The Randy Lerner thread

[praisedmambo]

I see how you can interpret the Januaries like that. But I always thought they seemed like mad times where very few deals are done, and very few good deals. Many managers come out and say as much. 

 

We got super Sylla anyway. 

 

If other clubs don't want to sell a player for a reasonable price in January, then it's not something I'd blame Lerner for. That's the way I see it. 

[ozvillafan]

 

As we are all aware, MON can be a very charming man

 

That's the excuse for failing to control the finances at the club? The issue was wages to ratio so the owner ignored all the information given to him because the manager was charming?

 

 

Nope. That is just praisedmambo's opinion.

 

According to the article:

 

MON exit 4 days before the start of the season was a major blow to plans.

 

and

 

Paul (Faulkner) referred to the unpredictability of football – MON exit,

 

which suggests it was MON throwing the toys out of the pram rather than Randy or the club being unreasonable.

 

 

There's also no mention of the massive over spending on wages that continued for two years after MON and no mention of the £16 million paid in compensation due to poor managerial appointments.

It was an interesting article and it does sound very positive for the future, although it seems to be a slow process.

 

Indeed it doesn't. Though I'm not sure what they could say about that - perhaps "sorry"? Not sure how that helps us right now, though.

 

Interestingly, they did say this:

 

The club are looking to build success from continuity like ManU/Arsenal model. They are looking to try and build in continuity that can be maintained even if the manager changes, an ethos that runs through.

 

which suggests they have learned from their past mistakes. As you said, it does paint a nicer picture for the future

 

 

My only issue though is how much I buy into the idea Lerner actually will at some point invest in a sensible manner to try and be more successful.

His actions during last January and the January before speak volumes as to his long term view of this club. I can't believe that an owner with a long term plan for success was happy to risk it all by not backing his manager when we desperately needed it. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

According to the article:

 

Lambert has had £43 million to spend over the last 2 seasons and it is up to him how he spends it.

 

Now questioning the lack of spend in January is very subjective. If you are a "glass half-empty" type of person you could see it as "not backing the manager" or "lacking concern for the club's status".

 

But what sort of club would give their manager a budget and tell them "you can only use 50% now and the rest in January"? Or what sort of budget do you have if it gets thrown out every January for more purchases?

 

I prefer the opposite approach. That is, having been set a budget and the freedom to spend it, the club backed their manager's decisions in the expectation we would not be relegated. If that was the case, then they have been proven correct.

[Big_John_10]

According to the article:

MON exit 4 days before the start of the season was a major blow to plans.

and

Paul (Faulkner) referred to the unpredictability of football – MON exit,

which suggests it was MON throwing the toys out of the pram rather than Randy or the club being unreasonable.

This has nothing to do with the fact Lerner allowed wages to spiral out of control and it's not the opinion of praisedmambo it's the opinion of the guy who wrote the article. Also they settled out of court and paid him a lot of money for throwing his toys out the pram.

Indeed it doesn't. Though I'm not sure what they could say about that - perhaps "sorry"? Not sure how that helps us right now, though.

Not expecting the club to say anything about this. I'm curious as to why the guy who wrote the article didn't. My guess is he's very pro Lerner and it doesn't suit that agenda.

Lambert has had £43 million to spend over the last 2 seasons and it is up to him how he spends it.

Now questioning the lack of spend in January is very subjective. If you are a "glass half-empty" type of person you could see it as "not backing the manager" or "lacking concern for the club's status".

But what sort of club would give their manager a budget and tell them "you can only use 50% now and the rest in January"? Or what sort of budget do you have if it gets thrown out every January for more purchases?

I prefer the opposite approach. That is, having been set a budget and the freedom to spend it, the club backed their manager's decisions in the expectation we would not be relegated. If that was the case, then they have been proven correct.

You've conveniently left out the part that admits wages have very much restricted what the manager can do in terms of signing players. And you've ignored the fact it happened the previous January under McLeish as well. I'm not sure there's any positives to take from the fact the owner was happy to gamble or premier league status in order to not spend money. The fact Lambert was only given £10 million to spend in the summer also points to the idea that Lerner is not going to up the level of investment.

[briny_ear]

I thought it was a bit pathetic that they are still trying to blame MON's departure for the disaster that was 2010-2012. No mention of the appointment of two hopeless managers who dragged us down towards the relegation zone and wasted most of the money they had to spend on high wage players whom we are now struggling to offload, let alone paying precious millions in relation to the managerial appointments.

It would be fascinating to hear their account of how Houllier, McLeish and then Lambert formed part of a consistent recruitment strategy. They are lucky to have found Lambert, who at least has a clue how to manage a club on a tighter budget, but they should hang their heads in shame at the damage they have done to the club since MON's botched departure.

I get the impression this meeting was a bit of a cosy chat, so I doubt whether any such points were raised.

[smetrov]

I thought it was a bit pathetic that they are still trying to blame MON's departure for the disaster that was 2010-2012. No mention of the appointment of two hopeless managers who dragged us down towards the relegation zone and wasted most of the money they had to spend on high wage players whom we are now struggling to offload, let alone paying precious millions in relation to the managerial appointments.

It would be fascinating to hear their account of how Houllier, McLeish and then Lambert formed part of a consistent recruitment strategy. They are lucky to have found Lambert, who at least has a clue how to manage a club on a tighter budget, but they should hang their heads in shame at the damage they have done to the club since MON's botched departure.

I get the impression this meeting was a bit of a cosy chat, so I doubt whether any such points were raised.

 

indeed 3 more different managers you would struggle to find. If as seems likley Lambert decides not to stay after his current deal - I shudder to think who these turkeys would come up with next !

[ozvillafan]

 

This has nothing to do with the fact Lerner allowed wages to spiral out of control and it's not the opinion of praisedmambo it's the opinion of the guy who wrote the article. Also they settled out of court and paid him a lot of money for throwing his toys out the pram.

 

 

That's an interesting phrase: "out of control". It suggests there was no way to bring it back in line - which we now know to be false. A less sensational assessment would be that wages were too high.

 

I don't have a definitive answer for you on why - there were none in the article itself - although there are plenty of theories which I am certain you are aware of. What really matters is that wages are no longer high.

 

As for settling out of court - I'm not sure I get your point. You seem to suggest the reason Lerner settled was because he was in the wrong.

 

It has been mooted that they had a rolling 1 year contract with MON. While I know as much as you, it just may be that MON demanded his pay by court order. Why would he do that? Well, why would he walk out of the job 4 days before the season started? Perhaps because he is a bitter, bitter man.

 

Regardless - Villa paid whatever was due without having to go to court. End of story.

 

 

Not expecting the club to say anything about this. I'm curious as to why the guy who wrote the article didn't. My guess is he's very pro Lerner and it doesn't suit that agenda.

 

Or it could just be that it has little to do with where we are heading.

 

 

You've conveniently left out the part that admits wages have very much restricted what the manager can do in terms of signing players.

 

You can't complain about "letting the wage structure get out of control" and then, in the next breath, complain that "wages have very much restricted what the manager can do".

 

Which one do you want?

 

 

And you've ignored the fact it happened the previous January under McLeish as well. I'm not sure there's any positives to take from the fact the owner was happy to gamble or premier league status in order to not spend money.

 

I've ignored nothing.

 

Let me say it again: Lerner backs his manager with a budget. What point is there saying "you can have half now and half in January"? And what is the point of a budget if you break it every January?

 

They backed their manager's judgement to keep us in the top flight within their given budget. And they have been proved correct in their judgement so far.

 

This applies to McLeish as much as Lambert.

 

 

The fact Lambert was only given £10 million to spend in the summer also points to the idea that Lerner is not going to up the level of investment.

 

Why is that? Surely our budget is tied to revenue, not to loans.

 

We will have more players on high wages off the bill by the end of the year. Hopefully we finish higher in the table and have bigger home crowds. Who knows? Maybe even an FA cup run?

 

The possibility for higher revenue is there - we should expect a bigger budget also.

[GENTLEMAN]

I thought it was a bit pathetic that they are still trying to blame MON's departure for the disaster that was 2010-2012. No mention of the appointment of two hopeless managers who dragged us down towards the relegation zone and wasted most of the money they had to spend on high wage players whom we are now struggling to offload, let alone paying precious millions in relation to the managerial appointments. 

It would be fascinating to hear their account of how Houllier, McLeish and then Lambert formed part of a consistent recruitment strategy. They are lucky to have found Lambert, who at least has a clue how to manage a club on a tighter budget, but they should hang their heads in shame at the damage they have done to the club since MON's botched departure.

I get the impression this meeting was a bit of a cosy chat, so I doubt whether any such points were raised. 

 

They have made some mistakes. It is time to move on.

Edited November 14, 2013 by GENTLEMAN

[Big_John_10]

That's an interesting phrase: "out of control". It suggests there was no way to bring it back in line - which we now know to be false. A less sensational assessment would be that wages were too high.

However you want to put it wages reached a level that was not sustainable. I don't think the excuse that O'Neill was a charming man is worth much.

Or it could just be that it has little to do with where we are heading.

And what had O'Neill got to do with where we are heading? Like I said funny how they skip two years.

Let me say it again: Lerner backs his manager with a budget. What point is there saying "you can have half now and half in January"? And what is the point of a budget if you break it every January?

They backed their manager's judgement to keep us in the top flight within their given budget. And they have been proved correct in their judgement so far.

This applies to McLeish as much as Lambert.

Funny I don't remember this attitude under Doug. The bottom line is the club were struggling and in desperate need of reinforcements. I'm all for setting a budget but surely there has to be some flexibility especially when the club is struggling so badly. And if what you say is the case what a disgraceful budget to give to a new manager to basically rebuild a squad.

You can't complain about "letting the wage structure get out of control" and then, in the next breath, complain that "wages have very much restricted what the manager can do".

Which one do you want?

So its either spend at a level that can't be sustained or spend too survive on the cheap. Is there no in between from where we were to where we are?

The possibility for higher revenue is there - we should expect a bigger budget also.

We should and next summer there will be no more excuses left. If Lerner shows there still ambition at this club then I can get behind him again.

[TRO]

John, most of us who are to some extent defending Lerner have already said he is not blameless, but you do not seem to be picking that up... a one man war against him will drive you nuts and you will lose the balance of debate.

Equally, not everything is Martin O'Neills fault or Gerard Houllier and I would guess Alex Mcleish would have feasible argument to defend himself with should anyone be bothered to listen.

its not confined to football for managers to blame the previous incumbent, Political parties lobby that argument well in to their term in office, its always the other ones fault...and yes sometimes it is, seems like Di Canio is playing that card against O'Neill once again ( and the table tennis goes on and their bank managers get happier)...I digress.

Aston Villa have been like the "perfect storm", too many factors converging together to conspire against us, but we must be robust and resilient bounce back and be assertive as opposed to passive moving forward.

I am not privy to Randy Lerners overall stance on it all, 2 managers unsuccessful for various reasons, another like Oliver twist, when have had so much money for poor return wants more, and so on.

I can't remember a Villa manager like O'Neill having so much money and latitude to buy over a 4 year period and when he left the wheels came off almost immediately. Even Ron Saunders left a legacy of substance where the team carried on as if he was still there (for his predicted 12 months)

To say that it was Randy's fault for not controlling him is technically true, but almost smug...rightfully or wrongfully HE TRUSTED HIM AND HIS REPUTATION...Mistake I hear you say, hindsight is an exact science and Randy as everyone knows was naïve to Football. Brian Clough, if he was alive would probably agree with me, it would have been the perfect fit for him...chairman not knowing anything about the value of football players or the wages to pay them" "he won't have to that's my job young man", "that's what he employs me for"

Christ, when I heard he didn't know much about football or transfer business, I was delighted...We just had one dark our days for years interfering with the managers dealings and we are free of all that....Oh No....Its now all his fault, cake and eat it springs to mind john.

Purely in terms of our transfer business under O'Neill, I think we missed a massive opportunity in our history, he bought far more players that did us no good than did us good and lost money on those sales when he too realised it. I can't think of another Aston Villa manager that had that same opportunity to buy well, they all had to endure a stop, start cheque book that only seemed to be open when the natives were restless or it was season ticket time or HDE's stock had plummeted i.e not too popular.

I think a lot of us on here have done this to death, but you still seem to insist it is all Randy's fault, with seeming little emphasis or slant on the man that actually chose the players to over spend on ( I am of course only assuming Randy had no in put in to the names of the players recruited).

[McGregor1888]

 

I thought it was a bit pathetic that they are still trying to blame MON's departure for the disaster that was 2010-2012. No mention of the appointment of two hopeless managers who dragged us down towards the relegation zone and wasted most of the money they had to spend on high wage players whom we are now struggling to offload, let alone paying precious millions in relation to the managerial appointments.

It would be fascinating to hear their account of how Houllier, McLeish and then Lambert formed part of a consistent recruitment strategy. They are lucky to have found Lambert, who at least has a clue how to manage a club on a tighter budget, but they should hang their heads in shame at the damage they have done to the club since MON's botched departure.

I get the impression this meeting was a bit of a cosy chat, so I doubt whether any such points were raised.

 

indeed 3 more different managers you would struggle to find. If as seems likley Lambert decides not to stay after his current deal - I shudder to think who these turkeys would come up with next !

 

What makes you say that?  Interviews I've heard with Lambert suggest he's here for a while yet.

[TRO]

I thought it was a bit pathetic that they are still trying to blame MON's departure for the disaster that was 2010-2012. No mention of the appointment of two hopeless managers who dragged us down towards the relegation zone and wasted most of the money they had to spend on high wage players whom we are now struggling to offload, let alone paying precious millions in relation to the managerial appointments.

It would be fascinating to hear their account of how Houllier, McLeish and then Lambert formed part of a consistent recruitment strategy. They are lucky to have found Lambert, who at least has a clue how to manage a club on a tighter budget, but they should hang their heads in shame at the damage they have done to the club since MON's botched departure.

I get the impression this meeting was a bit of a cosy chat, so I doubt whether any such points were raised.

 

But, by definition, you seemingly are falling over your bootlaces not to blame him at all, there lies some of the imbalance of opinion.

 

Martin O'Neill had c 4 years and in the region of 100 million to build a new squad.

 

Gerard Houllier and Alex Mcleish had 12 months each

 

As soon as O'Neill left there was little evidence that the team harboured the same substance that was in clear evidence when Saunders departed....in fact after 4 years we get buggered by Chelsea just before he left and then buggered by Newcastle under his trusted lieutenant.

 

Don't let the passing of time fool you, just because he went it was still his squad in the same way that Saunders got the (post) plaudits for the European cup when Tony Barton was in charge.

 

Its far from pathetic to level criticism at O'Neills door ....I would be more inclined to say Perfectly feasible.

 

but hey ho, we all have our opinions and I know yours by now.

Edited November 14, 2013 by TRO

[sharkyvilla]

Was the wage bill really that unsustainable? If we had signed more players with sell on value then I should think we could have easily got an extra £50m of turnover than we did in just giving away so many expensive players on free transfers. We lost so much money on players, and it is so refreshing to see the club has learnt from that with Lambert's transfer policy.

[TRO]

...Never heard any adverse comments from Paul Lambert in regards to Randy Lerner or the way he oversee's the club.

 

I do speak to some ITK's but never heard any rumblings of discontent from PL on the contrary every opportunity he gets he lauds him.... what does that tell you?

 

I am as frustrated as the next Villa Fan to be seeing us scratting around at the bargain basement end of the Transfer Market..... but I don't know all THE FULL FACTS.

[TRO]

Was the wage bill really that unsustainable? If we had signed more players with sell on value then I should think we could have easily got an extra £50m of turnover than we did in just giving away so many expensive players on free transfers. We lost so much money on players, and it is so refreshing to see the club has learnt from that with Lambert's transfer policy.

 

Thank you at least someone can see it.

 

of course the quality of recruit would have changed our financial fortunes, we would have been competing at the top end in Europe etc.etc...quite apart from the sell on value as you describe, blimey Wenger was making Arsenal a fortune when he was forces to sell.

Edited November 14, 2013 by TRO

[Risso]

Christ, when I heard he didn't know much about football or transfer business, I was delighted...We just had one dark our days for years interfering with the managers dealings and we are free of all that....Oh No....Its now all his fault, cake and eat it springs to mind john.

 

 

You don't have be Mr Meddler to emply people around you that know what they're doing, especially when you've just bought a company in an industry you know nothing about.  To rely on a retired marine and a credit card company customer services manager as your chief source of advice was crazy.  Lerner did seem to have some decent people around him when he took over, but they were quickly ditched in favour of his mates.  I'm only guessing, but I would summise from that that Lerner is the sort of boss who only listens to the advice he likes to hear.

[briny_ear]

But, by definition, you seemingly are falling over your bootlaces not to blame him at all, there lies some of the imbalance of opinion.

Martin O'Neill had c 4 years and in the region of 100 million to build a new squad.

Gerard Houllier and Alex Mcleish had 12 months each

Hi, TRO!

Since there is nothing in what I posted to justify the comment in your first sentence, I confess I didn't study the rest too closely. But I did get as far as the final bit I've quoted. McLeish only had a year! Would you have liked him to stay longer??

[Big_John_10]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Big_John_10

[Risso]

Unlike BJ10, I do hold O'Neill partly accountable, but then if they recognised the errors they made with him, why then did they compound the errors by appointing Houllier and McLeish, and repeat the mistakes they made before with the likes of Given, Ireland, N'Zogbia etc.  Given in particular was an absolutely crazy decision, and I said so at the time.

[villan_007]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

 

Such a massively naive way of looking at it. There so much sense posted above and yet you still don't see it. It's been said to you many times but you see things so black and white and that just isn't the case.

 

What ever manager came in after Oneil the wage bill still had to managed, and the dresing room was already in a mess due to massive differecnes in wages, you can blame Houllier all you like, but's no coincidence that our players were in the press for all the wrong reasons off the field, and it happened more than once.

 

Everyone loved the heights we hit under Oneil, but he messed up big time and left us in a mess. Why do you think nobody of any note touched him with a barge pole after us??

[TRO]

 

But, by definition, you seemingly are falling over your bootlaces not to blame him at all, there lies some of the imbalance of opinion.

Martin O'Neill had c 4 years and in the region of 100 million to build a new squad.

Gerard Houllier and Alex Mcleish had 12 months each

 

Hi, TRO!

Since there is nothing in what I posted to justify the comment in your first sentence, I confess I didn't study the rest too closely. But I did get as far as the final bit I've quoted. McLeish only had a year! Would you have liked him to stay longer??

 

 

I was referring to just about every one of your posts on this subject, where I have not gleaned a morsel of blame on O'Neill, hence my comment on the first line. The fact that history kinda repeated itself at sunderland in terms of buys not working out, has seemingly not made you think again.

Edited November 14, 2013 by TRO