt is seen as a riskier source of finance due to the fact that you have to pay fixed costs on it (interest payments in the form of x% each period) whereas with equity you have the option to choose when to pay costs (in the form of dividends to shareholders). Apologies if I’ve lost you…but basically they’re just trying to reduce the financial risk of the company!

    1. ianrobo
      ianrobo December 20, 2013 at 11:45 am . Reply

      Thanks Kun and could also be they can issue more shares for investment which is what we would like or simply Randy turning debt into shares ?

    2. DSVilla
      DSVilla December 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm . Reply

      Doesn’t really apply here Kun since Lerner is the guy putting up the cash for loans. It would be true if it was from a bank or some other institution.

      1. Bill Pearson.
        Bill Pearson. December 20, 2013 at 1:59 pm . Reply

        Hey giddy I’m not a thick twat then, I was right, its to gain more investments, why don’t they say that I thought our roof was falling in.

        1. giddyvillan
          giddyvillan December 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm . Reply

          Bill im still lost i am a thick twat mate,glad you got it.if it’s a money spinner for randolph then it makes sense.

  12. SteveJ
    SteveJ December 21, 2013 at 8:36 pm . Reply

    Randy Lerner allowed Martin O’Neill complete control. As a result of Lerner’s naivety, 11 Players were allowed to accumulate who hardly ever got a game. Lerner then realised he would need to invest more time in the club which he did not want to do and appears to have lost interest. I hope that we get new owners who want to get involved. Who understand what is needed to compete.
    Would Tottenham have Lambert on there target list? Same size club as us. So why not? If you want to compete you need a manager who not only inspires but who can attract the players by his reputation. We are where we are because of who we appoint. We were ahead of Tottenham so compare their managerial appointments with ours and you will see the difference between a club who can compete because they have supporters and a board who aim high, At Villa our supporters actually believe that Lambert is doing OK or should be given time. MCleish had more experience than Lambert so the Villa supporters showed a remarkable lack of knowledge when criticising his appointment as an ex Blues manager. It was his credibility and Lamberts that was wrong as would be similar ilk of MCarthy, Mark Hughes, Sam Allardyce. I reckon Villas-Boas made a mistake by signing too many players in one go. He won’t have that problem at Vila (!) but I would stake everything and say even with the same resources he would bring in a better quality player and give us an attractive team. Unfortunately Lerner seems as oblivious to what style of manager we need as a lot of the supporters are. Roll on new owners, the best Christmas resent ever!

    1. OohAhPaulMcGrath
      OohAhPaulMcGrath December 21, 2013 at 8:56 pm . Reply

      Avbs problem was that levy signed 3 players he didn’t want. Having said that their performance v Liverpool last week was the worst iv ever seen in prem even worse than our 8.0 hammering last year. As iv said before at worse am is as good as lambert. Villa fans would of wanted Mckeish out even if he won us the league. The club have gone backwards and are on a downward slide. Take out the fluky wins v city and saints and we would be bottom 3 now.

Post Comment