The Randy Lerner thread

[TrentVilla]

 

 

 

I'm hearing we've lost around 33m for the financial year ending April 2013. 

 

With Lerner in charge we really are hemorrhaging a serious amount of money on a yearly basis and all just to see a team battling relegation.

 

 

That kind of puts to bed the nonsense that he doesnt spend any money. Problem is, he has total numpties spending it.

 

 

Only that isn't really what those who are critical of him accuse him of, it is just what those who defend him like to suggest it is.

 

 

While my post was not directed at anybody in particular (More a social acceptance across the football world that Lerner has stopped spending), I totally disagree with your point.

 

For me it is undeniable that people on here criticise Lerner for not spending enough and not backing his manager - especially during January.

 

There are other reasons people are critical - but him tightening the purse strings is definitely one of them.

 

 

I think we agree more here than you think and I don't think I made my point clearly or made the point I intended.

 

I don't dispute that people are critical of Lerner for not spending enough money but then few football fans ever think their club spend enough, by the nature of being a supporter most will always want their club to spend more. That is entirely natural and understandable. Even Man City fans thought they should have spent more last summer.

 

In relation to Lerner, many people, myself included think he should have made more money available in January but he gambled and thanks to Lambert and a few key players he won. That he won is great, I'm delighted but that doesn't mean I agree with him gambling in the first place. Granted spending money doesn't come with any guarantee, we could have spent and not stayed up I accept that. It is though just my personal opinion that we would have been better off spending a little more in January.

 

So yes people are critical that he doesn't spend enough money.

 

My point though was that a lot of people on here and in the wider fan base dismiss the views of those who are critical of Lerner as being purely related to the amount he spends. That is what I was disagreeing with and what I just don't accept.

 

I think many think that those who are critical of him would soon change their stance if Lerner went and spent £XXX millions this summer and granted a few probably would. It is though far too easy to dismiss the criticism of Lerner as being purely about what he does or doesn't spend which is something that happens frequently on here, now I'm not saying you do this, I'm not sure if you do. I was simply trying to point out, in a very vague and far too brief way that the real criticism of Lerner runs far deeper.

 

I also assume that people hold this view because they think back to the early years of Lerner when he was spending more and think "well you were happy with him then" and they are right we all were. It isn't though just the amount being spent that has changed since then, it is the view of him as an owner, as a businessman and as an owner of the club. It is far too simplistic to dismiss criticism of him, his tenure and his decisions as being a pure reaction to the amount he spends when in reality for many (I accept not all) the criticism runs far deeper and is far more valid.

 

For me, Lerner could go on a huge spending spree this summer and while it would excite me it would do little to change my view of him or his ability to run the club. In fact it would probably delight an scare me in equal measure because I'd worry that in a year or two things would move back to austerity again.

 

My post though in response to yours was more a general point and a reflection of my general annoyance at the way that what I think are often justified criticisms of Lerner are dismissed as "you just want him to spend more" reactions.

 

There is no question that Lerner has spent money, sadly as you say he has had the wrong people spending it and he has wasted a small fortune appointing and removing those people and backing them in the transfer market. But ultimately, for me at least, all of it comes back to him and the poor decisions he has made and no amount of spending will ever change my view that he doesn't really have the first clue what he is doing.

[Woodytom]

 

 

 

 

I'm hearing we've lost around 33m for the financial year ending April 2013. 

 

With Lerner in charge we really are hemorrhaging a serious amount of money on a yearly basis and all just to see a team battling relegation.

 

 

That kind of puts to bed the nonsense that he doesnt spend any money. Problem is, he has total numpties spending it.

 

 

Only that isn't really what those who are critical of him accuse him of, it is just what those who defend him like to suggest it is.

 

 

While my post was not directed at anybody in particular (More a social acceptance across the football world that Lerner has stopped spending), I totally disagree with your point.

 

For me it is undeniable that people on here criticise Lerner for not spending enough and not backing his manager - especially during January.

 

There are other reasons people are critical - but him tightening the purse strings is definitely one of them.

 

 

I think we agree more here than you think and I don't think I made my point clearly or made the point I intended.

 

I don't dispute that people are critical of Lerner for not spending enough money but then few football fans ever think their club spend enough, by the nature of being a supporter most will always want their club to spend more. That is entirely natural and understandable. Even Man City fans thought they should have spent more last summer.

 

In relation to Lerner, many people, myself included think he should have made more money available in January but he gambled and thanks to Lambert and a few key players he won. That he won is great, I'm delighted but that doesn't mean I agree with him gambling in the first place. Granted spending money doesn't come with any guarantee, we could have spent and not stayed up I accept that. It is though just my personal opinion that we would have been better off spending a little more in January.

 

So yes people are critical that he doesn't spend enough money.

 

My point though was that a lot of people on here and in the wider fan base dismiss the views of those who are critical of Lerner as being purely related to the amount he spends. That is what I was disagreeing with and what I just don't accept.

 

I think many think that those who are critical of him would soon change their stance if Lerner went and spent £XXX millions this summer and granted a few probably would. It is though far too easy to dismiss the criticism of Lerner as being purely about what he does or doesn't spend which is something that happens frequently on here, now I'm not saying you do this, I'm not sure if you do. I was simply trying to point out, in a very vague and far too brief way that the real criticism of Lerner runs far deeper.

 

I also assume that people hold this view because they think back to the early years of Lerner when he was spending more and think "well you were happy with him then" and they are right we all were. It isn't though just the amount being spent that has changed since then, it is the view of him as an owner, as a businessman and as an owner of the club. It is far too simplistic to dismiss criticism of him, his tenure and his decisions as being a pure reaction to the amount he spends when in reality for many (I accept not all) the criticism runs far deeper and is far more valid.

 

For me, Lerner could go on a huge spending spree this summer and while it would excite me it would do little to change my view of him or his ability to run the club. In fact it would probably delight an scare me in equal measure because I'd worry that in a year or two things would move back to austerity again.

 

My post though in response to yours was more a general point and a reflection of my general annoyance at the way that what I think are often justified criticisms of Lerner are dismissed as "you just want him to spend more" reactions.

 

There is no question that Lerner has spent money, sadly as you say he has had the wrong people spending it and he has wasted a small fortune appointing and removing those people and backing them in the transfer market. But ultimately, for me at least, all of it comes back to him and the poor decisions he has made and no amount of spending will ever change my view that he doesn't really have the first clue what he is doing.

 

 

 

Very good post Trent. I do not disagree with any of that and your stance is now clearer.

[AvfcTheObsession]

 

I'm hearing we've lost around 33m for the financial year ending April 2013. 

 

With Lerner in charge we really are hemorrhaging a serious amount of money on a yearly basis and all just to see a team battling relegation.

 

I want to know where you heard that because I don't believe it. 

 

 

Heard it off someone who I consider to be quite a reliable source when they do have info. about AVFC. Willing to stick my neck on the line and say I'm 95% sure it's accurate.

 

Whilst I do not know all the ins and outs of how the £33m figure was reached, AndyB82's post appears to make sense and it seems may have given you an explanation better than I could without having seen the full accounts.

[AvfcTheObsession]

 

We definitely could have responded a hell of a lot better to things after MON left.

 

I'm now looking at the situation at Everton with great interest, just lost a manager who consistently got them top 6/7 finishes. Can't quite see them falling down the league like we did once MON left, why? Their chairman is far more wise and astute than ours.

First references to Martin Edwards and now we are lauding Kenwright. This thread should be renamed the 'rate a crap chairman' thread.

Evertonians would give their collective right arms for an investor like Randy Lerner

 

 

I really wouldn't say I was 'lauding' Kenwright, when you consider how low my opinion of Lerner's ability to run a football club or any business for that matter is.

 

Kenwright makes the absolute most of what he's got. Say Everton sell a player for £20m, they don't automatically rush out and think they have to spend it straight away. They wait until the next transfer window, or the one after that, when the right player or players are available and prices have often dropped as people don't think of them as the 'club who've just raked in £20m'.

 

Lerner had his spree of spend, spend, spend, without a second thought for the longer term.

[BOF]

That's a good post Trent although I have long known and appreciated your thoughts on Lerner and his shortcomings. It does beg a question though. What would it take from Lerner in order for you to change your mind on him? I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact you're probably bang on, but it does come across as a view that wouldn't change easily and which might even dismiss progress as being 'by chance'. Which kind of puts him on a hiding to nothing in your eyes, no?

[TrentVilla]

A very good question BOF and a fair one, if I'm honest I guess it is one I'd not really asked myself and you are almost forcing me to do so.

 

I guess if I'm honest part of me is resigned to thinking that my view probably won't change or rather I won't need to change it as I doubt that circumstance will dictate that it should. I mean everyone makes mistakes don't they, I don't expect Lerner to be any different and people do learn from their mistakes but in my view Lerner has consistently shown bad judgement and in my experience in business and as a director people rarely go from having bad judgement to good judgement.

 

I didn't form my view of Lerner quickly, it wasn't an over night thing or even over a few months it was formed over a 2 or 3 year period and actually started a good 12 months before O'Neill departed. So I guess to answer your question I would need to see what I consider to be a similar period of what I consider to be good judgement/management/leadership/decision making call it what you will. Now obviously my opinion holds no particular weight, it is just that, my opinion it doesn't make it right.

 

Because ultimately you are right anything else other than a prolonged spell will more than likely result in me thinking it chance. For instance, I think he has got it right with Lambert. But do I give him credit for it? No not really, I think he fluked it and given the previous appointments I consider that to be a justified belief. I think the fans pretty much appointed Lambert that day away at Norwich despite the interest in OGS I think Lambert was Lerner's choice from that day forward because he desperately wanted/needed to get the fans back on side after McLeish. I guess you could say that in itself is good judgement.

 

I accept that I will at times probably dismiss some evidence of improvement as chance as a result, so in the short term yes I guess he is on a bit of a hiding to nothing with me. In the longer term, well my mind is open but it will take more than getting this or that right now to convince me after the mistakes he has made.

[Big_John_10]

Kenwright, possibly better than both.

What are you basing this on?

Everton seem to currently out perform on and off the pitch.

[Zatman]

not off the pitch. the club has no money and Kenright refuses to sell up even though he says he will.

 

They are like us under Doug financially and are blessed they had Moyes as manager

[Irinous]

I would like to think that people learn off their mistakes. Is it possible that Lerner, as he gets older, will gain the knowledge and ability to run the club more effectively?

 

If what you say is true Trent, that people rarely go from having bad judgement to good judgement, maybe he has opened his ears to people like Lambert who do have a proper idea of running a club. I remember reading somewhere that Lambert and Lerner do have a good mutual understanding, it could be that Lerner truly believes in his philosophy.

[ciggiesnbeer]

Thanks for continuing to keep us afloat Randy. Here is hoping we balance those books next season. You deserve a year of not forking out money.

[sharkyvilla]

 

Kenwright, possibly better than both.

What are you basing this on?

Everton seem to currently out perform on and off the pitch.

 

 

I think a lot of that has to be down to the stability of having Moyes in charge for 10 years, who was willing to work under tight financial control and got rather good at it.  Hopefully we've got the new Moyes in Lambert and can keep him for just as long.  It's early days I know but it looks like Randy is going to back him financially as well, it's all getting quite exciting.

[leviramsey]

In relation to Lerner, many people, myself included think he should have made more money available in January but he gambled and thanks to Lambert and a few key players he won. That he won is great, I'm delighted but that doesn't mean I agree with him gambling in the first place. Granted spending money doesn't come with any guarantee, we could have spent and not stayed up I accept that. It is though just my personal opinion that we would have been better off spending a little more in January.

Spend money (presumably in this context, spend money incorporates the idea of "...on an established PL player who will command commensurate wages and fee") and stay up: we're basically back to where we were in 2011 after the panic buy of Bent (and that's basically the best case reasonable scenario).

Don't spend money and go down: yeah we got relegated. At least the wage bill isn't going to cripple our attempt at promotion.

Spend money and go down: we're even more **** in the Championship; being a substantially bigger club than Portsmouth probably will keep us from that type of death spiral, but that doesn't preclude something like Leeds (whom we're still bigger than, so we're maybe not talking about relegation from the Championship, just a stay in the Championship until the parachute money dries up).

Don't spend money and stay up: we're where we are now.

I'd argue that regardless of whether we stayed up or went down, we're better off not spending money.

[Big_John_10]

not off the pitch. the club has no money and Kenright refuses to sell up even though he says he will.

 

They are like us under Doug financially and are blessed they had Moyes as manager

Not off the pitch?

Are they losing money each year? Is their wage to income ratio stupidly high? Are they spending millions and millions on compensation to ex managers and back room staff or even rivals for a shit manager?

Haven't they also earned more money than us the last few years and especially last year with the new tv deal.

I think it's ridiculous to suggest Lerner is a better owner.

[Big_John_10]

In relation to Lerner, many people, myself included think he should have made more money available in January but he gambled and thanks to Lambert and a few key players he won. That he won is great, I'm delighted but that doesn't mean I agree with him gambling in the first place. Granted spending money doesn't come with any guarantee, we could have spent and not stayed up I accept that. It is though just my personal opinion that we would have been better off spending a little more in January.

Spend money (presumably in this context, spend money incorporates the idea of "...on an established PL player who will command commensurate wages and fee") and stay up: we're basically back to where we were in 2011 after the panic buy of Bent (and that's basically the best case reasonable scenario).Don't spend money and go down: yeah we got relegated. At least the wage bill isn't going to cripple our attempt at promotion.Spend money and go down: we're even more **** in the Championship; being a substantially bigger club than Portsmouth probably will keep us from that type of death spiral, but that doesn't preclude something like Leeds (whom we're still bigger than, so we're maybe not talking about relegation from the Championship, just a stay in the Championship until the parachute money dries up).Don't spend money and stay up: we're where we are now.I'd argue that regardless of whether we stayed up or went down, we're better off not spending money.

Why is the only option in January to spend money on players that put us back in trouble.

And with the increase in tv money this year was not the year to go down. Long term we needed to stay up and Lerner gambled with that.

[TrentVilla]

 

In relation to Lerner, many people, myself included think he should have made more money available in January but he gambled and thanks to Lambert and a few key players he won. That he won is great, I'm delighted but that doesn't mean I agree with him gambling in the first place. Granted spending money doesn't come with any guarantee, we could have spent and not stayed up I accept that. It is though just my personal opinion that we would have been better off spending a little more in January.

Spend money (presumably in this context, spend money incorporates the idea of "...on an established PL player who will command commensurate wages and fee") and stay up: we're basically back to where we were in 2011 after the panic buy of Bent (and that's basically the best case reasonable scenario).

Don't spend money and go down: yeah we got relegated. At least the wage bill isn't going to cripple our attempt at promotion.

Spend money and go down: we're even more **** in the Championship; being a substantially bigger club than Portsmouth probably will keep us from that type of death spiral, but that doesn't preclude something like Leeds (whom we're still bigger than, so we're maybe not talking about relegation from the Championship, just a stay in the Championship until the parachute money dries up).

Don't spend money and stay up: we're where we are now.

I'd argue that regardless of whether we stayed up or went down, we're better off not spending money.

 

 

Talk about loading the dice.

 

The above is completely flawed given that you assume Lambert would sign a player of the type he is quoted as saying he won't sign and who he hasn't touched since being here. 

[leviramsey]

We did spend money in January. We bought Sylla (who contributed substantially to keeping us up). So if one is operating under the idea that we didn't spend money in January, one has to consider Sylla (or players of roughly similar cost) to not count as spending. Thus my presumption of what is meant by spending.

[leviramsey]

Why is the only option in January to spend money on players that put us back in trouble.

If your complaint is that we didn't spend money, or didn't spend enough, in January, then implicitly you are asking for purchases that are closer to Bent than to Sylla (say more than 6m pounds in fee-plus-wages, which is about the geometric mean of Bent and Sylla). And in that case, a repeat of Bent (a ton of money spent on a right-now as opposed to a long-term purchase) is basically the best-case.

[CI]

It's not just about spending. It's depreciating the assets on the books ie. the players we've wasted tens of millions on who are now virtually worthless eg. Ireland, Warnock, Dunne, Hutton, NZogbia, given etc etc etc

[il_serpente]

 

 

Talk about loading the dice.

 

The above is completely flawed given that you assume Lambert would sign a player of the type he is quoted as saying he won't sign and who he hasn't touched since being here. 

 

 

Yes, but when he did sign a couple of players of the type he is known to favor the Lerner haters slated him for not backing Lambert.   You have to assume then that they wanted to sign players who cost more on higher wages (i.e., the type that could cause financial trouble if we went down).   Otherwise, you're saying Lambert can't spot value in a player, in which case the problem isn't Lerner, but Lambert, and spending bigger would be even more disastrous financially. 

[TrentVilla]

We did spend money in January. We bought Sylla (who contributed substantially to keeping us up). So if one is operating under the idea that we didn't spend money in January, one has to consider Sylla (or players of roughly similar cost) to not count as spending. Thus my presumption of what is meant by spending.

 

I don't recall saying we didn't spend money in January.

 

Why is the only option in January to spend money on players that put us back in trouble.

If your complaint is that we didn't spend money, or didn't spend enough, in January, then implicitly you are asking for purchases that are closer to Bent than to Sylla (say more than 6m pounds in fee-plus-wages, which is about the geometric mean of Bent and Sylla). And in that case, a repeat of Bent (a ton of money spent on a right-now as opposed to a long-term purchase) is basically the best-case.

 

 

2+2 = 16