The Randy Lerner thread

[Richard]

Was about 18 months before MON left actually, towards April in the year before he left

Ok. Still 2 and a half years in , then, which was my point, really. At the start, when they said what they were going to do, no-one said "no, that's awful" to a man/woman/child we all said "yippee" and at that time, at the start, people thought if he spent big for a couple of years, we could get back to where we wanted to be. As it turned out, we didn't quite make it, MO'N's limitations came to light, then the world changed, then he stopped throwing money at it in the same way.I don't think having the most money is a guarantee of having the most success, I've always felt that there's more to it than that. That said, having no money is pretty much a guarantee of doing badly in the winning things stakes - in that situation, success becomes staying in the league. I guess that's where we are right now, if we're lucky.If we're optimistic we can hope that sorted out finances, if we stay up might mean a chance to try a more sustainable way, and in the climate of FFP etc. if we're pessimistic, we can only fear a permanent glass ceiling for us and just a spiral of decline.Re that thread and whatever happened to it, I'm sure lots of people made some very good points from different perspectives, and the thing is, while I completely disagree with your view and outlook on how things should be run, philosophically, I do accept that if I had your philosophy, I'd probably say what you say.ANd the advantage of it being gone, is anyone can say "As I wrote in that thread ages ago...." and claim they were right, and no one can show they were wrong, by quoting them.

difference being that I know what I wrote as I had to defend it , to the man woman and child you refer to.

In terms of if you "had my philosophy I'd say what you say" doesn't that got without saying, if everybody had everybody else's philosophy they woud say the same.

At the start of the Lerner era nobody said stop, but we were then not aware that Lerner couldn't afford it or that it was not sustainable, how should we have done. Only he should have known that. Why would I have said stop, it was wrong? What was the issue was it was not enough, never going to be.

[blandy]

 

difference being that I know what I wrote as I had to defend it , to the man woman and child you refer to.

In terms of if you "had my philosophy I'd say what you say" doesn't that got without saying, if everybody had everybody else's philosophy they woud say the same.

At the start of the Lerner era nobody said stop, but we were then not aware that Lerner couldn't afford it or that it was not sustainable, how should we have done. Only he should have known that. Why would I have said stop, it was wrong? What was the issue was it was not enough, never going to be.

No difference.

And no, a common philosophy doesn't automatically mean a common view on how to operate within that philosophy.

At the start they did say it wouldn't be unlimited (time-wise) spending - they said spend up front, achieve, get the money back over time. grow the club.

And knowing that, as we all did, or at least were told if we chose to actually see what was said, people might well have said (and some did) during MO'N's time in particular, that the money we were paying out was poor value in both wages and fees. We could see where the money was coming from - people like Risso, plus newspapers told us - (a combo of loans and direct from Randy). Loans have to be paid off. The managers, and MO'N in particular got poor value for money from players he wanted. As soon as someone was put in place (belatedly) to reign it in, off he shot.

[sutherland]

Every time i see this thread at the top i keep thinking we are up for sale!

 

Bummer Ehh...

[briny_ear]

At the start they did say it wouldn't be unlimited (time-wise) spending - they said spend up front, achieve, get the money back over time. grow the club.

If they did say that, it was in a very low-key way. I certainly don't recall it - would love to see the source. 

 

In any event, I don't think anyone appreciated they would seek to "get the money back" in the space of two seasons. It is by that precipitate change of direction (and failure to create any coherent new sense of direction) that Lerner has really damaged the club.

 

By the way, in terms of "poor value for money" for MON's signings, most of the money they have "got back" over the last couple of seasons has come from sales of his signings, or in one case (Barry) for a player whose market value he increased immensely during his time, so I guess his regime wasn't quite the disaster some claim.

[blandy]

At the start they did say it wouldn't be unlimited (time-wise) spending - they said spend up front, achieve, get the money back over time. grow the club.

If they did say that, it was in a very low-key way. I certainly don't recall it - would love to see the source. 

 

In any event, I don't think anyone appreciated they would seek to "get the money back" in the space of two seasons. It is by that precipitate change of direction (and failure to create any coherent new sense of direction) that Lerner has really damaged the club.

 

By the way, in terms of "poor value for money" for MON's signings, most of the money they have "got back" over the last couple of seasons has come from sales of his signings, or in one case (Barry) for a player whose market value he increased immensely during his time, so I guess his regime wasn't quite the disaster some claim.

It was low key I suppose, partly because we were all caught up in the (at the time) excitement of the earlier days, but Gen K put it in the thread he had. No idea whether it's still somewhere in the site, or if it went when the site moved to here. I also read it where newspapers picked up on it, to an extent - the Guardian I think, and David Conn, but yes, low key. And no they didn't say "in 2 seasons" it was more about a 10 year thing - there was some stuff GK wrote about a kind of 5 year approach, or plan, and then the longer term. It started to become apparent once the HOK thing and the plans for the ground vanished off the radar, then the withdrawing from the Olympics and stuff like that - they'd clearly, even then, decided to stop with the growing the club off the pitch, the team followed pretty quickly.

I think it started, once it became clear(ish) MO'N wasn't going to get into the top 4 - after the third year.

Yes, most of the money "got back" has come from Young, Milner, Downing, but most of his signings left for little or no money, and that's not just down to the owner "cost cutting" it's down to the type and age and ability of the players he signed.

His reign wasn't a disaster at all - he was very much part of the Club re-finding itself. I assume he was told, or by default allowed to assume, that money wasn't an issue at the time, early on. Later it turned out for a number of reasons already mentioned, that it became an issue. I think the world thing and personal circs effectively brought forward the time to balance the books, and meant it was done more sharply. It's not been good for anyone.

So IMO we are where we are because of a complex set of reasons. I don't believe it's simply because "randy is useless" or not rich enough, or whatever. It's collective, with the responsibility resting ultimately with the owner. He's made lots of mistakes, for sure. But to you use your phrase in a different context "I guess his regime isn't quite the disaster some claim."

In terms of damage to the club, yes it's way back from where it was 3 or 4 years ago in terms of performance and so on.

[Big_John_10]

"I guess his regime isn't quite the disaster some claim"

I just can't agree.

This is our 3rd straight relegation worried season and this one looks like its got a real chance of happening.

I think his ownership has been a complete disaster, from controlling finances to hiring managers, on the whole its been terrible.

[villa89]

To be fair randys tenure has pretty much been a disaster from the get go. from letting Mon manage without proper oversight, to hiring Houillier and mcliesh, to wasting £24m on d. Bent at a time when the club was supposed to be cutting costs. I think randy had the right intentions it was just the execution that didnt work. Now he's out of his depth with no real forward path in place to restore the club to where it should be.

[blandy]

"I guess his regime isn't quite the disaster some claim"

I just can't agree.

This is our 3rd straight relegation worried season and this one looks like its got a real chance of happening.

I think his ownership has been a complete disaster, from controlling finances to hiring managers, on the whole its been terrible.

You're right about the third straight struggling season ,and the real chance of relegation. You're (IMO) wrong to overlook the Wembley games, the 3x 6th places and the first season of MO'N where we kind of got our mojo back - none of that was "complete disaster" - You can't fairly ignore that when talking about his whole tenure - that's my point.

[Big_John_10]

But while we were doing all that our finances were getting out of control and there was no solid plan when it came to our wages to income ratio and how that level of spending could continue.

I mean you wouldn't praise the board of Leeds United for the good times they had because ultimately it was terrible decision making behind the scenes during that period that then led to all their trouble.

Control finances and hire and fire managers. They're the main things an owner needs to do. I think Lerner has been poor at both of those things and its mainly why we find ourselves where we are right now.

[TRO]

 

 

At the start they did say it wouldn't be unlimited (time-wise) spending - they said spend up front, achieve, get the money back over time. grow the club.

If they did say that, it was in a very low-key way. I certainly don't recall it - would love to see the source. 

 

In any event, I don't think anyone appreciated they would seek to "get the money back" in the space of two seasons. It is by that precipitate change of direction (and failure to create any coherent new sense of direction) that Lerner has really damaged the club.

 

By the way, in terms of "poor value for money" for MON's signings, most of the money they have "got back" over the last couple of seasons has come from sales of his signings, or in one case (Barry) for a player whose market value he increased immensely during his time, so I guess his regime wasn't quite the disaster some claim.

It was low key I suppose, partly because we were all caught up in the (at the time) excitement of the earlier days, but Gen K put it in the thread he had. No idea whether it's still somewhere in the site, or if it went when the site moved to here. I also read it where newspapers picked up on it, to an extent - the Guardian I think, and David Conn, but yes, low key. And no they didn't say "in 2 seasons" it was more about a 10 year thing - there was some stuff GK wrote about a kind of 5 year approach, or plan, and then the longer term. It started to become apparent once the HOK thing and the plans for the ground vanished off the radar, then the withdrawing from the Olympics and stuff like that - they'd clearly, even then, decided to stop with the growing the club off the pitch, the team followed pretty quickly.

I think it started, once it became clear(ish) MO'N wasn't going to get into the top 4 - after the third year.

Yes, most of the money "got back" has come from Young, Milner, Downing, but most of his signings left for little or no money, and that's not just down to the owner "cost cutting" it's down to the type and age and ability of the players he signed.

His reign wasn't a disaster at all - he was very much part of the Club re-finding itself. I assume he was told, or by default allowed to assume, that money wasn't an issue at the time, early on. Later it turned out for a number of reasons already mentioned, that it became an issue. I think the world thing and personal circs effectively brought forward the time to balance the books, and meant it was done more sharply. It's not been good for anyone.

So IMO we are where we are because of a complex set of reasons. I don't believe it's simply because "randy is useless" or not rich enough, or whatever. It's collective, with the responsibility resting ultimately with the owner. He's made lots of mistakes, for sure. But to you use your phrase in a different context "I guess his regime isn't quite the disaster some claim."

In terms of damage to the club, yes it's way back from where it was 3 or 4 years ago in terms of performance and so on.

 

No... Its simply a case of a manager buying poor players that some fans cannot reconcile.... because a modicom of success was achieved, the bigger picture is blur.... He put this club back years, interms of development.

 

The owner backed the manager in a way that the previous owner was castigated beyond belief and protest marches against his interference was well documented and lack of investment is folk lore.

 

Some of our fans have short memories.

 

A new owner comes in and backs the manager ( who all the fans wanted - including me)without any interference and the manager spunks millions (in the transfer market) up the wall.

 

All Randy's fault

 

Don't thinks so.

 

Martin ( mr **** teflon) O'Niell

Edited February 21, 2013 by TRO

[danceoftheshamen]

 

 

 

At the start they did say it wouldn't be unlimited (time-wise) spending - they said spend up front, achieve, get the money back over time. grow the club.

If they did say that, it was in a very low-key way. I certainly don't recall it - would love to see the source. 

 

In any event, I don't think anyone appreciated they would seek to "get the money back" in the space of two seasons. It is by that precipitate change of direction (and failure to create any coherent new sense of direction) that Lerner has really damaged the club.

 

By the way, in terms of "poor value for money" for MON's signings, most of the money they have "got back" over the last couple of seasons has come from sales of his signings, or in one case (Barry) for a player whose market value he increased immensely during his time, so I guess his regime wasn't quite the disaster some claim.

It was low key I suppose, partly because we were all caught up in the (at the time) excitement of the earlier days, but Gen K put it in the thread he had. No idea whether it's still somewhere in the site, or if it went when the site moved to here. I also read it where newspapers picked up on it, to an extent - the Guardian I think, and David Conn, but yes, low key. And no they didn't say "in 2 seasons" it was more about a 10 year thing - there was some stuff GK wrote about a kind of 5 year approach, or plan, and then the longer term. It started to become apparent once the HOK thing and the plans for the ground vanished off the radar, then the withdrawing from the Olympics and stuff like that - they'd clearly, even then, decided to stop with the growing the club off the pitch, the team followed pretty quickly.

I think it started, once it became clear(ish) MO'N wasn't going to get into the top 4 - after the third year.

Yes, most of the money "got back" has come from Young, Milner, Downing, but most of his signings left for little or no money, and that's not just down to the owner "cost cutting" it's down to the type and age and ability of the players he signed.

His reign wasn't a disaster at all - he was very much part of the Club re-finding itself. I assume he was told, or by default allowed to assume, that money wasn't an issue at the time, early on. Later it turned out for a number of reasons already mentioned, that it became an issue. I think the world thing and personal circs effectively brought forward the time to balance the books, and meant it was done more sharply. It's not been good for anyone.

So IMO we are where we are because of a complex set of reasons. I don't believe it's simply because "randy is useless" or not rich enough, or whatever. It's collective, with the responsibility resting ultimately with the owner. He's made lots of mistakes, for sure. But to you use your phrase in a different context "I guess his regime isn't quite the disaster some claim."

In terms of damage to the club, yes it's way back from where it was 3 or 4 years ago in terms of performance and so on.

 

No... Its simply a case of a manager buying poor players that some fans cannot reconcile.... because a modicom of success was achieved, the bigger picture is blur.... He put this club back years, interms of development.

 

The owner backed the manager in a way that the previous owner was castigated beyond belief and protest marches against his interference was well documented and lack of investment is folk lore.

 

Some of our fans have short memories.

 

A new owner comes in and backs the manager ( who all the fans wanted - including me)without any interference and the manager spunks millions (in the transfer market) up the wall.

 

All Randy's fault

 

Don't thinks so.

 

Martin ( mr **** teflon) O'Niell

 

 

Agreed... MON is not the right kind of manager in my opinion to give zillions of pounds to. All he did was spunk it on mr average players on high wages as they are the kind of players he thrives on. Ditto when he was at Leicester & Celtic (apart from the awesome Henrik Larrson of course).

 

For me that was when we needed a manager who knew how to spend money on quality foreign players & had the technical knowledge to have brought this club up to date & instill a lasting footballing style throughout the club from youth level to reserves to 1st team. With the funds available at the time & the quality of player we could have attracted, with the right manager, i think we would now be a force to be reckoned with.

 

MON exists on motivation & getting inside players heads & for me this is why he insisted on bog average British players. He knew he could motivate them & if he couldnt for whatever reason they were ousted... The problem with that is it is simply unsustainable.. As soon as MON left we had nobody here who could do the same thing with those players.. & they were found out very quickly... Of course selling all the best ones didn't help either!

 

Also we had differing styles in my opinion at Youth level to 1st team. McDonald had a different style to MON & this in my opinion slowed up progress of those players... Indeed many of them simply didn't fit MON's criteria & therefore didn't get in as soon as they should have.

 

Badly thought out really the whole thing was.. basically the wrong choice of manager & this was repeated again & again too which is very poor.

 

Still it happened & we have to move on now.. Big few months ahead in the history of this club!

[ozvillafan]

No... Its simply a case of a manager buying poor players that some fans cannot reconcile.... because a modicom of success was achieved, the bigger picture is blur.... He put this club back years, interms of development.

 

The owner backed the manager in a way that the previous owner was castigated beyond belief and protest marches against his interference was well documented and lack of investment is folk lore.

 

Some of our fans have short memories.

 

A new owner comes in and backs the manager ( who all the fans wanted - including me)without any interference and the manager spunks millions (in the transfer market) up the wall.

 

All Randy's fault

 

Don't thinks so.

 

Martin ( mr **** teflon) O'Niell

 

Definitely not all Randy's fault - but he wears the blame since he is the owner. The buck stops with him.

 

As for MON - you can blame him for the (poor) quality he paid top dollar for.....

 

....but you can't blame him for using the freedom given to him.

[danceoftheshamen]

No... Its simply a case of a manager buying poor players that some fans cannot reconcile.... because a modicom of success was achieved, the bigger picture is blur.... He put this club back years, interms of development.

 

The owner backed the manager in a way that the previous owner was castigated beyond belief and protest marches against his interference was well documented and lack of investment is folk lore.

 

Some of our fans have short memories.

 

A new owner comes in and backs the manager ( who all the fans wanted - including me)without any interference and the manager spunks millions (in the transfer market) up the wall.

 

All Randy's fault

 

Don't thinks so.

 

Martin ( mr **** teflon) O'Niell

 

Definitely not all Randy's fault - but he wears the blame since he is the owner. The buck stops with him.

 

As for MON - you can blame him for the (poor) quality he paid top dollar for.....

 

....but you can't blame him for using the freedom given to him.

 

 

Absolutely.. shame he didn't know how to make the best use of that freedom!

[maqroll]

Lerner-Idiot

O'Neill-Idiot

McLeish-Idiot

Faulkner-Idiot

Krulak-Idiot

[Papillon]

After all the money Lerner has thrown at Villa, I would hardly call him an idiot. Sure he stopped investing vast amounts, but an idiot is too far. And MON? A good manager and he kept the place rocking, and he spent reasonable money on wages if you ask me. Top 6 wages for a top 6 side, it is not like we had a 3/1 wage/turnover-ratio like QPR. The idiot was Charles Krulak no doubt. A tool of the highest degree, equalling the honours he has on his military shirt. Just liked to hear himself speak and get the plaudits, class A narcissist without any knowledge of football. The analogy of being ready for war and combat, does not apply everywhere else in society Charles, even though I guess he likes to stick his head in the sand like an ostrich.

[PussEKatt]

I would say the bottom line is that Lerner did not know what he was getting into.He thought that an English football club was the same as an American sports club ( where you don't have relegation and you get 100,000 fans each home game no matter what )

When he discovered how much it cost to keep a Premier League club going he found that he can not afford to do it.He did not realise how much he had to spend to be a top 6 club and play in europe, so he has come out with very honourable sounding words like " we have to get our spending down to a sustainable level and carry on from there".What he is failing to realise now is that he can not maintain a team in the Premier League on the expenditure of a team in the lower leagues.It just can not be done.

It does not matter what you are talking about,sports,cars,houses,TV,s etc you have to spend a certain amount to buy quality otherwise you will just end up with crap.

Our level of spending is not enough for a Premier League club,so, we either spend more and buy qualit,or.......we go down. 

Maybe,never to be seen again, like Sheffield W,Preston N.E, Huddersfield.

[blandy]

 

Our level of spending is not enough for a Premier League club

No, it is - the likes of Swansea and Norwich and that kind of club can do fine, probably spending less - we spent 20 odd mill in the summer on players - somewhere towards the higher end of transfer spending. Our wages will still be higher than half the clubs, I'd wager.

It's not spending, per se, that's the issue, IMO. Sure it's not what it was, but it's easily enough for prem survival, or should be.

It's the circumstances and the change and the mistakes that have dione for us. We keep changing managers - no continuity, players in favour with one manager, are not with the next so we've ended up not building on what was there, but dismantling and restarting, only to stand still or fall back.

Couple that with cutting the wage bill from ludicrous levels to possibly (the aim) a level low enough for the club to show a notional profit, and doing so rapidly.

Doing that without the expertise in football adminsitration that's been lacking all along, and thus not seeing the consequences, that's what caused the harm.

I really don't think it's a simple as "lack of spending"

[PussEKatt]

Our level of spending is not enough for a Premier League club

No, it is - the likes of Swansea and Norwich and that kind of club can do fine, probably spending less - we spent 20 odd mill in the summer on players - somewhere towards the higher end of transfer spending. Our wages will still be higher than half the clubs, I'd wager.

It's not spending, per se, that's the issue, IMO. Sure it's not what it was, but it's easily enough for prem survival, or should be.

It's the circumstances and the change and the mistakes that have dione for us. We keep changing managers - no continuity, players in favour with one manager, are not with the next so we've ended up not building on what was there, but dismantling and restarting, only to stand still or fall back.

Couple that with cutting the wage bill from ludicrous levels to possibly (the aim) a level low enough for the club to show a notional profit, and doing so rapidly.

Doing that without the expertise in football adminsitration that's been lacking all along, and thus not seeing the consequences, that's what caused the harm.

I really don't think it's a simple as "lack of spending"

No, its not really as simple as just a lack of spending.It is a lack of spending coupled with not buying quality or not bieng able to buy quality that is high enough for the Pl as well as some silly notion from PL that we are buying young and building for the future.The problem with that is that we should be looking after our present first,and what will happen to these young,inexperienced players when they do finally achieve PL standard ? they will become high erners and will have to be sold on " and we go again"

So its,not spending enough,not buying high enough quality,not looking after the present, a manager that thinks he can build a team from the lower leagues that is good enough to stay in the Premier League now.And possably a few other things, like bad advice, bad decisions, bad planning etc etc etc.

[briny_ear]

^^^I think Blandy has summed it up precisely there. Lack of consistent strategy in managerial appointments and a switchback approach to spending has done for us.

 

I posted an analysis a little while ago that Mr Lerner has spent on average £13m net for each season of his tenure. That's not a bad record. It's not enough to get a club to top 4, his initial ambition, but, with the right manager ( a Brendan Rogers or David Moyes), the club could have been built gradually back to the position of the mid-late 90s of challenging for top 6, domestic cups and European competition. But the spending has been very uneven, in net terms,

 

06/7:  +£14.1m

07/8:  +£6.3m

08/9:  +£45.3m

09/10:+£18.5m

10/11:+£4.7m

11/12:-£20.5m

12/13:+£23.7m

 

The other issue of his time has of course been the big build up of the wage bill in the first few seasons, to an unsustainable level. I think Mr Lerner must take responsibility for this because he is in financial control of the club.  Many posters argue vehemently that it was in fact the manager's fault and that Mr Lerner trusted.him too much.  I'm afraid that just changes the charge from incompetence to naivety and recklessness, so it's not a great defence.

 

So, lack of consistent footballing strategy, lack of consistent capital investment, lack of control of running costs. Championship here we come unless he gets a grip very soon.

[PieFacE]

Lerner-Idiot

O'Neill-Idiot

McLeish-Idiot

Faulkner-Idiot

Krulak-Idiot

This

 

Well, apart from Faulkner, I have no idea what he does on a daily basis and how well or bad he does it.