The Randy Lerner thread

[blandy]

Some useful stuff in your post Pete, I genuinely thought the club had lost the tribunal so I appreciate being put right on that, its an important distinction.

I do though find the above extract of your post to be perhaps a little wide of the mark.

If Randy was as worried about these things as you suggest then he could and surely would have reached a settlement figure with O'Neill long before the case reached a tribunal stage. He would not wait for the tribunal to be in session before taking this step.

To me at least this argument has no logic at all. These tribunals are extremely rare, most disputes are settled long before this stage with O'Neill's being one of only 3 to reach this stage in the last few years.

Surely by the stage that O'Neill's reached an element of damage had already been done? Perhaps not as bad as actually losing the tribunal but damage none the less. People only usually settle once at a tribunal because they are likely to lose not because of some moral desire to do the right thing or resolve the issue.

There is ample opportunity to settle these matters long before it reaches the stage this one did.

Fair comment Trent, and I take the point. However BOTH parties settled, so the idea comment that People only usually settle once at a tribunal because they are likely to lose applies equally to MO'N, surely. I mean for example was it his idea to settle - did he go to Villa and say actually, give me half, and I'll be happy? We obviously have no idea. was the reverse the case? ditto, no idea.

I think that the previous tribunal rulings were extremely damaging to Newcastle, to Keegan and to West Ham. Keegan won, but was massively harmed, being shown to be a greedy so and so at the expense of the CLub and fans he claimed to love. Maybe Villa felt they'd win, but didn't want any dirty linen aired in a ruling, even if they were shown to be in the right? I'm not claiming that's the case, just that no one knows and there are many theories anyone could put forward, compared to the current thing where people say "MO'N won and Villa were found guilty" which definitely incorrect.

Only Curbs came out of one with a clean slate but he hasn't worked since - did that influence MON?. The risk, as you say, would surely have been at the front of MO'N and Villa's minds, whoever might have won, maybe they would have been damaged by the ruling, anyway. Hence the agreement to settle?

We know that it was on the 4th day of the tribunal, so there was clearly a complex situation. We know that previous efforts to resolve it got nowhere (hence why it went as far as the tribunal). WHy it should be so drawn out, we can only guess. Maybe Villa felt very let down and hurt, so resolved to stand their ground against usual practice? Maybe MO'N was so delighted with his legal team because he ended up with something, having realised he might get nothing other than reputational damage? It's impossible to know.

Maybe MO'N is extremely stubborn, perhaps. We believe that maybe he was getting keen to get the issue sorted and get another job. Maybe he didn't want to risk losing, and his rep' being harmed? There's all kinds of theories we could put forward as to why they shook hands and closed the book, and all have their place. One of them would be that perhaps both parties were to blame - maybe Villa moved the goalposts, maybe there was nothing in his written contract that prevented the control of finances for transfers being taken over by PF, but maybe there was a verbal understanding which the Club "moved" (through necessity, as they'd see it) but which MO'N didn't like. Maybe MO'N was unreasonable in walking out and more so given the timing of when he did it, but maybe there was a limited justification?

Maybe MO'N is much better at playing the media and reporting than Villa are (perish the thought!), and this led, maybe, to people feeling that somehow MO'N "won".

I just wanted to put forward the fact that the Tribunal did not find Villa "guilty" or to blame or at fault, or whatever other conclusions many people have leapt to, and then seemingly asserted as fact, when the opposite is true.

Personally, I think the timing of MO'N's departure was utterly disgraceful and it reflected very badly on my previously high opinion of him. I have no affection for him whatsoever, now, as a result. It looked vindictive from my point of view. Equally, it may have been unavoidable, and the Club clearly made errors re finances (when MO'N was at the club, at perhaps after then, too) and the management of them in particular. I don't know whose fault this is.

I think when he left Celtic, they too had a wage issue to deal with. But when he left Leicester, they didn't (Paulo told me). I really don't understand where the blame lies.

[Dodgyknees]

To be fair, O'Neill does have a big history of milking things and trying to make others look bad for things they have said and done.

[TrentVilla]

I agree with a great deal of that Pete and I don't actually blame Randy Lerner in any way for O'Neill's departure or indeed the timing of it. There is much that I do blame Randy for as you know more than most but this particular issue isn't actually on that list.

[PauloBarnesi]

To be fair, O'Neill does have a big history of milking things and trying to make others look bad for things they have said and done.

I am not sure big history is quite the word. He doesn’t like being ‘wronged’ and he’s prepared to fight his corner. To say To be fair and then not give examples, is not exactly being fair is it? You haven’t given any examples of him trying to make others look bad. The opposite could be argued when he left the club. He’s said nothing before and during the tribunal as far as I know, and few of his trusted sources came out with any explanation or much of a case. The head of LMA said on Five Live in the following week, that the issue MON had was that the chairman was not down the corridor and was not available for discussion. The club within hours of MON leaving had issued a statement through the General on this website, that MON had gone off record and was not singing from the same hymn sheet (surely an example of trying to make MON look bad, and not the other way round?).

[Dodgyknees]

Daily Mirror, Football 365, took us/Lerner to a tribunal.

[PauloBarnesi]

I agree with a great deal of that Pete and I don't actually blame Randy Lerner in any way for O'Neill's departure or indeed the timing of it. There is much that I do blame Randy for as you know more than most but this particular issue isn't actually on that list.

I don’t think you can directly blame Lerner for MONs departure, but certainly he created the conditions which made it impossible for MON to continue. At the end of that season, clearly (it would seem to me), MON had reached the end of the road at Villa. He had done what he is good at, and IMO could do no more; he has restored pride in the club. He had made us a force again, and he had made us feel good about ourselves. We had watched some good football, and some pretty dire stuff. It wouldn’t be unfair I think to offer him 7/10 for his time at Villa. At this point Lerner and MON should have sat down and been honest with each other. That they weren’t suggests the relationship had begun to break down. Lerner wanted to regain some of the ground he had conceded to MON over the club, thus appointing his trusted ally at the club, Faulkner. He must have known that this would unravel the relationship with MON further. One might suggest he was making the conditions intolerable for MON, whether it be consciously or unconsciously. As soon as Faulkner started laying down the law to MON, which eventually would lead to the board refusing to spend on certain players MON wanted to buy (I think we can agree that MON was not allowed to spend the Milner money as he saw fit), it was bound to unravel at breakneck speed.

In an ideal world Lerner would have identified MONs replacements months before he went. And this where Lerner and Faulkner have to take the blame; they have not had a clue what to do. The Milner money has been used poorly, and appointing Houllier, not sacking Houllier at the right time, paying off Houllier, buying off SHA and appointing McLeish show that they are really not doing a good enough job. Between them they have showed a lack of imagination and ambition. This is nothing to do with money, as they have shown amply that MON is not the only one capable of spending money or putting players on high wages

[blandy]

Daily Mirror, Football 365, took us/Lerner to a tribunal.

They're not examples of the thing you allege - they're examples of media outlets saying untrue things about MO'N and him winning an action in court.

[Dodgyknees]

Daily Mirror, Football 365, took us/Lerner to a tribunal.

They're not examples of the thing you allege - they're examples of media outlets saying untrue things about MO'N and him winning an action in court.

Yes, he likes to make others look bad for things they have said and done.

I didn't say they were wrong or did not say it.

I alluded to the fact that he enjoys a battle against those he has had disagreements with.

[PauloBarnesi]

Personally, I think the timing of MO'N's departure was utterly disgraceful and it reflected very badly on my previously high opinion of him.

Personally I think the clubs inability to deal with this issue that had been building for a long period of time was utterly disgraceful; The club played a game of poker for high stakes that summer and lost again and again, and the fans pay the price.

[blandy]

Fair enough. That's not how I see it Paul, but who knows.

[PauloBarnesi]

You can view MON badly for walking out, of which I would agree. But led up to it and then after it to me has been worse than virtually anything under the previous era. Who would have believe that we have had four managers in nearly two years. Who would have believed anyone would have been dim enough to sell off star players when we were manager less. Who would have believed that we would appoint McLeish? Terrible decisions one after another. MON made one offence against us. The club has gone on a couple of seasons of pissing off fans.

[mjames333]

In almost 25 years of supporting Villa I've never been this disillusioned or drained of optimism. I thought Lerner was going to do great things for us but now I want him, Faulkner and McLeish gone. We are headed dangerously in the wrong direction and all we get from our owner is 1 interview where he admits to communication errors followed by more silence and no presence.

[Humanoid]

In almost 25 years of supporting Villa I've never been this disillusioned or drained of optimism. I thought Lerner was going to do great things for us but now I want him, Faulkner and McLeish gone. We are headed dangerously in the wrong direction and all we get from our owner is 1 interview where he admits to communication errors followed by more silence and no presence.

An error is something that when recognised is corrected. What is it when, once recognised, it is decided that it won't be corrected?

[mjames333]

In almost 25 years of supporting Villa I've never been this disillusioned or drained of optimism. I thought Lerner was going to do great things for us but now I want him, Faulkner and McLeish gone. We are headed dangerously in the wrong direction and all we get from our owner is 1 interview where he admits to communication errors followed by more silence and no presence.

An error is something that when recognised is corrected. What is it when, once recognised, it is decided that it won't be corrected?

Ignorance, arrogance, incompetence, negligence?

[Richard]

Paul, a couple of top posts there which for me cut through the arguments some pose in support of Lerner and also cut through the falsehoods people like to peddle concerning the ex manager. Top stuff Paul a clarity of vision that is lacking in a lot of posts on here

[Harry]

Harry, we all know we don't know but are working on the balance of probability not beyond resaonable doubt

Just incase you missed this Harry I think you will agree this is one thing we agree on, but we can all draw out own conclusions

Sorry Denis I did not deliberately ignore your point. More mundane matters like taking my daughter back to Uni today got in the way.

Totally agree none of us know what really happened and we are all interpreting limited facts. I'm not an apologist for either Lerner or Faulkner, far from it in that I'm pretty unhappy with most things Villa at the moment, not least our manager and those who appointed him.

The reason I have come back strongly on this point, which is unlike my normal posts, is when posters start voicing opinions like they are proven facts but in fact are based on nothing more than supposition someone has got to challenge such views. That's not aimed at you BTW and I've no intention of offending anyone but sometimes you read post and think - I can't let that one pass

[markavfc40]

Paul, a couple of top posts there which for me cut through the arguments some pose in support of Lerner and also cut through the falsehoods people like to peddle concerning the ex manager. Top stuff Paul a clarity of vision that is lacking in a lot of posts on here

I'll second this. Paul is bang on the money.

[Denis_B]

Sorry Denis I did not deliberately ignore your point. More mundane matters like taking my daughter back to Uni today got in the way.

Harry, there are many things more important that Villa and this board so please don't think I was meaning anything different....good luck and UTV!

[hippo]

From a source that I trust 100%

Brown fans have been giving Randy some grief about the amount of time and money he spends at villa. The Browns were assured by a senior browns offical that Randy will fully dispense with his aston villa interests in the next 12 months.

When pushed for evidence. He said that Randy has appointed a merchant bank to find a buyer for villa. - and he expects to make a small loss on his aston villa project.

[brummybloke]

I am suggesting that after a tribunal hearing the club were forced to pay out to a manager who had apparently resigned. So a tribunal must have felt the fault lay with the club of which Faulkner is CEO

He successfully argued 'constructive dismissal' therefore the agreed terms in which he operated were changed forcing him out - clearly that was an expensive change , but any more expensive than keeping him? Probably as we can see how far we have dropped since when he would have wanted to 'push on'

We don't know how MON argued the constructive dismissal case, but it seems quite likely it was either due to a change in employment conditions (maybe the removal of some of his control such as players contract negotiations), or if Faulkner and MON had history, then it's also possible he argued that in promoting Faulkner to CEO Randy had made it impossible for him to continue.

It doesn't necessarily make Faulkner responsible.

what is faulkners job and can you tell me what he is responsible for?

Faulkner as CEO is charged with delivering on the KPI's set by th shareholders (Randy). My point has been that as those KPI's aren't published, none of us know what his responsibilities are, and he.nce we can't judge his performance.

I would imagine the only KPI will be to stop losing money. So PF will use whatever means necessary to do this. Sadly, as he clearly has limited knowledge of soccerball he cannot see that style of play, tactics and realistic ambition (along with communication) seriously impacts the clubs ability to achieve this target.

The football is crap=We finish lower in the league=Fans stay away=More money is needed to bridge the deficit between profit and loss=Best players are once again sold in the summer. (Rinse & Repeat)

yeah they are also my thought, so unless his key performance indicators were TO LOSE MONEY, alienate the fans, turn crowds away from watching their team, getting known throughout the footballing world for being dull uninteresting and not worth watching or showing on tv throughout the world due to the utter shit being rolled out, i would suggest he has failed.