The Randy Lerner thread

[blandy]

What Ellis did or didn't do is utterly irrelevant and is history.

Interesting.

Why ? Why is it irrelevant ?

You and a number of other posters have repeatedly said that you believe people who don't share your view would be much harder on Randy if not for the fact that "he isn't Ellis" and that you refuse to believe that this isn't the case.

My point is that Ellis's tenure, the good bits, bad bits and indifferent bits are utterly irrelevant in terms of Randy's performance and how I and maybe others do or should judge it.

To judge Randy by Ellis's standards would be a pretty closed set of criteria. My method is to judge him by my standards/expectations (accepting I know next to nothing about anything).

...Why is it irrelevant, for example, to question the fan reaction to the two owners?

You're free to question what you like. I take some mild offence at the implication that I and others who don't share your particular view see Randy more favourably than you do [only] "because he isn't Ellis".

So surely it is fair game to look at the fan reaction to both and question the differences ? To ask the question "you criticised Ellis for some of the things Lerner is now doing worse"

It would be a "fair" question if it was actually true. But it isn't. For example, there is nothing that I personally criticised Ellis for that, if/where Randy has done the same I haven't also criticised him for. Ditto praise, (though to be fair I didn't praise Ellis for much). In other words levelling accusations of inconsistency would be unfair.

"He has to wise up on the footballing side of things" is also an interesting obvservation that, although from reading your post you have not made I take it is one you have some sympathy with.

But it is something that I did directly write, so obviously, as I wrote it, I have "sympathy" with it.

You see for someone to actually have to wise up on what is the business that Aston Villa is involved in, I find quite worrying. Even more worrying is that he does not employ the experts to help him with his lack of knowledge and that to me demonstrates a key problem with the man.

Yes, I agree, and that's why I said so.

To compare to our previous owner, and again I think comparisons are actually justified, Ellis didn't need to wise up on the footballing side of things, what he needed to wise up on was the financial side of things. So at least you would expect Lerner to have the advantage over Ellis on that front. Unfortunately he does not so I am struggling, and have been for a while now (almost three years actually) to see what improvemeent Lerner does give us over Ellis (hence the comparison). And so to be consistent as I criticised and wanted the removal of Ellis, so I should apply the same standards to Lerner. It is right to say "we wanted Ellis out because we wanted better, have we actually got that?" to review if you will. And to be honest you mention stuff like scarves and the holte pub but I am a simple man, we are a footballing club and all I really want is success on the pitch, the rest will follow...

That sounds like a fair view to hold, for yourself. If you see the pair of them as having performed similarly and having similar faults, then if you called for one to go for those reasons, then yes, call for the other to go for the same reasons.

I don't actually think they have performed similarly. I think they are very different in what they've done, with just a few similarities.

For example I think Ellis was also terrible at appointing managers early on - Sacking Tony Barton, getting in Graham Turner, then Billy McCeltic and taking us down. Randy has been nigh on equally poor, in that regard, but I think it doesn't matter whether Ellis was just as bad. I think It's not relevant I think appointing poor managers is in itself bad and that he's no worse at it than Ellis was, is not a defence.

I think it shows is it's not easy to get it right, it shows, perhaps, that it's something that can be improved with experience, but whether Elllis, or Ron Bendall was better or worse is neither here nor there to me, it really isn't.

all I really want is success on the pitch

As I said a few pages ago, I recognise that is where some people come from. It's not how I look at things, but both "angles" are fine.

I think it is dangerous to say that we should just ignore the Ellis years as they are irrelevant. To me that would smack of wanting to ignore something because to analyse it would be uncomfortable when looking at the reactions then to now. I think we should look at the Ellis years and ask have we actually achieved what we want, that is the relevance.

And I think the opposite. I think the Ellis years are gone, happily. I think I should judge Randy on his own merits and debits and not worry whether he is comparable to another man from another time. The landscape has changed. Not continually comparing Randy with Ellis doesn't "smack of wanting to ignore something because ...it would be uncomfortable" more that it's utterly pointless - For example, comparing (say) Ed. Milliband with Gordon Brown as Labour Leader, or (say) Cameron with Gordon Brown as PM is equally pointless because the situation and context has changed in 2 years, let alone 5 years, so that the challenges they face are not the same. Just assess whether their performances are good/bad/acceptable in their own contexts and times.

[steve_avfc]

Randy should read this, then intervene by sacking Mcleish.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/apr/25/aston-villa-fans-alex-mcleish

[Risso]

Just assess whether their performances are good/bad/acceptable in their own contexts and times.

OK. Lerner's performance, taking into account context and all that, has been; and I use this phrase in its truest sense; with regard for all available information etc; bad.

[Dodgyknees]

Randy should be held accountable for the amount of errors over the past two years.

[blandy]

..Lerner's performance, taking into account context and all that, has been; and I use this phrase in its truest sense; with regard for all available information etc; bad.

Any news about the Pope's religious beliefs, or where bears might go for their toilet facilities?

[KHV]

Randy should read this, then intervene by sacking Mcleish.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/apr/25/aston-villa-fans-alex-mcleish

the best bit on this is in the comments.

Some guy describes Alex Mcleish as "the Sam Allardyce of Scottish football without the good bits"

[norton65ca]

"What's most perplexing is how this anti-football merchant is one of the top 20 highest paid managers in the World. "

one of the comments on that article, surely this can't be true???

[MrDuck]

"What's most perplexing is how this anti-football merchant is one of the top 20 highest paid managers in the World. "

one of the comments on that article, surely this can't be true???

All too true, sadly.

[jim]

Love this quote

"I reckon McLeish must look at Chelsea's successful attempts at parking the bus as the nirvana in masturbation material"

[Blaizend]

Angry Cleveland Browns fan (legendary YT video maker also) discussing Lerner and the hiring of a terrible coach.

How eerily similar.

[HolteEndRob]

^^^ The infamous ELPRESADOR ha ha. His Call Of Duty gameplay videos are hilarious.

He's done a few videos like this about Randy Lerner. I saw one where he had a machete and he cut up his Cleveland Browns flag that he'd had since the 80's and he was saying that he was done with the Browns etc.

[Dodgyknees]

Has Lerner done enough for you, in the past 24 months, in order for him to be free of criticism over the current situation the club is in?

> Has there been a lack of investment?

> Is it right that the money we pay, is going into the pockets of sacked managers?

> Who is to blame for the appointments?

> After this season we would have lost a number of first teamers, with Cuellar next on the way. Does Lerner have the finances to replace these?

> Have both he and other board members and directors lied to us?

> Has the lack of communication been a problem?

> Do we trust Lerner with future appointments and spending?

> Who is to blame for the past 2.5 years?

> Should Lerner and Faulkner go without criticism whilst managers take the blame?

> Would management stand more of a chance with better investment?

[foreveryoung]

**** off Faulker he has no idea of football, probably never even played. We need a football name in the directorhsip, someone with advanced knowledge of football. Its plane obvious no one knows enough about the game on the board. Lerner is still the man to own us, but need to change advisors and Faulker they are absolutlely clueless fcuking idiots.

[Dodgyknees]

Lerner has to take responsibility as well, he has employed people and showed faith. remember, the letter was sent to him, so there is obviously his say-so in the decisions. He also flew out to speak to Houllier.. sorry but Lerner has to take a large amount of blame.

[thetrees]

"What's most perplexing is how this anti-football merchant is one of the top 20 highest paid managers in the World. "

one of the comments on that article, surely this can't be true???

All too true, sadly.

It isn't true, apparently.

[Swerbs]

**** off Faulker he has no idea of football, probably never even played. We need a football name in the directorhsip, someone with advanced knowledge of football. Its plane obvious no one knows enough about the game on the board. Lerner is still the man to own us, but need to change advisors and Faulker they are absolutlely clueless fcuking idiots.

Please enlighten me on what Faulkner does in his role at the club for you to attack him?

[foreveryoung]

OK.............! Im not sure weather you know business, but, Lerner owns the club, ok he makes final decisions. It is Faulkners job to advise Lerner what should happen at the club and to make decsions with the help of the team he has employed. He obviously has zero football knowledge and has employed people who may have very limited knowlege too! If it is his job to look after finances, he has **** up there too by allowing Mcleish to come to our club, this was obviously gonna have a big affect on revenues. Who do you think runs the club when Lerner is not here, who makes the decisions. Ive no doubt Faulker has great business accumen, but not on running a multi million pound football club!!!!!

[Swerbs]

OK.............! Im not sure weather you know business, but, Lerner owns the club, ok he makes final decisions. It is Faulkners job to advise Lerner what should happen at the club and to make decsions with the help of the team he has employed. He obviously has zero football knowledge and has employed people who may have very limited knowlege too! If it is his job to look after finances, he has **** up there too by allowing Mcleish to come to our club, this was obviously gonna have a big affect on revenues. Who do you think runs the club when Lerner is not here, who makes the decisions. Ive no doubt Faulker has great business accumen, but not on running a multi million pound football club!!!!!

Like you said Lerner has the final say, Faulkner wasn't in charge of finding a new manager. From what I remember Lerner had used a headhunting business to draw up a list of candidates which McLeish was on. Lerner had final say on McLeish not Faulkner.

And financially? No he hasn't **** up. In the season he has arrived at the club turnover has improved by £15m from the previous season.

So what bad decision has Faulkner actually made without Lerner around?

[PieFacE]

OK.............! Im not sure weather you know business, but, Lerner owns the club, ok he makes final decisions. It is Faulkners job to advise Lerner what should happen at the club and to make decsions with the help of the team he has employed. He obviously has zero football knowledge and has employed people who may have very limited knowlege too! If it is his job to look after finances, he has **** up there too by allowing Mcleish to come to our club, this was obviously gonna have a big affect on revenues. Who do you think runs the club when Lerner is not here, who makes the decisions. Ive no doubt Faulker has great business accumen, but not on running a multi million pound football club!!!!!

Like you said Lerner has the final say, Faulkner wasn't in charge of finding a new manager. From what I remember Lerner had used a headhunting business to draw up a list of candidates which McLeish was on. Lerner had final say on McLeish not Faulkner.

And financially? No he hasn't **** up. In the season he has arrived at the club turnover has improved by £15m from the previous season.

So what bad decision has Faulkner actually made without Lerner around?

This. Faulkner works within the limits in which Randy allows him too, none of us know what they are, none of us know how much Randy does, and how much he leaves to Faulkner. So trying to blame Faulkner for anything is stupid considering you have no idea what he does.

IIRC it was Randy to met McLeish in London to discuss becoming the Villa manager, not just Faulkner.

[saturdaygig]

"What's most perplexing is how this anti-football merchant is one of the top 20 highest paid managers in the World. "

one of the comments on that article, surely this can't be true???

All too true, sadly.

It isn't true, apparently.

'apparently'. Well, that really added to our knowledge base.