Arj Guy Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Lerner does not understand football. Simple as that. Based on what? I also don't get the years of NFL comments, I'm pretty sure Lerner knows more than anyone about relegation and what it will do to us. For a start giving Lambert a 4 year contract after a good 4 game start to the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 1, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 1, 2015 Lerner does not understand football. Simple as that. Based on what? I also don't get the years of NFL comments, I'm pretty sure Lerner knows more than anyone about relegation and what it will do to us They dont have relegation in the NFL and during all the years that he owned the Cleveland Browns they did absoutely nothing.He is doing the same thing here with Aston Villa. Posts like this make me laugh. Do people seriously think Lerner is sitting there blissfully unaware that finishing in the bottom 3 means we get relegated? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Lerner does not understand football. Simple as that. Based on what? I also don't get the years of NFL comments, I'm pretty sure Lerner knows more than anyone about relegation and what it will do to us They dont have relegation in the NFL and during all the years that he owned the Cleveland Browns they did absoutely nothing.He is doing the same thing here with Aston Villa. Posts like this make me laugh. Do people seriously think Lerner is sitting there blissfully unaware that finishing in the bottom 3 means we get relegated? No. It's his "couldn't give a ****" attitude that has got us into this mess, and it's been coming for 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 2, 2015 His problem is not his attitude, his backing or his planning. His problem is his blind faith in his managers despite the many warning signs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 His problem is not his attitude, his backing or his planning. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted March 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 2, 2015 This is all you need to know about the owner ... I'm telling you, this ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 His problem is not his attitude, his backing or his planning. His problem most certainly is his backing (financially) and his planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 2, 2015 His problem is not his attitude, his backing or his planning. His problem most certainly is his backing (financially) and his planning. It most certainly isn't and I'm taking my bat and ball and going home! He backed MON. Wrong manager. He backed Houllier. Wrong manager (due to health). he backed McLeish. Wrong manager. He backed Lambert (admittedly, to a much lesser degree). Wrong manager. He planned for stability by keeping them all long term. You guessed it: Wrong manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) His problem is not his attitude, his backing or his planning. His problem most certainly is his backing (financially) and his planning. It most certainly isn't and I'm taking my bat and ball and going home! He backed MON. Wrong manager. He backed Houllier. Wrong manager (due to health). he backed McLeish. Wrong manager. He backed Lambert (admittedly, to a much lesser degree). Wrong manager. He planned for stability by keeping them all long term. You guessed it: Wrong manager. Ooohhhhh no he didn't. Backing financially is subjective I guess because what constitutes the right amount of money? However, Because of his poor planning by backing MON with an open cheque book he has subsequently spent the following seasons cutting costs and financially backing the managers to the bare minimum in terms of both fees and wages. Houllier was only really backed in January when the fear of relegation popped up, McLeish had a negative net spend during his season and by the time Lambert came to the club we had pretty much been stripped of all assets worth selling and were now rebuilding the squad on the cheap. I honestly think Lerner has had his foot out of the door since Man City and FFP changed the game and MON threw his toys out of the pram and has been prepping the club for sale ever since. Edited March 2, 2015 by sexbelowsound 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 2, 2015 Significantly cutting the wage budget is not backing the manager. Even if he did give him transfer fees (but not much, relatively speaking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Could Be Rotterdam Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I remember the last pitch invasion we had. We were singing USA and there's only one randy Lerner. How times change...this achievement is in spite of him and I hope he doesn't bother turning up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I still hope to god he pisses off in the summer Sherwood needs backing for him to take us to the next level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Significantly cutting the wage budget is not backing the manager. Even if he did give him transfer fees (but not much, relatively speaking) Lambert was given a lot of chances despite bad results whilst having this mandate - I'd say he was backed throughout the period he was boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 He wasn't backed. Lerner was just happy to have someone keeping us up and accepting the lack of financial spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 9, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2015 He wasn't backed. Lerner was just happy to have someone keeping us up and accepting the lack of financial spending. hmm.... semantic question: "Backing the manager" means: - giving him money to spend? - sticking by him during a run of poor form? - both? Ooohhhhh no he didn't. Backing financially is subjective I guess because what constitutes the right amount of money? However, Because of his poor planning by backing MON with an open cheque book he has subsequently spent the following seasons cutting costs and financially backing the managers to the bare minimum in terms of both fees and wages. Houllier was only really backed in January when the fear of relegation popped up, McLeish had a negative net spend during his season and by the time Lambert came to the club we had pretty much been stripped of all assets worth selling and were now rebuilding the squad on the cheap. I honestly think Lerner has had his foot out of the door since Man City and FFP changed the game and MON threw his toys out of the pram and has been prepping the club for sale ever since. I agree about the foot out the door. However, to say he "only backed Houllier in January" - he had no other opportunity! Houllier started some 6+ games into the season. As for the others: He backed them by giving them some money and standing by them even through poor form. His choices, however, were wrong. I hope this one is right - but, then, it would be Fox's choice, not Lerners.... ... which is in itself cause for optimism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 9, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2015 Significantly cutting the wage budget is not backing the manager. Even if he did give him transfer fees (but not much, relatively speaking) Lambert was given a lot of chances despite bad results whilst having this mandate - I'd say he was backed throughout the period he was boss. I took it to mean financial backing. I agree that he "backed" him in terms of keeping him as manager and being happy with him. But I don't think he backed him financially. He gave him transfer fees, although the amount he was given was small considering how many players he had to bring in. But when you're cutting the wage bill during all of that it doesn't really count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Semi final of the cup. Imagine what we could do with a chairman who cares, and knows what he is doing. Lerner out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Significantly cutting the wage budget is not backing the manager. Even if he did give him transfer fees (but not much, relatively speaking) Lambert was given a lot of chances despite bad results whilst having this mandate - I'd say he was backed throughout the period he was boss. I took it to mean financial backing. I agree that he "backed" him in terms of keeping him as manager and being happy with him. But I don't think he backed him financially. He gave him transfer fees, although the amount he was given was small considering how many players he had to bring in. But when you're cutting the wage bill during all of that it doesn't really count. OK - that's obviously different. I think the fact that we're more or less self-sufficient now is going to prove to be worth it long term. It's been a rough few years but something we really had to do and we've got a good squad to build with now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 All this talk of Lambert not being backed is nonsense. Everyone knows we had the eleventeenth highest net spend in the galaxy during his time here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I agree about the foot out the door. However, to say he "only backed Houllier in January" - he had no other opportunity! Houllier started some 6+ games into the season. As for the others: He backed them by giving them some money and standing by them even through poor form. His choices, however, were wrong. I hope this one is right - but, then, it would be Fox's choice, not Lerners.... ... which is in itself cause for optimism. Fair point about Houllier, completely forgot about that! All this talk of Lambert not being backed is nonsense. Everyone knows we had the eleventeenth highest net spend in the galaxy during his time here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts