Qwpzxjor1 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Does anyone else think Lerner and co have played a blinder to tighten purse strings for several seasons? Prior to O'Neill leaving, we were getting ideas which, above our station or not, demanded some serious investment. Top 6 finish was the minimum and we wanted to push for Top 4. O'Neill left because he was told he didn't have any more money to spend, shit hit the fan, and at the same time the top of the table rocketed away from us. Man City started polishing off their squad which ultimately won the title, Spurs joined the party at the top and Liverpool hired back their hero to install some passion (yes, it didn't work, but this is 2011 and we don't know that yet). Suddenly, the fans are wanting Carlo Ancelotti. "Shit", says Lerner and Faulkner in unison, we're going to have to pay him alot of money and he'll want a complete squad overhaul. This'll cost us tens of millions... and even then we won't be able to compete. So they hatch a plan. A plan to set them back financially for a season or two, but will keep the fans on their side and keep buying season tickets for the prolonged future. They hire a manager the fans will hate. When his heart forces him to go, they're forced to pick again - but the perfect chance comes along. Birmingham City, newly relegated, with a manager who plays tedious football - surely the fans would hate that! So they get him in. He dishes up a bland, boring, negative style of football, results go the only way they were ever going to, and the fans turn on him (the ones that were ever with him to start with). Fans show their anger and stop coming to games, but Lerner and Faulkner knew this would happen. Season ends - close call, we nearly went down, that wasn't part of the plan! but we survived it! We're a few million out of pocket, with less TV money and a lower league position for prize money - but this was all in the business plan. Out the manager goes. There is a a cloud lifted over Villa Park and the calls for new managers come in. August 2010 : "We need Ancelotti! He can get us top 4 with the right investment." "We really need to show our ambition and go for Mourinho or Slaven Bilić." May 2012 : "I like Paul Lambert. He's done brilliantly there with no money to spend" "We have some great youngsters who can do well under the right manager" "Martinez has spent hardly anything at Wigan and plays great football". Fans renew season tickets as new hope is back to the club. The majority of fans know that top 4 is obviously beyond us, at least for the near future. We just want stability, entertainment, and enjoyable days back at Villa Park. We know there's not a huge amount of money to spend, and we know Lerner has to make some cut backs, we don't mind, we just want to start enjoying our football again. A little bit of investment is obviously good, but we don't need anything major, we just need to get the top players we have playing to their potential, one or two shrewd signgs, and make the most of the excellent youth system we've developed over the years. There is a phrase. 'It's always darkest before the dawn.' Perhaps they needed to create that darkness to make the dawn more obvious, and keep the fans spending their money. Yeah, I know - this is all completely bulls**t. But someone set me a challenge of trying to add reasoning to the latest 2 managerial appointments, and this is the best I've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 They are money men. they don't care what the fans want. It's quite simple , they lost money in the recession and Lerner starting tightening the purses here and most likely in all his businesses. Their 'settling for mediocrity plan' almost backfired though, when we almost got relegated which would have lost a fortune. Some time soon, somebody new will buy this club, when Lerner can make his investment back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 As with all conspiracy theories, this involves a lot of confirmation bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 There is no reasoning. Both appointments he's made have been complete opposites in terms of style and both have ended in disaster. If Lerner was clever enough to conjure up such a plan and get it to work then Cleveland Browns wouldn't be a mirror image **** up of AVFC. Basically the bloke isn't a very good sports owner so he lurches from disaster to disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 It's the greatest business ploy since 'new coke'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmythomas Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I blame the illuminati!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 It's much worse than you think. I suspect the board were trying their best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2012 Does anyone else think Lerner and co have played a blinder to tighten purse strings for several seasons? No, or at least I don't. Apart from all the compensation, they've lost gate money, 7 million quid this season in TV money, probably corporate income and so on has also fallen. It's been a mess, not a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Nato Summit AND the G-8 meeting this month.....it does make you wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 That conspiracy was too risky and cannot believe they'd do that. Even more stupid than employing McLeish in the first pjace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 15, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 15, 2012 Nice to see this thread is correctly labelled. Maybe the word "mental" at the start would have been even more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Lerner has his own financial problems, when he pulled the plug on Champions League he switched to a policy of maintain the club in the Premiership and get my money back out of it. It's simple, he needs the club to be self sufficient and when it is it can continue to repay him all the loans he put in to try get Champion League when he first arrived. He most certainly isn't going to do what Abramovich did and write off money he put in by converting it to "shares". Lerner will get every penny back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 You've got your time scales a bit wrong there. The calls for Ancelotti were in 2011, not 2010. When MON resigned Ancelotti was still with Chelsea and had just won the title with them so obviously no one was calling for him. Also, I think the appointment of Houllier was a good one as we did and still do need big changes, it just didn't really work out in the end. God knows why McLeish was hired though. I don't think we'll ever find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I wish people would desist with this 'pulled the plug' on the Champions League Dream etc.... MON was given an awful lot of money and he wasted it - this is why we're in this situation now. The worst mistake Lerner made was allowing MON hand out these ridiculous wagesl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 That is the most erronious part of the whole MON is to blame myth. Lerner supplied the money, not MON. Martin spent it to try get success on the pitch, we got moderate success and not the Champions League we required. Lerner is responsible for supplying the money and pursuing the gamble to achieve Champions League. Made worse by the fact every penny spent was only money loaned to the club by himself. He intended to be repayed it once the club reach the promised land fo Champions League. Martin O'Neill was just the manager, he is only responsible for football matters. NOT, read the word NOT responsible for running the finances of the club. Like any manager he'll covet players and be frustrated if a deal falls through due to finances. But that is a fact of life for a manager. He is not responsible for the mess the club is in. Randy Lerner and his mis management of club finances is. He loaned all the money to the club in a gamble to get Champions League, it failed and now we suffer the consequences of that. Made worse by the fact we need to repay him for hos own fail gamble. Sickening. the only small golden lining is he isn't a bank wanting their bigger interest payments and set timeline for repayment. Lerner will get his money back when he can. All you need to do is looks at Harry and Levy at Spurs, Harry wants to spend money and get players, Levy needs to run the club sensibly. That's how it works, Harry takes the blame for football matters, Levy for financial matters. That are their respective jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I wish people would desist with this 'pulled the plug' on the Champions League Dream etc.... MON was given an awful lot of money and he wasted it - this is why we're in this situation now. The worst mistake Lerner made was allowing MON hand out these ridiculous wagesl Just sums up the catalyst of the problem for me ....and Mcleish just made it ten time worse. lets face it ....If the majority of O'Neills signings had of turned out fine...Randy would have been stuffing money in his pocket to buy more , not deny him any further funds. O'Neill started the rot for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 That is the most erronious part of the whole MON is to blame myth. Lerner supplied the money, not MON. Martin spent it to try get success on the pitch, we got moderate success and not the Champions League we required. Lerner is responsible for supplying the money and pursuing the gamble to achieve Champions League. Made worse by the fact every penny spent was only money loaned to the club by himself. He intended to be repayed it once the club reach the promised land fo Champions League. Martin O'Neill was just the manager, he is only responsible for football matters. NOT, read the word NOT responsible for running the finances of the club. Like any manager he'll covet players and be frustrated if a deal falls through due to finances. But that is a fact of life for a manager. He is not responsible for the mess the club is in. Randy Lerner and his mis management of club finances is. He loaned all the money to the club in a gamble to get Champions League, it failed and now we suffer the consequences of that. Made worse by the fact we need to repay him for hos own fail gamble. Sickening. the only small golden lining is he isn't a bank wanting their bigger interest payments and set timeline for repayment. Lerner will get his money back when he can. All you need to do is looks at Harry and Levy at Spurs, Harry wants to spend money and get players, Levy needs to run the club sensibly. That's how it works, Harry takes the blame for football matters, Levy for financial matters. That are their respective jobs. I totally disagree with your assessment. The owner did the very thing that fans had asked for from the previous incumbent HDE ....Freedom to trade. He did all the things we had been asking for years no interference from the Chairman ...He got it. Its the managers responsibility to build value in to this signings and make them effective for the team....In these circumstances money is usually forth coming where the owner/chairman builds confidence and faith in the managers purchases ( a little bit like Venger has done and our own Ron Saunders before) Lerner lost faith in Martins ability to trade... Both in terms of inflated wages and lack of quality in the recruit, However had the majority of players turned out to be good( like Harry) the wages and fee's wouldn't have been an issue.....its simply one or the other. you can dissect it, mulch it or turn it upside down..... bottom line was too many shit signings....thats where we are. The only thing you can blame Lerner for was giving him a free reign AFTER the obvious was established. Had Martins signings turned out like the recent Newcastle adventure.....Randy would have been a saint for letting Martin get on with it. you just can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TezzRexx Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I do think that McLeish was a scapegoat, and that his appointment was always to be a short one. The wage limits needed reseting, but the only way to take all the blame for a poor season away from the board for lack of investment, was to appoint a poor manager that would accept lowering wages, and appear to have a decent squad, but do poorly with them. I think the only problem was that relegation came a little too close for comfort, and I think the decision to remove McLeish was taken on the Sunday before the Stoke game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I do think that McLeish was a scapegoat, and that his appointment was always to be a short one. The wage limits needed reseting, but the only way to take all the blame for a poor season away from the board for lack of investment, was to appoint a poor manager that would accept lowering wages, and appear to have a decent squad, but do poorly with them. I think the only problem was that relegation came a little too close for comfort, and I think the decision to remove McLeish was taken on the Sunday before the Stoke game. To be honest, I don't see the current squad as good as some make out. In fact, when it comes to majority of seniors, it's ratshit. One could make the hypothetical argument that the core players we have are so bad that if we didn't have as defensive minded a manager as McLeish we would have lost many of the games we drew and got relegated. Now we're all glad that this horrible experiment is over, but it's only Part 1. Part 2 is getting rid of the detritus that MON accumulated to play his awful brand of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TezzRexx Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I do think that McLeish was a scapegoat, and that his appointment was always to be a short one. The wage limits needed reseting, but the only way to take all the blame for a poor season away from the board for lack of investment, was to appoint a poor manager that would accept lowering wages, and appear to have a decent squad, but do poorly with them. I think the only problem was that relegation came a little too close for comfort, and I think the decision to remove McLeish was taken on the Sunday before the Stoke game. To be honest, I don't see the current squad as good as some make out. In fact, when it comes to majority of seniors, it's ratshit. One could make the hypothetical argument that the core players we have are so bad that if we didn't have as defensive minded a manager as McLeish we would have lost many of the games we drew and got relegated. Now we're all glad that this horrible experiment is over, but it's only Part 1. Part 2 is getting rid of the detritus that MON accumulated to play his awful brand of football. The worst part is that rather than taking 1 season to transition, we've been through 2 and will go through a 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts