The Randy Lerner thread

[CI]

I'm guessing he's over to visit Stan

Then he'll disappear without taking in the Easter games

He comes over on Monday fairly regularly.

As i have stated before, I don't see the relevance of whether he attends games or not, he is clearly actively involved.

Sorry but I believe his presence on a match day is required at this time

It may get an extra 10% out of the manager and players

Equally he needs to gauge the atmosphere around villa park

[thefeet1980]

I'm assuming you were trying to quote my post (the bits in black) and then make a comment on it (the bit I've highlighted in blue)?

As for Lerner's "gamble", that is not a good approach to business. Suppose Lerner had been honest and said at the start: the plan is to spend for 4 seasons at a level that can't be sustained. If we reach the CL, establish ourselves as a regular top side and can regularly make the CL group stages then we will generate some income that will help replenish the team but if we fail there will be several seasons of severe disinvestment, selling off our top 4 quality players and settling for mid table survival?

Are you absolutely sure Villa fans would have backed that foolish approach?

Whether MON blew it or not would also have become irrelevant because I doubt he would have taken the job on such risky terms.

Even if by some magic we had transformed in 2 or 3 seasons into a regular top 4 side, the level of income generated by the CL alone would not have been enough to keep us there.

Yes, thank you, I made a bit of a hash of it but have corrected it now.

I think Lerner's understanding was that the additional Champions League revenue, along with the increased commercial revenue that this (and other measures the club took) would generate, would become sustainable over time. Yes, spending 80% of total revenue on wages is far from sustainable but, when you compare our revenue to that of the 'big' clubs, there was clearly lots of opportunity to grow.

It was a gamble, but he would have rightly assumed that, had we needed to, we could sell off some of our assets and bring in less expensive replacements with potential. As I have already said, he couldn't have predicted the impact of the financial crisis, his own divorce, the game-changing emergence of big spending Man City, or, finally, that MON would invest so much in squad players that would have such little re-sale value. It was MON's reckless transfer policy (combined with the other external factors) that meant such large scale rationalisation was needed.

We're almost through it. Providing we don't go down, I think we'll see some exciting transfers over the summer. I'd personally prefer that it was Houllier rather than McLeish making the signings.

[Big_John_10]

We didn't spend enough to guarantee and 4th place spot and we certainly didn't spend enough to manage consistent top 4 finishes.

Look at spurs, they couldn't manage it the following year. What they did though was refuse to sell modric to Chelsea and add to their wage bill with free transfer, loans and cheap signings and they're back challenging. If MON had managed a 4th place spot I think it's unlikely we'd have held off spurs or city the following year.

Also the emergence of city is rubbish, they spent a shit load of money before they were taken over so although not the richest team in the world it would have been stupid to dismiss them as a threat.

IMO if MoN had got a 4th place finish it would have just delayed the position we find ourselves in now because Lerner was simply not running the club well.

A whole new approach is needed for the club, unfortunately that approach has become 3 years of Mcleish which speaks volumes about Lerner's current ambitions.

[thefeet1980]

We didn't spend enough to guarantee and 4th place spot and we certainly didn't spend enough to manage consistent top 4 finishes.

Look at spurs, they couldn't manage it the following year. What they did though was refuse to sell modric to Chelsea and add to their wage bill with free transfer, loans and cheap signings and they're back challenging. If MON had managed a 4th place spot I think it's unlikely we'd have held off spurs or city the following year.

Also the emergence of city is rubbish, they spent a shit load of money before they were taken over so although not the richest team in the world it would have been stupid to dismiss them as a threat.

IMO if MoN had got a 4th place finish it would have just delayed the position we find ourselves in now because Lerner was simply not running the club well.

A whole new approach is needed for the club, unfortunately that approach has become 3 years of Mcleish which speaks volumes about Lerner's current ambitions.

Rather than answer your post point by point, I've a quick question - what should Lerner have done diffently prior to hiring McLeish?

[thefeet1980]

Acutally, changed my mind.

We didn't spend enough to guarantee and 4th place spot and we certainly didn't spend enough to manage consistent top 4 finishes.

I can't imagine you are suggesting we should have spent more? In which case, are you suggesting that we should have spent less to achieve even less than (less than) fourth?

Look at spurs, they couldn't manage it the following year. What they did though was refuse to sell modric to Chelsea and add to their wage bill with free transfer, loans and cheap signings and they're back challenging. If MON had managed a 4th place spot I think it's unlikely we'd have held off spurs or city the following year.

So are you suggesting that once we found ourselves in a difficult financial position we should have compounded the problem by refusing to sell Young, Downing, Milner? Spurs were not in the same position as us and have a much larger revenue (which they always have).

Also the emergence of city is rubbish, they spent a shit load of money before they were taken over so although not the richest team in the world it would have been stupid to dismiss them as a threat.

I simply disagree with this. There is a monumental difference between the funds that City had available (and the impact on the rest of the league) before and after the takeover.

IMO if MoN had got a 4th place finish it would have just delayed the position we find ourselves in now because Lerner was simply not running the club well.

A whole new approach is needed for the club, unfortunately that approach has become 3 years of Mcleish which speaks volumes about Lerner's current ambitions.

So in sum, Lerner should have made less money available for transfers and wages? What else should he have done different?

[Big_John_10]

I can't imagine you are suggesting we should have spent more? In which case, are you suggesting that we should have spent less to achieve even less than (less than) fourth?

Spending money at a level which is bad for the club is not smart. There was no control or clear plan (apart from spend and hope) which has now seen us drop like a stone. Also my point is towards this idea that everything would have been ok if only MON had got 4th. We didn't spend enough to guarantee 4th and we don't have the resources to consistently hold off challenges from the likes of spurs and city so we would have reached this point we find ourselves at at some point.

So are you suggesting that once we found ourselves in a difficult financial position we should have compounded the problem by refusing to sell Young, Downing, Milner? Spurs were not in the same position as us and have a much larger revenue (which they always have).

No, this is my point I mentioned above. When spurs failed to repeat 4th they could do the things I said. If we got 4th and then failed the following season would we have been able to add to the wage bill? Refuse huge offers for players?

I simply disagree with this. There is a monumental difference between the funds that City had available (and the impact on the rest of the league) before and after the takeover.

Go and look at how much they spent the summer MON arrived. Yes the impac after their takeover was huge but before that they still had spending power to match ourselves so if Lerner ignored them as a threat to top 4 then he's an idiot.

So in sum, Lerner should have made less money available for transfers and wages? What else should he have done different?

How about run the club so the manager doesn't leave 5 days before the start of the season and somehow even though he did this gets a big settlement pay out. How about not hiring a past it manager that alienates the fans and members of his own squad whilst seeing us worry about relegation. Oh and then having to pay that manager a large amount of money when he can't continue. How about not paying blues compensation for their manager. How about not hiring a man who relegated his last team twice in 3 seasons. How about listening to the thousands of fans who knew how this would turn out.

Control finances and hire and fire manager. Two main things for any owner and we're lucky enough to have one who can't do either properly. And even luckier to have one who is also a massive failure in another top world sport.

I assume your defence of him comes from the fact he gave you a scarf once and let you drink in the pub once a season.

[PussEKatt]

Look, it"s common sense, if you want a top 4 finish you have to spend money ( it really is as simple as that ) Look at the top 4-5 teams now, Man U,Man C,Chelsea,arsenal,Liverpool All of these teams are challenging for places in europe every year and all of them spend big.Ok so MON made some mistakes, but he got us to europe and it cost $$$.Lerner could not sustaine that level of spending,so we are cutting back.So I would say that Lerner is like Al Feyed at Fulham, in other words he can"t afford a top team in the PL he can only afford to stay in the Pl with the occasional cup run.He has already proved that for crying out loud.Do any of the teams I have mentioned above buy players then cut back ??? So get used to it IF WE STAY UP we will be another Fulham,Stoke,Everton.

[thefeet1980]

How about run the club so the manager doesn't leave 5 days before the start of the season and somehow even though he did this gets a big settlement pay out. How about not hiring a past it manager that alienates the fans and members of his own squad whilst seeing us worry about relegation. Oh and then having to pay that manager a large amount of money when he can't continue. How about not paying blues compensation for their manager. How about not hiring a man who relegated his last team twice in 3 seasons. How about listening to the thousands of fans who knew how this would turn out.

Control finances and hire and fire manager. Two main things for any owner and we're lucky enough to have one who can't do either properly. And even luckier to have one who is also a massive failure in another top world sport.

I assume your defence of him comes from the fact he gave you a scarf once and let you drink in the pub once a season.

I don't think you can blame Lerner for MON leaving when he did. I don't understand how MON was able to get such a big settlement pay out. I can only imagine that, in his strong desire to attract a manager he thought capable of progressing the club, Lerner allowed MON certain clauses in his rolling contract.

I don't think Houllier was passed it and I don't believe that Lerner could have predicted that some of his actions would alienate some section of the fanbase and members of the squad. Nor, could he have predicted we would face a relegation fight. As with MON, in order to attract what he thought was the best available option for the Villa at the time he was perhaps forced to allow certain clauses in Houllier's contract.

I agree that hiring McLeish was a huge decision but I maintain that it is possible there just wasn't anyone else available. I'm including Mark Hughes as not being available and I don't actually think Hughes would have been a much better option.

None of my opinions are based on my free scarf. They are all soley based on the fact that Lerner got a Villa tatoo. I think that your feelings are a result of your desire to find a scapegoat.

[MrDuck]

I don't think you can blame Lerner for MON leaving when he did. I don't understand how MON was able to get such a big settlement pay out.

You'll work it out in the end.

[thefeet1980]

I don't think you can blame Lerner for MON leaving when he did. I don't understand how MON was able to get such a big settlement pay out.

You'll work it out in the end.

Haha, very good.

[TrentVilla]

Inside info? It was rported on Sky.

Was it presented as 'inside info'? I am afraid i am not privy to 'inside info', never have been, and never pretended to be.

I do not report arrivals as a matter of routine. The post was a response to someone who was enquiring about Mr Lerner's whereabouts.

Good to know that it was on Sky. At least that means that you believe it.

No it wasn't, I didn't say it was though I simply corrected someone who thought it was. I don't see what there is about that you take issue with as you seem to agree.

As for you last comment I presume that is some sort of dig, along the lines of I must be stupid because I believe anything because its on Sky. Well no I doubt but when they say Lerner is at the hospital visiting Petrov then yes I do.

[TrentVilla]

I'm guessing he's over to visit Stan

Then he'll disappear without taking in the Easter games

He comes over on Monday fairly regularly.

As i have stated before, I don't see the relevance of whether he attends games or not, he is clearly actively involved.

Sorry but I believe his presence on a match day is required at this time

It may get an extra 10% out of the manager and players

Equally he needs to gauge the atmosphere around villa park

I don't agree it gets anything extra out of the players really but I do agree he should be attending games, not every game but certainly more games than he appears to be.

Whatever the truth of the matter he used to attend and now he doesn't so it is hardly surprising that in the context of everything else happening at the club that people draw the conclusion that he has lost interest.

His absence on match days to me suggests he is taking more of a back seat and allowing Faulkner to run the club which to be honest seriously concerns me.

[Voinjama]

To be honest I dont think he needs to be physically at the games, if he is watching them on TV, that is almost as good. I dont think the off field problems we are experiencing can be put down to this.

I want to also make it clear I am not a fan of Lerner and want him out of the club sharpish.

[sellbydate]

How about run the club so the manager doesn't leave 5 days before the start of the season and somehow even though he did this gets a big settlement pay out. How about not hiring a past it manager that alienates the fans and members of his own squad whilst seeing us worry about relegation. Oh and then having to pay that manager a large amount of money when he can't continue. How about not paying blues compensation for their manager. How about not hiring a man who relegated his last team twice in 3 seasons. How about listening to the thousands of fans who knew how this would turn out.

Control finances and hire and fire manager. Two main things for any owner and we're lucky enough to have one who can't do either properly. And even luckier to have one who is also a massive failure in another top world sport.

I assume your defence of him comes from the fact he gave you a scarf once and let you drink in the pub once a season.

I don't think you can blame Lerner for MON leaving when he did. I don't understand how MON was able to get such a big settlement pay out. I can only imagine that, in his strong desire to attract a manager he thought capable of progressing the club, Lerner allowed MON certain clauses in his rolling contract.

I don't think Houllier was passed it and I don't believe that Lerner could have predicted that some of his actions would alienate some section of the fanbase and members of the squad. Nor, could he have predicted we would face a relegation fight. As with MON, in order to attract what he thought was the best available option for the Villa at the time he was perhaps forced to allow certain clauses in Houllier's contract.

I agree that hiring McLeish was a huge decision but I maintain that it is possible there just wasn't anyone else available. I'm including Mark Hughes as not being available and I don't actually think Hughes would have been a much better option.

None of my opinions are based on my free scarf. They are all soley based on the fact that Lerner got a Villa tatoo. I think that your feelings are a result of your desire to find a scapegoat.

I absolutely completely agree with you, apart from maybe that no one else was available, the amount we're allegedly paying mcleish surely we could have persuaded a Brendan Rodgers, or anyone really with that money. Regardless, it was a risk and has been proven a poor move, I just really hope Lerner is thinking it hasn't worked out too. Perhaps he is avoiding following the Wolves route in sacking the manager mid season and completely capitulating. A 'don't rock the boat and get safe' strategy, then get rid and the end of the season.

[thetrees]

His absence on match days to me suggests he is taking more of a back seat and allowing Faulkner to run the club which to be honest seriously concerns me.

I would have thought the reverse. His presence on business days rather than match days suggest that he is getting more involved in the running of the club, despite the fact that he pays Faulkner to do that for him.

Interfering chairman! Where have we seen that before?

[Villarocker]

Briny, if we were competing in the CL like City or United I'm fairly certain most Villa fans would care little if the club was losing money. I've seen you post about CL money not being enough to compete on a long term basis before but you have no idea what extra revenue or investment may have come had we landed a top four spot.

Its all very well saying Lerner's 'gamble' is not a good approach to business but football in its own right is not a good approach to business. There are so many things that go on in football that would never happen in a normal business.

I once asked General Krulak in a PM just how important it was for us to qualify for CL football and he said that it was a very big money maker and important for us as a club. I guess it really was the most important thing for us if we wanted to continue to spend in the way Randy started with.

[houllierout]

Id love to meet him in the pub tonight..

[thetrees]

Id love to meet him in the pub tonight..

Are you short of a date then?

[villabromsgrove]

It might be a painful analogy at the moment, but it's made me think .... if a person has cancer then action and treatment is immediate, and because of the speed of reaction it is often effective. If a club clearly has a serious and potentially dangerous football health problem, then ignoring the symptoms could prove fatal. Prompt action is needed Randy, the day after this season ends.

[Voinjama]

It might be a painful analogy at the moment, but it's made me think .... if a person has cancer then action and treatment is immediate, and because of the speed of reaction it is often effective. If a club clearly has a serious and potentially dangerous football health problem, then ignoring the symptoms could prove fatal. Prompt action is needed Randy, the day after this season ends.

This is similar to what I said 2 pages back. The longer Mcleish stays the bigger the mess will get, and then the harder it will be to rectify the situation when he does leave. He needs to leave on May 18th. And Randy can bugger off too.