The Randy Lerner thread

[GENTLEMAN]

There were rumours that Lerner wanted Mark Hughes to replace MON. It was strange MON left the club shortly after Hughes joined Fulham a week or so before. 

 

"Villa never made contact with any of my representatives as far as I'm aware, so I was out of work for seven, eight months after leaving Man City [in December 2009] and there was talk then that I might have replaced Martin O'Neill [when he left in August 2010]. But nobody contacted me then either so I didn't hold out much hope for getting the job to be perfectly honest. Aston Villa is a good job for any manager, I would suggest. But I was never in the frame for that."

 

Maybe not then. I like the bit in bold 

Edited December 3, 2013 by GENTLEMAN

[LondonLax]

For me though there weren't that many under Doug that bad, most of the time during my period as a fan under doug we were a top 7/8 side, won a trophy and played in europe.

While i enjoyed mon's last year more than others nothing under lerner has been that much better than what i experienced under doug whereas the mcleish year was easily the worst supporting year i've had and houllier and last year come very close to matching it.

To be fair, football has changed since the Ellis-era. There's a lot less parity nowadays.

You won't be hearing BJ10 acknowledge that though.

Less parity than Southampton, Swansea and West Brom who have all finished above us? And less now than Spurs and Everton who we were equal with? It is easy to blame managers but there is one consistent force in us falling so far backwards.

No, less parity between the top clubs and the bottom.

In the Ellis era a club only had to spend the money it generated and could compete in the top league. A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

There was a lot more parity between the top of the league and the bottom (or even the clubs in the league below).

Now you need a sugar daddy spending more than the club earns in order to compete. Our owner had a go at pumping chunks of his own money in, like Southampton are doing now, and we finished in those top spots.

If he had only spent the money the club generated, continuing under Ellis, we'd most likely be relegated by now.

[Dodgyknees]

For me though there weren't that many under Doug that bad, most of the time during my period as a fan under doug we were a top 7/8 side, won a trophy and played in europe.

While i enjoyed mon's last year more than others nothing under lerner has been that much better than what i experienced under doug whereas the mcleish year was easily the worst supporting year i've had and houllier and last year come very close to matching it.

To be fair, football has changed since the Ellis-era. There's a lot less parity nowadays.

You won't be hearing BJ10 acknowledge that though.

Less parity than Southampton, Swansea and West Brom who have all finished above us? And less now than Spurs and Everton who we were equal with? It is easy to blame managers but there is one consistent force in us falling so far backwards.

No, less parity between the top clubs and the bottom.

In the Ellis era a club only had to spend the money it generated and could compete in the top league. A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

There was a lot more parity between the top of the league and the bottom (or even the clubs in the league below).

Now you need a sugar daddy spending more than the club earns in order to compete. Our owner had a go at pumping chunks of his own money in, like Southampton are doing now, and we finished in those top spots.

If he had only spent the money the club generated, continuing under Ellis, we'd most likely be relegated by now.

And under Lerner we never were challenging for the title, fans don't even want that right now. We want good football, to compete with teams for European places, to be well managed by the chairman, to be able to buy players who will transform the team and to be good at home and hard to beat.

We are behind clubs with a smaller fan base and some who were in leagues below us when Lerner took over.

Any lack of parity is because the OWNER has put us at a disadvantage on too many occasions.

And he isn't paying the price, the club and fans are paying him back, the fans suffer.

[Big_John_10]

While I don't agree with the statement that we'd be challenging for Europe because I believe the bloodletting would have had to happen regardless, neither can I agree with the notion that any of the alternatives would have been even nearly as unpopular as McLeish was.

I think with the wages mcleish and houllier were able to hand out the cuts could have happened slower and a long term plan could have been implemented after we'd just finished 6th instead of barely surviving.

[Big_John_10]

A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

How far back are you going?

There was a long period of time when the original sky 4 were virtually untouchable.

[LondonLax]

A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

How far back are you going?

There was a long period of time when the original sky 4 were virtually untouchable.

That only started happening once Abramovich came in and locked up the 4 champions league places.

Early 2000s there was a 'big 3' and the 4th spot was up for grabs. Ipswich Town got promoted and finished 5th, there is no chance of that happening now.

[LondonLax]

For me though there weren't that many under Doug that bad, most of the time during my period as a fan under doug we were a top 7/8 side, won a trophy and played in europe.

While i enjoyed mon's last year more than others nothing under lerner has been that much better than what i experienced under doug whereas the mcleish year was easily the worst supporting year i've had and houllier and last year come very close to matching it.

To be fair, football has changed since the Ellis-era. There's a lot less parity nowadays.

You won't be hearing BJ10 acknowledge that though.

Less parity than Southampton, Swansea and West Brom who have all finished above us? And less now than Spurs and Everton who we were equal with? It is easy to blame managers but there is one consistent force in us falling so far backwards.

No, less parity between the top clubs and the bottom.

In the Ellis era a club only had to spend the money it generated and could compete in the top league. A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

There was a lot more parity between the top of the league and the bottom (or even the clubs in the league below).

Now you need a sugar daddy spending more than the club earns in order to compete. Our owner had a go at pumping chunks of his own money in, like Southampton are doing now, and we finished in those top spots.

If he had only spent the money the club generated, continuing under Ellis, we'd most likely be relegated by now.

And under Lerner we never were challenging for the title, fans don't even want that right now. We want good football, to compete with teams for European places, to be well managed by the chairman, to be able to buy players who will transform the team and to be good at home and hard to beat.

We are behind clubs with a smaller fan base and some who were in leagues below us when Lerner took over.

Any lack of parity is because the OWNER has put us at a disadvantage on too many occasions.

And he isn't paying the price, the club and fans are paying him back, the fans suffer.

I agree with you that the owner has made some pretty big mistakes.

He bought a club with his families money but had little idea of how to be successful. He threw money at it with very little control or strategy and when it didn't come off he made drastic cut backs which crippled us.

The point I draw the line is when people try and say we were better off with Ellis without acknowledging that Ellis had a much easier period to be an owner in.

Also, it seems like the owner has now learnt from his mistakes which means we are now moving forward again but on a sustainable path this time.

Edited December 3, 2013 by LondonLax

[Zatman]

 

 

A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

How far back are you going?

There was a long period of time when the original sky 4 were virtually untouchable.

That only started happening once Abramovich came in and locked up the 4 champions league places.

Early 2000s there was a 'big 3' and the 4th spot was up for grabs. Ipswich Town got promoted and finished 5th, there is no chance of that happening now.

 

 

didnt Sunderland finish 7th 3 years in a row after promotion around the same time and am sure Forest came 3rd after they got promoted though that was further back

[Big_John_10]

A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

How far back are you going?

There was a long period of time when the original sky 4 were virtually untouchable.

That only started happening once Abramovich came in and locked up the 4 champions league places.

Early 2000s there was a 'big 3' and the 4th spot was up for grabs. Ipswich Town got promoted and finished 5th, there is no chance of that happening now.

So you say any club could challenge for the title without a sugar daddy but then admit Chelsea needed a sugar daddy to get into the top 4.

[Zatman]

 

 

 

A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

How far back are you going?

There was a long period of time when the original sky 4 were virtually untouchable.

That only started happening once Abramovich came in and locked up the 4 champions league places.

Early 2000s there was a 'big 3' and the 4th spot was up for grabs. Ipswich Town got promoted and finished 5th, there is no chance of that happening now.

So you say any club could challenge for the title without a sugar daddy but then admit Chelsea needed a sugar daddy to get into the top 4.

 

 

Chelsea were in the top 4 when they got a sugar daddy and then have to money to stabilie your position in top 4

Edited December 3, 2013 by Zatman

[Big_John_10]

The point I draw the line is when people try and say we were better off with Ellis without acknowledging that Ellis had a much easier period to be an owner in.

Why was it so much easier? There were teams that had more money than us back then and there are teams that have more money than us now. Don't try to rewrite history to justify your lowered expectations for the current owner.

You also ignore the fact when Lerner came in he was one of the richest owners and had much more money than Doug ever did.

[Big_John_10]

A club could get promoted and then have a shot at the title race without a sugar daddy.

How far back are you going?

There was a long period of time when the original sky 4 were virtually untouchable.

That only started happening once Abramovich came in and locked up the 4 champions league places.

Early 2000s there was a 'big 3' and the 4th spot was up for grabs. Ipswich Town got promoted and finished 5th, there is no chance of that happening now.

So you say any club could challenge for the title without a sugar daddy but then admit Chelsea needed a sugar daddy to get into the top 4.

Chelsea were in the top 4 when they got a sugar daddy

Sorry. Meant title.

He claimed any team without a sugar daddy could challenge but then Chelsea clearly needed a sugar daddy to do it.

[Zatman]

 

 

You also ignore the fact when Lerner came in he was one of the richest owners and had much more money than Doug ever did. 

 

he also spent more than Doug ever did when he was he one of the richest owners. Not really his fault other clubs got richer owners

[BOF]

Chelsea were in the top 4 when they got a sugar daddy

That's a little disingenuous though. Chelsea were on the brink of doing a Leeds Utd before Ridsdale even coined the phrase. They were ruined and it should come between us and our sleep that Abramovich came in and rescued a club that did not deserve to be rescued, so reckless had they been in the previous years. Ho hum.

[Big_John_10]

You also ignore the fact when Lerner came in he was one of the richest owners and had much more money than Doug ever did.

he also spent more than Doug ever did when he was he one of the richest owners. Not really his fault other clubs got richer owners

You think that's why we've dropped so much?

[LondonLax]

The point I draw the line is when people try and say we were better off with Ellis without acknowledging that Ellis had a much easier period to be an owner in.

Why was it so much easier? There were teams that had more money than us back then and there are teams that have more money than us now. Don't try to rewrite history to justify your lowered expectations for the current owner.

You also ignore the fact when Lerner came in he was one of the richest owners and had much more money than Doug ever did.

You are still missing the point.

Back then it didn't matter how rich the owner was. Doug got away with investing none of his own money because he didn't need to, in fact he paid himself a lot of money out if the club to buy his houses and cars etc.

That would not fly these days. You need an owner willing to put his hands in his own pockets like Lerner had done.

We would be relegated by now if Ellis had been left to continue running the club, taking money out instead of Lerner coming along and putting money in.

[sne]

What year did they change the format so that 4 PL team could qualify for the Champions League?

[Zatman]

 

 

You also ignore the fact when Lerner came in he was one of the richest owners and had much more money than Doug ever did.

he also spent more than Doug ever did when he was he one of the richest owners. Not really his fault other clubs got richer owners

You think that's why we've dropped so much?

 

 

no we dropped for many reasons but biggest is shit management from nearly all involved mainly Randy and MON in how the money was spent when we had it

[P3te]

Along with Everton and Spurs and to a lesser extent Plop,  we were trying to get into the top four and spent to achieve that.  That that spending was not sustainable is no one's fault than Randy Lerner's

 

Those clubs are now in advance of us having been run better.

The spending was fine, the signings were not

[Cliffy Biro]

The spending was far from fine.