Copey11 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Do we know if RL is attendin g Brown's games ? Is he pumping any cash into them of late ? he is attending most, but not all (when he is in England). He spends more time in Cleveland, but that is down to his son playing school american football in town. He doesn't have to pump any money into the Browns, as they make money every year and the NFL has a salary cap. I have seen him slagged off for his failures in Cleveland with the Browns, and some of the more ignorant Browns fans may say they want him to sell, but that is really just talk. He spends as much money as anyone else in the NFL, and his style is very hands off. He gets criticized for his managerial appointments, but only one stands out to me as "his fault" and ironically it is one that put the Browns in a better position from a forward looking perspective. All of the other failures were lauded at the time as good hires, only to fail due to their own shortcomings (perhaps unknown at the time), rather than any interference or lack of backing by Lerner. It seems to me that perhaps Randy is getting the house in order to make another run in a measured, realistic way. Many businesses here in the US, especially in the financial industry (where Randy learned his trade) have really battoned down the hatches over the last 2 years, getting their expenses down, reducing debt, and hoarding cash waiting for a moment to "take market share" as it were. over the next 1.5 seasons, with bad contracts coming off the books, and older players moving on, and a better wage structure I wouldn't be surprised to see Villa be much more aggressive. I think he felt that we would be safe from relegation for a year at least and rather than spend big money that would only allow us to tinker on the margins, he has tried to position us to build aggressively when the house is in order, something that wasn't done under MON (again, a hire that made a ton of sense at the time only to be questioned later - similar to the Browns history). I love the Browns, love the Villa, and support Lerner. But the McLeish hire still has me befuddled. I can only assume that Randy's plan just didn't fit the egos of some of the more "known" managers, as they would have to wait a bit before being able to spend money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 mcleish a stop gap until david moyes available ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 27, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 27, 2011 On a 3 year deal? I don't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Investment or no investment, Aston Villa has no future as long as McLeish is in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 They wouldn't have gone through the fuss of getting McLeish if it wasn't a long-term plan. He might be short-term stop gap - get in a manager to stablise the club for a few years, make small changes to the squad, build up some revenue. Then get in a decent manager with a huge pot of gold to spend and really attack again. But I can't think of any chairman who has really ever done that. I think they've jumped at McLeish and assumed because we're better than Blues that he'll be fine with us. Lazy appointment based on obvious criteria. Should have shown some real thought and care and found us the right manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 In order for us to have another go and not get into the same mess we need to either increase our income or sign quality players for low wages. Can anyone seriously see any of those things happening with Mcleish in charge? Our income will not increase and I can't see Mcleish signing hidden gems or convincing quality to come to villa without offering stupid wages. The hiring of Mcleish signalled one thing to me and thats randy just being happy being the owner of a premiership club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 Wonder if RL will be at Chelsea, he made it to this one last year (recall the hug with PF when Clark equalised) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 28, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 28, 2011 I very much doubt it, he came over attending a game told us all nothing had changed and that he was totally committed then vanished again. Some will have believed him others like myself won't have done. I'll be surprised if we see him at more than 2 games the rest of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makouns_grin Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 And of course it was a big deal if he did or didnt go to games during o'neills reign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 And of course it was a big deal if he did or didnt go to games during o'neills reign? Maybe....... but his attendance would be an indication of his interest or otherwise in the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 And of course it was a big deal if he did or didnt go to games during o'neills reign? So what ? - his commitment wasn't in doubt then. fwiw i seem to recall RL was at more games in those days. The general consensus seems to be that he came in, and was very enthusiastic in the first couple of years. But now that has waned to point where he is hardly at villa park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I actually couldn't give a stuff if he turned up or not or if he wants to continue hiding away. Quite frankly I wouldn't mind if he never came again and just quietly sold his shares in us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 See the thing for me about Lerner is this, IMo he has not one clue about how to run a football club. A decent owner when he was splashing cash and now he is not splashing cash he is proving to be sa poor owner. So someone who only actually offered more cash, who's only benefit was the money and now he isn't doing that he is pretty rubbish. He has proven that without someone at the club who had a clue how to be a successful football club, he is totally lost. Since MON left we have not had that person and it has gone downhill fast People go on about MON this and MON that " that he wanted total control over the club and when Lerner said no he left" well whilst I do not believe that is the reason why MON left what I would say is why shouldn't he have had total control? I mean he was the perfect owner for Lerner if that is the case, someone who knew what they were doing and did it well. Someone that Lerner could leave to run the club and actually who allowed Lerner the freedom of not having to do much apart from control the finances. The minute MON left and Lerner had to make football decisions he was shite So I want him to leave and it is not all about money But if I want a new owner, why should I want someone with less money than Lerner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 As far as I see it, I completely agree that Lerner was naive coming into this business. I think that there was some thought there that money could be made out of owning a football club - this is not the case, certainly not after a couple of years anyway. As a result, he happily let O'Neill spend money on transfer fees, but more crucially, on big wages too. And it eventually got to a stage where Lerner could look at the squad, realise that there were a lot of players who were on high wages, but who were serving very little purpose at the club (Sidwell, Beye, Shorey, etc). Lerner realised that this would have to be curbed - that because the club was not making enough income compared to what was being spent, there would be little in the way of transfer funds or an increase in the wage budget. MON was told that he'd have to cut loose the deadwood before he could get any more money: MON doesn't like being dictated to and quit. So now Lerner is in a situation where he has got to be more financially careful, particularly with his divorce going through. So he brought in Paul Faulkner as a person with more understanding of the game (questionable), and has focused on trying to cut back on the amount of club spending. Bent was an expensive acquisition, but it was necessary for fear of relegation, which would have been worse for the club. And I'm sure somewhere in the back of the board's mind, they knew Young and Downing would be off in the summer. I can't believe that United and Liverpool hadn't started prodding as to their availability. So the McLeish hire was in order to get a manager who would work with very little money but has experience of managing in the Premier League. Personally I expect us to end up cutting back in the next two seasons: I can see us getting rid of Heskey, Beye and Cuellar by the summer, and either not replaced or replaced with cheaper options (both in terms of transfer fee and wages). I also think if a team bid enough money, the board would consider getting rid of Bent. Maybe for £15m, then give McLeish £10m to get a new striker, on cheaper wages of course. Things like that here and there. Keep the squad very similar size, or slightly smaller, but with cheaper replacements on less wages. So for fans it's going to be a difficult few years I think, whilst Lerner looks to cut back on his spending and try to make his club, and therefore his business, more sustainable. Maybe once he's got that in order he'll be able to afford more sensible spending that will benefit the team. But I doubt we'll see the sort of transfer and wage budgets that MON had under the current owner ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 We don't need cheaper replacements on less wages, we should be bold enough to let the kids play more - Clark, Baker, Lichaj, Gardner, Bannan, Fonz, Albrighton, Herd, Johnson etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 We don't need cheaper replacements on less wages, we should be bold enough to let the kids play more - Clark, Baker, Lichaj, Gardner, Bannan, Fonz, Albrighton, Herd, Johnson etc etc. Either way it's replacing squad players with cheaper alternatives. "Tighten your belts" for the next few years. I can't see us being competitive, so really we should be hoping to get a new owner with cash to throw about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 We don't need cheaper replacements on less wages, we should be bold enough to let the kids play more - Clark, Baker, Lichaj, Gardner, Bannan, Fonz, Albrighton, Herd, Johnson etc etc. See you in Peterborough next year then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 We don't need cheaper replacements on less wages, we should be bold enough to let the kids play more - Clark, Baker, Lichaj, Gardner, Bannan, Fonz, Albrighton, Herd, Johnson etc etc. See you in Peterborough next year then A year in the Championship would do those youngsters good. Lots of playing experience, make them much stronger and better, we'd win the league comfortably and have a really good, academy-based squad. Of course that is only possible if we get relegated, and that would be dreadful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 There are no positives to relegation. And to think our youngsters would easily win the championship and do well against the battle hardened teams of that league is very naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Hence why I said being relegated would be dreadful. And of course we wouldn't just have our youngsters, but they'd have more of a role to play than they do now. So for them, it'd be a year of more first-team action, a more physical league, and as a group, better results on a weekly basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts