The Randy Lerner thread

[Houlston]

Everything he is doing is now getting scrutinised to silly proportions.

You've missed the point, Houlston ... the fact he's done it the way he has only underlines his lack of nous on how to communicate.

And Denis is right ... what RL said glosses over a lot of issues that Matt Kendrick might have uncovered. That's the last thing that RL wanted and probably why he went to a national paper.

The B. Mail is a fairly decent paper - I don't know why you're scathing of it.

With all due respect John please stop telling me Ive missed the point when I havent. Especially when I have clearly pointed out that if you want to read the interview it is very accessible. Also the only reason you think Ive missed any point is because you are so keen to overly criticise when in essence there really is no point to make or miss because it means nothing.

Yes that Mat Kendrick MIGHT have covered but MIGHT not have done and probably wouldnt, given it would have been totally on Randys terms and he would have been to shit scared to ask anything in case it ruined any relationship he has with the club.

It really isnt decent.

[bickster]

The Times in paper form costs a £1, surely if fans are interested they should pay the money.

As an aside, News International are in rather a lot of deep shit at the moment and there are a fair amount of the general public who are boycotting any of their publications. Me personally I won't buy a News International title on principal. But that isn't a criticism on Randy as I'm fairly sure he'll have done the interview with a journalist that he respects rather than the organ for which he writes, he tends to do that. Interviews are given to respected journalists rather than particular papers. I can however see John Lerwills point about the Birmingham Evening Mail, or I could if it wasn't such a shit local paper. I don't honestly think it matters ultimately, the words will get repeated in every paper at some point.

[bickster]

There are no perfect owners, but some of them are better than others. I'd settle for somebody who was moderately wealthy but who was an excellent businessman, rather than a rich kid who inherited all his wealth and who sees Villa as an expensive plaything. lerner has been a crap owner of the Browns, and a crap owner of Villa. The bloke should stay away from sports teams, he hasn't got a clue.

But you have I assume, years of experience running football clubs?

Seems to me your more bothered with how he came about his money, spose a rich oil bloke would be better.

Is there any chance you could read people's posts and tailor your reply to what they actually said, rather than not read them and assume they said something completely different, it might help in coming across as less of a twit. Let me explain....

If someone says...

I'd settle for somebody who was moderately wealthy but who was an excellent businessman....

Then you look a bit foolish if you reply with...

... spose a rich oil bloke would be better.

It shows you clearly haven't understood what the poster was saying and I don't think you're really that dim are you? The alternative hypothesis is that you didn't actually read it and just thought you'd have a pop at what you assumed he'd posted. Neither of those options shows you in a good light at all.

[John_Lerwill]

Everything he is doing is now getting scrutinised to silly proportions.

You've missed the point, Houlston ... the fact he's done it the way he has only underlines his lack of nous on how to communicate.

And Denis is right ... what RL said glosses over a lot of issues that Matt Kendrick might have uncovered. That's the last thing that RL wanted and probably why he went to a national paper.

The B. Mail is a fairly decent paper - I don't know why you're scathing of it.

With all due respect John please stop telling me Ive missed the point when I havent. Especially when I have clearly pointed out that if you want to read the interview it is very accessible.

Accessibility has nowt much to do with it. It's hardly the medium that should be used to address Aston Villa fans. Neither was it necessary to go to the national press. That's the point.

London is not Birmingham which is where (if my geography is correct) Villa fans are predominantly located. :winkold:

[bickster]

There are whole legions of Villa fans who don't live in Birmingham or even the Midlands though John, if you want to reach the widest audience possible, you go to a national surely?

[Houlston]

Everything he is doing is now getting scrutinised to silly proportions.

You've missed the point, Houlston ... the fact he's done it the way he has only underlines his lack of nous on how to communicate.

And Denis is right ... what RL said glosses over a lot of issues that Matt Kendrick might have uncovered. That's the last thing that RL wanted and probably why he went to a national paper.

The B. Mail is a fairly decent paper - I don't know why you're scathing of it.

With all due respect John please stop telling me Ive missed the point when I havent. Especially when I have clearly pointed out that if you want to read the interview it is very accessible.

Accessibility has nowt much to do with it. It's hardly the medium that should be used to address Aston Villa fans. Neither was it necessary to go to the national press. That's the point.

London is not Birmingham which is where (if my geography is correct) Villa fans are predominantly located. :winkold:

But you were moaning that it wasnt as easy to get hold of, now you are saying thats nowt to do with it.

And other Villa fans live elsewhere. But again so what it really really doesnt matter.

[John_Lerwill]

There are whole legions of Villa fans who don't live in Birmingham or even the Midlands though John, if you want to reach the widest audience possible, you go to a national surely?

To be quite frank, Bicks, if I wanted to go national I'd have gone to the Express or to the Mail on a sports issue - probably the Daily Mail. They cover sport quite decently and sell a big number.

As someone has said, Murdoch's organisation have problems anyway. I couldn't get a Times today as I've stated.

But my feeling is that the primary area to address is the Midlands. That tack by itself would create a better sense of a link with him.

[dukes]

I wish Randy would sell us to an arab and we are promised fortunes only to have it backfired and get pompey'd. Nah. Randy is doing the right thing for our future, if you can't see that you should take a basic economics course. Yikes.

Yes, I have some sympathy with that, but it's the way RL's gone about it with (i.m.o.) the wrong man at CEO that may spell further problems ahead.

For Starters, Richard Fitzgerald was the the Chief Executive until 2008, so Paul Faulkner cannot be blamed for any loose purse strings during MON's early years, perhaps te tightening of purse strings following the appontment of PF could be the main factor in MON leaving the club.

I'd very much like to undertand what PF is doing that makes everyone think he's a shit CEO.

Does anybody on here actually know what he's been instructed to do by Randy ? I expect not, and therefore theonly person who is in a position to judge his success or otherwise is the guy who appointed him, and set his KPI's.

Moving away from the current manager who some ans would not be happy with even if we won the Premier League, I think that what we're doing now is exactly the right thing for where football is at the moment.

In Rand's first years we spent a lot of money hoping to push for 4th place, we damn nearly got tree either because or in spite of MON. My belief is MON wasted as much money on shit players as he did on the good ones, but the criminal thing he did was sign players and then not play them in the position for which they were signed, or worse still didn't play them at all. That was a situation that simply could not continue, and if after being told that he had to clear some of the waste squad players out before signing new players MON then resigned that is his prerogative, and the right thing for the club. nobody I'd bigger than Aston Villa, and I believe that in the end MON thought he was.

Anyway, I digress. We had our initial assault on the top 4, this was based on buying players that were mostly British, and in general had premier league experience, as a consequence we overpaid both in transfers and in salaries. that assault failed (in part down to the emergence of Man City, which really changed things).

Now, if we are to have another attack on the top 4, we have to do that within the confines of the new finance fair play rules, and that's why high salaried players will be allowed to move, and they'll be replaced by younger, perhaps hungrier players on lower salaries, that will also have resale values at the end of their initial contract period. In my opinion this is the right way to go. An organic approach is much better longterm than spanking your money on 30 something, journeymen.

I don't believe that the appointment of Houllier was wrong, I just think that after the outdated approach to management of MON the step into the future that Houllier bought was just too much for the spoilt senior players, and with unrest in the camp we were always going to struggle when the team that had been assembled were on the whole technically inferior to our competitors. Personally I'd have loved to see what could have happened under Houllier in a second season, as I liked the style of football we played for much of the second half of last season. Fact is that could not happen, we could not take a chance on an unhealthy manager, and so we now have McLeish.

I have seen nothing so far that makes me think the football under McLeish is any worse than under MON, I believe it not to be as good to watch as under Houllier, but maybe that is what makes us a little harder to beat. I think his transfer dealings have been pretty good so far, Given is better than Firedel, Hitton as good as Luke Young, and Nzogbia was the choice of most fans to replace Ashley Young, and has started to show that he can play a bit.

In short, I think we have to allow McLeish time, and I also think that the current financial plan is the best thing for the future of our club. For me, I will have Randy, PF and AM my full support, for all the oasis above, also because I don't really see as there is anything better on the horizon for us.

Blame PF all you want, but how many footballing CEO's are there ? The CEO is a relatively new role in football, so any appointment is always more likely to be made from the business world than the football world.

[Harry]

I do find it little short of hilarious that the criticism of RL is now focusing on the paper he spoke to. It looks like its going to be on the OS so it matters not one jot in the end.

[Houlston]

I do find it little short of hilarious that the criticism of RL is now focusing on the paper he spoke to. It looks like its going to be on the OS so it matters not one jot in the end.

and even that has already been met with a sarcastic comment

[bickster]

To be quite frank, Bicks, if I wanted to go national I'd have gone to the Express or to the Mail on a sports issue - probably the Daily Mail. They cover sport quite decently and sell a big number.

Not disagreeing there because..

As someone has said, Murdoch's organisation have problems anyway. I couldn't get a Times today as I've stated.

That was me

But my feeling is that the primary area to address is the Midlands. That tack by itself would create a better sense of a link with him.

Is it though? On the one hand he gets criticised (and there is cause for complaint, without doubt) but then when he tries to address the issue, he should only do it on a local level and the Londons Lions, The North West Villans and especially the South West Supporters clubs (to name a few of many others) can just go swing. Doing it on a local level was something Mr Ellis used to do (cornershop mentality?), at least this chairman is thinking a bit bigger than that, even now. Whilst I'd share your concerns about the publication it was in, I suspect that was rather more because of the journalist, which on past form has been far more important to him than the publication itself.

My only criticism would be the actual choice of publication and that's down to my own personal political outlook tbh, it really is a small criticism.

[dukes]

Quick question.

If lerner is such a good owner then why was alex mcleish the best manager to actually want to work for him?

I think the fact we were offering mclaren an interview and ended up with mcleish speaks volumes. Roberto martinez chose to fight relegation with no money than even come and discus the possibility of the job.

And what manager was avaialble that would have been better ? What is it that you think Lerner has done to previous managers that would make managers not want to work with him .

Clearly, when the remit is to reduce the wage bill, and bring us into a position where we're living within our means that would limit the managers who would find the situation attractive, as most managers would want to make changes to the squad.

Possibly the attitude and hatred of fans and players shown towards a respected manager like Houllier would also make the job less appealing.

[John_Lerwill]

I wish Randy would sell us to an arab and we are promised fortunes only to have it backfired and get pompey'd. Nah. Randy is doing the right thing for our future, if you can't see that you should take a basic economics course. Yikes.

Yes, I have some sympathy with that, but it's the way RL's gone about it with (i.m.o.) the wrong man at CEO that may spell further problems ahead.

For Starters, Richard Fitzgerald was the the Chief Executive until 2008, so Paul Faulkner cannot be blamed for any loose purse strings during MON's early years, perhaps te tightening of purse strings following the appontment of PF could be the main factor in MON leaving the club.

...

I'd very much like to undertand what PF is doing that makes everyone think he's a shit CEO.

PF and myself have 'history', dukes, which I'll not go into. I was wrongly sacked at the beginning of 2010.

Apart from which a CEO has to communicate properly in his own right - RL is patently not around a lot of the time and PF should therefore ensure that RL's absence is properly covered.

As to what happened till 2008, there was firstly the matter of Steve Stride's departure in 2007 which has not been explained and there's some suspicion that Fitzgerald left because he had his fingers trodden on.

[John_Lerwill]

But my feeling is that the primary area to address is the Midlands. That tack by itself would create a better sense of a link with him.

Is it though? On the one hand he gets criticised (and there is cause for complaint, without doubt) but then when he tries to address the issue, he should only do it on a local level and the Londons Lions, The North West Villans and especially the South West Supporters clubs (to name a few of many others) can just go swing. Doing it on a local level was something Mr Ellis used to do (cornershop mentality?), at least this chairman is thinking a bit bigger than that, even now.

You certainly have a point, Bicks, but in the context that there has been precious little coming out from RL since 2006 let alone the last 12 months then it would seem to me that to target the locality first (Aston is where AVFC comes from) would be a much better tack.

If he were to increase the communications then there would be plenty of scope for the other approaches you speak of.

[dukes]

I wish Randy would sell us to an arab and we are promised fortunes only to have it backfired and get pompey'd. Nah. Randy is doing the right thing for our future, if you can't see that you should take a basic economics course. Yikes.

Yes, I have some sympathy with that, but it's the way RL's gone about it with (i.m.o.) the wrong man at CEO that may spell further problems ahead.

For Starters, Richard Fitzgerald was the the Chief Executive until 2008, so Paul Faulkner cannot be blamed for any loose purse strings during MON's early years, perhaps te tightening of purse strings following the appontment of PF could be the main factor in MON leaving the club.

...

I'd very much like to undertand what PF is doing that makes everyone think he's a shit CEO.

PF and myself have 'history', dukes, which I'll not go into. I was wrongly sacked at the beginning of 2010.

Apart from which a CEO has to communicate properly in his own right - RL is patently not around a lot of the time and PF should therefore ensure that RL's absence is properly covered.

As to what happened till 2008, there was firstly the matter of Steve Stride's departure in 2007 which has not been explained and there's some suspicion that Fitzgerald left because he had his fingers trodden on.

I didn't realise that, and accept that you more of an insight into how he communicates within the business.

From outside of the business though, I don't see PF doing more or less than any Premier League CEO, and I for one would not be happy if we had some kind of "Celebrity" CEO.

[John_Lerwill]

I do find it little short of hilarious that the criticism of RL is now focusing on the paper he spoke to. It looks like its going to be on the OS so it matters not one jot in the end.

and even that has already been met with a sarcastic comment

Yep ... if you like sugar coated verbage then it'll be fine, no doubt.

[John_Lerwill]

I wish Randy would sell us to an arab and we are promised fortunes only to have it backfired and get pompey'd. Nah. Randy is doing the right thing for our future, if you can't see that you should take a basic economics course. Yikes.

Yes, I have some sympathy with that, but it's the way RL's gone about it with (i.m.o.) the wrong man at CEO that may spell further problems ahead.

For Starters, Richard Fitzgerald was the the Chief Executive until 2008, so Paul Faulkner cannot be blamed for any loose purse strings during MON's early years, perhaps te tightening of purse strings following the appontment of PF could be the main factor in MON leaving the club.

...

I'd very much like to undertand what PF is doing that makes everyone think he's a shit CEO.

PF and myself have 'history', dukes, which I'll not go into. I was wrongly sacked at the beginning of 2010.

Apart from which a CEO has to communicate properly in his own right - RL is patently not around a lot of the time and PF should therefore ensure that RL's absence is properly covered.

As to what happened till 2008, there was firstly the matter of Steve Stride's departure in 2007 which has not been explained and there's some suspicion that Fitzgerald left because he had his fingers trodden on.

I didn't realise that, and accept that you more of an insight into how he communicates within the business.

From outside of the business though, I don't see PF doing more or less than any Premier League CEO, and I for one would not be happy if we had some kind of "Celebrity" CEO.

Fair comment, Dukes, but there are many who feel that the appointment of AM was injudicious (to name but just one issue) and if a 'football man' such as Steve Stride had been around that may well have been handled differently.

[maqroll]

I think he should have spoken via the OS first, to be honest. That way, he goes directly to the supporters, with no "middle man", and certainly not one that charges you money to access the article.

Either way though, the criticism of what forum he used first is small beans in the whole scope of things.

[Houlston]

I'm sure Steve Stride was around when we appointed Graham Taylor again.

[roadoftrinity]

The majority of Villa fans are happy to hear from him no mater what medium he uses. There will always be some people unhappy and this forum brings out the extremes on both sides.

Personally, I'm happy that he wants to keep the club lets hope he is proved correct with his faith in McLeish.