The Randy Lerner thread

[Big_John_10]

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

 

 

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

Agreed.

Can't believe in the previous post it was suggested it should be 50:50.

The main issue was the ratio of wages to income. Now why on Earth would the manager know more about the income of the club than the owner?

If I own a business, employ someone to run it and ignore the financial side of things then its my fault if the business gets in trouble.

Basically it seems to me that you're moaning about RL balancing the books, not spending money in equal measure, you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore

Yes clearly that's the case.

Well done.

[BOF]

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

 

 

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

It should absolutely be the job of the CEO/board. I believe it now is at Villa. I think back then MON was given too much influence by Lerner which was one of the aforementioned mistakes.

[bannedfromHandV]

Are there are those who only see the positives.

I don't think these people exist. Show me someone who does not see the bad that has happened. Show me one single person who denies that Lerner has ever made a mistake and I'll concede the argument right here and now.

 Seconded. Find one person who fits this description you're trying to tar people with to quantify your own position and we'll all back down.

 http://www.villatalk.com/index.php/user/3089-c-krulak/ 

Haha, touché! I'll give you that one

[lapal_fan]

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

 

 

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

It depends.

 

Traditional manager run clubs from top to bottom.  MON was one of these.  Fergie was one of these.

 

They tell the chairman what they think they need and request players and how much they think will cost.  

 

It is then up to the Chairman to give it to him or not.  

 

When MON goes up to RL and says I need Reo Coker, he'll cost 8m and 35 grand in wages, but I think he could be the missing key to get us CL football... that's the only fault lerners had.. putting trust in people.

[BOF]

Ahem, Krulak did acknowledge that mistakes were made on occasion. His job (among others - like directing you to Nicky Keye) was to paper over them with some good P.R. (note : That was the intention), but yes it was a very good attempt by Risso

[lapal_fan]

 

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

 

 

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

Agreed.

Can't believe in the previous post it was suggested it should be 50:50.

The main issue was the ratio of wages to income. Now why on Earth would the manager know more about the income of the club than the owner?

If I own a business, employ someone to run it and ignore the financial side of things then its my fault if the business gets in trouble.

Basically it seems to me that you're moaning about RL balancing the books, not spending money in equal measure, you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore

Yes clearly that's the case.

Well done.

 

Thanks, I like praise  

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

 

 

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

 

It is both in my opinion. Lerner showed great ambition when he came, he appointed a manager we all wanted and allowed him the freedom to spend money in order to take us to the Champions League, twice we came close. Better management of the team, better buys in the January period and we may have done it and financially it'd have all been looking rosy. It didn't happen and by the end of the 4th season and after Man City had finished above us and with all their spending power, Lerner knew it wasn't going to happen by simply spending money. The mistakes since such as McLeish are obvious and there's no denying that but under O'Neill, his biggest downfall was naivety and trust in the manager. Lerner as we know was pretty new to football, he backed a man well liked in the game and by the time of his second season when we had finished 6th and were scoring goals freely and attendances at their peak must have had a tingle of excitement to believe CL was around the corner and given the job he'd done, to stop O'Neill from signing players he believed could lead us there maybe at that point in time would have seemed very unambitious and daft, hindsight. 

 

The board are in control of finances however they are not in charge of who should be signed and to an extent how much that player should be paid. In the end, a lot of the players signed by O'Neill simply weren't up to the standard. Stephen Warnock, Richard Dunne, Curtis Davies, Nigel Reo-Coker, £30 million between them, we've received £3 million back. Those type of deals along with wages that didn't suit their abilities long term hurt us financially and are part of the mess, that is not Randy Lerner's fault in my opinion. The signings are down to O'Neill. James Collins, Luke Young, Emile Heskey, Carlos Cuellar, Marlon Harewood, Habib Beye, Steve Sidwell. There are so many he signed who simply weren't good enough and we found that out over longer periods. 

 

The difficulty in putting responsibility on either the board or O'Neill's shoulders for me comes from that O'Neill was doing a relatively good job, each year we moved forward closer to the champions league. The signings i've mentioned actually did well under O'Neill. You look now at Cuellar, Young, Warnock, Dunne, Collins as our main 5 defenders and think how much they have cost us in money and wages since O'Neill left and you wonder why? but at the time, these 5 formed one of the better defences within the league. Unfortunately quality over time has told and bar James Collins (which could change next year) all are playing for weaker sides than ourselves and we're hardly world beaters right now. It's hard to criticise a chairman when he backed a man that a lot of us backed to continue to succeed. 

 

The mistakes after that I find more shocking, the whole McLeish era, Given on such a long deal etc...that's just stupid and not really learning but we are now where I think he maybe had envisaged us after he gave the job to Houllier and new stripping the club of it's top earners was about to take place. 

 

We went down an exciting route of spending big for Champions League football, it didn't work.

Now we aim to build a team that has a future and a philosophy of young talent and will hopefully progress that way, buying small, risk free, selling big profits, re-investing etc..

The middle part was a horrible phase.

 

Randy is still investing money into the club and despite all rumours and these past couple years, it seems pretty clear he still cares deeply about the success and simply got it wrong but the future for now is looking bright, we have a good manager, a good philosophy, a seemingly good future and with money still being put into the club, Randy has for now got it right and I look across the Premier League and I don't think there are too many better owners.

[BOF]

Good post.

[CVByrne]

I was looking for short answers. But aside from the expected caveats. Nobody has said it's not the boards job to run the club finances. Which is good.

It's simple. Board are in charge of the club. Manager is in charge of playing staff. Consultation happens when it comes to new signings. But the board take the blame for financial reckless spending. Manager takes the blame for poor signings.

 

 

For example we can't blame Lambert for lack of transfer funds but we can blame him for poor use of those funds. 

Edited June 18, 2013 by CVByrne

[Big_John_10]

The fact it was the ratio of wages to income that was the issue seems to be ignored.

If MoN is asking for money to sign players why would he have a clear picture of all the different lines of income the club has? There was one man who had a clear picture of the money the club was making and he was the man who allowed the spending to reach the point it did. As the owner of the club he should know how we're making money, how much and what the future looks like. He had the knowledge and he had the control.

Also as the owners decisions have effected our income it meant that even though wages were reduced the ratio to income was still very high.

[MagicMushroom]

It's simple. Board are in charge of the club. Manager is in charge of playing staff. Consultation happens when it comes to new signings. But the board take the blame for financial reckless spending. Manager takes the blame for poor signings.

 

 

 

 

 

Thing is, at the time MoN was wasting money on some mediocre players (i say some because we foget about the Ashley youngs), we had nobody on the board who knew anything about football. Somebody whom could of said " hang on Martin, thats a little much for a player thats past it". Whos fault was that, and we still dont have anyone with that knowledge.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

I've decided to get off the fence. I love Lerner and everything he does. Even the stuff he gets wrong, that's just bad luck. And I'm going to shout really really loud, over and over again.

UUUUUUUU S A!

Have a like from me X

[Woodytom]

 

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

 

 

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

 

It is both in my opinion. Lerner showed great ambition when he came, he appointed a manager we all wanted and allowed him the freedom to spend money in order to take us to the Champions League, twice we came close. Better management of the team, better buys in the January period and we may have done it and financially it'd have all been looking rosy. It didn't happen and by the end of the 4th season and after Man City had finished above us and with all their spending power, Lerner knew it wasn't going to happen by simply spending money. The mistakes since such as McLeish are obvious and there's no denying that but under O'Neill, his biggest downfall was naivety and trust in the manager. Lerner as we know was pretty new to football, he backed a man well liked in the game and by the time of his second season when we had finished 6th and were scoring goals freely and attendances at their peak must have had a tingle of excitement to believe CL was around the corner and given the job he'd done, to stop O'Neill from signing players he believed could lead us there maybe at that point in time would have seemed very unambitious and daft, hindsight. 

 

The board are in control of finances however they are not in charge of who should be signed and to an extent how much that player should be paid. In the end, a lot of the players signed by O'Neill simply weren't up to the standard. Stephen Warnock, Richard Dunne, Curtis Davies, Nigel Reo-Coker, £30 million between them, we've received £3 million back. Those type of deals along with wages that didn't suit their abilities long term hurt us financially and are part of the mess, that is not Randy Lerner's fault in my opinion. The signings are down to O'Neill. James Collins, Luke Young, Emile Heskey, Carlos Cuellar, Marlon Harewood, Habib Beye, Steve Sidwell. There are so many he signed who simply weren't good enough and we found that out over longer periods. 

 

The difficulty in putting responsibility on either the board or O'Neill's shoulders for me comes from that O'Neill was doing a relatively good job, each year we moved forward closer to the champions league. The signings i've mentioned actually did well under O'Neill. You look now at Cuellar, Young, Warnock, Dunne, Collins as our main 5 defenders and think how much they have cost us in money and wages since O'Neill left and you wonder why? but at the time, these 5 formed one of the better defences within the league. Unfortunately quality over time has told and bar James Collins (which could change next year) all are playing for weaker sides than ourselves and we're hardly world beaters right now. It's hard to criticise a chairman when he backed a man that a lot of us backed to continue to succeed. 

 

The mistakes after that I find more shocking, the whole McLeish era, Given on such a long deal etc...that's just stupid and not really learning but we are now where I think he maybe had envisaged us after he gave the job to Houllier and new stripping the club of it's top earners was about to take place. 

 

We went down an exciting route of spending big for Champions League football, it didn't work.

Now we aim to build a team that has a future and a philosophy of young talent and will hopefully progress that way, buying small, risk free, selling big profits, re-investing etc..

The middle part was a horrible phase.

 

Randy is still investing money into the club and despite all rumours and these past couple years, it seems pretty clear he still cares deeply about the success and simply got it wrong but the future for now is looking bright, we have a good manager, a good philosophy, a seemingly good future and with money still being put into the club, Randy has for now got it right and I look across the Premier League and I don't think there are too many better owners.

 

 

 

That is an excellent post!

[sharkyvilla]

The fact it was the ratio of wages to income that was the issue seems to be ignored.

If MoN is asking for money to sign players why would he have a clear picture of all the different lines of income the club has? There was one man who had a clear picture of the money the club was making and he was the man who allowed the spending to reach the point it did. As the owner of the club he should know how we're making money, how much and what the future looks like. He had the knowledge and he had the control.

Also as the owners decisions have effected our income it meant that even though wages were reduced the ratio to income was still very high.

 

If we had bought more players that held or increased their value then income would have been higher.  It was only unsustainable because so much of what we spent money on depreciated in value.  I'd say a wage budget of 6th was never over the top.  The increase in value on Lambert's signings has been the key difference for the club imo and is the biggest difference between what happened then and what's happening now.  Randy and Lambert should both take credit for making so much progress off the field in the last 12 months and on the field for the last 4 months, hopefully it will just keep improving, even if I suspect it will be a slow build for a few more transfer windows.  **** the past.

[Eames]

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

It is both in my opinion. Lerner showed great ambition when he came, he appointed a manager we all wanted and allowed him the freedom to spend money in order to take us to the Champions League, twice we came close. Better management of the team, better buys in the January period and we may have done it and financially it'd have all been looking rosy. It didn't happen and by the end of the 4th season and after Man City had finished above us and with all their spending power, Lerner knew it wasn't going to happen by simply spending money. The mistakes since such as McLeish are obvious and there's no denying that but under O'Neill, his biggest downfall was naivety and trust in the manager. Lerner as we know was pretty new to football, he backed a man well liked in the game and by the time of his second season when we had finished 6th and were scoring goals freely and attendances at their peak must have had a tingle of excitement to believe CL was around the corner and given the job he'd done, to stop O'Neill from signing players he believed could lead us there maybe at that point in time would have seemed very unambitious and daft, hindsight.

The board are in control of finances however they are not in charge of who should be signed and to an extent how much that player should be paid. In the end, a lot of the players signed by O'Neill simply weren't up to the standard. Stephen Warnock, Richard Dunne, Curtis Davies, Nigel Reo-Coker, £30 million between them, we've received £3 million back. Those type of deals along with wages that didn't suit their abilities long term hurt us financially and are part of the mess, that is not Randy Lerner's fault in my opinion. The signings are down to O'Neill. James Collins, Luke Young, Emile Heskey, Carlos Cuellar, Marlon Harewood, Habib Beye, Steve Sidwell. There are so many he signed who simply weren't good enough and we found that out over longer periods.

The difficulty in putting responsibility on either the board or O'Neill's shoulders for me comes from that O'Neill was doing a relatively good job, each year we moved forward closer to the champions league. The signings i've mentioned actually did well under O'Neill. You look now at Cuellar, Young, Warnock, Dunne, Collins as our main 5 defenders and think how much they have cost us in money and wages since O'Neill left and you wonder why? but at the time, these 5 formed one of the better defences within the league. Unfortunately quality over time has told and bar James Collins (which could change next year) all are playing for weaker sides than ourselves and we're hardly world beaters right now. It's hard to criticise a chairman when he backed a man that a lot of us backed to continue to succeed.

The mistakes after that I find more shocking, the whole McLeish era, Given on such a long deal etc...that's just stupid and not really learning but we are now where I think he maybe had envisaged us after he gave the job to Houllier and new stripping the club of it's top earners was about to take place.

We went down an exciting route of spending big for Champions League football, it didn't work.

Now we aim to build a team that has a future and a philosophy of young talent and will hopefully progress that way, buying small, risk free, selling big profits, re-investing etc..

The middle part was a horrible phase.

Randy is still investing money into the club and despite all rumours and these past couple years, it seems pretty clear he still cares deeply about the success and simply got it wrong but the future for now is looking bright, we have a good manager, a good philosophy, a seemingly good future and with money still being put into the club, Randy has for now got it right and I look across the Premier League and I don't think there are too many better owners.

Post of the year. /thread.

[villan_007]

There seems to be common themes among posters. Of course centering around MON/Lerner. With people laying blame mostly with one or the other for the big financial mess the club found itself in. Without people repeating themselves and the discussion could they answer this question.

 

 

Do people think it is the football managers job to run the finances of the club or do you think it is the job of the CEO/board to do that?

 

It is both in my opinion. Lerner showed great ambition when he came, he appointed a manager we all wanted and allowed him the freedom to spend money in order to take us to the Champions League, twice we came close. Better management of the team, better buys in the January period and we may have done it and financially it'd have all been looking rosy. It didn't happen and by the end of the 4th season and after Man City had finished above us and with all their spending power, Lerner knew it wasn't going to happen by simply spending money. The mistakes since such as McLeish are obvious and there's no denying that but under O'Neill, his biggest downfall was naivety and trust in the manager. Lerner as we know was pretty new to football, he backed a man well liked in the game and by the time of his second season when we had finished 6th and were scoring goals freely and attendances at their peak must have had a tingle of excitement to believe CL was around the corner and given the job he'd done, to stop O'Neill from signing players he believed could lead us there maybe at that point in time would have seemed very unambitious and daft, hindsight. 

 

The board are in control of finances however they are not in charge of who should be signed and to an extent how much that player should be paid. In the end, a lot of the players signed by O'Neill simply weren't up to the standard. Stephen Warnock, Richard Dunne, Curtis Davies, Nigel Reo-Coker, £30 million between them, we've received £3 million back. Those type of deals along with wages that didn't suit their abilities long term hurt us financially and are part of the mess, that is not Randy Lerner's fault in my opinion. The signings are down to O'Neill. James Collins, Luke Young, Emile Heskey, Carlos Cuellar, Marlon Harewood, Habib Beye, Steve Sidwell. There are so many he signed who simply weren't good enough and we found that out over longer periods. 

 

The difficulty in putting responsibility on either the board or O'Neill's shoulders for me comes from that O'Neill was doing a relatively good job, each year we moved forward closer to the champions league. The signings i've mentioned actually did well under O'Neill. You look now at Cuellar, Young, Warnock, Dunne, Collins as our main 5 defenders and think how much they have cost us in money and wages since O'Neill left and you wonder why? but at the time, these 5 formed one of the better defences within the league. Unfortunately quality over time has told and bar James Collins (which could change next year) all are playing for weaker sides than ourselves and we're hardly world beaters right now. It's hard to criticise a chairman when he backed a man that a lot of us backed to continue to succeed. 

 

The mistakes after that I find more shocking, the whole McLeish era, Given on such a long deal etc...that's just stupid and not really learning but we are now where I think he maybe had envisaged us after he gave the job to Houllier and new stripping the club of it's top earners was about to take place. 

 

We went down an exciting route of spending big for Champions League football, it didn't work.

Now we aim to build a team that has a future and a philosophy of young talent and will hopefully progress that way, buying small, risk free, selling big profits, re-investing etc..

The middle part was a horrible phase.

 

Randy is still investing money into the club and despite all rumours and these past couple years, it seems pretty clear he still cares deeply about the success and simply got it wrong but the future for now is looking bright, we have a good manager, a good philosophy, a seemingly good future and with money still being put into the club, Randy has for now got it right and I look across the Premier League and I don't think there are too many better owners.

Brilliant!! Enough said.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

The fact it was the ratio of wages to income that was the issue seems to be ignored.

If MoN is asking for money to sign players why would he have a clear picture of all the different lines of income the club has? There was one man who had a clear picture of the money the club was making and he was the man who allowed the spending to reach the point it did. As the owner of the club he should know how we're making money, how much and what the future looks like. He had the knowledge and he had the control.

Also as the owners decisions have effected our income it meant that even though wages were reduced the ratio to income was still very high.

 

I think Lerner gambled on Champions League football and it didn't happen regarding ratio of wages to income. Yeah, it was a mistake but one I think he knew could afford for a short term period and was willing to take. There are worse crimes in football than showing ambition, especially for targets not far from touching distance.

 

I don't blame either for not achieving that goal, it's a very difficult task and I also don't think we should castrate the owner for trying to push it because even though wages and fee's for players spiraled, the players O'Neill wanted were very domestic based which worked for him and bought him success but it also meant naturally were paid more excessively than the type of players Lambert has gone after.

 

I think our future looks bright, a year or two ago we were all questioning where the club is headed but it's turning out how I and a fair few others saw it, stripping everything down, starting again but also still investing to hopefully move the club forward. Maybe others like yourself don't agree that either that will happen or that is happening or in fact you disagree with the strategy but what this last 12 months has shown me especially including this window is that it were gambles and mistakes that put us in this position, not a lack of care for the club. The club has developed off the field plenty under Lerner and the O'Neill gamble was understandable, the Houllier era was again (for me) understandable but I get why many would disagree with that, hardly a massive success. McLeish was just pure idiocy, no doubt about that. 

 

I actually think the debate is sorta pointless, we aren't in the middle of wondering what's happening. It's not like Houllier, McLeish where this forum was debating whether Lerner cared, would invest, trying to build again, trying to sell assets and then sell the club. Everything seems pretty clear, the mistakes are there, the ambition was there and now the path we're trying to go down to is there to see. In fact, I don't get why we are debating who's fault it is? Lerner, O'Neill, as long as the mistakes are learned from and we make the right decisions now which we seem to have done these past 12 months then excellent.

 

Don't think we have to view chairmen has some sort of either good or bad guy, they'll make mistakes and they'll get things right and for now, all is well. 

[Big_John_10]

If we had bought more players that held or increased their value then income would have been higher. It was only unsustainable because so much of what we spent money on depreciated in value.

Surely we can't rely on selling players to sustain a high wage bill. Surely each season will be different, we might sell 1 or 2 to boost income but what about years we didn't? How would that help us challenge 4th if we had to sell players to sustain the wage bill?

The club makes money in different ways. Money from tv, premier league, merchandise, ticket sales are pretty consistent revenue streams. MON was not the man who should have been aware of these and how they looked for the future. Lerner was.

MoN seems to get blamed for our financial troubles but what happened after he left? You mention players who depreciate in value, well what about Hutton, Makoun, Nzogbia and worst of all Bent?

Plus £18 million paid in compensation for poor managerial appointments. Again massive money going out the club for nothing.

Randy and Lambert should both take credit for making so much progress off the field in the last 12 months and on the field for the last 4 months

Credit for another relegation battle?

**** the past

This kind of attitude only gets used for Lerner.

No one said that for Doug. Not many said that for Mcleish. If Lambert decided to pick Hutton and Ireland next year or re sign Heskey i doubt that view would be held then.

For some reason it's always different towards Lerner. It can't be because of what's happening on the pitch so I really do wonder why it's so different towards him.

[Big_John_10]

The club has developed off the field plenty under Lerner

Have they developed that much? Training ground has been updated but i can't see much else that has developed so well.

Have we not fallen down the table in terms of commercial income? I'm not sure what's so impressive about us off the field.

And on the field, where it really matters, has been probably the worst since the premiership began.

[Big_John_10]

I think Lerner gambled on Champions League football and it didn't happen regarding ratio of wages to income. Yeah, it was a mistake but one I think he knew could afford for a short term period and was willing to take. There are worse crimes in football than showing ambition, especially for targets not far from touching distance.

Would champions league football have solved our problems? If a team like spurs can't qualify consistently then I doubt we would have. That would have left us in a similar position. We'd have had an initial boost in income and wages would have increased but if we'd failed to qualify the following season we're back with high wages without the high income.