The Randy Lerner thread

[briny_ear]

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.

Something sensible?

Really?

We are supposed to believe that Lerner let MON have a free hand to spend money unchecked, then appointed a CEO who seemingly spotted this - phew, just in time! - and effectively forced MON out, Thus "saving" the club.

No mention that he then appointed an out of touch manager who took us hurtling towards relegation, followed by one whose appointment has knocked about 5,000 off home gates and who has settled us in lower-mid table at best.

Hmmm...forgive me for believing there are more plausible versions of events than that "sensible" one.

[LondonLax]

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.

Perhaps then the fault was not twining Faulker with MON from the beginning and getting the best of both?

Much like Levy has reigned in Redknapp’s "wheeler dealer" instincts to the benefit of Spurs.

[philthevillan]

O'Neill allegedly wanted Scott Parker for £6m, the club wouldn't let him, so he fell out with them and left. Then the 'sensible' new the chief exec approves the signing of Stephen Ireland for £2m more and he ends up being farmed out to Newcastle. Then our new 'sensible' chief exec follows it up with the £24m purchase of Bent, twice as much money on a single player than O'Neill ever spent.

With regards to Lerner's backing of O'Neill, yes he backed him and he got a return. We finished 6th for 3 seasons, reached a League Cup final and FA Cup semi in the final season of his tenure. It wasn't perfect but it was the best spell we'd had for a decade. Sixth is no mean feat, the reality is that Villa had a lot of catching up to do and Lerner couldn't/wouldn't quite compete with the big boys.

[makouns_grin]

O'Neill allegedly wanted Scott Parker for £6m, the club wouldn't let him, so he fell out with them and left. Then the 'sensible' new the chief exec approves the signing of Stephen Ireland for £2m more and he ends up being farmed out to Newcastle. Then our new 'sensible' chief exec follows it up with the £24m purchase of Bent, twice as much money on a single player than O'Neill ever spent.

There is a hell of a lot of allegedly there.

A normal problem when fans get themselves all worked up and make it seem 100 times worse than it actually is.

[NowDoINotLikeThat]

Pat Murphy mentioned the Scott Parker thing :-

"if O'Neill had been allowed to buy Scott Parker from West Ham for £6m in the summer of 2010 to replace Milner, he might still be Villa's manager"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15999771.stm

Frankly it is very believable given what happened and knowing what our board are like given some of the terrible decisions they have made in past 18 months.

[thetrees]

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'.

Something sensible?

Really?

We are supposed to believe that Lerner let MON have a free hand to spend money unchecked, then appointed a CEO who seemingly spotted this - phew, just in time! - and effectively forced MON out, Thus "saving" the club.

No mention that he then appointed an out of touch manager who took us hurtling towards relegation, followed by one whose appointment has knocked about 5,000 off home gates and who has settled us in lower-mid table at best.

Hmmm...forgive me for believing there are more plausible versions of events than that "sensible" one.

It's amazing really. An on topic posting is made with a hitherto (as far as I know) unoffered theory about Paul Faulkner, with a suggestion that he might just know what he is doing, and it is taken as a reason to stand up for O'Neill and knock McLeish and Houllier. :shock:

I think that there are separate threads to comment on how wonderful O'Neill was/is, and how bad McLeish is, which is why I thought it appropriate to stay on topic.

[dukes]

Does anybody actually know what specific KPI's Paul Faulkner has been given ? Those that don't are not in a position to judge him, but if he wasn't performing his tasks and meeting the objectives laid out by Randy Lerner, he'd be gone, of that I'm certain.

[makouns_grin]

Pat Murphy mentioned the Scott Parker thing :-

"if O'Neill had been allowed to buy Scott Parker from West Ham for £6m in the summer of 2010 to replace Milner, he might still be Villa's manager"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15999771.stm

Frankly it is very believable given what happened and knowing what our board are like given some of the terrible decisions they have made in past 18 months.

Oh ok then, must be true.

[philthevillan]

Pat Murphy mentioned the Scott Parker thing :-

"if O'Neill had been allowed to buy Scott Parker from West Ham for £6m in the summer of 2010 to replace Milner, he might still be Villa's manager"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15999771.stm

Frankly it is very believable given what happened and knowing what our board are like given some of the terrible decisions they have made in past 18 months.

Oh ok then, must be true.

If it's come from Pat Murphy it is very believable. He is not paid to sell stories, just to report facts. There is a difference.

[Big_John_10]

Its just as likely as claiming Faulkner came and saved the club.

[philthevillan]

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'.

Something sensible?

Really?

We are supposed to believe that Lerner let MON have a free hand to spend money unchecked, then appointed a CEO who seemingly spotted this - phew, just in time! - and effectively forced MON out, Thus "saving" the club.

No mention that he then appointed an out of touch manager who took us hurtling towards relegation, followed by one whose appointment has knocked about 5,000 off home gates and who has settled us in lower-mid table at best.

Hmmm...forgive me for believing there are more plausible versions of events than that "sensible" one.

It's amazing really. An on topic posting is made with a hitherto (as far as I know) unoffered theory about Paul Faulkner, with a suggestion that he might just know what he is doing, and it is taken as a reason to stand up for O'Neill and knock McLeish and Houllier. :shock:

I think that there are separate threads to comment on how wonderful O'Neill was/is, and how bad McLeish is, which is why I thought it appropriate to stay on topic.

and the free rein handed to O'Neill lends weight to that theory

A big accusation or 'theory' that is off topic if you are claiming that you are only talking about Faulkner. I defended O'Neill to make the point, that is included in my response, that I believe your opinion of Faulkner is wrong and that he has not been that 'sensible'!

[philthevillan]

Its just as likely as claiming Faulkner came and saved the club.

Your basis for this beng? Synicism?

[Houlston]

Pat Murphy mentioned the Scott Parker thing :-

"if O'Neill had been allowed to buy Scott Parker from West Ham for £6m in the summer of 2010 to replace Milner, he might still be Villa's manager"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15999771.stm

Frankly it is very believable given what happened and knowing what our board are like given some of the terrible decisions they have made in past 18 months.

Oh ok then, must be true.

If it's come from Pat Murphy it is very unbelievable. He is paid to get listeners and for people to call in.

Fixed

[Delphinho123]

What exactly are we debating here?

Where Lerner is....? Forget it. He aint interested.

We are a boring footballing team, with a squad full of average players. We are terrible to watch and our manager is clueless.

We are skint and to make matters worse, it looks like we are going to sell our most valuable asset again either now, or in the summer.

When will people realise that this club is an absolute shambles at the moment from top to bottom.

We are an embarrassment. Some sort of unfunny joke that you would have nightmares about.

Sorry for being so negative but my interest in AVFC at the moment is at its lowest in 10 years. I just have no desire to go to the games/watch the games. Call me a shit fan if you may, but speaking to lots of other fans, they feel exactly the same way. I Know a couple of season ticket holders that dont even bother going to the games and have just given up. Says it all really.

This club is in one hell of a mess. And if it werent for the dross being served out by Blackburn and Wigan this season, we would almost certainly get relegated.

I still wear me colours proudly, but when you look at who is running and working for the club from top to bottom, you sometimes question your own religion.

UTV

[philthevillan]

Pat Murphy mentioned the Scott Parker thing :-

"if O'Neill had been allowed to buy Scott Parker from West Ham for £6m in the summer of 2010 to replace Milner, he might still be Villa's manager"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15999771.stm

Frankly it is very believable given what happened and knowing what our board are like given some of the terrible decisions they have made in past 18 months.

Oh ok then, must be true.

If it's come from Pat Murphy it is very unbelievable. He is paid to get listeners and for people to call in.

Right this is the last time I post about Murphy as it is going off topic. He is not paid to get listeners and not paid for people to call in. He is a paid to report on cricket and West Midlands football, sourcing credible stories that can be stood up. The BBC is a public body that has to remain impartial when covering any story, therefore they are not allowed to make things up.

There are no conspiracy theories, no agendas. Fact.

I would guess his information on Parker came from a source close to MON or the man himself. Choose for yourselves whether you believe it to be true or not but personally I think it makes a lot of sense and it's interesting that no-one has ever accepted the responsibility for signing Ireland after O'Neill had left. Now which people would be likely not to comment on this?

[thetrees]

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'.

Something sensible?

Really?

We are supposed to believe that Lerner let MON have a free hand to spend money unchecked, then appointed a CEO who seemingly spotted this - phew, just in time! - and effectively forced MON out, Thus "saving" the club.

No mention that he then appointed an out of touch manager who took us hurtling towards relegation, followed by one whose appointment has knocked about 5,000 off home gates and who has settled us in lower-mid table at best.

Hmmm...forgive me for believing there are more plausible versions of events than that "sensible" one.

It's amazing really. An on topic posting is made with a hitherto (as far as I know) unoffered theory about Paul Faulkner, with a suggestion that he might just know what he is doing, and it is taken as a reason to stand up for O'Neill and knock McLeish and Houllier. :shock:

I think that there are separate threads to comment on how wonderful O'Neill was/is, and how bad McLeish is, which is why I thought it appropriate to stay on topic.

and the free rein handed to O'Neill lends weight to that theory

A big accusation or 'theory' that is off topic if you are claiming that you are only talking about Faulkner. I defended O'Neill to make the point, that is included in my response, that I believe your opinion of Faulkner is wrong and that he has not been that 'sensible'!

You quoted me out of context. It has been discussed on here that Randy Lerner is (theory) a crap businessman, and I was merely alluding to that as something that may lend weight to the theory.

If anything, my theory tied in with the point that you 'mention regularly'

[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.

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

'Legitimate points'? Nah you're okay mate. I have many points, legitimate and positive, but I'll leave you to try to childishly belittle someone elses.

[barry'sboots]

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.

Faulkner has no experience of being a Chief Executive and no experience of football or leisure. He was Lerner's Customer Services guy at MBNA. How does that qualify him to be CEO on a board with RL, Robin Russell (RL's Finance guy from MBNA also with no relevant experience) and the General, who I don't think even knew what foorball, sorry soccer, was before he came to VP with RL.

We seem to lurch from one crisis/bad appointment to the next under his stewardship.

All clubs will make wrong appointments/buy wrong players etc. - that is the nature of football and if it were that easy we would all be winning the league (not possible I know!) BUT, at a minimum, those appointments/transfers should offer hope/excitement to the fans.

When Spurs appointed Ramos it did not work out BUT it did, at least, look interesting at the time. And when it was proven that it did not work Levy took decisive action and bought in Harry which has worked really well for them.

The appointment of McLeish offered nothing like this. 90% of us had seen the crap football that he had delivered at Bluesand were just dreading him coming. The performances since have just proven this foresight to be accurate.

How anybody could turn the last two years into a positive portrayal of PF's abilities as a CEO are beyond me. Do you think any of the other owners in the premiership would be interested in poaching him?

And I'm not blaming him. Hell if I were offered the job at £250k p.a. (just like McLeish) I would have certainly taken it. It is the fool RL that is at the heart of this problem.

[Paddywhack]

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.

First rule of being a villa fan, you have to be a miserable twunt. It's not a case of 'is the glass half full or half empty?', there never was a glass. We never will get a glass, but if we do it will be the worst glass anyone has ever seen.

"Wahey, we've just won the treble!", "Yeah...but where do we go from here? Backwards"

[thetrees]

How anybody could turn the last two years into a positive portrayal of PF's abilities as a CEO are beyond me. Do you think any of the other owners in the premiership would be interested in poaching him?

And I'm not blaming him. Hell if I were offered the job at £250k p.a. (just like McLeish) I would have certainly taken it. It is the fool RL that is at the heart of this problem.

Did I make a positive portrayal? I thought that I was offering an alternative theory as part of the discussion.

I really do not think that anyone is in a position to make judgement, positive or negative, over Paul Faulkner's abilities as a CEO, although there have been plenty of negative judgements of him on here. Presumably these are all from people who are eminently experienced in the process of hiring CEOs.:winkold:

And whether anyone else would be interested in taking him, I neither know nor care.