NIVillan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 One other small matter, didn't HDE own SHA for a period of time too ? Or did I just dream that up I think he was on the Board at SHA not the owner during the sixties and when Villa was being re-financed by Pat Mathews he saw a chance to play a bigger part in a football club and hence establish his ego. I have no doubt he wanted the best for Villa but didnt have the knowledge or the guts to go for it at times. Several times built a good platform to build upon but would take that extra gamble to push us into the top 5 teams. His fingers were badly burned the one time he thought he was doing it when he bought Stanley Collymore. I would say that 90% of us also saw that as a sign of our intention to gate crash the top 3 (We had just finished 4th I think). Ellis problem was that he would recognise when the club was in bad shape (pre 2002) and panic into rebuilding a team BUT he didnt seem to believe in continuing. Ellis was also revolution of teams rather than evolution. I still like Lerner but I think he badly needs to update his management staff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ellis v Lerner They both want(ed) to run the club with as minimal expenditure as possible to just survive They both keep the fans in the dark, try and use PR to the maximum but still pay lip service to the fan base They both lack the clout to have the club competing for top honours They both have made some spectacularly bad managerial appointments They both took a fee out of the club, although Lerners is larger by some distance Differences are, Lerner has yet to make a decent managerial appointment and despite wanting the club to be sustainable has saddled us with debt and huge losses (due in some part to his lack of ability to compete). Lerner has not one clue about football (the game), he also has made a terrible decision with Faulkner where at least Ellis got Steve Stride. Looking for someone better than Ellis you would want someone with better nous about the game and better placed to compete financially. Lerner has less nous than Doug, and so that leaves the money side of which he cannot compete either. So for me , he is proving to be the same or less than Ellis. At least Ellis goes to the games and was looking very pissed off on Sunday at the result. I doubt Lerner cares as much about the results as Ellis still does. But then Doug doesn't have a tattoo does he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I thought MON was a good appointment, still do. As good as any Ellis made bar perhaps BFR. For anyone who prefers Ellis, remember his first five years were terrible, so perhaps a little patience is needed. There will be ups and downs such is the nature of football, this club isn't unique in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ellis would never have allowed us to become the laughing stock we are now. no offence but... Check the history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Pains me to say (maybe just because of current situation). Ellis with the ORIGINAL Lerner money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 I thought MON was a good appointment, still do. As good as any Ellis made bar perhaps BFR. For anyone who prefers Ellis, remember his first five years were terrible, so perhaps a little patience is needed. There will be ups and downs such is the nature of football, this club isn't unique in that respect. O'Neill was Ellis's recommendation. Of course he started work under Lerner, but he wasn't Lerner's choice as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 It took Ellis 5 years to tear up a EC winning side to get us relegated. If you're going to say that, then you should also say he took a newly promoted team to second place within two years. Yes, he did. Under completely different circumstances, wouldn't you say? Would you ever say that would be even possible today, no matter if we had Ellis, Lerner or a rich arab to do that these days? And, it was a few years into his reign too. If we go down this season and don't come back at once I'd probably say you were right and I was wrong. As it is, I don't share your opinion on this matter. Would you share mine if don't go down this season and start to rise again, more steadily? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I thought MON was a good appointment, still do. As good as any Ellis made bar perhaps BFR. Appointed by Ellis. The reasons for MON coming are subject to conjecture. What is not is that he became manager while Doug was the major shareholder, before Lerner bought the club. MON was also clear on this in his interview he gave upon being appointed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 16, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2012 One enormous thing Ellis had to his advantage was that for the darkest period(s) of his tenure there was no internet and as such no microscopic analysis of everything he did wrong and no foaming at the mouth disgruntled keyboard warriors to contend with. It's safe to say that if the fans had the same opportunities to discuss him then as they do today, then there would have been a huge amount more pressure put on him than there was. From the bit of his reign that was exposed to the internet, he got enough stick. So as well as the financial landscape, that's another landscape that has changed beyond all recognition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 16, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2012 I thought MON was a good appointment, still do. As good as any Ellis made bar perhaps BFR. Appointed by Ellis. The reasons for MON coming are subject to conjecture. What is not is that he became manager while Doug was the major shareholder, before Lerner bought the club. MON was also clear on this in his interview he gave upon being appointedThis is one of those instances where everyone knows the reality of it, but lip-service gets paid to the chronology of it because it might suit an argument. MON was Lerner's man. He took over because he knew we were getting new owners with deep pockets. Everyone knew it at the time too. To dismiss that as having somehow not happened is disingenuous. The press conference quotes, much like the subsequent position of president emeritus, were to keep Ellis' respect and dignity within the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Who appointed Martin Oneill as manager of Aston Villa Brian? FACT is it was Doug Ellis. If it was Randy Lerner then my post would have been different and I would have said two thirds of his managerial appointments have been crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 16, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2012 Martin O'Neill agreed to manage Aston Villa because Randy was taking over imminently. Ellis got to parade the new man almost as a parting gift. We wouldn't have had O'Neill as manager if Ellis was not selling. We both know the reality of it, uppercase or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ellis v Lerner They both want(ed) to run the club with as minimal expenditure as possible to just survive They both keep the fans in the dark, try and use PR to the maximum but still pay lip service to the fan base They both lack the clout to have the club competing for top honours They both have made some spectacularly bad managerial appointments They both took a fee out of the club, although Lerners is larger by some distance Ellis had over 30 years in which to judge him, but Lerner has had less than six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I think MON joined villa because he knew Lerner was taking over. However we don't know if he was recommended by Doug. Given the last 2 appointments I don't think it's far fetched to think someone different advised him MON was the right man. I remember reading that Lerner wanted klinsmann initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 There is no way that someone who is about to buy a company for £60m would not have any input in to who was going to be the person that is responsible for arguably the most important position of that company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Martin O'Neill agreed to manage Aston Villa because Randy was taking over imminently. Ellis got to parade the new man almost as a parting gift. We wouldn't have had O'Neill as manager if Ellis was not selling. We both know the reality of it, uppercase or not.As I said the reasons for Oneill coming are subject to conjecture. The reality is Ellis appointed him and Lerner did not. However much people read into the appointment that is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ellis v Lerner They both want(ed) to run the club with as minimal expenditure as possible to just survive They both keep the fans in the dark, try and use PR to the maximum but still pay lip service to the fan base They both lack the clout to have the club competing for top honours They both have made some spectacularly bad managerial appointments They both took a fee out of the club, although Lerners is larger by some distance Ellis had over 30 years in which to judge him, but Lerner has had less than six.People did not wait for 30 years of Ellis to start saying he was rubbish though, they were saying it soon after he rejoined us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 There is no way that someone who is about to buy a company for £60m would not have any input in to who was going to be the person that is responsible for arguably the most important position of that company. Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you, but we're talking about somebody who after 5 years of experience in the Premier League thought it would be a good idea to appoint Alex McLeish. So who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 On the "Who appointed Oneill" debate: Whilst I have no doubt that it was Lerner's involvement that eventually sealed the deal, if it had been left solely up to him to identify and approach the right man, he would have probably f*****d around for the best part of the summer before appointing Steve Mclaren. Oneill stands as probably our biggest managerial coup (at the time of the appointment) in recent years, and I find it hard to believe that Lerner was responsible for it to any greater extent than waving a wad of cash infront of Martin's face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 16, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2012 There was a groundswell of support for Martin O'Neill from the fans at the same time that the various buyers were vying for Aston Villa. O'Neill was not originally Lerner's man. I think Ray Ranson had earmarked O'Neill as his manager if his bid was successful. The fans didn't want Ranson but they did want O'Neill. Randy saw the support from the fans in having O'Neill as manager (who he doubtless wouldn't have known from Adam, but nevertheless had good advisors) and Randy decided that he too would hire O'Neill. Eventually the sale was done and Ellis was given the go-ahead by the soon-to-be-owner and Ellis got to do what he loved/loves to do. He got to swan out into a press conference like a knight in shining armour having 'hired'(sic) the man everyone wanted. He got to be the hero one last time and MON played the role, knowing full well he wouldn't have to actually work for a single day under Doug's regime. Randy agreed to the signing of Petrov because the window was closing - thanks to Doug's dawdling and posturing. Giving any credence to that charade in some attempt to give Doug any credit in the hiring process is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts