The Randy Lerner thread

[CI]

how the **** would a steward know anything ??

They are the black cab drivers of the footballing world

Want to know anything, ask a steward (especially the ones who work in corporate) they are deffo ITK

[b6bloke]

Only just heard about this QIA thing and most I could find was this off avillafan.com

Take Over or Wind Up?15 Comments »Posted in Aston VillaDec 19, 2011

Take Over rumours have been on and off all season and like all rumours they could be complete and utter crap or actually have some truth to them.

The latest rumour to do the rounds is from a mysterious new member on our forums, and yes It could be and probably is a complete and utter wind up, but maybe, just maybe it isnt.

This is what he stated:

Your being taken over by QIA (Qatar Investment Authority). The people that own Malaga and PSG, also tried to buy Everton (didn’t want to buy a new stadium) and Blackburn (had their offered declined by Venkys, even though they offered to give them their money back for the club, remove all the debts they had accrued and also pay each family member £4.2million each).

It’ll happen at the end of this season – You owe Lerner a fortune. He doesn’t want to sell, and didn’t want to sell, but accepted these people offer something he never will be able too, and accepted the bid on the basis that its what is best for the club.

To put it into perspective, QIA make City look like Derby.

How I know? I couldn’t possibly tell you. But you’ll see. The story will start breaking late Feb/early March

.

Though doing another search it seems the fact that they own PSJ UEFA rules only allow them to own 49% of another club as in this piece there was rumour that they were after manu

Rumours of the Qatar royal family taking over Manchester United have gathered pace following the deferral of the club’s flotation on the Singapore stock exchange.

But senior club sources have backed up the recent categoric denial of Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, a Qatari royal and the country’s prime minister, by pointing out that such a deal is impossible because Uefa rules forbid it.

The Sweeper understands that the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), which runs the country’s multi-billion dollar sovereign wealth fund, would only be able to purchase a maximum 49 per cent stake in the world’s most expensive club.

This is because QIA acquired a 70 per cent controlling stake in Paris Saint-Germain in May, a deal they followed up by funding a Manchester City-style refurbishment of the Ligue 1 club that included the French record buy of Javier Pastore for £37 million.

Article 3.01 © of Uefa’s regulations states that in order to ensure the integrity of the Uefa club competitions “no individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition”. Such control or influence is defined as “holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights” or “being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club”.

In the case of QIA, who are using football to improve Qatar’s international standing and enhance its image as a global sports mecca, Uefa has confirmed that the investment vehicle would not be able to go beyond the 49 per cent threshold if it was to invest in United, who were valued at £1.13 billion by Forbes in its 2011 Soccer Valuation survey.

Nevertheless, The Sweeper has been told that Qatar’s interest in acquiring a stake in the world’s richest club is genuine and that talks have been held between QIA and representatives of the Glazer family, United’s current owners.

Sources anticipate further negotiations between the two parties, which could result in Qatar acquiring a minority holding in United.

[Richard]

If true, it cannot come soon enough for me

[blandy]

I think we have seen that we are not able to raise the required revenue to enable us to even half heartledly make a challenge to the top 6/7 so this is the problem he has. Do we stagnate, settle for averageness or what?

&

Fair enough Pete, BUT why do Manure and Spuds have anything to do with things B6? They are different models with massively different income sources to us.

So if we don't stagnate and he doesn't sell what are the alternatives? He clearly can't pick a manager to do what Harry has done ..

I don't completely think along the same lines, Denis. Our revenue, at the moment, comes largely from TV, and yes, a few other clubs are currently able to raise much more commercially (sponsorship, executive stuff, corporate and so on, and merchandising) But not that many other English Clubs. Champions league revenue is the big differentiator, obviously, and that competition is deliberately and horribly skewed and weighted to perpetuate the status quo.

Nevertheless, under Randy we have made steps forward compared to previously, in the corporate and other areas. It still needs working at, and it's not an overnight thing. But we are better off than Clubs like Everton, Sunderland, Newcastle etc in many respects. Just because of geography, state of the ground and so on.

I think keeping working at the non TV revenue has to be important. That's not just going to people with a begging bowl, but actively promoting the Club, bit in the Midlands and nationally and wider. When RL came in, there was a lot of effort in that respect, and it seems less apparent now. There were posters up in town and more of an open appeal, somehow.

But while we try and grow that revenue, there still needs to be, following all the money initially put in, a more balanced or re-balanced financial approach

Once we get the high earners off the books........we either:-

1.Don't replace them

2.Replace them with lower earners

3.Replace them with people on a similar salary

options 1&2 would likley send the team backwards.

Whilst 3 would give cause for optimism on the pitch - it sort of defeats the whole 'we must get the wage bill down' ethos.

I think that what's needed here is better managerial judgement and better discipline on wage control. It's not hard to envisage that signing Emille Heskey and paying him bucket loads could have been done better. It's not hard to replace Heskey, or Ireland, or Beye, with players who contribute more, but are paid significantly less, surely?

If the manager (whoever he is) is told that at the current time the max wage is to be no more than X per week that doesn't automatically mean the team will get worse, in my view.

While the academy and youth set up is no guarantee of players coming through to replace ones leaving, we do seem to have a very good set up, and surely using it to help sustain the side is a good thing. Whether that be through recouping some cost from players not quite making it at Villa being sold, or through people like Gabby, Marc Albrighton, Barry Bannan, Ciaran Clark, Gary Gardner or whoever.

The future does not have to be bleak, and nor should it be.

What I don't accept as in any way sensible is an idea that you just hope for a sequence of ever richer individuals to come along and throw their money at the club, until it's all gone, then they be hounded out to be replaced by the next one. Aside from having no idea whether you will get an Abramovic or a Shinawatra or a Sheik Mansour or a Portsmouth charlatan or a Venky's there aren't enough rich benefactors to go round, anyway.

I personally think the idea that we should want Randy to clear off and be replaced by a richer man from wherever and complaining that it's not happened is pathetic, like a kid demanding a Ferrari for Christmas and then moaning when he doesn't get one. I know football seems like a financial arms race - to see who can get the biggest spending gun, but it's wrong and it's got to be stopped. It just makes players and agents richer and everyone else poorer and increasingly bitter and cynical.

By all means we should analyse what RL does well and not so well, and criticise and all the rest, but focusing on hoping for a Qatari prince doesn't really help anything, including a sense of perspective.

[Houlston]

What I don't accept as in any way sensible is an idea that you just hope for a sequence of ever richer individuals to come along and throw their money at the club, until it's all gone, then they be hounded out to be replaced by the next one. Aside from having no idea whether you will get an Abramovic or a Shinawatra or a Sheik Mansour or a Portsmouth charlatan or a Venky's there aren't enough rich benefactors to go round, anyway.

I personally think the idea that we should want Randy to clear off and be replaced by a richer man from wherever and complaining that it's not happened is pathetic, like a kid demanding a Ferrari for Christmas and then moaning when he doesn't get one. I know football seems like a financial arms race - to see who can get the biggest spending gun, but it's wrong and it's got to be stopped. It just makes players and agents richer and everyone else poorer and increasingly bitter and cynical.

Managers are hounded out of clubs quicker than ever, there is hardly any stability at any club with fans always hoping that a new manager will bring a honeymoon period and change the fortunes of the club around. It now seems to be that owners are becoming the new managers in that they are also been hounded out of clubs as soon as that 'Ferrari' isnt bought or its taken away because circumstances change.

As you its pathetic.

[Richard]

Thing is the game is basically about getting the better players to play for you and getting the better players means more money, certainly if you want to be successful. And I want the club to be successful.

Now add to that my opinion that Randy basically has no clue how to run a successful, shall we say, sports franchise. For me this is evidenced by the crazy decisions he has made in the last couple of years since the only person at the club who did have a clue, MON, left. Well to me that means that I would be delighted if Randy were to leave .

So add the first point and second together.

Football is all about money. I want Randy to leave as he has not one clue, IMHO. So why would I want a new owner with less money than Randy ?

Peter, I neither expect nor need you or anyone else on here to agree with my viewpoint. It matters not to me if you vehemently object to my opinion and I have absolutely no interest in seeking your , or anyone else's, approval of my stance.

However, what I have not done is label your opinion (or anyone else's) as pathetic or said ".........(insert your point here) my arse" , you see to me that is the thing that doesn't really help anything

[makouns_grin]

Football is all about money.

No its not.

[smetrov]

If Randy hasn't got the money fair enough - but he has other weaknesses as well:-

Managerial Appointments: - Houllier, Mcleish - with Martinez, Mclaren, Mcdonald - in the frame - doesn't inspire confidence even post Mcleish

Attendance:- 2 games since August hardly smacks of a committed chairman does it.

[macandally]

I think we have seen that we are not able to raise the required revenue to enable us to even half heartledly make a challenge to the top 6/7 so this is the problem he has. Do we stagnate, settle for averageness or what?

&

Fair enough Pete, BUT why do Manure and Spuds have anything to do with things B6? They are different models with massively different income sources to us.

So if we don't stagnate and he doesn't sell what are the alternatives? He clearly can't pick a manager to do what Harry has done ..

I don't completely think along the same lines, Denis. Our revenue, at the moment, comes largely from TV, and yes, a few other clubs are currently able to raise much more commercially (sponsorship, executive stuff, corporate and so on, and merchandising) But not that many other English Clubs. Champions league revenue is the big differentiator, obviously, and that competition is deliberately and horribly skewed and weighted to perpetuate the status quo.

Nevertheless, under Randy we have made steps forward compared to previously, in the corporate and other areas. It still needs working at, and it's not an overnight thing. But we are better off than Clubs like Everton, Sunderland, Newcastle etc in many respects. Just because of geography, state of the ground and so on.

I think keeping working at the non TV revenue has to be important. That's not just going to people with a begging bowl, but actively promoting the Club, bit in the Midlands and nationally and wider. When RL came in, there was a lot of effort in that respect, and it seems less apparent now. There were posters up in town and more of an open appeal, somehow.

But while we try and grow that revenue, there still needs to be, following all the money initially put in, a more balanced or re-balanced financial approach

Once we get the high earners off the books........we either:-

1.Don't replace them

2.Replace them with lower earners

3.Replace them with people on a similar salary

options 1&2 would likley send the team backwards.

Whilst 3 would give cause for optimism on the pitch - it sort of defeats the whole 'we must get the wage bill down' ethos.

I think that what's needed here is better managerial judgement and better discipline on wage control. It's not hard to envisage that signing Emille Heskey and paying him bucket loads could have been done better. It's not hard to replace Heskey, or Ireland, or Beye, with players who contribute more, but are paid significantly less, surely?

If the manager (whoever he is) is told that at the current time the max wage is to be no more than X per week that doesn't automatically mean the team will get worse, in my view.

While the academy and youth set up is no guarantee of players coming through to replace ones leaving, we do seem to have a very good set up, and surely using it to help sustain the side is a good thing. Whether that be through recouping some cost from players not quite making it at Villa being sold, or through people like Gabby, Marc Albrighton, Barry Bannan, Ciaran Clark, Gary Gardner or whoever.

The future does not have to be bleak, and nor should it be.

What I don't accept as in any way sensible is an idea that you just hope for a sequence of ever richer individuals to come along and throw their money at the club, until it's all gone, then they be hounded out to be replaced by the next one. Aside from having no idea whether you will get an Abramovic or a Shinawatra or a Sheik Mansour or a Portsmouth charlatan or a Venky's there aren't enough rich benefactors to go round, anyway.

I personally think the idea that we should want Randy to clear off and be replaced by a richer man from wherever and complaining that it's not happened is pathetic, like a kid demanding a Ferrari for Christmas and then moaning when he doesn't get one. I know football seems like a financial arms race - to see who can get the biggest spending gun, but it's wrong and it's got to be stopped. It just makes players and agents richer and everyone else poorer and increasingly bitter and cynical.

By all means we should analyse what RL does well and not so well, and criticise and all the rest, but focusing on hoping for a Qatari prince doesn't really help anything, including a sense of perspective.

Good post!!

I dont see the word pathetic anywhere though and firmly believe that a manager should offer something going forward in line with the owners aspirations.

If that is the case at the moment, it appears RL has no aspirations for the club!

I dont care how pathetic it sounds, McLeish is not, nor ever was the right man for the Villa job.

[coda]

Keep hearing about Randy not attending games. Sheikh Mansour has attended one game, I think, since he bought Citeh. People aren't questioning his commitment. I agree about McLeish being an horrific appointment.

[heystally!]

Keep hearing about Randy not attending games. Sheikh Mansour has attended one game, I think, since he bought Citeh. People aren't questioning his commitment. I agree about McLeish being an horrific appointment.

I think people are more annoyed about the idea that Randy attended a fair few games when things were going well, but as soon as we have a bit of disruption at the club, look like we have no money to spend, and look like we are a poorer team than previous years, he's nowhere to be seen.

[CI]

On what basis was Eck appointed

Every angle you look from it's a bizarre choice

[Big_John_10]

I fully accept randy hasn't got the financial muscle to buy our way into competing with the top 4. I could actually be happy with him as an owner, even with limited finances, if he could actually do the two main parts of his job well.

We have limited finances and he lost complete control of them.

He has appointed two awful managers and the current one hardly looks the sort to build a competitive team on limited finances.

Wether people think its pathetic or not I don't really care. I want Lerner out for more than just the fact he isn't stupidly rich.

[blandy]

...I have not done is label your opinion (or anyone else's) as pathetic or said ".........(insert your point here) my arse" , you see to me that is the thing that doesn't really help anything

I have said, and completely stand by the view that in my opinion, the idea of wishing Randy to sell up to someone much wealthier And then complaining when he hasn't done so is pathetic. I'm not sure that you've complained he hasn't sold up, so I'm not sure my comment actually applies to you, does it?

Yes, I said that the claim that "having sustainable wages is regressive" is a**e. The reason being that regressive means "Becoming less advanced". It isn't less advanced, it is more advanced. Unsustainable wages can only lead to trouble - either with the law makers or with the banks, going bust or being barred from European competition ultimately is, to me, a step backwards from being solvent or from being able to play in Europe - that's regressive. Sustainable wages is progressive. The claim you made is in my opinion wrong.

I reserve the right to say so, and even to use the word "a**e". Sorry if that offends, as no offence is intended.

[Mantis]

Wouldn't say Houllier was an awful appointment. Wasn't all that bad an appointment at the time, especially considering how the season had already started. McLeish was an absolute clanger though. I'm prepared to give him another chance (that's if we ever get rid of McLeish) but he has to at least make a half decent appointment.

[PauloBarnesi]

Houllier was an out of left field appointment. It didn’t work and they should have sacked him last christmas, bought in someone and let them spend the £24 million for Makoun and Bent in the way they would have chosen. Instead we have spent that money, all the money on termination package, on hiring a new clown. By the end we have spent a fortune. And this was supposed to be a money saving exercise? Would have probably been cheaper to keep on Irish zebedee

[OnlyOne]

There's still no one who can come up wtih a logical reason why hiring AM was the best for this club. For that reason Randy Lerner has to go. I don't trust his future appointments seeing as he has a history of bad appointments at the Browns as well and he should at least understand that Sport seeing as he grew up where his dad played a major part of it. He is absolutely useless at decision making. An embarassment.

[makouns_grin]

There's still no one who can come up wtih a logical reason why hiring AM was the best for this club. For that reason Randy Lerner has to go.

Comedy gold.

So if one person came up with a logical reason, he could stay?

Brilliant

Thank god Lerner doesn't listen to the fans, it would be an almighty disaster, 100 times worse than anything currently!

[heystally!]

There's still no one who can come up wtih a logical reason why hiring AM was the best for this club.

1) He would take the job on a limited budget.

That's a logical reason. Whether it's a good reason or not is another matter.

[OnlyOne]

Plenty of good upcoming managers would take the job at the Premier League regardless of the budget. To manage at Villa, a club with a Premier League status is a massive bonus and privilege.