The Randy Lerner thread

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Richard said:

Worse than Ellis.

I know some will disagree,  they do every time,  but he is worse and the words of Fox tell you why.  In an era when finances for football were higher than ever we stood still.  We did not try and capitalize on that we put nothing in place we stood still and as a result other clubs are better placed than us.  Lerner,  supposed to be a better owner / person / businessman than Ellis fared worse.  No doubt people will come on here and say Ellis did the same.  Sure we stood still under Ellis,  sure we could have been Arsenal is what people will say and to an extent I agree.  However,  the football climate was far far more richer under Lerner and he put nothing not one thing in place which now makes the club undesirable.  We were not undesirable under Ellis.

Worse than Ellis.

Well if you keep saying the same thing over and over, people may disagree over and over. I think you're wrong in this instance too (but have no problem with you holding your viewpoint).

Firstly (and I was going to write this anyway, without having seen your post), the Commercial nouse of Villa has been rubbish for decades. It's not a recent thing. The one area where we did OK was in the Ground having a highish number of exec boxes. This meant we had an advantage in the 80s and 90s to an extent, over clubs with old grounds - Everton, Liverpool, even, till they extended their centenary stand. Some of our boxes might have looked like 1960s living rooms but at least people paid to go in them, and the club got a bit of extra revenue. Ellis didn't upgrade them or owt like that, but there they were. Otherwise our commercial revenue was awful.

When Randy came along, he spent money on the TR exec area (upsetting people who had nice seats there, sadly) and increased revenue significantly as a result. He's also increased the other side of deals to an extent - more than Ellis ever did, but not to any huge effect. I don't think he was that bothered to start with. Now clearly there's (finally) a focus on it (and we hear a lot of wailing about it, Fox and Hilton being knocked for it, in fact). But Faulkner then Fox did improve things, and from a very low base - the club Randy bought cost 64 Million (low for a Prem club) because it was in a mess commercially, couldn't afford to finish the training ground, and had maxed out the overdraft. Villa wasn't massively desirable when Ellis owned it. There were a few chancers, but no one "snapped the club up" because of its desireability.

My other point, is that despite spending the last 5 years tarting about just above, or in the relegation zone with consequential low TV money, we still end up 10th in the PL in income - so surely other income must be better than many rivals all earning more telly money? The gates aren't huge and prices are less high than many other clubs...so the non-TV revenue is exceeding league placing. It's not brillaint, but it's better than under Ellis, and now, at last, they've started paying attention to it.

[Richard]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

When Randy came along, he spent money on the TR exec area (upsetting people who had nice seats there, sadly)

Ive seen this comment a few times on here made to me on posts.  Obviously not all of them by you but as yours is the latest you'll forgive me for addressing it as people seem to  mistakenly believe I took against Lerner after he did this and that is utterly ludicrous .  TRhanks for giving me the opportunity of dealing with it.

[AlwaysAVFC]

At times I stick up for Lerner in terms of cutting back since it went wrong. The simple fact is if he had not we would be even more screwed.

That said he's destroyed us anyway, with reckless spending and giving MON too much control. Numerous big bad decisions and now we're still apparently in a massive organisational mess, yet the shit it the fan years ago now, it's never a quick fix but we seem to be back to square one.

[BOF]

It takes some doing to cut back, simplify, re-group and re-organise from top to bottom and end up after all of that with a bigger mess than the overly-complicated unsustainable leviathan you started out with.

It's like Mr. Bean, Frank Spencer and Laurel & Hardy all got together to try and run a football club

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, Richard said:

Ive seen this comment a few times on here made to me on posts.  Obviously not all of them by you but as yours is the latest you'll forgive me for addressing it as people seem to  mistakenly believe I took against Lerner after he did this and that is utterly ludicrous .  Thanks for giving me the opportunity of dealing with it.

I've never mentioned it before. I don't for a moment hold that your views of Lerner stem from it. They clearly don't.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

It is shocking isn't it. I said when the accounts came out after O’Neill walked that it was a massive failing of the club that it could not get income up to a level to be able to sustain having the 6^th highest wage bill in the league whilst finishing in the top 6.

A club of our size should, if run well, have been able to get income up to a level to sustain such outgoings especially at a time when there were opportunities to be capitalized on.

The club took the position that our out goings were too high when in fact they were spot on for the positions we were finishing and it was the fact our income was too low that was the issue. Had we have gotten things right off the pitch we may well have been able to kick on from establishing ourselves in the top 6. Instead we have gone rapidly backwards. It has though taken them almost 6 years to finally acknowledge this.

I sort of agree, but also think it's a bit more complicated than that (necessarily simple) analysis. What Lerner chose to do was spend a ton of money to get a club that had finished right down the bottom, with a rubbish squad, into the top 4. That meant rapid (not organic, self-sustaining) wage increases, big transfers and so on. There would, for any club be the exact same mismatch of income and expenditure under the same circs. There would always be a lag. Commercial deals have to run out, new ones be agreed and signed, and while we finished top 6, we never got the extra exposure of Champions league that could have brought in the big commercial income (and TV). It was a big gamble, and we fell short. We should still have worked at better commercial income and it's a failing of Lerner that we didn't progress so much in that are though I have sympathy because of the terrible starting point and the missing out of top 4, 3 times.

3 hours ago, Richard said:

Mark,  you will recall my thread at the time basically saying we needed more investment to kick on and if Randy could not afford it he should seek additional investment or move on.  Oh what fun I had from posters after making that thread

It's still the case I believe that the money put into the club by Randy has been significant. Enough cash has been put in to get far, far, better results than we have seen. It's not for me, and never has been about lack of money - it's always been about how you use what you have to the best effect for the club. So many other clubs have used less money to much more effect. That's the main "crime" not lack of owner input. As I said at the time, I don't want a succession of ever richer owners to come along and throw a wad at the club, then be replaced by the next American/Russian/Chinese/Gulf Sheik when it's deemed not enough.

The owner (any owner) should run the club properly so it can largely support itself, progress, entertain supporters, challenge for trophies and be a source of pride. It's been benign negligence/loss of interest, not lack of money that's done for us.

[markavfc40]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I sort of agree, but also think it's a bit more complicated than that (necessarily simple) analysis. What Lerner chose to do was spend a ton of money to get a club that had finished right down the bottom, with a rubbish squad, into the top 4. That meant rapid (not organic, self-sustaining) wage increases, big transfers and so on. There would, for any club be the exact same mismatch of income and expenditure under the same circs. There would always be a lag. Commercial deals have to run out, new ones be agreed and signed, and while we finished top 6, we never got the extra exposure of Champions league that could have brought in the big commercial income (and TV). It was a big gamble, and we fell short. We should still have worked at better commercial income and it's a failing of Lerner that we didn't progress so much in that are though I have sympathy because of the terrible starting point and the missing out of top 4, 3 times.

Pete I agree with much of what you say and have over the years acknowledged in this thread and others that Lerners failings haven't been a lack of money from his own pocket it has been in his own lack of where with all and his failings to make up for that by not employing the right people to get the best out of the club.

One thing I do slightly disagree with though is that Lerner spent a ton of money to get the club from right down the bottom to the top 4. The day it was confirmed we gave up on that dream, the day O'Neill walked if you like, I think our net spend at that point under Lerner had been around 75 mill and a week later with the sale of Milner it would have been around 55 mill. I don't really think that was ever realistically enough to take a club that had finished 16th and get them into the top 4 ahead of the established clubs in Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, a quickly emerging and even then big spending Man City and also Spurs. Given what we spent sixth was about all we could have expected. To achieve more would have required an exceptional manager and we didn't have one.

Edited January 22, 2016 by markavfc40

[blandy]

That's an entirely fair view to hold, Mark. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh.

[VillaChris]

Another interesting point from your good self Mark....on revenue I remember at the time the frequent threads here and elsewhere questioning why our wage bill was so much higher than Spurs when both teams were on a relatively equal footing between 2008-10 and they probably had a better starting 11.

One of the things that always stood out to me was how much more coporate revenue and sponsorship Spurs were getting from Hospitality box deals, shirt sponsors. I do think the club tried it's best during that time to raise our profile here and abroad but how much demand was there really to buy a Villa shirt in say Milton Keynes. Sports shops there are overflowing with Spurs tops. Their location helps big time in selling the club whether we like it or not.

Again back to the point....how many clubs at the time would give a manager 30 odd million to spend on a back 4 in 2008 (Cuellar, Shorey, Luke Young, Friedel, Curtis Davies permanent) and then give him a similar figure to sign another new defence the next summer (Habib Beye, Warnock, Collins, Dunne). I'm pretty sure during one of those summers we were in the top 5 highest net spenders in europe not just the Premier league.

O'Neill got his own way for too long and when champions league football was not achieved it was not an unreasonable request to inform him to move on Sidwell, Beye, Luke Young, Curtis Davies if he wasn't going to be using them before he could go on another spending spree on Aiden McGeady, Scott Parker and Robbie Keane.

I do agree nearly 6 years have passed now and it's futile to keep harping back to that era as plenty of managers could've done better and got us out of the negative spiral.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

One season we finished six points off fourth (was it?).

In that season we had the second/third best away record but something like the twelfth best home record. Our failure that season wasn't down to inadequate resources to crack the top four, it was down to bad game management at home and too much expensive and useless shite sitting on the bench or on the fringes of the squad. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

2 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

Pete I agree with much of what you say and have over the years acknowledged in this thread and others that Lerners failings haven't been a lack of money from his own pocket it has been in his own lack of where with all and his failings to make up for that by not employing the right people to get the best out of the club.

One thing I do slightly disagree with though is that Lerner spent a ton of money to get the club from right down the bottom to the top 4. The day it was confirmed we gave up on that dream, the day O'Neill walked if you like, I think our net spend at that point under Lerner had been around 75 mill and a week later with the sale of Milner it would have been around 55 mill. I don't really think that was ever realistically enough to take a club that had finished 16th and get them into the top 4 ahead of the established clubs in Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, a quickly emerging and even then big spending Man City and also Spurs. Given what we spent sixth was about all we could have expected. To achieve more would have required an exceptional manager and we didn't have one.

We spent approximately £80m net in three seasons and a January, with an eye watering £40m net in the summer of 2008. The first summer was basically a washout with the takeover and O'Neill-esq dilly-dallying. Who knows what might have happened had O'Neill not left and Milner gone regardless, Randy seemed more than happy to hand £30m to Houllier the following winter. 

Our net spend was amongst the highest in Europe at that time, particularly in O'Neill's second summer. £20m net average every year now may not seem a lot, but almost 10 years ago it was a "war-chest". A consistent one. In retrospect I think the manager of the time failed, the only grudge I can possibly hold against Lerner is that he trusted the wrong man with too much money, particularly on wages. I think if he'd had a Tom Fox then rather than the other blathering idiot (or nobody at the start) things would have gone a whole lot better. He was still in a mode to trust Houllier with £30m after that...

From McLeish forward, dreadful in every sense. 

I agree with the main point and in my opinion the appointment of Faulkner in particular was possibly the worst decision he ever made. Maybe the worst decision anyone involved with this club has ever made.  

[VillaChris]

42 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

One season we finished six points off fourth (was it?).

In that season we had the second/third best away record but something like the twelfth best home record. Our failure that season wasn't down to inadequate resources to crack the top four, it was down to bad game management at home and too much expensive and useless shite sitting on the bench or on the fringes of the squad. 

Yes the season you're probably on about was 09/10....Spurs won 14/19 home games, we won 8.

[Spoony]

Apparently there are teams "spending millions" "taking risks" "rolling the dice" etc.

 

IT'S CALLED BEING IN THE **** PREMIER LEAGUE!!!!

[samjp26]

1 hour ago, Spoony said:

Apparently there are teams "spending millions" "taking risks" "rolling the dice" etc.

 

IT'S CALLED BEING IN THE **** PREMIER LEAGUE!!!!

Exactly, and the clubs doing so are the ones who will stay in the Premier League.

[srsmithusa]

30 minutes ago, samjp26 said:

Exactly, and the clubs doing so are the ones who will stay in the Premier League.

Or, actuallly, 17 of them will.

[Dodgyknees]

And cutting funding, not spending where needed etc is also a massive risk - as can be seen by our 12 points, yet they are willing to take that type of risk.

idiots.

i think the new business model is to cut costs upon relegation, sell off all players we can make a buck off and then rebuild using league 1 and 2 and foreign bargains. They hope this will leave us with very low costs, ready to make money if one of the players turns into a Vardy.

its not a risk though!

[PussEKatt]

1 hour ago, DK82 said:

And cutting funding, not spending where needed etc is also a massive risk - as can be seen by our 12 points, yet they are willing to take that type of risk.

idiots.

i think the new business model is to cut costs upon relegation, sell off all players we can make a buck off and then rebuild using league 1 and 2 and foreign bargains. They hope this will leave us with very low costs, ready to make money if one of the players turns into a Vardy.

its not a risk though!

Sounds ok BUT then you have to finish top ( with these players ) of the pile to win promotion then you have to spend again to stay in the PL.I think it would be cheaper to stay in the Pl instead of going down and back up again.

[Rds1983]

2 hours ago, PussEKatt said:

Sounds ok BUT then you have to finish top ( with these players ) of the pile to win promotion then you have to spend again to stay in the PL.I think it would be cheaper to stay in the Pl instead of going down and back up again.

Even with the parachute payments the money we will lose from not getting the tv money will outweigh anything we can make from finding a potential Vardy.

[blandy]

11 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

We spent approximately £80m net in three seasons and a January, with an eye watering £40m net in the summer of 2008. The first summer was basically a washout with the takeover and O'Neill-esq dilly-dallying. Who knows what might have happened had O'Neill not left and Milner gone regardless, Randy seemed more than happy to hand £30m to Houllier the following winter. 

Our net spend was amongst the highest in Europe at that time, particularly in O'Neill's second summer. £20m net average every year now may not seem a lot, but almost 10 years ago it was a "war-chest". A consistent one. In retrospect I think the manager of the time failed, the only grudge I can possibly hold against Lerner is that he trusted the wrong man with too much money, particularly on wages. I think if he'd had a Tom Fox then rather than the other blathering idiot (or nobody at the start) things would have gone a whole lot better. He was still in a mode to trust Houllier with £30m after that...

From McLeish forward, dreadful in every sense. 

I agree with the main point and in my opinion the appointment of Faulkner in particular was possibly the worst decision he ever made. Maybe the worst decision anyone involved with this club has ever made.  

I agree with all that analysis, except the bit about Faulkner, which to my reading is ludicrously out of proportion. Just one line above it you provide evidence of a far worse decision by Lerner and that's without going back to the offences of Ellis, Bendall and others.

[thabucks]

Oh Randy.....This will go down well for sure 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villa-owner-randy-lerner-7234447

 

Quote

Aston Villa owner Randy Lerner rumoured to be lining up son Max for bigger executive role

• 22:30, 23 JAN 2016
• BY NEIL MOXLEY

The 18-year-old could be parachuted into the club at an executive level for the Premier League strugglers

 

 

Edited January 23, 2016 by thabucks