John_Lerwill

Hello fellers (if anyone is still listening!),

I assembled the mailing list archive archive into a sort-of database format and distributed it to those who asked for it several years ago.

It's still on my system.

If anyone (from the old list) would like a copy please mail me via https://www.lerwill-life.org.uk/mailform.htm

BTW, 'Malcolm' (Malcolm Everall) passed away in 2013 I think. I had a good respect for him actually - a knowledgeable feller about a few useful things.

Cheers and UTV

John (Lerwill)

 It’s a reflection on how much football (and Villa in particular) means to us, of course, but people should learn that what goes around comes around. Some of these messages to Lerner and his family will not produce any change at VP… only a formal protest has the possibility of success, but I rather think that it’s a bit late now for that. Nothing more is going to change structurally (now) for this season – which will simply end either in relegation or a magnificent recovery. Leicester got out of it at a very late stage, so while there’s life …

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

Welcome back, The Chronicler!

John, what do you think of the idea of a supporter buy out of Lerner?

Is it remotely viable in your opinion?

Howdo, 'maq'!

I'd love to see a supporters' buy-out of the club ... HOW it can be achieved is quite another thing. Back at the end of 1968 there was a deep-seated will to achieve change, but today I don't see the same commitment from the supporters. The world has become a different place entirely - I barely recognise it.

Such a takeover needs a leader with strong commitment and some able lieutenants. And then there's the question of finding at least £150m.

Thanks for asking me, and my opinion is that In the absence of the will being there, it doesn't stand a chance, I'm very sorry to say. With the will, virtually anything can be accomplished, even though difficulties may threaten the project.

15 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

John, who do you blame for the relegations in 67-68 and 70-71?

 

Clearly not Doug ... he was not there in 67/68 (relegation from Div 1 in 1967) and 70/71 (relegation from Div 2 in 1970) happened essentially as the momentum for recovery was not yet fully in place after the club had been left to atrophy by the previous incumbants, particularly chairman Buckley.

When Tommy Doc's appointment took place I think everyone was very happy ... but unfortunately his approach didn't work out, hence relegation in 1970.

9 hours ago, John said:

Nice to see you posting John! 

I can confirm Wiki is correct with those attendance figures (as checked with my copy of "The Essential History of Aston Villa"). As no doubt you are aware the Villa players were on high wages due to the bonuses they got for being top or near the top for much of the season (money well spent in my opinion) . 

Our attendances in 81-82 were ...

But winning the league and being the champions of Europe were not enough to compensate for us being in £1m debt for Deadly so we cut costs rather than looked to build upon the best 2 seasons we had enjoyed as a club since the end of the century before that one. But all that is now water under the bridge. Our opinions of the previous custodian of our great club differ somewhat and have been debated between us or for many years now. Can we agree that neither our present or previous custodian can claim to be anywhere near to being another Rinder, that Deadly has taken more money out of the club than Randy now looks likely to ever do and that Randy should we be relegated under his watch is running Deadly a lot closer than we would have ever thought possible to the title of our worst ever club custodian?      

Thanks a lot, John, for confirming the 1981-82 attendances (and those of 1980-81). It was clearly the 1981-82 season I had in mind, just prior to Doug's re-entry onto the scene.

Doug was clearly worried about the sustainability of paying such high wages against a backdrop of falling attendances (and below the break-even point), and though another chairman may well have been more creative to enable the club to build, Doug just took a pragmatic business decision - which was of course counter-productive.

On whether Doug took more money out of the club than Randy ... maybe. But I have to go back to the 60s to recall the last time Villa were spending so many seasons trying to steer clear of relegation. And I've never known a Villa team to have such an awful and prolonged home record. So on those issues the present incumbent's record is inferior to Doug's, and in a substantially lesser period of time.

I have stated (above, before) that we've not really had a good chairman since 1925 (Rinder), so we're in agreement on that score.

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

They didn't. Not like that. They started off around 26K for the first few matches, crept up to around 29K within a few games, and then pretty consistently stayed in the 30s and 40s apart from one game against Palace, where it was 27K again. They're all available on wikipedia

I think the attendance average at VP was behind only Man Utds that season. everywhere struggled.

OK, you've tried hard to prove me wrong  but I don't recognise all those attendances - but I have to admit I'm running from memory as my 2010 Complete Record is stored away at the moment (house move). I'm not usually inclined to accept what's on Wiki (so, so many errors!) but taking it that those figures you've given are right, apart from 4 out of the last 6 matches and two others they're still not spectacular for a supposed big side pressing for the championship, and not really enough to fund a take off for the club. Villa's players were so supposed to be on the biggest wage at that time, I believe.

And I seem to recall Doug saying that 25,000 was the break-even point for the club.

Again I could be wrong, but I suspect that season 1981-82 showed a big drop in attendances. Maybe it was that season I was thinking of. I'll have to dig out my Complete Record ...

12 minutes ago, The_Rev said:

Attendances were down nationwide in that era, I'd think hooliganism had as much to do with it as the economy tanking. 

I don't like to argue, Rev, but when researching the Villa history for that period I did check on other clubs - Liverpool, Man U - and didn't see any downturn to speak of. There may have been downturn at other clubs though.

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

 I rather wonder about some of the gate receipts and such like - crammed to some of those 48,000 crowd games, there were I'm certain rather more people there than declared. Wonder where the extra money went?

The attendances in the 2010 "Complete Record" show that they dipped in the 1980-81 championship season - except for 2 or 3 or so very big matches - to 25,000 and under.

That was down to the Midlands economic depression that started around that time I believe. The attendances seem to have stayed low in the early 80s.

6 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

I don't think Bendall was that great a chairman regarding his own input to the club. He just wasn't Ellis and let Sanders get on with his job- when in those days all you needed was a reasonable budget and class manager to do well.  The league and cup triumph was not really based on any long term decision making by him. Which always annoys Doug. There are all sorts of rumours why he hastily sold it back to Ellis only 4 years later....

Fair dos, FF ... He (Bendall) was there when Villa achieved worthwhile silverware and that will keep his name remembered I suppose.

Yes, we're still waiting for Fred Rinder to re-appear!  It's been usually a rather sad story since he went, apart from that magical period of 81 and 82.

43 minutes ago, blandy said:

To clarify, John, my comment "He's been good on the infrastructure  - appointing and trusting good people" was specifically about the people he got to do the ground, the training ground, etc. i.e related to infrastructure  perhaps I should have been clearer, but it just seems striking to me that for something involving managing "tangible assets"  i.e. building etc. he's bee spot on. But that as we both agree, I think, when to comes to the more human side of it - the managing people, or managing people who manage people all his appointments have gone wrong. The same applied at the American Rugby club he owned - apparent good intentions in hiring people, but the same result of rubbish on field performances.

Apologies, Pete ... a bit of over-quick reading on my part. Probably aided by the fact that the infrastructure issue (though of no small value) is probably the least important matter.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Both those, pretty much. 

On Ellis, when he, after many years of trying, got himself into the Chairman role after we'd won the European Cup, yes there was the legacy to a degree of the North Stand and the Club was something like a million pounds in debt. So, European Champions, recent league champions and him taking over with some debt. He didn't have to take over. He din't take over for the good of the club. He took over for his own benefit and reasons and feuds. it wasn't an altruistic move. He didn't put money into the club.

He then cut costs, dismantled the team that had won those trophies, sacked a good manger and appointed a succession of numpties and got the club relegated. Even with the debt, and even when a million was a bigger deal for a club, it was still a monumental set of errors, misjudgements and bad behaviours.

Graham Taylor then sorted us out.

Commercially Ellis was very small time. He never appointed anyone any cop at that side of it. He was always a cost cutter and never really a consistent planner for more money being raised. He got lucky twice more after GT - with the fad for TV companies buying into clubs and also with the sale of shares. two one -off injections of cash. But no underlying commercial planning of any note or effect.

He failed to take advantage of either windfall, really. He caused the club to miss the boat permanently.

Lerner has made quite a few mistakes on similar lines in the past few years. Of course he put money in, a lot of money, rather than took money out as Ellis did. But he's also made terrible judgements on the football side of things. He's been good on the infrastructure  - appointing and trusting good people, but football wise he's just managed a decline since 2010 and not really taken any care or attention. He's been neglectful.

Forced to choose between them on their records, I'd get a pistol and some brandy, I think. One neglectful and reclusive, one pompous and no more effective. I'd just about choose Lerner as the less bad, but there's not much in it. It takes some "talent" to turn an ever present Prem club, with all those resource advantages over promoted clubs into a certainty for the drop. Pair of twunts, basically.

Well, Pete, we all view things in different ways, and I did say Doug "had failings", and a number of those failings are some of those you have listed. However, the interesting thing is that if Doug had not made his move to takeover, what would have happened? I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that question.

However, I'd disagree strongly that Lerner was good at  "appointing ... good people". I'd bet there are quite a few who'd criticise his last two CEO appointments (and their various appointments, including team manager recommendations), especially as they've been visibly non-football people ... and what about the first CEO he did appoint that didn't take long  in giving up after trying to convince Lerner of the way to go (if I am to read things correctly).

Anyhow, this matter of the last two chairmen has been dragged through the mire without achieving much. I'd say we've been lacking good chairmen since 1925 apart from 1969 to 1982 and I frankly don't hold much hope that things will improve in that department. A fans' takeover is the only way to go for me, but the cost of doing so is so prohibitive.

Perhaps we should start again ... I'll let you take the part of Ramsay, Pete!

22 minutes ago, Woodytom said:

...

We're not in this position because of how we've been ran the past 5 years. We're in this position because of how we were run in the first 4 years.

That may well be ... but all you're effectively saying is that either he put all his eggs in one basket from the off or he got cold feet in 2010.

From my perspective I'd say that whether we're talking pure football or pure business, it's the actions of the last 5 years that do not make much sense, both financially and appointments-wise. In particular, from the little I understand his family trust fund seems to play a big part in financial decisions made, and it would seem to me that it's that which is the probable main culprit if Villa do go down the pan (do they pocket TV revenues?). Aided by the fact that he seems to trust only non-football people. Was the MON experience that bad?!!!

8 minutes ago, avfc1982 said:

Shrewd? The club is rock bottom after 5 years of austerity and incompetence and you claim he's shrewd. 

Poor Doug must be scratching his head. He only had to break wind and they'd be a fan protest. Lerner humiliates the club for 5 years and he's "shrewd". God help us. 

On the matter of Doug, I was always willing to give him some support and though I agree he had his failings I can't entirely blame him for what happened in the early 80s - after he came back as chairman. You might not recall that the Midlands' depression hit the attendances at Villa quite a lot so that even when we won the championship there were times when 25,000 was a good attendance - sometimes a it was a lot less than that. And at a time when the maximum gate was around 48,000.

He also inherited the North Stand fiasco and (I think) financial ramifications from the previous incumbant.

So, as the attendance money was then the main source of revenue (I'd think) those attendances were not going to support Villa's ambitions - unless Doug put his own money in. I wonder how wealthy he was at that time?

At least you knew where you where with Doug ... not this entity who announced a "Bright Future", built a platform for people to stand on and then effectively kicked it away from under their feet! In my book that's what makes him for me more unforgiveable.

Anyway ... in the light of the world's calamities, there's a lot more to be concerned about...

     

[His expectations]

 

1) To battle for top six, to look at winning a cup. [under Doug]

2) To push on and look to get 4th, to win cups and keep progressing. [on Randy's take-over]

3) To be competing nearer the top of the table (6-10), to challenge for a cup, to be dominant at home, to show no fear who-ever the opponent. [now]

4) To compete in the top six, look at winning a cup. In the long term to once again be at "the top" [future]

 

An excellent post and I totally agree with your expectations as they were, now and the future.

But ... we have been through very difficult times in the past 3 years with less than 25% wins at home (and 50% defeats) and an average of about 1 Villa goal scored per match. On top of that the biggest defeat in Villa's history occurred last season.

Though I accept this is a transition period, I am not happy with the progress at home, in particular. In some ways we seem to have gone back to the situation as things were in the mid 1960s, and that led to a terrible decline in the club's fortunes. I didn''t think we'd want to re-visit those times.

To stand a chance of reaching expectation (4), my feeling is that there needs to be something a little more ambitious about our signings. The manager can get the club to its rightful place, but the strategy will need to be updated i.m.o., assuming that expectation (3) is reached.

17 more points? You think we'll need 41 points to stay up? You must really rate some of the teams around us. 

I'm just going by what tends to be the accepted minimum norm to stay up ... 40 points.

In fact it may well be 36 or 37 points for safety this season ... but it doesn't give Villa that much scope, does it?

Villa have just not been showing enough character to give me a warm glow that safety is a given. Too often 2-goal leads have been squandered ... too often we've lost at home. And we've the worst GD in the Prem.

I'm optimistic. Performance wise we have done pretty well over the last few weeks and probably haven't picked up the amount of points we deserved. First half against West Brom we were very good, second half against Newcastle ditto and we did very well and held our own for the most part against Everton and Arsenal. We didn't play well in terrible conditions against West Ham but we showed the kind of battling qualities that we will need to stay up.

 

I have zero confidence in the owner and the board but I still have faith in Lambert and believe that despite our defensive woes in the likes of Benteke, Gabby, Weimann, NZogbia and Bent we have enough fire power to outscore the likes of QPR, Reading, Fulham, Norwich, Wigan, Sunderland and Stoke when we play them and can secure enough points to see us safe.

This point of view I am 100% in sympathy with.

The capability to survive is there. But ... our track record is not good enough to inspire more than 60% confidence in me that wins will be obtained against all the 7 clubs listed.

We do need 17 more points minimum i.m.o. That means probably 5 wins and 2 draws against those 7.

It's a tall order ... possible to achieve, but how likely? Something tells me that at least one defeat will be suffered in those 7 matches.

Mmmmmmm....

...his main source of income was for a long period, money he paid himself from the club - he was paying himself hundreds of grand a year, plus expenses for being Chairman. ...           

I'm not sure why this matter is always referred to as some sort of crime. It was legitimate pay, I believe. After all, the chairmen of other top clubs also drew such pay and I believe the topmost clubs' chairmen took out a great deal more than Doug ever did and probably rightly so if their club achieved greater success. But Doug (I believe) never took out anywhere near as much as the chairman of Man U, for example.

Though I've always said that I've never seen Doug as lilywight, he was not as bad as some have made him out to be.

...

It could be stated therefore that both the present and latter chairperson have suffered from the same delusionary pattern of thinking that we are better than we really are. 

Isn't it more that we have not had a chairman with vision for nearly 90 years?

What I am trying to say is that the early management made Villa into top dog but no-one now wants to make the effort to raise up a club - whose record is still, amazingly, that of the Midlands' most outstanding club - into a proper fighting machine to compete with the North and the South. The Midlands now appears to be a no-man's land - it's crying out for Villa to again assert itself.

I would have laughed at this question a few years ago but at least Doug actually gave a shit about the club and didn't go into hiding.

And still goes to matches...

Great result, very proud of them, even though it wasn't City's first eleven we still beat a strong team out there today.

But, to reflect a little, City's 2nd XI is capable of getting about 5th or 6th in the league.

The Independent's report states that the side City put out cost £138m.

But the club is selling my latest full history, "The First Superclub". Please see http://www.lerwill-life.org.uk/astonvilla/superclub.htm

Does that mean relationships are 'thawing' and does it raise any hopes that further volumes might be written?

Whatever happens between me and the club, to produce a further series of Chronicles of the same nature as Vols 1 and 2 would take another year's research. Having just spent virtually 6 whole years in researching and writing (and other Villa-related matters!!) my age and health and other commitments are not giving me that much confidence of being able to complete such an assignment.

But I believe that 'The First Superclub' book is a fair alternative even though it's only in one volume (510 pages).

It's a shame he fell out with the club as it would have been great to have had 1924 onwards chronicled in the same way, which I presume wont happen now.

In fairness to the club, they did offer to support the publishing of a further volume or volumes immediately after my dismissal, but the dismissal (with my wife also unable to work) left me in a very bad state financially. Hence I had to fight the matter at the Employment Tribunal.

But the club is selling my latest full history, "The First Superclub". Please see http://www.lerwill-life.org.uk/astonvilla/superclub.htm

"He" thanks you most sincerely for the words of appreciation for "The Villa Chronicles". :-) As a long-term fan myself I thought that many other fans would appreciate those glimpses into the bygone past.

Paging John Lerwill...

Sorry, I've only just seen this message - but what can I do, Mike?!

He has a new Book coming out soon : Aston Villa: The First Superclub (or something like that)

Yep! :-)

Aston Villa : The First Superclub

(the story of Aston Villa, 1874-2012)

This club history is far more extensive than any other complete history (510 pages) and contains a great deal of new material to take the club's history up to the present day and Paul Lambert's appointment.

Please link to: http://www.lerwill-life.org.uk/astonvilla/superclub.htm

On that webpage you will see how you might be able to purchase the book for only £20 including local delivery costs.

Yes, I'd just like to relax and stop fretting about what's been happenin' at VP.

There's plenty of cause for hope - assuming synergy between PL and RL.

The appointment has just arrived in time for entry into my club history, "Aston Villa - The First Superclub"!! :-) - out by August.

Good luck to our 6th managerial appointment this millennium (not counting the various stand-ins).