Randy Lerner and What Happens Next

[Jon]

That was my point. He gave MON control with the best of intentions, believing it to be in the best interests of the football club. He now knows he made a mistake doing that and is learning from it.

I think Randy will prove to be a very good Lerner. :winkold:

Jesus Wept!

Indeed he did. He came back to life too!

Which is yet another cheesy analogy that could be applied to Villa ... :oops:

[stato]

On the point of Randy giving MON 'too much' control - I was under the impression that this was generally held up as being a good thing, an old school way of doing things to let the football man deal with everything on the football side of the business and that DOF's just don't work in this country (although not sure why any less likely to work here than in Italy for example)?

[Jon]

On the point of Randy giving MON 'too much' control - I was under the impression that this was generally held up as being a good thing, an old school way of doing things to let the football man deal with everything on the football side of the business and that DOF's just don't work in this country (although not sure why any less likely to work here than in Italy for example)?

that would have been Randy's thinking, yes.

But problems arise with that when things start not going so well, and constraints may have to be placed on that manager.

It's also a massive problem if that manager suddenly walks out of his job with no notice, 5 days before the season.

Don't think Randy will be making that "mistake" again!

[BOF]

Good stuff Gazton. Though the article should probably have been entitled "Randy : A quick Lerner".

My coat is already on.

[Jon]

Good stuff Gazton. Though the article should probably have been entitled "Randy : A quick Lerner".

My coat is already on.

RBD a few posts up Bri. Jez didn't like it though. :winkold:

[Adam2003]

On the "guff" that Bickster refers, I'm sorry the point about more bums on seats will result in better players is true, in my opinion. Man City or Chelsea we aint I'm afraid. A crowd of less than 30k for Rapid was not very encouraging.

Clearly you need to do the maths about how much people attending a football match actually put towards the purse, you'd be surprised at how little it is. Just think of this... a shortfall of about 5k in attendance (which is usually all we're ever off capacity, and that usually when the likes of Fulham are at VP) with an average spend of £40 equates to £200k, now as that happens on average about (without doing the research) say 12 times a season thats a whole £2.4mil (£2mil net) over a season we're falling short through "poor attendance". Who you going to buy and pay wages for because that £2.4 mil is missing? is poor attendance really preventing us moving forward as suggested? I think not, its guff. It may be well intentioned but its not really the truth of the situation. The attendance shortfall is worth about half a Marlon Harewood financially.....(wages not included)

Looking at it in that sort of isolation, then yes. 5,000 extra fans at a few games won't do that much for us. But the importance of matchday revenues can't be overstated.

Arsenal and Manchester United make more than £100 million per year on matchday revenues (tickets and spend within the ground). Liverpool, a club of similar size, make about £40 million. That £60 million is two times Fernando Torres + wages.

Obviously we aren't going to be pulling in all that extra, but we need more fans and (to be honest) we probably need those fans to be spending more money if we want to compete. (Whether we want to compete if it means pricing our fans out like many United, Arsenal etc fans are is another question.)

Even the £2.4 million you mentioned - it might not be enough, but it could be used as £800,000 each per year that might have kept/keep Barry, Milner and, say, Young. Not saying that would be the ideal situation or anything, but you shouldn't dismiss it all as guff or just look at that £2.4m in isolation.

[Adam2003]

On the point of Randy giving MON 'too much' control - I was under the impression that this was generally held up as being a good thing, an old school way of doing things to let the football man deal with everything on the football side of the business and that DOF's just don't work in this country (although not sure why any less likely to work here than in Italy for example)?

No reason it can't work. The reason it often doesn't is that people have a manager then appoint a DOF and it undermines him, or have a DOF and appoint a manager who won't work with one. You just need both sides to be signed up to the idea and have clearly defined roles.

[Rob182]

Excellent post Gaz. Your thoughts echo a lot of mine.

Although I knew when I read it that someone would comment like below:

I also think that anybody who expected the Chairman to sanction the spending of any money since O’Neill’s departure is equally misguided. Any prospective candidate preparing for a meeting with Randy Lerner this week would see an owner interfering in team affairs, signing players on the advice of a man tasked with keeping things “ticking over” while a permanent manager is recruited. Any prospective manager worth his salt would see that and immediately be suspicious of the man running the football club.

If the above is true I would love to know who ten days after Martin O'Neill left the club, and with no manager in place, decided to sell James Milner and buy Stephen Ireland.

Mark, what would you have preferred the club did? Kept Milner at Villa despite his seeming desire to leave?

He then wouldn't sign an extension and we'd be offered a lot less money next year. Maybe we'd keep him again and let him go for free when his contract runs out?

It's not good long-term-planning to allow your players to go for free. If the offer of Stephen Ireland & £15m+ was being offered then Randy would have been mad to turn it down. Irrespective of whether we had a manager or not.

[julzdyer]

The headhunters are Trezona apparently.

Is that confirmed?

If true, I'm impressed. Guy Trezona has a very good reputation and was, I think, involved in the FXPro deal.

www.trezona.com

according to villa_insider on twitter they are, it seems that this person is quite connected to AVFC

#AVFC Nice Guy from Trezona just left the office.

11:39 AM Aug 30th via Echofon

[FoFiveKing]

Good post

[Richard]

A post which basically explains why an appointment is possiby taking some time due to a team of headhunters being employed which we do not know to be the case ot not.

I also agree with those who have issues with the Milner / Ireland swap / deal being conducted in the way outlined.

[bickster]

On the "guff" that Bickster refers, I'm sorry the point about more bums on seats will result in better players is true, in my opinion. Man City or Chelsea we aint I'm afraid. A crowd of less than 30k for Rapid was not very encouraging.

Clearly you need to do the maths about how much people attending a football match actually put towards the purse, you'd be surprised at how little it is. Just think of this... a shortfall of about 5k in attendance (which is usually all we're ever off capacity, and that usually when the likes of Fulham are at VP) with an average spend of £40 equates to £200k, now as that happens on average about (without doing the research) say 12 times a season thats a whole £2.4mil (£2mil net) over a season we're falling short through "poor attendance". Who you going to buy and pay wages for because that £2.4 mil is missing? is poor attendance really preventing us moving forward as suggested? I think not, its guff. It may be well intentioned but its not really the truth of the situation. The attendance shortfall is worth about half a Marlon Harewood financially.....(wages not included)

Looking at it in that sort of isolation, then yes. 5,000 extra fans at a few games won't do that much for us. But the importance of matchday revenues can't be overstated.

Arsenal and Manchester United make more than £100 million per year on matchday revenues (tickets and spend within the ground). Liverpool, a club of similar size, make about £40 million. That £60 million is two times Fernando Torres + wages.

Obviously we aren't going to be pulling in all that extra, but we need more fans and (to be honest) we probably need those fans to be spending more money if we want to compete. (Whether we want to compete if it means pricing our fans out like many United, Arsenal etc fans are is another question.)

Even the £2.4 million you mentioned - it might not be enough, but it could be used as £800,000 each per year that might have kept/keep Barry, Milner and, say, Young. Not saying that would be the ideal situation or anything, but you shouldn't dismiss it all as guff or just look at that £2.4m in isolation.

It was looked in that kind of isolation because that is how the General presented the argument, that if we filled the ground we would get better players as a result, it simply isn't true

[blandy]

Financially it's true, Bicks, I guess. There's maybe some merit in looking at from the board's angle, though.

Maybe they look at like, well if we are not filling the ground then that suggests the potential for growing the supporter base (those that come to games) is less than we had thought/anticipated. Ergo, where we might take a calculated gamble on getting player(s) in for more money or wages in the belief that we can then attract a new level of support to make a genuine difference, it seems that this is less likely and so too much of a risk.

Or in short and blunt - we give you new players and you don't show your appreciation by turning up in greater numbers, so we're gonna stop doing it?

I'm not saying I agree with that viewpoint, or even that it is the definite view of the board, but surely growing the attendance is what is needed to get more revenue, and if you can't grow the revenue, you can't go and spend the extra.

They've worked well on the exec facilities, they've benefitted from TV money going up, but for a number of reasons though gates have gone up (as have prices) the gates are not up as much as they'd want.

[Harry]

Only just got around to reading your article Gazton (apologies for that!) I agree with pretty much everything you say and the underlying message is patience which many who post on VT, including myself on occasion, have not always exercised in what we have said.

Where I would disagree with you or add clarification is that the Board cannot escape some blame for the departure of MON. A senior and critical figure in an organisation leaves at very short notice over a fundamental disagreement. We don't know the precise details but I'd be certain both sides would agree there was one. The Board is responsible for running AVFC (company and club) and they must bear some responsibility for MON's departure. Communication is two way and what is clear is that there was a breakdown of that between the Board and MON.

I was a supporter of MON as our manager but I think he behaved in a poor and almost putulant manner in both the timing and manner of his departure. Having said that though I would have more respect for the Board if they had acknowledged their role rather than sending the General on here to slag MON off (my interpretation for the record).

But I'll give RL my continued as I think he has done wonders for the club and I'm certain he is trying to the best for us now

[AstonMartin82]

Gaz, you are becoming a VillaTalk legend.

[nevillain]

Good read Gaz. Can tell your a bloody student now :winkold:

[c-krulak]

General krulak here:

1. Good post.

2. Harry: I "slagged off" MON??? You mean by saying what I felt...and many others felt? By answering the questions posed on this Board re. "what happened?" Amazing! Because I talked about the fact that no one is bigger than the Club? Me, Randy, etc? Not sure I would call that slagging anyone. I answered a question as honestly as I could...would you rather I 1) not answer, 2) not answer honestly or 3) not tell the truth as I see/know it?

[rjw63]

Tell him to feck off General :-)

[Harry]

General krulak here:

1. Good post.

2. Harry: I "slagged off" MON??? You mean by saying what I felt...and many others felt? By answering the questions posed on this Board re. "what happened?" Amazing! Because I talked about the fact that no one is bigger than the Club? Me, Randy, etc? Not sure I would call that slagging anyone. I answered a question as honestly as I could...would you rather I 1) not answer, 2) not answer honestly or 3) not tell the truth as I see/know it?

General perhaps the term 'slagging off' was a little harsh and for that I apologise but as you would surely agree this forum is all about opinions and views and I have expressed mine. I would also draw you attention to the last line of my post which is a huge vote of confidence in RL.

The fact is MON has gone from hero to zero in many fans, eyes including my own, but my point was that the Board must also bear a responsibility, in my opinion, for MON's departure. I suggested in my post that there had been a breakdown in communication. I would amplify that further by comparing RL's interview on the official site on 13th May (I think) with the statement made by the club immediately post 9th August. Clearly something fundamental happened in that three month period

Perhaps I should be posting this on your question thread but here goes anyway. General:

"Do you think the Board of Aston Villa bear some responsibility for the manner and timing of Martin O"Neill's departure?"

PS: Mods - I have now posted this as a question on the General's thread.

[TRO]

top post and exceedingly apt.