The Randy Lerner thread

[MikeMcKenna]

The land scape has definitely changed. Citeh have been a big disruptive factor.

BUT if anything they have made the landscape potentially more favourable because they have opened up that fourth spot.

When RL came in you had a clear Big 4 (aka the Sky 4). Now you have a clear Big 3 - Utd, Citeh and Chelski - with Arsenal and Plop struggling and no longer assured of a CL spot. The fourth spot is up for grabs. It is still a tough ask as Plop and Arsenal still have much higher revenues but Citeh appear to have de-stabilised them as much as they have ourselves.

I would say fourth spot is as open as it has ever been in recent years.

We havent got a hope in hell (imho) of finishing 4th - I dont disagree that 4th is open but not too us. Our current squad is one of the weakest we have had for years and our shortcomings will become even more apparrent when we start to play the better teams.

Back OT I reckon Mr.Lerners strategy this year is simple: Batten down the hatches, cut costs and hope we can survive till he can sell up!

[Risso]

The net assets as per the last set of accounts for the club are now less than than when Ellis was in charge. All Lerner has effetively done is borrow a load of money from his family trust, and mostly waste it on backing O'Neill's atrocious transfer policy.

[Richard]

but that's because the football landscape has changed

And when Randy came it was said we had an owner to enable us to change with it. Seeems we didn't

Did he say forever, or have you assumed it should be an infinite time frame?

Ahhhh OK so really we should only have really expected for him to enable us to change with the landscape for the first few years and then when the landscape changed further that was it? We couldn't change and would basically stand still while the landscape and other clubs changed around us?

It is clearer now thanks.

Its your stupid fault for expecting something to last forever, your not stupid though are you and know full well.

Quite convenient, gives your further excuses to have a go, infact there is always a reason to have ago.

Enjoy.

You made a post this morning which acused another poster of posting on poster, have to say I found it incredibly ironic.

On the point about nothing lasting forever, what I actually think should last is a strategy / plan to run a football club and that it should be flexible enough to adapt. Modern plans are.

To simply say "it is not forever and that's it" is really not good enough is it? There was a plan A to be successful but no plan B, we cant change so that's it. Not good enough really and , as I said, very similar to old doug.

[Zatman]

Wouldnt worry Richard. One day that billionaire in shining armour you want will come and buy Villa

though cant imagine any billionaire wanting to buy Villa or Everton or a similar club at the moment especially when the lucrative CL positions are monopolised at the moment

[PB]

On the point about nothing lasting forever, what I actually think should last is a strategy / plan to run a football club and that it should be flexible enough to adapt. Modern plans are.

To simply say "it is not forever and that's it" is really not good enough is it? There was a plan A to be successful but no plan B, we cant change so that's it. Not good enough really and , as I said, very similar to old doug.

I understand that people are disappointed, but in truth there only ever is ONE possible strategy to succeed in modern premiership football - you have to chuck money at it. OK, you need more than that, as we have seen ourselves, you also need people in key positions at the club performing as expected, but essentially you have to have money. No club is going to break the top four without massive investment in their squad.

And you know what? Even that route to success is being taken away by the FFP. Even if tomorrow we swapped RL for an oil sheik there isnt enough time for that money to make a difference before the FFP kicks in. Man City are in a different position; they have this season and next to build their revenues from a position of strength. Yes, they may, depending on how UEFA interpret their stadium deal, have to make some adjustments but they have a headstart. We missed it. We had a huge chance, and we missed it.

So what do you want us to do? Magically increase our turnover by 50% overnight? How? Even at the height of O'Neill mania there were too many empty seats and too few season tickets being sold. Yes, I know the figures were better than they have been before or since, but still no way good enough for a club wanting to compete. The big clubs have waiting lists for season tickets and you cant get in for love or money on match day despite these clubs charging 50% more than us for tickets. As soon as the board made nosies about putting up ticket prices the fans complained and ticket sales fell off.

How is anyone supposed to make such a club successful? There is all this talk of potential, but I wonder how realisable that potential is, I even wonder how realistic such talk is. The days when 'Sold out' signs went up at Villa park on a regular basis are a long time ago. if you are looking for epople to blame, instead of pointing the finger at Randy, point it at the people who were running the club in 1996. In 1996 we had a brilliant team. We could compete. We were right there, even living comfortably within our resources up there with the very best. Maybe one or two players short of a title team, riding the wave of all the new money coming in and we were getting more than our fair share. There was a golden chance, and we missed that chance too. That was a chance for us to grow organically in teh way Arsenal and united have done since. Every year since then it has grown harder and harder for a club like us, and is now to all intents and purposes impossible.

Time to stop living in the distant past imo, and accept that in todays football world we are a second tier feeder club. We are like other similar sized clubs, Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland. Unless something radical changes in the way football is financed, thats it, thats all. And thats not so bad, its where we've been for most of my 40 years as a fan.

[Houlston]

Time to stop living in the distant past imo, and accept that in todays football world we are a second tier feeder club. We are like other similar sized clubs, Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland. Unless something radical changes in the way football is financed, thats it, thats all. And thats not so bad, its where we've been for most of my 40 years as a fan.

Yep and it really is the very very distant past.

[Risso]

So what do you want us to do? Magically increase our turnover by 50% overnight?

The trouble with Randy's ownership hasn't been that we haven't had enough money (until recently at least). It's that the money we've had has been for the large part, really, really reaaaaalllllllly badly spent. Tens of millions wasted on crap players and exorbitant wages. The thing is Man City actually have in a way, made qualifying for the Champions League easier, as now their emergence has meant that Arsenal and Liverpool are no longer guaranteed top 4 spots, so along with say Spurs, we might well have had a chance if Lerner wasn't such a completely useless businessman when it comes to sports teams.

We had no plan for growth or development at all, other than to give in to O'Neill at every possible opportunity.

[markavfc40]

We had no plan for growth

Spoken like a true Tory :winkold:

[barry'sboots]

I understand that people are disappointed, but in truth there only ever is ONE possible strategy to succeed in modern premiership football - you have to chuck money at it. OK, you need more than that, as we have seen ourselves, you also need people in key positions at the club performing as expected, but essentially you have to have money. No club is going to break the top four without massive investment in their squad.

And you know what? Even that route to success is being taken away by the FFP. Even if tomorrow we swapped RL for an oil sheik there isnt enough time for that money to make a difference before the FFP kicks in. Man City are in a different position; they have this season and next to build their revenues from a position of strength. Yes, they may, depending on how UEFA interpret their stadium deal, have to make some adjustments but they have a headstart. We missed it. We had a huge chance, and we missed it.

So what do you want us to do? Magically increase our turnover by 50% overnight? How? Even at the height of O'Neill mania there were too many empty seats and too few season tickets being sold. Yes, I know the figures were better than they have been before or since, but still no way good enough for a club wanting to compete. The big clubs have waiting lists for season tickets and you cant get in for love or money on match day despite these clubs charging 50% more than us for tickets. As soon as the board made nosies about putting up ticket prices the fans complained and ticket sales fell off.

How is anyone supposed to make such a club successful? There is all this talk of potential, but I wonder how realisable that potential is, I even wonder how realistic such talk is. The days when 'Sold out' signs went up at Villa park on a regular basis are a long time ago. if you are looking for epople to blame, instead of pointing the finger at Randy, point it at the people who were running the club in 1996. In 1996 we had a brilliant team. We could compete. We were right there, even living comfortably within our resources up there with the very best. Maybe one or two players short of a title team, riding the wave of all the new money coming in and we were getting more than our fair share. There was a golden chance, and we missed that chance too. That was a chance for us to grow organically in teh way Arsenal and united have done since. Every year since then it has grown harder and harder for a club like us, and is now to all intents and purposes impossible.

Time to stop living in the distant past imo, and accept that in todays football world we are a second tier feeder club. We are like other similar sized clubs, Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland. Unless something radical changes in the way football is financed, thats it, thats all. And thats not so bad, its where we've been for most of my 40 years as a fan.

Don't necessarily disagree with this. Football is, to a greater or lesser extent, broken. Plop's latest move to try and get separate negotiation of the international TV rights is a desperate attempt by them to lock into the big 4 before they are outside for too long, but such a move would only widen the chasm and, bizzarely, weaken the product. The Big Boys seem to forget that you need two teams to play a game of football and 15 teams + to make a decent league.

This, however, shouldn't mean that you just give up. It means that you need a strategy to be in place to allow your club to perform to its optimal. This doesn't mean living beyond your means but rather that you make the most out of your means.

I just feel that our current set up - playing and non-playing - doesn't deliver this.

[Bazdavies79]

So what do you want us to do? Magically increase our turnover by 50% overnight?

The trouble with Randy's ownership hasn't been that we haven't had enough money (until recently at least). It's that the money we've had has been for the large part, really, really reaaaaalllllllly badly spent. Tens of millions wasted on crap players and exorbitant wages. The thing is Man City actually have in a way, made qualifying for the Champions League easier, as now their emergence has meant that Arsenal and Liverpool are no longer guaranteed top 4 spots, so along with say Spurs, we might well have had a chance if Lerner wasn't such a completely useless businessman when it comes to sports teams.

We had no plan for growth or development at all, other than to give in to O'Neill at every possible opportunity.

Spent really badly or strongly backed and put faith in the team manager on football issues?

Which chairman in the premiership has been consistently getting it right? Who has the template that this club should follow? Open question to anybody.

[Richard]

This, however, shouldn't mean that you just give up. It means that you need a strategy to be in place to allow your club to perform to its optimal. This doesn't mean living beyond your means but rather that you make the most out of your means.

I just feel that our current set up - playing and non-playing - doesn't deliver this.

Agree with this

[Risso]

So what do you want us to do? Magically increase our turnover by 50% overnight?

The trouble with Randy's ownership hasn't been that we haven't had enough money (until recently at least). It's that the money we've had has been for the large part, really, really reaaaaalllllllly badly spent. Tens of millions wasted on crap players and exorbitant wages. The thing is Man City actually have in a way, made qualifying for the Champions League easier, as now their emergence has meant that Arsenal and Liverpool are no longer guaranteed top 4 spots, so along with say Spurs, we might well have had a chance if Lerner wasn't such a completely useless businessman when it comes to sports teams.

We had no plan for growth or development at all, other than to give in to O'Neill at every possible opportunity.

Spent really badly or strongly backed and put faith in the team manager on football issues?

Which chairman in the premiership has been consistently getting it right? Who has the template that this club should follow? Open question to anybody.

Well, Lerner for the most part got it consistently wrong. Unless you can come up with something to defend the spending of £10m on Marlon Harewood (transfer fee plus wages) or giving the likes of Heskey and Beye £100K a week in wages between them.

But to answer your question, for clubs that aren't part of the big 3/4, I think Spurs do about the best job.

[Bazdavies79]

So what do you want us to do? Magically increase our turnover by 50% overnight?

The trouble with Randy's ownership hasn't been that we haven't had enough money (until recently at least). It's that the money we've had has been for the large part, really, really reaaaaalllllllly badly spent. Tens of millions wasted on crap players and exorbitant wages. The thing is Man City actually have in a way, made qualifying for the Champions League easier, as now their emergence has meant that Arsenal and Liverpool are no longer guaranteed top 4 spots, so along with say Spurs, we might well have had a chance if Lerner wasn't such a completely useless businessman when it comes to sports teams.

We had no plan for growth or development at all, other than to give in to O'Neill at every possible opportunity.

Spent really badly or strongly backed and put faith in the team manager on football issues?

Which chairman in the premiership has been consistently getting it right? Who has the template that this club should follow? Open question to anybody.

Well, Lerner for the most part got it consistently wrong. Unless you can come up with something to defend the spending of £10m on Marlon Harewood (transfer fee plus wages) or giving the likes of Heskey and Beye £100K a week in wages between them.

But to answer your question, for clubs that aren't part of the big 3/4, I think Spurs do about the best job.

Well, isn't that just repeating your point, to which I replied one man's wasted money is another man's backing the manager. He can't win really.

Daniel Levy, he's won what, 1 league cup in 10 years or so? Appointed gems like Juande Ramos, George Graham, Glenn Hoddle, David Pleat and Jacques Santini in that time.

[Risso]

If you honestly can't see that "backing the manager" shouldn't mean "giving him carte blanche to spend the money on utterly absurd signings then falling out when it all goes tits up" then there's not really much hope for you. I mean, my boss trusts me to spend money to make our group successful. It doesn't mean that I can go out and spend £10m on anything I like thoguh. It's called having a strategy, and a shared set of values of what you have, what you want to have and what you need to spend to get there.

And yes, Levy has made mistakes. The big difference though is that he appears to learn from them, unlike Lerner. Oh and one League Cup doesn't really tell the full story does it? There's also three 5th placed finishes, qualifying for the Champions League after finishing 4th, finishing top of their Champions League group and two other Wembley finals. All a bit better than our record under Lerner.

[Bazdavies79]

The botched sacking of Jol, which was a huge embarrassment, the failed sporting director set up, learns from his mistakes? I think he's just gone from one shit manager to another and stumbled upon Redknapp through luck not judgement. We have a Wembley final under Lerner, Levy never finished higher than ninth in his first four seasons.

[Risso]

Read it again. THREE fifth placed finishes and one fourth. We've never finished higher than 6th. THREE Wembley final visits. Champions League qualification, and topping their group. All the time playing much better football than under any of O'Neill, Houllier or McLeish. If you don't think that Spurs have improved both on and off the pitch, and that we've declined, then you're just arguing for the sake of it.

[Bazdavies79]

Read it again. THREE fifth placed finishes and one fourth. We've never finished higher than 6th. THREE Wembley final visits. Champions League qualification, and topping their group. All the time playing much better football than under any of O'Neill, Houllier or McLeish. If you don't think that Spurs have improved both on and off the pitch, and that we've declined, then you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm looking at Levy's whole tenure, you've just picked a club currently doing well and saying, oh look I wish we had that chairman isn't he great, yeah great until he has to replace Redknapp. Also Spurs have the financial clout for sustained investment, and can attract better players.

[Risso]

Read it again. THREE fifth placed finishes and one fourth. We've never finished higher than 6th. THREE Wembley final visits. Champions League qualification, and topping their group. All the time playing much better football than under any of O'Neill, Houllier or McLeish. If you don't think that Spurs have improved both on and off the pitch, and that we've declined, then you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm looking at Levy's whole tenure, you've just picked a club currently doing well and saying, oh look I wish we had that chairman isn't he great, yeah great until he has to replace Redknapp. Also Spurs have the financial clout for sustained investment, and can attract better players.

You're tying yourself up in knots now. They're not just "currently" doing well, over the few years they've been steadily growing and improving, both off the pitch and on it. Our financial management is absolutely woeful, and for our net asset position to be actually lower than it was during the last year of Ellis's reign is extremely poor.

[theunderstudy]

Agree with Baz there, we simply don't have the same pull Spurs do. And although it's all rosy for Levy right now, when Redknapp leaves for England (or sacked should it get bad) do you think he'll make the right call? I remember a load of Spurs fans were angry at Jol's sacking, their rendition of Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall "All in all you're just another prick on the board". In fact apart from the last two years, my Spurs supporting mate has been overall unhappy with Levy.

Whilst Randy has made a lot of mistakes and what, I've noted he's been largely uncriticsed in his tenure, save the last 18 months. In which he has botched a few decisions, but has also been squarely to blame for a lot according to most... appointing Paul Faulkner maybe being one of his worst decisions.

Either way he can't win.

[Bazdavies79]

Read it again. THREE fifth placed finishes and one fourth. We've never finished higher than 6th. THREE Wembley final visits. Champions League qualification, and topping their group. All the time playing much better football than under any of O'Neill, Houllier or McLeish. If you don't think that Spurs have improved both on and off the pitch, and that we've declined, then you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm looking at Levy's whole tenure, you've just picked a club currently doing well and saying, oh look I wish we had that chairman isn't he great, yeah great until he has to replace Redknapp. Also Spurs have the financial clout for sustained investment, and can attract better players.

You're tying yourself up in knots now. They're not just "currently" doing well, over the few years they've been steadily growing and improving, both off the pitch and on it. Our financial management is absolutely woeful, and for our net asset position to be actually lower than it was during the last year of Ellis's reign is extremely poor.

They've done well under Redknapp, see how he does without him. His record of appointments is poor. This man has made all the same **** ups you wont accept from Randy, didn't finish higher than ninth for his first four years, they haven't see year on year improvement.