The Randy Lerner thread

[TheDrums]

The Times > other papers

[smetrov]

Question to people expecting us to sell Bent; Where is he going to go exactly? Think about it, none of the top 6 require his services, the rest can't afford him and he is back in the England fold at Villa, he moves up from Villa he has an awful lot of competition for places, at Villa, he's almost guaranteed a game. Can't see him going anywhere, it's not part of the plan imo.

Arsenal maybe??

Basically any of the big guns who are floundering around xmas - are going to look at a player who averages 1 in 2 , isn't playing for a CL club, and is only earning £65k a week.

Liverpool - would be favourites IMO

Chelsea - if things don't improve

[ryanvilla_1994]

Darren Bent isn't good enough to play for Chelsea or Liverpool.

[barry'sboots]

Just to put my post-Lerner publication comment in-

I can't believe that after the story was published, the first comments that came in included that Lerner had cocked it up because he did it with the Times, and that it costs money therefore he's out of touch with the fans.

This is -and this really is saying something- one of the stupidest things I've seen written on Villatalk. That's a comment worthy of YouTube's backward insane ranting comments. It might be one of the stupidest things I've seen written on the internet. Actually, scratch that last one.

What is being implied is:

a) Villa has hundreds of thousands of fans all over the planet, but none of them read one particular newspaper.

The newspaper is extortionate in price.

I hope we're all not total donuts and some of us are still able to pop round the shops to buy a National newspaper for one pound twenty five.

I think the point is that most other papers will post such a report (or at least an abbreviated version) on the net that is freely available to all and would probably pop up on Newsnow etc. whereas the Times requires a subscription for its online content.

[macandally]

others want to see clubs or even people doing everything they can to better themselves.

Without mentioning McLeish give a such as

Not sure what your angling for, but suggestions might be:

Better and wider community outreach programs to identify and impact on 6-10 year olds both from a player perspective and from a support perspective.

Better overseas scouting infrastructure to identify promising young players.

Coach exchange program to encourage AV development staff to explore coaching methodologies overseas and identify areas where they might improve the AV development processes.

Cradle to grave coaching philosophy that encompasses a pass/move game throughout every age range within the AVFC development squads.

Those immediately spring to mind and I will be honest and say some might already be already in place. It doesnt appear so though.

[Mantis]

Question to people expecting us to sell Bent; Where is he going to go exactly? Think about it, none of the top 6 require his services, the rest can't afford him and he is back in the England fold at Villa, he moves up from Villa he has an awful lot of competition for places, at Villa, he's almost guaranteed a game. Can't see him going anywhere, it's not part of the plan imo.

Arsenal maybe??

Basically any of the big guns who are floundering around xmas - are going to look at a player who averages 1 in 2 , isn't playing for a CL club, and is only earning £65k a week.

Liverpool - would be favourites IMO

Chelsea - if things don't improve

Liverpool I could maybe see, but even then it's unlikely.

Chelsea? No chance. Bent is too limited for them. Besides, they normally go after glitzier players with bigger reputations.

[maqroll]

Darren Bent isn't good enough to play for Chelsea or Liverpool.

Bent is better than Carroll, Bellamy, Kuyt, Sturridge and the new Torres....I'd also prefer him to Drogba at this point, and he isn't the sulking prick that Anelka is.

Bent is good enough for each top 4 side.

[maqroll]

Bent's value to the top clubs is even higher with the homegrown rules coming into effect. I'd think all of them will come sniffing around at some point.

[DelboyVilla]

Bent's value to the top clubs is even higher with the homegrown rules coming into effect. I'd think all of them will come sniffing around at some point.

Totally agree. To be so naiive as to think he 'is not good enough' is very short sighted.

So the conclusion from Randy's interview is that the Times is a good paper but is too expensive for the average fan! Brilliant!

Never mind what he said or didn't say.

Would have liked a breif explaination as to why all the funds from AY and SD were not made available but hey ho I surpose that was expecting too much?

Oh and if you critise RL in any way you are a 'bastard'. Nice!

[walesavfc]

is that you Mr Meldrew ?

[TrentVilla]

We already have a thread on Bent so can we keep talk about him in that please and try and keep this one on topic.

Thanks

[Denis_B]

I think the point is that most other papers will post such a report (or at least an abbreviated version) on the net that is freely available to all and would probably pop up on Newsnow etc. whereas the Times requires a subscription for its online content.

As it was my original point for which I have been treated as some sort of heretic can I say the above point is totally correct.

Why speak now? The season is a 3rd of the way through and we were in a mess at the start of the season so why not make a 'rallying speech' then?

Why not speak to the local papers together ie Mail E and S who have a greater interest in the club than the bloody Times?

The i/v pubklished on the OS was done TWO WEEKS ago and was circulated this weekend - why?

This effort as I said many pages ago was too late and what does he actually say? - nothing!

[Mantis]

Bent's value to the top clubs is even higher with the homegrown rules coming into effect. I'd think all of them will come sniffing around at some point.

Totally agree. To be so naiive as to think he 'is not good enough' is very short sighted.

So the conclusion from Randy's interview is that the Times is a good paper but is too expensive for the average fan! Brilliant!

Never mind what he said or didn't say.

Would have liked a breif explaination as to why all the funds from AY and SD were not made available but hey ho I surpose that was expecting too much?

Oh and if you critise RL in any way you are a 'bastard'. Nice!

If The Times (£1.50) is too expensive for the "average fan" then I'm surprised attendances are as high as they are, after all, if only the more wealthy fans can afford a £1.50 newspaper then surely only the very very rich can afford match tickets?

[TrentVilla]

Well Denis_B if you are going to be treated as some kind of heretic then you need to save some space on the bonfire for me to join you.

I have for the last 18 months or so been critical of Randy and the club for their communications, which have either been non existent or in the cause of Paul Faulkner been amature and ill judged and even poorly worded at times. So it was a bit of a surprise to hear that Randy was going to deliver a message to the fans but a welcome one.

Yet what we got was a long winded article with precious few quotes and what quotes there were said next to nothing of any worth or note. It wasn't a rallying speech, it didn't give any real indication about the direction we are heading, his vision or plans it said next to nothing other than he isn't going anywhere.

As you say the time of the article is just odd given the events of recent months and I'm really not sure what he hoped that it would achieve.

I also agree with the comments in relation to where the interview was published, why pick a national paper with limited readership within our supports which restricts the replication of the article online. Why after such limited communication would you pick a medium to break your silence which is so limited?

Why not as you say speak to the local press? Why not just do a piece for the website?

I simply do not understand the motivation or the logic behind this article or have the first idea what Randy hoped that it would achieve. If he is going off back to the US with a smile thinking its a job done and that everyone will be happy with it and the attendances will go back up then I think he is mistaken.

I have to agree its too little too late.

[Big_John_10]

I think the team we're playing tonight show you don't need to keep spending ridiculous amounts of money to be competitive.

They have our keeper from last season in goal signed on a free.

Walker, bale, Dawson and Lennon were all young players signed for potential from smaller lower league teams.

They put a ridiculous price tag on one of their star players and stayed strong to that.

Adebayor was signed on loan and VDV was a bargain.

And their wage bill isn't out of control.

[Mantis]

The board certainly haven't been perfect but I really don't see anything wrong here? Just seems like criticism for the sake of criticism.

[John_Lerwill]

Just to put my post-Lerner publication comment in-

I can't believe that after the story was published, the first comments that came in included that Lerner had cocked it up because he did it with the Times, and that it costs money therefore he's out of touch with the fans.

This is -and this really is saying something- one of the stupidest things I've seen written on Villatalk. That's a comment worthy of YouTube's backward insane ranting comments. It might be one of the stupidest things I've seen written on the internet. Actually, scratch that last one.

What is being implied is:

a) Villa has hundreds of thousands of fans all over the planet, but none of them read one particular newspaper.

The newspaper is extortionate in price.

I hope we're all not total donuts and some of us are still able to pop round the shops to buy a National newspaper for one pound twenty five.

Doesn't sound to me as though you've read all the comments, mate.

I couldn't get a Times (in Birmingham) and - if to be done nationally - the Daily Mail would have given a much wider range of readers at less price, and would be readable free on-line (available, then, to all round the planet).

Similarly, if done in the Birmingham Mail it would have been freely available on-line.

[Super-Villan]

I think if you realise that communication with the fans has been an issue (which from his words he does) making your first public communication for some time in a publication with such restricted access isn't the smartest move in the world.

It's not something I'd dwell on for too long though.

[TrentVilla]

The board certainly haven't been perfect but I really don't see anything wrong here? Just seems like criticism for the sake of criticism.

You can't see that the artical is way too late?

You can't see that the artical actually says next to nothing?

You can't see why people think the choice of medium for speaking to the fans was poor?

It isn't critism for the sake of it, far from it in fact.

[Mantis]

The board certainly haven't been perfect but I really don't see anything wrong here? Just seems like criticism for the sake of criticism.

You can't see that the artical is way too late?

You can't see that the artical actually says next to nothing?

You can't see why people think the choice of medium for speaking to the fans was poor?

It isn't critism for the sake of it, far from it in fact.

I don't think it's too late, nor do I think it says next to nothing.

As far as the medium goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.