what started the rot?

[Woodytom]

Which is why, in my opinion at least, we have to stick with Lambert as , in my opinion, he is trying to build something which safeguards against those Lerner **** ups and is not a short term fix, in my opinion!

Yeah my main concern should we be relegated (after the obvious) would be that we could sack Lambert. Now, Im a bit undecided with Lambert. Im less than pleased obviously with results but I dont believe he is anywhere near this bad. My main issue with sacking him would be who we would get and what plan they would bring. Chances are - that wouldnt be succesful either.

Continuity is a MUST!

[VillaAndLoyal]

MikeMcKenna - I actually shouted 'yes' at the end of your fantastic post! Finally, finally, someone else has said what I've thought and said on here all along.

This 'mess' didn't start at a particular point during Lerner's reign. It started when he first stepped foot inside this club - a man of (fair - for a football owner) wealth who won us over with a quick influx of cash, because he wasn't Deadly Doug, because he seemed to embrace our history and because, initially at least, things started to go right on the pitch.

But, as Mike so brilliantly put, the short-term success on the pitch was just blinding most of us from the complete shambles unfolding off it. Lerner is not a football man, neither is former credit-card manager Mr Faulkner and never during his reign have we had football men making or helping to make the important decisions. And now it has shown to have catastrophic consequences.

None of us will probably ever know Lerner's thinking or 'plan' when he first came here but only a fool would think that chucking bucket loads of money into achieving a Champions League finish in a particular season was a good way to go. Even if we had have reached that fourth spot under O'Neill, would we be in a different position now? It's very, very unlikely. Just ask Everton, who managed to 'break' the top four one season and has it made a jot of difference to them? No, only finishing consistently in the Champions League places would ever achieve the financial reward that comes with it and help break that elite group so Lerner's approach was never, ever going to work.

Yes, O'Neill spent ridiculous money on transfer fees and wages but who signed off the deals? To suggest O'Neill had sole control of the finances is ludicrous. His spending, under Lerner's & Co's guidance, was unsustainable and totally out of control. Our wage bill was higher than that of Spurs despite them having a far bigger and better squad. It was only ever going to end this way and when people talk about "what stage during Lerner's tenure did it go wrong" all I can do is laugh because it was those first two seasons that proved the most disastrous, not when Martin walked out, or Houllier came in etc.

The events which have proceeded the events under O'Neill have equally been a disaster, with managerial appointments ranging from the peculiar (Houllier) to the downright illogical (McLeish) and high prices splashed out in panic when things seem to be slipping away (£20 million+ for Darren Bent).

You can have the best manager in the world but every football club should have a proper management structure in place and a clear, strategic, and realistic long-term goal. Therefore it's so ironic that the American owner who preached to the fans his slogan of 'Proud History, Bright Future' has actually never had a proper plan from the outset, and failed to appoint, or keep, the football men which could have guided him. What is this bright future we were all promised Randolph and how did you actually plan to get there? Going by everything he's done thus far, it's not hard to believe that this is a man who inherited most of his wealth and simply wanted a new plaything to focus on after things at Cleveland Browns also turned sour.

I'm delighted other people can also see this as, still, so many Villa fans seem to think this is still somehow the fault of Martin O'Neill or Alex McLeish. In fact, anyone, bar the main 'silent' culprit who has turned this club into an absolute mess.

The day our fans turn en mass against the owner will not come a day too soon for me although I do fear it will come a day too late, sadly.

[TRO]

MikeMcKenna - I actually shouted 'yes' at the end of your fantastic post! Finally, finally, someone else has said what I've thought and said on here all along.

This 'mess' didn't start at a particular point during Lerner's reign. It started when he first stepped foot inside this club - a man of (fair - for a football owner) wealth who won us over with a quick influx of cash, because he wasn't Deadly Doug, because he seemed to embrace our history and because, initially at least, things started to go right on the pitch.

But, as Mike so brilliantly put, the short-term success on the pitch was just blinding most of us from the complete shambles unfolding off it. Lerner is not a football man, neither is former credit-card manager Mr Faulkner and never during his reign have we had football men making or helping to make the important decisions. And now it has shown to have catastrophic consequences.

None of us will probably ever know Lerner's thinking or 'plan' when he first came here but only a fool would think that chucking bucket loads of money into achieving a Champions League finish in a particular season was a good way to go. Even if we had have reached that fourth spot under O'Neill, would we be in a different position now? It's very, very unlikely. Just ask Everton, who managed to 'break' the top four one season and has it made a jot of difference to them? No, only finishing consistently in the Champions League places would ever achieve the financial reward that comes with it and help break that elite group so Lerner's approach was never, ever going to work.

Yes, O'Neill spent ridiculous money on transfer fees and wages but who signed off the deals? To suggest O'Neill had sole control of the finances is ludicrous. His spending, under Lerner's & Co's guidance, was unsustainable and totally out of control. Our wage bill was higher than that of Spurs despite them having a far bigger and better squad. It was only ever going to end this way and when people talk about "what stage during Lerner's tenure did it go wrong" all I can do is laugh because it was those first two seasons that proved the most disastrous, not when Martin walked out, or Houllier came in etc.

The events which have proceeded the events under O'Neill have equally been a disaster, with managerial appointments ranging from the peculiar (Houllier) to the downright illogical (McLeish) and high prices splashed out in panic when things seem to be slipping away (£20 million+ for Darren Bent).

You can have the best manager in the world but every football club should have a proper management structure in place and a clear, strategic, and realistic long-term goal. Therefore it's so ironic that the American owner who preached to the fans his slogan of 'Proud History, Bright Future' has actually never had a proper plan from the outset, and failed to appoint, or keep, the football men which could have guided him. What is this bright future we were all promised Randolph and how did you actually plan to get there? Going by everything he's done thus far, it's not hard to believe that this is a man who inherited most of his wealth and simply wanted a new plaything to focus on after things at Cleveland Browns also turned sour.

I'm delighted other people can also see this as, still, so many Villa fans seem to think this is still somehow the fault of Martin O'Neill or Alex McLeish. In fact, anyone, bar the main 'silent' culprit who has turned this club into an absolute mess.

The day our fans turn en mass against the owner will not come a day too soon for me although I do fear it will come a day too late, sadly.

Don't see Bill Kenwright as the perfect Leader of financial stability and structure.

No David Moyes and his staff are the Main Reason that Everton make a decent fist of things on modest funds every season.

Brian Cloughs chairmen at Derby & Forest were ridiculed by him didn't stop him making the right signings

Was Ron Bendall a king midas of Ceo's.... no it was Ron Saunders/Barton/McLaren that got us succeess despite the Chairmen of the day.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.....however he has his faults undoubtedly, but not those that have sent this club in to a downward spiral....too many signings that have resulted in failure has done that.

[TRO]

MikeMcKenna - I actually shouted 'yes' at the end of your fantastic post! Finally, finally, someone else has said what I've thought and said on here all along.

This 'mess' didn't start at a particular point during Lerner's reign. It started when he first stepped foot inside this club - a man of (fair - for a football owner) wealth who won us over with a quick influx of cash, because he wasn't Deadly Doug, because he seemed to embrace our history and because, initially at least, things started to go right on the pitch.

But, as Mike so brilliantly put, the short-term success on the pitch was just blinding most of us from the complete shambles unfolding off it. Lerner is not a football man, neither is former credit-card manager Mr Faulkner and never during his reign have we had football men making or helping to make the important decisions. And now it has shown to have catastrophic consequences.

None of us will probably ever know Lerner's thinking or 'plan' when he first came here but only a fool would think that chucking bucket loads of money into achieving a Champions League finish in a particular season was a good way to go. Even if we had have reached that fourth spot under O'Neill, would we be in a different position now? It's very, very unlikely. Just ask Everton, who managed to 'break' the top four one season and has it made a jot of difference to them? No, only finishing consistently in the Champions League places would ever achieve the financial reward that comes with it and help break that elite group so Lerner's approach was never, ever going to work.

Yes, O'Neill spent ridiculous money on transfer fees and wages but who signed off the deals? To suggest O'Neill had sole control of the finances is ludicrous. His spending, under Lerner's & Co's guidance, was unsustainable and totally out of control. Our wage bill was higher than that of Spurs despite them having a far bigger and better squad. It was only ever going to end this way and when people talk about "what stage during Lerner's tenure did it go wrong" all I can do is laugh because it was those first two seasons that proved the most disastrous, not when Martin walked out, or Houllier came in etc.

The events which have proceeded the events under O'Neill have equally been a disaster, with managerial appointments ranging from the peculiar (Houllier) to the downright illogical (McLeish) and high prices splashed out in panic when things seem to be slipping away (£20 million+ for Darren Bent).

You can have the best manager in the world but every football club should have a proper management structure in place and a clear, strategic, and realistic long-term goal. Therefore it's so ironic that the American owner who preached to the fans his slogan of 'Proud History, Bright Future' has actually never had a proper plan from the outset, and failed to appoint, or keep, the football men which could have guided him. What is this bright future we were all promised Randolph and how did you actually plan to get there? Going by everything he's done thus far, it's not hard to believe that this is a man who inherited most of his wealth and simply wanted a new plaything to focus on after things at Cleveland Browns also turned sour.

I'm delighted other people can also see this as, still, so many Villa fans seem to think this is still somehow the fault of Martin O'Neill or Alex McLeish. In fact, anyone, bar the main 'silent' culprit who has turned this club into an absolute mess.

The day our fans turn en mass against the owner will not come a day too soon for me although I do fear it will come a day too late, sadly.

Yes, O'Neill spent ridiculous money on transfer fees and wages but who signed off the deals? To suggest O'Neill had sole control of the finances is ludicrous.

I think you are missing the point.

The only reason the transfer fee's or wages for that matter became an issue is because the return of quality from the respective players was missing. Its money v value or lack of it.

In short he bought too many players that we got little from.... and subsequent managers carried that on.

He bought c 5 or 6 out of about 40 players that was worth writing home about that is what has contributed to our demise. had the ratio been reversed things may have been different.The next managers were playing catch up and made an even worst fist of it.

Here we are

Too many years of consistently poor transfer business will eventually send you down.

It happened to Wolves and it happened to Man city under swailes

Yes, O'Neill spent ridiculous money on transfer fees and wages but who signed off the deals? To suggest O'Neill had sole control of the finances is ludicrous.

I think you are missing the point.

The only reason the transfer fee's or wages for that matter became an issue is because the return of quality from the respective players was missing. Its money v value or lack of it.

In short he bought too many players that we got little from.... and subsequent managers carried that on.

He bought c 5 or 6 out of about 40 players that was worth writing home about that is what has contributed to our demise. had the ratio been reversed things may have been different.The next managers were playing catch up and made an even worst fist of it.

Here we are

Too many years of consistently poor transfer business will eventually send you down.

It happened to Wolves and it happened to Man city under swailes

[VillaAndLoyal]

Nobody mentioned the word 'perfect' but you tell me what Lerner's plan is? As he's gone from chucking stupid sums of money on, largely, dross to cutting right back - yet - still occasionally splashing out big if we get in trouble (Bent). This is not a decisive strategy, this is clearly a man who is acting as he goes along and one which does not understand the workings of football.

You mentioned Kenwright but he has stuck to a cautious financial strategy and also stuck by a manager despite some tricky periods. That has created stability which Everton have largely benefited from. Now compare that to Lerner - everything Lerner has done, bar the training ground improvements, have created more instability within this football club.

How can you seriously say that none of Lerner's faults (and there are plenty) have resulted in the current downward spiral? What nonsense and the evidence suggests otherwise.

Martin O'Neill was given lots of money and with some of that he spent wisely which made us a stronger team on the pitch, but he also spent it much of it on utter dross and if Lerner had some football men on board within the management structure we'd have never sanctioned the crazy wages we did for players who were not even bought for the first-team. That is a failure on Lerner's part. If the safeguards are not in place, as a manager you will naturally pay as much as it takes to get that player to the club. I'm not saying it is right, and O'Neill was of course partly to blame, but the stem of the problem again comes from the owner who is meant to be overseeing the fortunes of this club. Would Daniel Levy have sanctioned O'Neill's requests? He'd have been told to whistle in the wind.

[TRO]

Nobody mentioned the word 'perfect' but you tell me what Lerner's plan is? As he's gone from chucking stupid sums of money on, largely, dross to cutting right back - yet - still occasionally splashing out big if we get in trouble (Bent). This is not a decisive strategy, this is clearly a man who is acting as he goes along and one which does not understand the workings of football.

You mentioned Kenwright but he has stuck to a cautious financial strategy and also stuck by a manager despite some tricky periods. That has created stability which Everton have largely benefited from. Now compare that to Lerner - everything Lerner has done, bar the training ground improvements, have created more instability within this football club.

How can you seriously say that none of Lerner's faults (and there are plenty) have resulted in the current downward spiral? What nonsense and the evidence suggests otherwise.

Martin O'Neill was given lots of money and with some of that he spent wisely which made us a stronger team on the pitch, but he also spent it much of it on utter dross and if Lerner had some football men on board within the management structure we'd have never sanctioned the crazy wages we did for players who were not even bought for the first-team. That is a failure on Lerner's part. If the safeguards are not in place, as a manager you will naturally pay as much as it takes to get that player to the club. I'm not saying it is right, and O'Neill was of course partly to blame, but the stem of the problem again comes from the owner who is meant to be overseeing the fortunes of this club. Would Daniel Levy have sanctioned O'Neill's requests? He'd have been told to whistle in the wind.

what you are suggesting is tantamount to interference.

Fans had been adamant over the years under HDE's reign of just that....you can't have your cake and eat it.

I'm not saying Lerner is blameless, but to a fault he let O'Neill get on with it, anything else at the time he would have been labelled as interferring..... eventually he had too.The rest is history.

I just don't buy the theory that anything other than poor transfer business or lack of players improvement at the training ground is the subject of our current demise.

Many mistakes and problems have manifested themselves that have limited impact on our current position.

I am convinced poor transfer business is our downfall.

[TRO]

what you are suggesting is tantamount to interference.

Fans had been adamant over the years under HDE's reign of just that....you can't have your cake and eat it.

I'm not saying Lerner is blameless, but to a fault he let O'Neill get on with it, anything else at the time he would have been labelled as interferring..... eventually he had too.The rest is history.

I just don't buy the theory that anything other than poor transfer business or lack of players improvement at the training ground is the subject of our current demise.

Many mistakes and problems have manifested themselves that have limited impact on our current position.

I am convinced poor transfer business is our downfall.

PS The problem was Martin O'Neill thought he was Brian Clough.....The rest were just worse.

[AvfcRigo82]

Yes, O'Neill spent ridiculous money on transfer fees and wages but who signed off the deals? To suggest O'Neill had sole control of the finances is ludicrous.

I think you are missing the point.

The only reason the transfer fee's or wages for that matter became an issue is because the return of quality from the respective players was missing. Its money v value or lack of it.

In short he bought too many players that we got little from.... and subsequent managers carried that on.

He bought c 5 or 6 out of about 40 players that was worth writing home about that is what has contributed to our demise. had the ratio been reversed things may have been different.The next managers were playing catch up and made an even worst fist of it.

Here we are

Too many years of consistently poor transfer business will eventually send you down.

It happened to Wolves and it happened to Man city under swailes

I don't see how he is missing the point though TRO as much as there was ridiculous amounts of money spent on players that were either not worth the fee's or the wages we paid them and the little reutn we got out of them I agree, but had there been an 'experienced' football body higher up in the club to assess these deals and valuations etc. would have proberly prevented this but as Mike explains no one connected to the game was any in higher position at Villa after the manager. Very dangerous consequences if not handled properly!

Fantastic post VillaAndLoyal very much agree with that.

.

Edited January 15, 2013 by AvfcRigo82

[AvfcRigo82]

I posted this in the Randy or Doug thread but proberly better suited here.

I would say around 65-70m and I am sure all of the land around Villa park that came with the purchase aswell?

Now correct me if I am wrong anyone as these figures are from brief memory.. He upgraded the training facilitys at a rough cost of 14m. Rebuilt the Holte Hotel at a rough cost of 4m. The mosiac display on the holte end another 1m, then all the other little bits and pieces like refurbishing the holte end entrance pub etc, trinity road suites, huge cinema screens outside the ground, and the other bumflufferies here and there. All in all an investment of another 25m added to his purchase price of the club. But all in all about 100m let's say he has sunk in on buying and revamping the place.

That's before a player is purchased! I am sure I have read that Randy Lerner has spent well over 200m in 7 years on players (add that to wages and I bet that figure turns to nearly 500m!)

All in all roughly 600m in 7 years!..

I don't think doug could ever match that figure in a 7 year period to be fair!

but 600m and what is there to show for it? ok a nice venue definately but only a Carling cup final appearance and currently 18th in the league and looking like getting worse unless more money is pumped in to save this huge investment.

Now I am no Alan Sugar but if I had ploughed 600m into a business I am going to make sure that if the times get tough I don't **** it all up by ignoring the problem and refusing to fix it.

If Randy was to ever think about selling up he is not going to let an investment this huge go to **** and wipe off any current valuation by dropping down a league and also missing out on a huge windfall of new money deals the following year!

If he is failing to see this than I suggest he sits up and takes notice of PL list of recruits and invests another 20/30m if it is certain to rescue us.

That is an expensive investment and from an outsiders point of view its like he purchased a car and paid shitloads on adding modifications etc. only for your friend to come round (paul faulkner) to have a spin in it but rag the shit out of it and cause you to carry out numerous expensive repairs time and time again of which the mechanics he took it too cost shitloads of money to put right but never actually did the job properly either. Now yes paul faulkner is a clearing in the woods for doing it, but Randy is more of a dick for letting him do it in the first place!

Doug Ellis was a prick and always will be in my view. But I dont think Randy has actually thought about this whole owning a Premier League club being all that is was cracked up to be either hence the new direction this club is now operating on.

.

[VillaAndLoyal]

Thanks AvfcRigo82.

No, what I'm suggesting is not interference TRO, it's basic football management structure. Interference would be someone telling O'Neill that player A is crap, or that he should go for player B.

But if O'Neill wraps up talks with a squad player like Sidwell, for example, and then asks for the board to approve his wage demands of say 50k a week, then the club could and should have turned round and said to him: "Look you can have the player, but not on those wage demands."

That is not interfering - that is the basic, simple, logical way to run your finances. But no-one ever told O'Neill 'no' - they can't have - judging by the absolutely farcical fees and wages paid for players.

There was no plan from the start - and THAT'S why we're now paying for it - you can't blame it on the manager as every single manager in the world signs crap players for inflated fees. The problem is we seemingly had no safeguards in place, because of the lack of the knowledge on the Villa board, and we placed far too great a trust on one average manager, which eventually royally **** us over. Again, that's not O'Neill's fault, he was given money and he spent it.

By the time Lerner realised what a royal ****-up it was, he panicked, and rained in spending far too quickly which affected us on the pitch. Then a succession of bad (I'm being kind) managerial choices has just inflamed this situation, leading to the steep decline we've seen, but have no doubt that the mess started AT THE START.

[OhioVilla]

When we decided to sell Milner.

[MikeMcKenna]

what you are suggesting is tantamount to interference.

Fans had been adamant over the years under HDE's reign of just that....you can't have your cake and eat it.

I'm not saying Lerner is blameless, but to a fault he let O'Neill get on with it, anything else at the time he would have been labelled as interferring..... eventually he had too.The rest is history.

I just don't buy the theory that anything other than poor transfer business or lack of players improvement at the training ground is the subject of our current demise.

Many mistakes and problems have manifested themselves that have limited impact on our current position.

I am convinced poor transfer business is our downfall.

Surely business planning & having financial controls in place is good business practice & not "interfering" ?

That "to a fault he let O'Neill get on with it," means Lerner was ultimately responsible for allowing MON to gamble with his millions - showing how Lerner is a terrible gambler himself.

If in my business I gave my managers no guidelines on spending, salaries etc and they subsequently gambled recklessly it is ULTIMATELY my fault and loss.

O'Neill and subsequent managers spend on transfers and salaries was sanctioned by Lerner. I accept that Lerner would not have been able to determine whether said spend was effective but people in 2007/8 were strongly advising him that there needed to be budgets and limits. He ignored them, "took the gamble" and by the time he realised they were right in May 2010 it was too late. Despite this he then gambled again allowed Houllier to do much the same as MON had. Then he "gambled" again by appointing a manager who had just relegated our closest & despised rivals! Everybody but seemingly Lerner (&Faulkner) knew it was another massive and even crazy gamble.

Lerner has undoubtedly displayed some of the traits of an addicted gambler, albeit a very wealthy one; Impulsive behaviour, ignoring the voices of experience & reason; "he knew better", possibly "feeling lucky", then chasing his losses and even down to his introverted personality.

Had he been professional gambler or listened to the "voices of reason & experience" he would have learnt about probabilities and odds, adhered to solid money management rules. Avoided unnecessary risks or gambles (i.e. allowing MON Carte Blanche on salaries!) Known when the odds were in his favour or against (i.e. signing Habib Beye on £50k p/wk (?), appointing Alex McLeish!). He would have known that rolling the dice again in January 2010 when we were riding high could have resulted in the massive pay off of CL qualification, but that refusing the bet would almost certainly mean failure. But he bottled it and has been sitting on massive losses ever since!

Edit: To add to my gambling analogy; of the little we know about Lerner, before he joined his father as a director of MBNA in 1993 he ran his own investment company for 2 years which specialised in "arbitrage" i.e.

"the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices."

In other words a form of Hedge Fund which can be very high risk if you do not do the odds. Get it right and you can make a fortune! Get it wrong and visa versa - RL's only known personal business venture lasted from 1991-1993 - surprise, surprise! or as they say in the USA "Go figure"

Edited January 15, 2013 by MikeMcKenna

[Big_John_10]

The only reason the transfer fee's or wages for that matter became an issue is because the return of quality from the respective players was missing. Its money v value or lack of it.

No it wasn't.

The issue was the total amount of our wage bill in relation to the money coming in.

[VillaCas]

not to mention the fact that if villa wanted an ashley young type player from a watford sort of team now...he'd cost you 10 million just to beat off the competition.

From memory Young cost us £10m five years ago?

[VillaCas]

When Lerner suddenly moved the goalposts on MON & he & Krulak quit.. that was the start & the firesale has been going on ever since.

I thought Krulak was still a director?

[VillaCas]

Blimey - I had forgotten all about Mr Krulak. Blood pressure rising, rising......

"Under Alex we have a squad good enough to finish 4th 5th this season" General "I know nothing about football" Krulak

[kevangrealish]

From memory Young cost us £10m five years ago?

9 million

[PussEKatt]

No it wasn't.

The issue was the total amount of our wage bill in relation to the money coming in.

Living this far away we are a bit out of touch with things like wages etc but MON got us to 6th place 3 times in a row ?!

Surely we must have got more money from the football league not to mention the extra games in europe and our extended cup runs.I am sure we could have built on that,it seems to me that since MON left all we are doing is cutting our spending too much and trying hard to qualify for the championship.

[TRO]

I'm sorry guys as eloquently you put your cases i simply disagree.

The money/accounts only became an issue AFTER we found out the players was not good enough.

Had the players been good enough it is arguable that the wages/fee's would have been raised at all.

Once it was established we bought in the main shite..... we then had to sell our best players to balance the books.

sorry, that just how I see it.

Ps Bye the way, I'm not saying that Lerner or Faulkner know anything about Football, but those that do ( Managers) should know better.

Edited January 17, 2013 by TRO

[Big_John_10]

I'm sorry guys as eloquently you put your cases i simply disagree.

The money/accounts only became an issue AFTER we found out the players was not good enough.

Had the players been good enough it is arguable that the wages/fee's would have been raised at all.

Once it was established we bought in the main shite..... we then had to sell our best players to balance the books.

sorry, that just how I see it.

Ps Bye the way, I'm not saying that Lerner or Faulkner know anything about Football, but those that do ( Managers) should know better.

I don't know how you can see it that way.

The wages were too high in relation to our income. Wasn't it something like 85%?

Now that percentage was deemed unsustainable, it doesn't become sustainable because the quality of the players is better.

It doesn't work like that.