Straight choice - Ellis or Lerner?

[HackneyVillain]

Lerner.

He's by no means perfect but I still have faith he cares about the club and the fans even though the appointment of McLeish is beyond bizarre.

He needs to ditch his advisors.

[Houlston]

[

Exactly, we've had 3 good seasons an average one and now a poor one under Lerner I imagine that ratio is very different under Doug.

Are you classing 2010/11 as an average season? I personally don't think being in and around the relegation zone for 5 months is an average season for Aston Villa.

Yes Mark I am because we finished 9th regardless of what it masks or what happened, or what your or my opinion is we finished 9th and thats what the history books will show. No one is going to critique every one of Ellis's seasons as you have with this one.

[KHV]

Lerner.

He's by no means perfect but I still have faith he cares about the club and the fans even though the appointment of McLeish is beyond bizarre.

He needs to ditch his advisors.

lerner is getting worse by the week. i don't ever remember Doug ordering a manager to go and get tips from from an NFL coach

[UpTheVilla26]

Ellis for 2 reasons.

1. He'd have never hired this joker

and

2. If for some reason he had, he'd have sacked him by now

[HackneyVillain]

Lerner.

He's by no means perfect but I still have faith he cares about the club and the fans even though the appointment of McLeish is beyond bizarre.

He needs to ditch his advisors.

lerner is getting worse by the week. i don't ever remember Doug ordering a manager to go and get tips from from an NFL coach

Its already been pointed out on that thread but I think most teams could learn a lot from the NFL. The coach has a lot more experience than McLeish of managing top sportsmen so I don't personally see this as a bad thing, more an easy target for those wishing to have a pop.

[KHV]

Ellis for 2 reasons.

1. He'd have never hired this joker

and

2. If for some reason he had, he'd have sacked him by now

Could not agree anymore

[Bazdavies79]

Whatever the problems with Randy's time, and there are several, Ellis did worse. To pick Ellis as preferable is (to me) utterly staggering for anyone old enough to remember the 80s in particular. Short memories and all that.

I remember the 80s, and the relgation time was shit, undoubtedly, as were your other equally valid points. However, when I look back at finishing second with the football especially under Atkinson, the football was an absolute joy to watch, and most of the late 80 and early to mid 90s were great. I haven't enjoyed one season of O'Neill's nearly as much as Taylor (first time), Atkinson, Little and even a fair bit of Gregory's time.

And that for me is the important thing, enjoyment of watching football, otherwise what's the point? All of my favourite moments of watching Villa came under Ellis I'm afraid. Eg finishing second twice, the two league cup wins, the Tranmere semi final, beating Everton 6-2, the Dalian Atkinson goal, signing Saunders and smashing Liverpool, beating Inter etc etc.

Well there you go, there is a lesson there. Patience. Things can change.

I'v waited 6 years for things to be anywhere near as good as they were under Atkinson and Little. The only changes that seem to be happening are for the worse.

You missed the point. Things got worse under Ellis initially, we were relegated within the first 5 years.

[Richard]

I think the current voting is

Lerner = 31 75.6%

Ellis = 10 24.4%

[blandy]

Whatever the problems with Randy's time, and there are several, Ellis did worse. To pick Ellis as preferable is (to me) utterly staggering for anyone old enough to remember the 80s in particular. Short memories and all that.

I remember the 80s, and the relgation time was shit, undoubtedly, as were your other equally valid points. However, when I look back at finishing second with the football especially under Atkinson, the football was an absolute joy to watch, and most of the late 80 and early to mid 90s were great. I haven't enjoyed one season of O'Neill's nearly as much as Taylor (first time), Atkinson, Little and even a fair bit of Gregory's time.

And that for me is the important thing, enjoyment of watching football, otherwise what's the point? All of my favourite moments of watching Villa came under Ellis I'm afraid. Eg finishing second twice, the two league cup wins, the Tranmere semi final, beating Everton 6-2, the Dalian Atkinson goal, signing Saunders and smashing Liverpool, beating Inter etc etc.

I guess what that shows is we're judging by different criteria, us two, Martin. I obviously can't argue against you if you say "my favourite time was when..." as it's a personal feeling. I just personally don't judge a chairman on my happiness or enjoyment, but even if I did, I enjoyed certainly the 3 years of MO'N as much as almost any other season I can remember (one season of BFR, one of GT and one of BL apart).

So even based on how much I enjoyed the games, more than half of Randy's time has been (for me) highly enjoyable, and I've been rpud of the Club and the team and the manager (and the chairman). Under Ellis it was something like 1 in 4 seasons, over a much longer time and I was never "proud" of Ellis.

But I don't judge a chairman on how attractive the football is.

Taking highs and lows into account, for me with Ellis, the bad outweighs the good and vice versa for Randy.

I accept Randy has been spectacularly poor in managerial choices, as was Ellis with Graham Turner and Billy McNeill his first two as chairman (and their football was dire). Ellis got less bad at it over time, and appointed a few good uns in GT, BFR, BL, JG before reverting to type again. Whether Randy is able to improve, only time will tell.

[UpTheVilla26]

Ellis was shrewd. I am reading a book at the moment about corruption in Football and Ellis is feature within.

He so easily could have done a 'Leeds'. I think that's what O'Leary expected, hence it never worked.

However, Ellis was not afraid to fall on his own sword. He took a massive risk on Gregory, which for a while was a fantastic appointment (until the Collymore & Yorke incidents) but was not afraid to 'act' for the good of the club.

Yes, he was a bit tight-fisted and appointing Taylor the second time around was a fiasco (though I still have nothing but admiration & respect for Taylor after what he did here before) but Ellis kept the club going at a time where other clubs chased the 'elusive' dream of titles & Champions League and ultimately paid a huge price.

Oh and I do believe the door of the trophy cabinet has not been opened since Ellis left VP. (Don't give me 'we won the Peace Cup').

[Risso]

Pete, I think you'd have to argue that even David O'Leary was considered a good manager at the time he was appointed. Certainly I remember he was most people's choice to take over when he did, just as O'Neill was when Lerner first arrived.

[CI]

I was gutted when DOL took over

It felt wrong from the word go

[steve-67]

Randy is the better owner, Doug has bigger balls. Neither are/were perect. The next couple of years will define Lerner as an owner of this football club. Doud Ellis ws a tyrant and I will never forgive him for breaking up the team which won the European Cup and Super Cup. Shocking appointment of Graham Turner, even worse than appointing McLeish.

[KHV]

Whatever the problems with Randy's time, and there are several, Ellis did worse. To pick Ellis as preferable is (to me) utterly staggering for anyone old enough to remember the 80s in particular. Short memories and all that.

I remember the 80s, and the relgation time was shit, undoubtedly, as were your other equally valid points. However, when I look back at finishing second with the football especially under Atkinson, the football was an absolute joy to watch, and most of the late 80 and early to mid 90s were great. I haven't enjoyed one season of O'Neill's nearly as much as Taylor (first time), Atkinson, Little and even a fair bit of Gregory's time.

And that for me is the important thing, enjoyment of watching football, otherwise what's the point? All of my favourite moments of watching Villa came under Ellis I'm afraid. Eg finishing second twice, the two league cup wins, the Tranmere semi final, beating Everton 6-2, the Dalian Atkinson goal, signing Saunders and smashing Liverpool, beating Inter etc etc.

I guess what that shows is we're judging by different criteria, us two, Martin. I obviously can't argue against you if you say "my favourite time was when..." as it's a personal feeling. I just personally don't judge a chairman on my happiness or enjoyment, but even if I did, I enjoyed certainly the 3 years of MO'N as much as almost any other season I can remember (one season of BFR, one of GT and one of BL apart).

So even based on how much I enjoyed the games, more than half of Randy's time has been (for me) highly enjoyable, and I've been rpud of the Club and the team and the manager (and the chairman). Under Ellis it was something like 1 in 4 seasons, over a much longer time and I was never "proud" of Ellis.

But I don't judge a chairman on how attractive the football is.

Taking highs and lows into account, for me with Ellis, the bad outweighs the good and vice versa for Randy.

I accept Randy has been spectacularly poor in managerial choices, as was Ellis with Graham Turner and Billy McNeill his first two as chairman (and their football was dire). Ellis got less bad at it over time, and appointed a few good uns in GT, BFR, BL, JG before reverting to type again. Whether Randy is able to improve, only time will tell.

DOL wasn't a bad appointment at the time he had Leeds in the top 5 every year and a CL semi final. Ellis also appointed MON which at the time was also a good appointment

[Big_John_10]

Agreed Risso, DOL was still quite highly rated when we appointed him. It just went wrong the more time and money we gave him.

[Ulver]

Ellis,

I have seen better times under Ellis. I saw a promotion, 2 league runners up spots, UEFA cup 1/4 final, 2 league cup wins, FA cup final, FA cup semi final. Better signings on the whole, better football on the whole, better managers as Lerner has so far appointed Houllier and McLeish.

Sadly, that was a zillion years ago in football terms. Back then football was a more even playing field. You could argue that by being stingy, we missed the chance to be where the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal etc are now due to bad management by Doug if anything

He never wanted to go that extra yard

[blandy]

Pete, I think you'd have to argue that even David O'Leary was considered a good manager at the time he was appointed. Certainly I remember he was most people's choice to take over when he did, just as O'Neill was when Lerner first arrived.

Probably true, though not by everyone. I also think it's fair to say that people's views changed and he wasn't considered a good one by the time he left. I think we're possibly better off judging managers by their records than how people thought of them just before they started in the job. - I think for example that you felt him to be (with justification) a "pug nosed numpty" after about 6 months (it took me a bit longer to reach the same conclusion, but anyway.. )

I hugely like and admire GT and always will, but his second appointment was not all anyone would have hoped, apart from Ellis who used GT as a shield.

[UpTheVilla26]

Ellis,

I have seen better times under Ellis. I saw a promotion, 2 league runners up spots, UEFA cup 1/4 final, 2 league cup wins, FA cup final, FA cup semi final. Better signings on the whole, better football on the whole, better managers as Lerner has so far appointed Houllier and McLeish.

Sadly, that was a zillion years ago in football terms. Back then football was a more even playing field. You could argue that by being stingy, we missed the chance to be where the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal etc are now due to bad management by Doug if anything

He never wanted to go that extra yard

Same could be said for Lerner though because his resources don't match Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool & Spurs.

So, in theory, unless we get taken over by some cash-laden middle-easterners then we will be rocking along in the same boat as we have been for last 20 years. 'Underachieving'.

I was confident under Doug he'd at least 'try' to rectify a poor situation.

Lerner has actively created a dire situation but won't loose face and try to sort it.

[DeepDish]

Lerner. But I am losing my faith in him rapidly. I think the bizarre manager hunt, where he first wanted Martinez, then wanted McLeish, show that he is clueless. How the hell can you go for two such different managers? It shows a complete lack of strategy and plan for the club.

[Risso]

Pete, I think you'd have to argue that even David O'Leary was considered a good manager at the time he was appointed. Certainly I remember he was most people's choice to take over when he did, just as O'Neill was when Lerner first arrived.

Probably true, though not by everyone. I also think it's fair to say that people's views changed and he wasn't considered a good one by the time he left. I think we're possibly better off judging managers by their records than how people thought of them just before they started in the job. - I think for example that you felt him to be (with justification) a "pug nosed numpty" after about 6 months (it took me a bit longer to reach the same conclusion, but anyway.. )

I hugely like and admire GT and always will, but his second appointment was not all anyone would have hoped, apart from Ellis who used GT as a shield.

Indeed Pete, O'Leary was everything you say, and worse, but in terms of "ambition" he was considered a decent manager at the time, so if we're judging Ellis at the time he appointed him, then I think it's fair to say it was a decent, ambitious appointment. If we judge him on O'Leary's overall tenure then it was obviously a bad appointment. Compare that to Alex McLeish though, which was so patently a bad decision at the time, and is proving to be every bit as bad as people predicted.

The point of this thread wasn't to rewrite Ellis's history, much of which was quite bad, but to state that in my opinion, he was a better football chairman/owner than Lerner, who didn't have the benefit of inheriting a billion quid from his dad.