what started the rot?

[VillaAndLoyal]

"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." - TRO

(sorry guys, it won't let me quote on this computer/browser)

That is simply not right at all TRO. Every football club, bankrolled by its owner and investors, has to live within its means. I guess one of the problems when Lerner came in and started splashing vast amounts of money about is we didn't really know how wealthy he was or what his long-term strategy was. It was new, it was exciting, and most people were drawn in by it. I can admit that.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with the players bought not being good enough. As I've said before, our first team under Martin O'Neill was actually a good one and one that achieved a moderate amount of success on the pitch in both the league and cups.

The money/accounts became an issue from the very start when Lerner decided to get rid of the football people at this club and instead bring in a former credit card manager and other non-football people (Krulak) to the Board. There was never any long-term strategy - and the funds HE let O'Neill spend were totally unsustainable. They would have still been unsustainable even if we'd have finished in the Champions League places when we had the chance.

To shift that wage to income ratio to a sustainable amount would have taken years of sustained progress on the pitch (regular Champions League qualification & progress in the competition) as well as far better expansion off the pitch. It was never realistic and it was never the move of a responsible businessman with a plan.

Whether you thought the players bought were largely not good enough is completely besides the point. The maths didn't stack up, and wouldn't have even if we'd have reached the Champions League for one season, and this is down to Randolph Lerner.

The biggest gripe anyone can have with Martin O'Neill is the timing he left the club, which was questionable at best, but that is a separate argument. You cannot blame him for being the manager at a club which decided to just chuck and waste money in the hope we would somehow permanently break the 'top four'. It was naive, it was foolish, and it was a decision made by wealthy men who have never run a football club before.

I don't think I can put it any clearer.

[briny_ear]

but he did. O'Neill had no long term planning or structure when he was manager, he had a "safe" job but never seemed like he cared about our future(except Delph signing which has been a terrible transfer) with expensive quick fix signings.

Genuine questions - were Ashley Young and James Milner "quick fix" signings? And was all the work he put in to help Barry and Agbonlahor to develop their

skills showing no regard for the future?

[TRO]

Even if we had come 4th one season we would only have been guaranteed a couple of CL qualifying games and even if we had got past those and had a few Group games we wouldn't have generated enough income to sustain the level of wages that Lerner had committed the club to.

It's not really to do with the quality of the players we bought - that is partly a matter of opinion anyway (there are still people on here claiming players like Young and Milner wren't high quality). It's to do with wages.

If we had bought Messi, Ronaldo, Rooney and Van Persie, we would have had a world-beating team but Lerner wouldn't have been able to afford them.

Its everything to do with the quality of players that we bought and what they did for us or in our case didn't do.

better players would have lead to increased gates, possibly euro football, cup runs, increased merchadising, higher league position, increased player value.... the list is endless

Transfer market performance is a highly critical element in the overall performance of a football club.

[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." - TRO

(sorry guys, it won't let me quote on this computer/browser)

That is simply not right at all TRO. Every football club, bankrolled by its owner and investors, has to live within its means. I guess one of the problems when Lerner came in and started splashing vast amounts of money about is we didn't really know how wealthy he was or what his long-term strategy was. It was new, it was exciting, and most people were drawn in by it. I can admit that.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with the players bought not being good enough. As I've said before, our first team under Martin O'Neill was actually a good one and one that achieved a moderate amount of success on the pitch in both the league and cups.

The money/accounts became an issue from the very start when Lerner decided to get rid of the football people at this club and instead bring in a former credit card manager and other non-football people (Krulak) to the Board. There was never any long-term strategy - and the funds HE let O'Neill spend were totally unsustainable. They would have still been unsustainable even if we'd have finished in the Champions League places when we had the chance.

To shift that wage to income ratio to a sustainable amount would have taken years of sustained progress on the pitch (regular Champions League qualification & progress in the competition) as well as far better expansion off the pitch. It was never realistic and it was never the move of a responsible businessman with a plan.

Whether you thought the players bought were largely not good enough is completely besides the point. The maths didn't stack up, and wouldn't have even if we'd have reached the Champions League for one season, and this is down to Randolph Lerner.

The biggest gripe anyone can have with Martin O'Neill is the timing he left the club, which was questionable at best, but that is a separate argument. You cannot blame him for being the manager at a club which decided to just chuck and waste money in the hope we would somehow permanently break the 'top four'. It was naive, it was foolish, and it was a decision made by wealthy men who have never run a football club before.

I don't think I can put it any clearer.

you make your point very clear and I will agree to disagree with you.

you make it sound like Randy wasted the money.... I say Randy thought he was getting quality and in the main he didn't.

"You say the biggest gripe anyone can have with Martin O'Neill is the way he left the club".... I couldn't disagree with you more.

There are plenty of things that I could say about Martin O'Neill that was nothing special... His transfer market activity in the main was poor, his 6-6-6 record compared with now was fantastic but in the light of spending c 120 mill was debatable, compared to Little/Gregory & Atkinson who's players IMO had better ball skills and didn't rely on smash & grab football to get results.my other gripe was our home record was nothing special and he was instrumental in getting Richard Fitzgerald gone.He wasn't exactly popular with staff at B6 so I'm not the only one who doesn't subscribe to his messiah status.For me the man was a myth....and its only whats followed that makes him look anything like respectable.

Edited January 18, 2013 by TRO

[briny_ear]

you make your point very clear and I will agree to disagree with you.

you make it sound like Randy wasted the money.... I say Randy thought he was getting quality and in the main he didn't.

"You say the biggest gripe anyone can have with Martin O'Neill is the way he left the club".... I couldn't disagree with you more.

There are plenty of things that I could say about Martin O'Neill that was nothing special... His transfer market activity in the main was poor, his 6-6-6 record compared with now was fantastic but in the light of spending c 120 mill was debatable, compared to Little/Gregory & Atkinson who's players IMO had better ball skills and didn't rely on smash & grab football to get results.my other gripe was our home record was nothing special and he was instrumental in getting Richard Fitzgerald gone.He wasn't exactly popular with staff at B6 so I'm not the only one who doesn't subscribe to his messiah status.For me the man was a myth....and its only whats followed that makes him look anything like respectable.

TRO, we all know you think MON was rubbish - doesn't really need repeating.

But you haven't addressed the excellent points VillaaAndLoyal makes about the financial unsustainability of Lerner's early investment, which would have been the case how ever wonderful a manager we had and however many brilliant players he bought.

[VillaAndLoyal]

Thanks briny_ear. I'm trying to keep this as sensible as possible but TRO you just seem to be sidestepping the points I make, which are now established facts, and instead blurting on about one manager. Every single manager signs crap players and wastes money, just ask Man United fans. It is your subjective opinion that M'ON did it more than most but his role in this is certainly not the reason everything went pear shaped.

I don't think anyone on this board thinks O'Neill is a messiah, I personally think he was an above average manager and nothing more. He had many faults.

But your sentence here: "you make it sound like Randy wasted the money.... I say Randy thought he was getting quality and in the main he didn't." says it all. Randy DID waste the money because 1.) He had no sustainable plan to start with which meant disastrous/ridiculous amounts were paid in terms of transfer fees and wages and 2.) ultimately the money wasted was largely down to the fact there was no proper management structure in place whereby there were football people overseeing the finances and transfer situation.

Of course Lerner & Co would rubber-stamp a player like Sidwell on say 50k a week because they don't have the football knowledge to say "hang on, he's not worth that much" and similarly Martin O'Neill is a football manager who simply wanted the players he wanted, he can't be blamed for the wages which were eventually agreed. If football men had been kept and installed from the start THIS type of situation, the situation which has all but destroyed us now, would never have happened or it would have been far better managed with less consequences.

If you can't see this then I officially give up.

[markavfc40]

Have to say VillaAndLoyal has made some cracking posts in here. Shame he seems to be banging his head against a brick wall with some

[VillaAndLoyal]

Thanks Mark!

[TrentVilla]

Only because wages went above 100% of turnover the same year we recorded a loss of £34m. The bubble burst. It was an unsustainable transfer policy that the club have slowly began to rectify.

The wages never reached that level, that is simple not true.

[TRO]

TRO, we all know you think MON was rubbish - doesn't really need repeating.

But you haven't addressed the excellent points VillaaAndLoyal makes about the financial unsustainability of Lerner's early investment, which would have been the case how ever wonderful a manager we had and however many brilliant players he bought.

Briny, It appears on this site my arguement is in the minority, but that does not influence my opinion.

I have been in the company of many Villa Fans that share my view of O'Neill and they in the main agree with me.

I have never said O'Neill was rubbish, that is a frustrated exclamation from you because i don't share your opinion of his overall, due to you valuing his finer points much better than me. I believe he has some poor traits which in your comments about him fail to mention.

I am fully aware of the Investment /sustainability that is cited as Randy's error of judgement. It would also be folly to think that Randy is in any way perfect, But maybe equally folly to cite The Cleveland Browns as any kind of Barometer to judge him by. I Personally know nothing of the Cleveland Browns, but would suspect there is enough criteria to judge to sink the Queen Mary.

I am personally miffed by the way he fails to communicate with us and also not impressed with his appointment of Paul Falkner as CEO. I personally thought RF was of a higher profile.

Its not a case of me coming on here and defending every element of RL's management structure, its just a case of where I see the main problem.

In a football club i prefer to look at the pitch, rather than the books.There are plenty of people on here that could wrap me up in circles in terms of the accounts,but judging by the way football has conducted itself in general focus on accounts /Financial management has never been its best subject...particulary when it comes to the reckless pusuit of inflated player values.

I could write chapter after chapter, but I accept that if my point is not accepted, then I will write no more on the subject and concede to the majority disagree with my point.That is not my accepting thier view, just not pusuing mine.

just allow me, before I go to reiterate

I believe our main problems stems buying duff players and I see that as the respective managers fault.... If you disagree with that.....happy days.

Ps Don't see Levy getting castigated for the bad managers he has hired

Edited January 19, 2013 by TRO

[TRO]

TRO, we all know you think MON was rubbish - doesn't really need repeating.

But you haven't addressed the excellent points VillaaAndLoyal makes about the financial unsustainability of Lerner's early investment, which would have been the case how ever wonderful a manager we had and however many brilliant players he bought.

Briny, you really are a charmer.

First of all VillaandLoyal will make excellent points in your opinion because it fits your brief.

as for the point that Randy failed to reign in Martin O'Neills spending....Sorry I think that is a bit rich.

as we sit here now, its probably a fair point.

During the period when O'Neill was flying after buying Young etc and most of us thought we had another Cloughie on our hands.... moulds were being arranged for his statue lol. ( just joking)

It would have taken a pair of conkers to have said NO,NO,NO more spending that player is too much.

You would have had seen c 2 years less of O'Neill and natives outside ( as HDE called us) calling for Randy's head. There would have unpredented protests of leave the manager alone, let him get on with it.

Hindsight is an exact science.

[TRO]

Have to say VillaAndLoyal has made some cracking posts in here. Shame he seems to be banging his head against a brick wall with some

Mark, its well documented, when the subject of O'Neills transfer record is raised and in the main thats what we are all referring too, (with a sqwigen of players for the other two) we ain't going to agree.

If somebody is telling me that the quality/value of players bought had no bearing on the unsustainability of wages to income.... I find that very hard to accept and at the time the fans would have found it hard too.

If the expected revenue generated from the "better quality players we were expecting was proved to be false as some claim.... we could still have recovered the fee's by selling... but in reality we could not get our money back because the player was not of quality/value we thought we had bought ( manager fault)

Edited January 19, 2013 by TRO

[markavfc40]

Mark, its well documented, when the subject of O'Neills transfer record is raised and in the main thats what we are all referring too, (with a sqwigen of players for the other two) we ain't going to agree.

Maybe not. My view on O'Neills transfers is this.He signed some very good players, some bad players and many in between. Much like most managers.

Milner, Ash, Downing, Petrov, Carew, Freidel, Guzan would all fall into the very good category. Davies, Beye, Sidwell, Shorey, Warnock, Reo Coker and to a lesser extent for me Heskey would all fall into the bad.

Many often mention the likes of Knight, Harewood, Dunne, Colllins, Cueller in with the bad but I don't see it. Knight we bought in, he did OK and we made a slight profit on. Harewood we paid what 3-4 mill for and he helped take us forward a little and was then sold. Dunne, Collins and Cueller for what was around 18 mill combined did very well under O'Neill and I think had he stayed they would have continued to do so.

What hasn't helped with many of O'Neills signings is that they have been allowed to leave for **** all. Had Cuellar and Reo Coker had a couple of years on their contracts when they left then they would have bought in a couple of mill a piece.

You can drill right down and scrutinise the attributes of each individual signing and we will all have differing opinions on those but really the bottom line for me in all this has always been this. When Lerner/O'Neill arrived we had just finished 16th and had been going backwards for some time. Over the next 4 years we had a net spend of around 75 mill ( much less in you include the sale of Milner ). For that we had 11th, 6th, 6th and 6th place finishes. During those three 6th places finishes we had the 8th, 6th and 6th highest wage bill. Given what we spent and who we were competing against what we achieved was just about right. We didn't over achieve during O'Neill's time and we certainly didn't under achieve. The fact that the managers that followed could not get the performances out of some of O'Neill signings that he did should not be used as a stick to beat him with.

For Lerners part he would have to answer why the club couldn't get income up to a level to sustain having the 6th highest wage bill whilst finishing 6th and why he allowed wages to get to a level in the first place that we couldn't sustain.

From pretty much the day O'Neill walked out I have said we would be playing a very dangerous game blaming a guy that can no longer do **** all about things at this club. I find it frightening that almost 3 years after he left some still lay much of the blame at his door for why the club are struggling now. Its simply not true. Of the signings he made come the end of the season when Warnock, Dunne and Petrov are out of contract, aside from Delph all his signings will have moved on. I think it really is time some of our fans also finally moved on from the O'Neill era.

Edited January 19, 2013 by markavfc40

[TRO]

Maybe not. My view on O'Neills transfers is this.He signed some very good players, some bad players and many in between. Much like most managers.

Milner, Ash, Downing, Petrov, Carew, Freidel, Guzan would all fall into the very good category. Davies, Beye, Sidwell, Shorey, Warnock, Reo Coker and to a lesser extent for me Heskey would all fall into the bad.

Many often mention the likes of Knight, Harewood, Dunne, Colllins, Cueller in with the bad but I don't see it. Knight we bought in, he did OK and we made a slight profit on. Harewood we paid what 3-4 mill for and he helped take us forward a little and was then sold. Dunne, Collins and Cueller for what was around 18 mill combined did very well under O'Neill and I think had he stayed they would have continued to do so.

What hasn't helped with many of O'Neills signings is that they have been allowed to leave for **** all. Had Cuellar and Reo Coker had a couple of years on their contracts when they left then they would have bought in a couple of mill a piece.

You can drill right down and scrutinise the attributes of each individual signing and we will all have differing opinions on those but really the bottom line for me in all this has always been this. When Lerner/O'Neill arrived we had just finished 16th and had been going backwards for some time. Over the next 4 years we had a net spend of around 75 mill ( much less in you include the sale of Milner ). For that we had 11th, 6th, 6th and 6th place finishes. During those three 6th places finishes we had the 8th, 6th and 6th highest wage bill. Given what we spent and who we were competing against what we achieved was just about right. We didn't over achieve during O'Neill's time and we certainly didn't under achieve. The fact that the managers that followed could not get the performances out of some of O'Neill signings that he did should not be used as a stick to beat him with.

For Lerners part he would have to answer why the club couldn't get income up to a level to sustain having the 6th highest wage bill whilst finishing 6th and why he allowed wages to get to a level in the first place that we couldn't sustain.

From pretty much the day O'Neill walked out I have said we would be playing a very dangerous game blaming a guy that can no longer do **** all about things at this club. I find it frightening that almost 3 years after he left some still lay much of the blame at his door for why the club are struggling now. Its simply not true. Of the signings he made come the end of the season when Warnock, Dunne and Petrov are out of contract, aside from Delph all his signings will have moved on. I think it really is time some of our fans also finally moved on from the O'Neill era.

I do agree with your Last Line we do need to move on but it ain't so easy to move on from the state that we were left in , just like it hasn't been so easy for Leeds to move on after O'Leary.

I know My comments are not going to change your opinion and I'm not trying too. Things that register with me are mainly the point I've raised his Transfer record....The other thing that registers with me is as soon as he went the team dipped in performance, Kevin Mcdonald worked closely with him, but failed miserably at Newcastle almost a wet day after he left, his model was unsustainable in contrast to Ron Saunders model that continued for 12 months as he predicted.

To be honest, blame is taking us no where.... you are right we need to move on and do better.

but just remember he had four years, the other 2 who, well was a mitigating disaster did only have 12 months.

Edited January 19, 2013 by TRO