The Randy Lerner thread

[DelboyVilla]

I predict

a) A sale

or

500+ pages of speculation expecting some big name to come in, squabbling amongst VTers, Blues wind-up merchants turning up again, only to find out that rather than being taken over, the announcement is in fact a statement that Lerner has gone bankrupt.

option is predictably happening then. And we've only just started.

Well we've just had the international break, we don't play till Monday night and Randy's new jet has been spotted at BHX, what else are we going to do for the next three days? Slag of Wee Barry some more?

[makouns_grin]

Indeed. We can't afford to compete with the very best financial, therefore Randy's a bad owner and he should sell to somebody even richer.

What a shock that you've got no clue.

There are seriously people who would rather see us in 10th place with average premiership players in the squad than see us challenging for the title, champs league with world class players wearing the shirt?

Really?

Last time I looked man city fans seem to be having the time of their lives. I'd love to be in there shoes.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

Or our ground, shirts and training ground could be sponsored for £400m a la Citeh

Won't happen. Any of the big clubs will argue that large sponsorship deals are fair market value. Man City will argue that they are now a Champions League club so their deal is also fair value (with their argument strengthened should they qualify again and also get to the knockout stages of this year's tournament). Platini and his other chumps will pass this off as fair and no action will be taken.

Any team like ours who gets taken over now, and who tries this trick will no doubt be made an example of - how does a club not in the CL justify a huge shirt/stadium sponsorship deal!?

IMO, that trick of huge sponsorship deals is out of our reach as well. Man City got it at just the right time; the rest of us are **** and the door has been slammed.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

The FFP are absolutely a white elephant, they will not solve anything and merely allow the status quo to be maintained and give some owners an easy excuse

If you are rich enough they are avoidable

I think what you mean is: if you're big enough (or Man City. See post above).

[Big_John_10]

Indeed. We can't afford to compete with the very best financial, therefore Randy's a bad owner and he should sell to somebody even richer.

What a shock that you've got no clue.

There are seriously people who would rather see us in 10th place with average premiership players in the squad than see us challenging for the title, champs league with world class players wearing the shirt?

Really?

Last time I looked man city fans seem to be having the time of their lives. I'd love to be in there shoes.

So me preferring the option of us challenging for the title with world class players means I believe that randy is a bad owner just because he doesn't have the same finances as city?

Like I said, no clue.

[Mantis]

And it goes on and on. Basically, when anything bad happens people will always twist it so that Randy is to blame.

Twist what?

He's the boss, he has the final say on all money spent and he makes the decisions on who will become the manager.

I'm afraid part of being the boss is taking responsibility for making the wrong decisions.

Well for example, you won't seem to accept that MON is just as much if not more to blame than Randy for the finances going out of control.

I didn't realise MON did the books as well as manage the team?

Why can't you understand, Randy signed the cheques and the contracts NOT MON!

At the end of the day MON brought more sustained success than any recent manager and for all his faults is head and shoulders above ANY of Randy's own managerial appointments.

Who is it that signs the players and negotiates the contracts? I was under the impression it was the manager...

Yes, I'm not surprised MON has done more than Houllier and McLeish, what with the former having less than a year in the job and the latter having only a few months as of today. Great comparison there! Under the same conditions as MON (top teams weaker, same amount of funding etc) Houllier and McLeish would both get us where MON got us, if not higher. All Saint Martin did was get us three 6th place finishes, which had been bettered by a number of predecessors under a more difficult ownership.

[Houlston]

And it goes on and on. Basically, when anything bad happens people will always twist it so that Randy is to blame.

Twist what?

He's the boss, he has the final say on all money spent and he makes the decisions on who will become the manager.

I'm afraid part of being the boss is taking responsibility for making the wrong decisions.

Well for example, you won't seem to accept that MON is just as much if not more to blame than Randy for the finances going out of control.

I didn't realise MON did the books as well as manage the team?

Why can't you understand, Randy signed the cheques and the contracts NOT MON!

At the end of the day MON brought more sustained success than any recent manager and for all his faults is head and shoulders above ANY of Randy's own managerial appointments.

I didnt realise Randy identified Beye to play in the reserves on 40k a week. I didnt realise Randy identified Cullar at the going rate of £8m to hardly ever play. I didnt realise Randy chose Heskey to spearhead our attack.

Why does it have to be one persons fault with the ideology of the buck stops with. Its is a collective fault throughout the whole of the club from the fans not turning up when doing well or booing the team when we sit in 4th to the Manager buying players and never playing them to the Chariman not putting a halt on wages sooner rather than gambling we would reach 4th.

One final thing it is cloud cuckoo land to think that when someone is about to buy an organsiation for £60m that they dont have a large input into who is about to run their investment.

[John_Lerwill]

And it goes on and on. Basically, when anything bad happens people will always twist it so that Randy is to blame.

Twist what?

He's the boss, he has the final say on all money spent and he makes the decisions on who will become the manager.

I'm afraid part of being the boss is taking responsibility for making the wrong decisions.

Well for example, you won't seem to accept that MON is just as much if not more to blame than Randy for the finances going out of control.

I didn't realise MON did the books as well as manage the team?

Why can't you understand, Randy signed the cheques and the contracts NOT MON!

At the end of the day MON brought more sustained success than any recent manager and for all his faults is head and shoulders above ANY of Randy's own managerial appointments.

I didnt realise Randy identified Beye to play in the reserves on 40k a week. I didnt realise Randy identified Cullar at the going rate of £8m to hardly ever play. I didnt realise Randy chose Heskey to spearhead our attack.

Why does it have to be one persons fault with the ideology of the buck stops with. Its is a collective fault throughout the whole of the club from the fans not turning up when doing well or booing the team when we sit in 4th to the Manager buying players and never playing them to the Chariman not putting a halt on wages sooner rather than gambling we would reach 4th.

One final thing it is cloud cuckoo land to think that when someone is about to buy an organsiation for £60m that they dont have a large input into who is about to run their investment.

The snag is that in the business world, the buck does stop with the chairman. If the results of the business are not up to scratch then it's generally regarded as being the chairman's responsibility.

Big John's view is only a re-affirmation of that principle that exists in the entire business world.

And I agree with that. What caused Steve Stride and Edwards (CEO) to leave (people who could have made a difference)? Who appointed Faulkner?

[Houlston]

The snag is that in the business world, the buck does stop with the chairman. If the results of the business are not up to scratch then it's generally regarded as being the chairman's responsibility.

Big John's view is only a re-affirmation of that principle that exists in the entire business world.

And I agree with that. What caused Steve Stride and Edwards (CEO) to leave (people who could have made a difference)? Who appointed Faulkner?

Thats generally the case if the business totally fails. Aston Villa are far far from that happening.

Was it no long ago you were arguing the fact that we are a footbal club and people shouldnt use the comparisons to the business world.

[John_Lerwill]

The snag is that in the business world, the buck does stop with the chairman. If the results of the business are not up to scratch then it's generally regarded as being the chairman's responsibility.

Big John's view is only a re-affirmation of that principle that exists in the entire business world.

And I agree with that. What caused Steve Stride and Edwards (CEO) to leave (people who could have made a difference)? Who appointed Faulkner?

Thats generally the case if the business totally fails. Aston Villa are far far from that happening.

Was it no long ago you were arguing the fact that we are a footbal club and people shouldnt use the comparisons to the business world.

I suspect that you've taken any quote of mine out of context, there, mate! :? I think I've since come to realise that RL took over the club essentially on a business tack and therefore he has to be assessed against his own criteria.

As to your first para, on first glance you might be right, but in my view (as a historian) I think there has been a magical failure. The club was once the greatest in the land pre-WW1 and came close again ca 1980-82. The Villa fans have always had high expectations because of that record, but instead are being treated to what I see as being second-class fodder (against the fans' - in my view - justified expectations).

[Houlston]

As to your first para, on first glance you might be right, but in my view (as a historian) I think there has been a magical failure. The club was once the greatest in the land pre-WW1 and came close again ca 1980-82. The Villa fans have always had high expectations because of that record, but instead are being treated to what I see as being second-class fodder (against the fans' - in my view - justified expectations).

Well i'm not sure I have taken anything out of context mate but I really cant be bothered looking for your quotes.

And there lies the rub John you are a historian clinging to previous success which happened generations ago. Whereas in reality Aston Villa in the premiership has hardly changed its position. Many argue the case that you have to spend to just to stay still and we are and have been an upper mid table club for a long time. This whole notion of a massive slide is very wide of the mark and nothing but a bit of a continuing fairy tale.

Times change, people change and Aston Villa changed from that club you often talk about a very very very long time ago.

[dudevillaisnice]

Times change, people change and Aston Villa changed from that club you often talk about a very very very long time ago.

:!:

[CI]

There's a huge difference between an outright owner and say a CEO of a plc.

Owners do not have shareholders to answer to, only themselves

[John_Lerwill]

As to your first para, on first glance you might be right, but in my view (as a historian) I think there has been a magical failure. The club was once the greatest in the land pre-WW1 and came close again ca 1980-82. The Villa fans have always had high expectations because of that record, but instead are being treated to what I see as being second-class fodder (against the fans' - in my view - justified expectations).

Well i'm not sure I have taken anything out of context mate but I really cant be bothered looking for your quotes.

And there lies the rub John you are a historian clinging to previous success which happened generations ago. Whereas in reality Aston Villa in the premiership has hardly changed its position. Many argue the case that you have to spend to just to stay still and we are and have been an upper mid table club for a long time. This whole notion of a massive slide is very wide of the mark and nothing but a bit of a continuing fairy tale.

Times change, people change and Aston Villa changed from that club you often talk about a very very very long time ago.

I think you mis-read my position as a historian mate! It's not a question of "hanging on to past glories" but assessing the club as it is. Villa is a sleeping giant and has been for too long!!

And 1982 is not that long ago ... RL came in on a tide of emotion about the chance of Villa being restored to that pinnacle if you would recall.

Instead RL's let the fans' expectations subside in spectacular style.

We understand that certain clubs are holding the roost and down to the amount of money they have, but look at Arsenal ... it did extremely well as a result of being well-managed, without loads-a-dough. And Arsenal are now showing signs of a recovery. All Wenger has to do is go back to an English-style defence that he was so successful with before, and hey-presto! It's just a question of good management, not necessarily cash.

[John_Lerwill]

There's a huge difference between an outright owner and say a CEO of a plc.

Owners do not have shareholders to answer to, only themselves

... and face the risk of no-one attending fixtures any more because of their policies.

[Houlston]

And 1982 is not that long ago

:shock:

[NeilS]

And 1982 is not that long ago ... RL came in on a tide of emotion about the chance of Villa being restored to that pinnacle if you would recall.

It depends on your perspective. To me it is a very long time ago. I was 6 years old when we won the European Cup, now I'm almost 36 years old. It is a distant memory for me unfortunately. For those who are a little older than me, it probably still burns brightly in their memories.

When Randy came in there was a lot of PR, as you expect from Americans. It is what they do well. Sadly, lots of things have happened which have curtailed Randy's ambitions for the club. Money was wasted by our previous manager, who fell short of achieving his goals. Man City came in and broke up our team before it could be finalised. The global economy crashed leaving our owner less well off, and family difficulties have all taken there toll.

I think we are a long way from being able to compete, and I don't see anything changing anytime soon. The only thing that I could possibly see happening, is that football in general slumps big time. Fans become fed up with being charged a small fortune to see the same teams win everything in sight. This global recession could see fans re-evaluating where they spend their money. Which could mean the teams paying their players large contracts suddenly find their incomes drying up. What I mean by that, is when I was young Euro nights were special as it was rare chance to see some players you wouldn't otherwise see down Villa Park, and how we would compare against them. Now for teams in CL, they are playing the same teams year in year out, the special feel will surely dwindle. If or when that happens, we might see a levelling of the playing fields again. For the time being, I remain disillusioned with Football as a whole.

[John_Lerwill]

And 1982 is not that long ago

:shock:

Well, you can look all goggle-eyed, Houlston, but to the people that fought to have the club restored to it's former glories (including the likes of Carl Chinn and his dad) it was the partly wasted years since 1982 they were using as reference point.

The new generation won't remember the dramatic rise of the phoenix between 1969 and 1982. Those who lived through it must be asking "was it all in vain?"

I was there in the depression of the early 50s and the late 60s and since ... take my word for it, the spirit of the Villa heritage that you're inclined to pooh-pooh carried the club through so that you still have an Aston Villa today. It so nearly went to the wall, and would have done if there had not been the pride of Villa being a great club.

[stanthemanisgod]

John,

It's nearly 30 years ago. Whilst you and the rest of your generation remember it well and hope that Villa return to that level, there a whole generation of supporter like myself that weren't even born when that happened.

In the years I've been a Villa fan the only success we've had is 2 League Cup wins, and the last of those was 15 years ago.

The beginning of the PL and then the CL has changed football for good and since that revolution we as a club have fallen further and further behind the curve. I look back and think what could've been if we'd held on and won that first PL title, if our board had taken the risks with money that Utd's did.

You and others maight expect us to replicate our former glories but I'm part of the Villa generation that were as surprised as the rest of the footballing world to see us competing for the top 4 places a couple of season's ago.

Lerner had a go at waking the 'sleeping giant' as you put it but guess what it didn't wake up, we weren't regularly selling out the ground, we didn't have waiting lists for season tickets, we couldn't generate larger income for higher wage bills.

We are no longer the club you remember just as Forest are no longer the club a number of their fans remember and even to some extents Liverpool are no longer the club they were.

[Risso]

And it goes on and on. Basically, when anything bad happens people will always twist it so that Randy is to blame.

Twist what?

He's the boss, he has the final say on all money spent and he makes the decisions on who will become the manager.

I'm afraid part of being the boss is taking responsibility for making the wrong decisions.

Well for example, you won't seem to accept that MON is just as much if not more to blame than Randy for the finances going out of control.

It's Randy's money, the buck stops with him. O'Neill was nothing more than an employee, and as owner, seemingly gave him carte blanche to spend what he likes. That's the sign of a bad owner, and a shit businessman.