This is the bit that I am not sure is so true.
I have seen people on here go on an on about Faulkner, normally coupled with some pretty derogatory remarks.
I have also seen people go on about how we need someone like Daniel Levy. Levy is a decent bloke, but he is Joe Lewis's man just like Paul Faulkner is Mr Lerner's man.
If Randy Lerner is a crap businessman who lets things run away with themselves, and the free rein handed to O'Neill lends weight to that theory, then he made a good decision in hiring a hands on Chief Exec in Faulkner.
Looking at the timing it appears that Faulkner realised that the club was being run in a kamikaze fashion, which is when the ultimately unsuccessful reining in of O'Neill started.
History will never record it, but Faulkner may just be the man who saved Aston Villa from a much more serious fate.
As regards Mr Lerner, he has backed his managers in the transfer market, all 3 of them. That is normally what a football supporter requires of their Chairman/Owner before anything else. Despite all of that backing, none of two previous managers have given him anything like the return that he probably deserves, and as everyone keeps bleating on, the current one probably won't either.
Great post, nice to see something sensible on this thread for once. Something sensible?
Really?
We are supposed to believe that Lerner let MON have a free hand to spend money unchecked, then appointed a CEO who seemingly spotted this - phew, just in time! - and effectively forced MON out, Thus "saving" the club.
No mention that he then appointed an out of touch manager who took us hurtling towards relegation, followed by one whose appointment has knocked about 5,000 off home gates and who has settled us in lower-mid table at best.
Hmmm...forgive me for believing there are more plausible versions of events than that "sensible" one.