The Randy Lerner thread

[OnlyOne]

You haven't got a clue.

We don't need an owner spending loads of money. It's actually annoying seeing money pissed up and the other club having the better deal. All we need is an owner who can idenitfy a quality manager, knows how how to structure the wage bill so we're not in debt and allow him to grow our scout system.

Look at Newcastle. Haven't spent much and have so much quality.

[makouns_grin]

You haven't got a clue.

We don't need an owner spending loads of money. It's actually annoying seeing money pissed up and the other club having the better deal. All we need is an owner who can idenitfy a quality manager, knows how how to structure the wage bill so we're not in debt and allow him to grow our scout system.

Look at Newcastle. Haven't spent much and have so much quality.

He wasn't doing any of that during O'Neill.

Was he a terrible owner then, were you moaning about him then?

I'm guessing thats a no.

Go find this owner that can find a quality manager then, they are all waiting there ready to snap up premier league clubs.

[LondonLax]

To be honest I don't know why people are putting Houllier's appointment in the same bracket as McLeish. At the time I don't think it was a bad appointment especially considering that the season had already started. Ok, he didn't do that well here but there were some good signs towards the end of his tenure. It's just a big shame he had a recurrence of those heart problems as I think it would've been interesting to see what he could've done here. We certainly wouldn't have got McLeish that's for sure.

McLeish was an absolute clanger of an appointment. It doesn't make sense on any level.

We went into the 37th game of the season not safe.

Our best two results came when he wasn't anywhere near the 1st team.

Houllier was a disaster and to follow it up with mcleish shows how shit randy is at the moment.

You could make a case for Houllier being a bad appointment with the benifit of hindsight but it was not such a bad call at the time. We were up shit creek at that point and needed a proper manager to take over the team 6 games into the season. That would mean a free agent and Houllier was one of the better picks from that point of view.

The same cannot be said for McLeish. Anyone could see how that was going to pan out and I am still struggling with the logic of it to this day.

[mykeyb]

Right so if we just moan in general about Lerner we are all pissed off he isnt spending money, if people give you specifics you just dodge them with some half arsed comment.

No point then is there................

The simple fact is that the only change from now and when everyone was happy is that he spent money and had O'Neill.

Thanks for proving my point!!

[OnlyOne]

Actually I was. I've been against Randy more so than alot of fans on here. I seem to recall I had ALOT of stick that Randy was still the 'best owner ever' and when he hired McLeish, everyone has sort of gone on my side.

The way he allowed MON to spend silly money and gave those terrible players high wages was unbelieveable. He didn't think it through at all and he's crippled us greatly. Instead of facing his responability, he's going **** this I want all my money back leaving us even in worse shape than Ellis' last years.

He can never get the biggest decision right and for that reason he isn't good enough to run any sport businesses. Can you explain why he hired McLeish? Nahhh.

[LondonLax]

You haven't got a clue.

We don't need an owner spending loads of money. It's actually annoying seeing money pissed up and the other club having the better deal. All we need is an owner who can idenitfy a quality manager, knows how how to structure the wage bill so we're not in debt and allow him to grow our scout system.

Look at Newcastle. Haven't spent much and have so much quality.

He wasn't doing any of that during O'Neill.

Was he a terrible owner then, were you moaning about him then?

I'm guessing thats a no.

Go find this owner that can find a quality manager then, they are all waiting there ready to snap up premier league clubs.

You don't think there is any possibility that Learner is actually not that great at running sporting franchises?

His record since owning the Browns is very poor. Is it unthinkable that he might be making a hash of it here as well?

It could be said that our early success was more down to MON acting as a director of football and now without a manager as involved Learner's shortcommings are being exposed.

[Richard]

The simple fact is that the only change from now and when everyone was happy is that he spent money and had O'Neill.

He didn't say what was going on much then, same as now.

We had the so called terrible board then, same as now.

He went to games and missed some games, same as now.

The difference between then and now is that then he had someone at the club who knew how a football club should be handled and had a good football knowledge.

The removal of that person has exposed the weaknesses in Randy in that since that point the football decisions that have been taken have been poor beyond belief. In fact when MON was here it was said by Randy et al that they employed him to run the football side

Amongst other things there are major basic things an owner should bring to a football club

1. Knowledge of how a club should be run and the skills to bring success through the running of it

2. Investment

When Randy came people were aware that he may not be as clued up on the first one as needed (just look at the Browns for further evidence of that), but given the second one he had time to get to grips with it. He has demonstrated he has not got to grips with it and now is not even providing the second one.

It is not all about money money money, but when that is the major thing an owner has in his armoury (and so it is for Randy) and then he fails to even deliver that, then you have to question why he is here.

Of course people are going to speculate on his departure and hope for someone better. I want him removed, I do not know who will take over but that doesn't stop me hoping for someone better just as I did when Doug was in charge. In addition if I want a new owner, then why should I want someone with less money?

I would also add , to those worried about getting someone better than Lerner, Doug Ellis was hated and recognised as a terrible owner, but he managed to find the fabulous Lerner. Just think who wonderful Randy could find

If Randy did two things in January he would suddenly be brilliant manager.

A gross simplification of some opinions on here, and actually putting words in mouths.

[Richard]

Actually I was. I've been against Randy more so than alot of fans on here. I seem to recall I had ALOT of stick that Randy was still the 'best owner ever' and when he hired McLeish, everyone has sort of gone on my side.

I'm afraid you cannot take the credit for being first! You merely jumped on my "Plea to Randy" bandwagon

[makouns_grin]

You haven't got a clue.

We don't need an owner spending loads of money. It's actually annoying seeing money pissed up and the other club having the better deal. All we need is an owner who can idenitfy a quality manager, knows how how to structure the wage bill so we're not in debt and allow him to grow our scout system.

Look at Newcastle. Haven't spent much and have so much quality.

He wasn't doing any of that during O'Neill.

Was he a terrible owner then, were you moaning about him then?

I'm guessing thats a no.

Go find this owner that can find a quality manager then, they are all waiting there ready to snap up premier league clubs.

You don't think there is any possibility that Learner is actually not that great at running sporting franchises?

His record since owning the Browns is very poor. Is it unthinkable that he might be making a hash of it here as well?

It could be said that our early success was more down to MON acting as a director of football and now without a manager as involved Learner's shortcommings are being exposed.

Most defiantly.

But its not as bad as its liked to be portrayed by some.

[Big_John_10]

The whole argument about people being happy with Randy while he was spending for MON is so weak.

At the time we had a board who told us ambitious plans, had a decent manager and an owner willing to spend to achieve the plans they'd set out.

Now none of us our psychic so why wouldn't we be happy during that period. If we'd known that we were going to be run so badly that our wages got out of control and we couldn't afford to bring in quality after selling our best players we probably would have felt different.

If we'd known MON would leave 5 days before the season started and we'd have to put up with houllier and then Mcleish we'd probably have felt different.

The fact we thought Randy was a good owner during that period doesn't actually make it true. People can only judge on what they see and what they're told which seems to be a concept you can't grasp.

[Mantis]

To be honest I don't know why people are putting Houllier's appointment in the same bracket as McLeish. At the time I don't think it was a bad appointment especially considering that the season had already started. Ok, he didn't do that well here but there were some good signs towards the end of his tenure. It's just a big shame he had a recurrence of those heart problems as I think it would've been interesting to see what he could've done here. We certainly wouldn't have got McLeish that's for sure.

McLeish was an absolute clanger of an appointment. It doesn't make sense on any level.

We went into the 37th game of the season not safe.

Our best two results came when he wasn't anywhere near the 1st team.

Houllier was a disaster and to follow it up with mcleish shows how shit randy is at the moment.

I did say he didn't do that well here.

However, you have also got to consider various other factors such as : no pre-season, didn't get to sign players until January (and that's when we started to improve), massive injury crisis and all the teams down the bottom picking up lots of points. Also, I'd say Man City at home was a better result than Liverpool at home.

You're completely missing my point though. My point was that Houllier was by no means a bad appointment at the time given the circumstances.

[Big_John_10]

The whole argument about people being happy with Randy while he was spending for MON is so weak.

At the time we had a board who told us ambitious plans, had a decent manager and an owner willing to spend to achieve the plans they'd set out.

Now none of us our psychic so why wouldn't we be happy during that period. If we'd known that we were going to be run so badly that our wages got out of control and we couldn't afford to bring in quality after selling our best players we probably would have felt different.

If we'd known MON would leave 5 days before the season started and we'd have to put up with houllier and then Mcleish we'd probably have felt different.

The fact we thought Randy was a good owner during that period doesn't actually make it true. People can only judge on what they see and what they're told which seems to be a concept you can't grasp.

[BG_Villa_Fan]

Obvious troll is obvious, tbh, not sure why so many people still bite. It's all about slagging off Villa fans. Apparently as a fan you may not :

1. Express any disappointment, no matter what happens;

2. Demand anything from the owner - better stewardship, better decision making, better hirings, invesment - forget it , just clap your hands;

Perhaps there are probably about 5000 fans who will put up with anything, even Venkeys/Thaksin/Yeung type owners. The rest uf us are worse fans than M'sG.

[Rob182]

Obvious troll is obvious, tbh, not sure why so many people still bite. It's all about slagging off Villa fans. Apparently as a fan you may not :

1. Express any disappointment, no matter what happens;

2. Demand anything from the owner - better stewardship, better decision making, better hirings, invesment

It works both ways. Apparantly we're also not allowed to be positive about the future under Randy's ownership or under McLeish's management.

If we dont join in and cry onto our keyboards, we get told that we're 'clueless' or have our heads in the sand.

[OnlyOne]

Obvious troll is obvious, tbh, not sure why so many people still bite. It's all about slagging off Villa fans. Apparently as a fan you may not :

1. Express any disappointment, no matter what happens;

2. Demand anything from the owner - better stewardship, better decision making, better hirings, invesment

It works both ways. Apparantly we're also not allowed to be positive about the future under Randy's ownership or under McLeish's management.

If we dont join in and cry onto our keyboards, we get told that we're 'clueless' or have our heads in the sand.

Name the positives about the future of McLeish's management. I'm actually interested to see any legitmate points.

[thetrees]

Same old rubbish from you. You keep going on about money when most people's issue is not money but RL's poor administration of the club:

- a pathetic board made up of inexperienced yes men who know nothing about the leisure/football industry.

This is the bit that I am not sure is so true.

I have seen people on here go on an on about Faulkner, normally coupled with some pretty derogatory remarks.

I have also seen people go on about how we need someone like Daniel Levy. Levy is a decent bloke, but he is Joe Lewis's man just like Paul Faulkner is Mr Lerner's man.

If Randy Lerner is a crap businessman who lets things run away with themselves, and the free rein handed to O'Neill lends weight to that theory, then he made a good decision in hiring a hands on Chief Exec in Faulkner.

Looking at the timing it appears that Faulkner realised that the club was being run in a kamikaze fashion, which is when the ultimately unsuccessful reining in of O'Neill started.

History will never record it, but Faulkner may just be the man who saved Aston Villa from a much more serious fate.

As regards Mr Lerner, he has backed his managers in the transfer market, all 3 of them. That is normally what a football supporter requires of their Chairman/Owner before anything else. Despite all of that backing, none of two previous managers have given him anything like the return that he probably deserves, and as everyone keeps bleating on, the current one probably won't either.

[BG_Villa_Fan]

Obvious troll is obvious, tbh, not sure why so many people still bite. It's all about slagging off Villa fans. Apparently as a fan you may not :

1. Express any disappointment, no matter what happens;

2. Demand anything from the owner - better stewardship, better decision making, better hirings, invesment

It works both ways. Apparantly we're also not allowed to be positive about the future under Randy's ownership or under McLeish's management.

If we dont join in and cry onto our keyboards, we get told that we're 'clueless' or have our heads in the sand.

Agreed. I'm not saying that being positive = clueless, but was more about the certain troll's schtick, which is highly offensive to a lot of people.

[TheDrums]

Fans not just Villa fans need to get a grip, money money money thats it, forget about the actual football.

You really do ignore most things don't you which makes your pathetic moaning at fans even more ridiculous.

My pathetic moaning about pathetic moaners you mean?

You still don't understand how laughably stupid that makes you look, no?

I've pointed that out to you at least 4 times since I joined.

[philthevillan]

Same old rubbish from you. You keep going on about money when most people's issue is not money but RL's poor administration of the club:

- a pathetic board made up of inexperienced yes men who know nothing about the leisure/football industry.

This is the bit that I am not sure is so true.

I have seen people on here go on an on about Faulkner, normally coupled with some pretty derogatory remarks.

I have also seen people go on about how we need someone like Daniel Levy. Levy is a decent bloke, but he is Joe Lewis's man just like Paul Faulkner is Mr Lerner's man.

If Randy Lerner is a crap businessman who lets things run away with themselves, and the free rein handed to O'Neill lends weight to that theory, then he made a good decision in hiring a hands on Chief Exec in Faulkner.

Looking at the timing it appears that Faulkner realised that the club was being run in a kamikaze fashion, which is when the ultimately unsuccessful reining in of O'Neill started.

History will never record it, but Faulkner may just be the man who saved Aston Villa from a much more serious fate.

As regards Mr Lerner, he has backed his managers in the transfer market, all 3 of them. That is normally what a football supporter requires of their Chairman/Owner before anything else. Despite all of that backing, none of two previous managers have given him anything like the return that he probably deserves, and as everyone keeps bleating on, the current one probably won't either.

I mention this regularly; the manager is not responsible for running the financial side of the club, that is the job of the owner, directors and chief executive. O'Neill was given a budget and used it. He also got Villa competing in the top six and the following appointments, by Faulkner, have arguably been disastrous. Villa were not in such a precarious position that they could have gone into financial meltdown, it's just that the people running the club decided they could no longer afford to bankroll it, although they did find £24m for a panic buy when they realised we were heading for relegation last season.

O'Neill had faults, as does every manager on this earth, but he gave me the best years of supporting Villa since the Big Ron/Little/early Gregory era. To keep reading people constantly criticising his tenure just leaves me to conclude that a lot of you 'don't know you're born'.

[Harry]

Same old rubbish from you. You keep going on about money when most people's issue is not money but RL's poor administration of the club:

- a pathetic board made up of inexperienced yes men who know nothing about the leisure/football industry.

This is the bit that I am not sure is so true.

I have seen people on here go on an on about Faulkner, normally coupled with some pretty derogatory remarks.

I have also seen people go on about how we need someone like Daniel Levy. Levy is a decent bloke, but he is Joe Lewis's man just like Paul Faulkner is Mr Lerner's man.

If Randy Lerner is a crap businessman who lets things run away with themselves, and the free rein handed to O'Neill lends weight to that theory, then he made a good decision in hiring a hands on Chief Exec in Faulkner.

Looking at the timing it appears that Faulkner realised that the club was being run in a kamikaze fashion, which is when the ultimately unsuccessful reining in of O'Neill started.

History will never record it, but Faulkner may just be the man who saved Aston Villa from a much more serious fate.

As regards Mr Lerner, he has backed his managers in the transfer market, all 3 of them. That is normally what a football supporter requires of their Chairman/Owner before anything else. Despite all of that backing, none of two previous managers have given him anything like the return that he probably deserves, and as everyone keeps bleating on, the current one probably won't either.

Great post, nice to see something sensible on this thread for once.