The Randy Lerner thread

[TRO]

It seems like we have had more money from Lerner to buy players than when Uncle doug was in the hot seat.

seems like we got better value for money when uncle Doug was around.

would look at the managers as the problem rather than the owners.

[Big_John_10]

Who hires the managers?

[pacbuddies]

Who hires the managers?

Exactly. However, I think your response may be too logical for some to handle.

[VillaCas]

Taking a tonking is never a good sign for a "work in progress" team .... you are basically only as good as your worst result.

I would have thought that you are basically only as good as your league position?

[VillaCas]

Who hires the managers?

I agree that Houllier was an odd appointment and McHoof a disastrous one - but I do believe that PL will turn out to be a good appointment but he needs time and support.

[8pints]

Hopefully he gives us a fair whack in January.

[AvfcRigo82]

Who hires the managers?

I think you will find it is the same person that is advised from there CEO about managers, players etc.

Don't sit and pretend that Paul Faulkner did not have any say or doing in the signing of Ireland (whilst we were managerless!), and two controversial managerial appointments aswell.

Yes it's Randy who signs the dotted line but it's the advice being given to him by his trusted ceo right hand man {that he has to trust on verdicts and advice given to take his Business & our football club forward} that has something major to do with some of the **** ups we have witnessed happen to this club since his arrival.

Since this ceo has stepped foot in the door the club has just basically appeared to have really gone to **** and are desperately trying to recover and all the facts are there for all to see if you can be bothered to dig back in time and view them over various football websites.

Exactly. However, I think your response may be too logical for some to handle.

His response Logical??

It is he, the CEO who should be up for scrutiny and not always Lerner that gets the backlash - he is simply being ill advised by someone that don't have a sodding clue what they are doing. Again the facts are out there how poor this guy is for all to see. Graham Taylor did not speak to highly of him a few years back either.

It is people that chose to be ignorant and ignore the fact of what 's what when you step back and look at the bigger picture.

It's not logical nor rocket science when you take a look at the facts and decline of Aston Villa since the arrival of this person that is advising the man with less 'in the game knowledge' than most chairman have.

But if we want to be logical then It is like me buying a Yugoslavian business of some sort that I knew could make me money but I was not too clued up about the ins and outs of the industry in that country.

I try it out for a couple of years anyway on my own before I hire a right hand man or CEO.

A ceo I can I trust to have the nack and knowledge of the industry I have brought into aswell as good business skills to run my business for me in my absense whilst still advising me the right and wrong decisions before signing dotted lines on deals.

When after a good first few years have happened in my business I think Okay, this is running steady and now the CEO I have hired can be left to steer the ship for me.

But after a couple of years since employing my ceo I have noticed the man working under the ceo (let's be imaginative and call him a manager) has walked out, eventually the expensive tools I purchased to help build this business were all being dismantled and sold on like some cash for gold frenzy but never really replaced with quality machinery.

Since the first replacement manager started the company {who cost me alot of money to employ but I was advised by my ceo he is the right man out of all the interviewees for the role} struggled in his role as he does not know how to use the machinery correctly and eventually quits.

My ceo then hires another manager that when he arrived pissed the rest of the work force off immediately and **** moral from the off.

More poor value for money second hand machinery is purchased but blew up and never really worked out. He got sacked

Now a 3rd manager is in place and I have pledged a hefty sum of money and buy some good machinery that is an up and coming brand to help the company again.

By now since my ceo arrived I had all the quality machinery I first purchased sold off and not really replaced properly, 2 shift managers hired and fired and a disgruntled small workforce along the way and alot of my money pissed in the air.

I am now in a position that if something happens to this machinery or this manager then questions and investigations as to what the **** is going on in my company will be raised and someones arse going out the door. - It won't be the 3rd manager's either.

Logical enough to understand?

Merry Christmas to you all.

.

Edited December 25, 2012 by AvfcRigo82

[Richard]

Rigorous, a decent analogy if you forget the fact that Lerner actually hired the CEO from another part of his business, and if he is that shit ( no argument there ) then why is he still here

[blandy]

That argument seems to be that "since Paul Faulkner's been in place, everything has gone badly, therefore it's all his fault".

To me that's not "logical", that's just putting 2 things together and saying they must incontrovertably be the cause and effect.

It's rather sketchy on any kind of detail. For example, what is Paul Faulkner's sphere of authority or decision making? Is he responsible for managerial appointments, or is that Randy's "job"?

Is it up to Paul Faulkner to set the operating budget, or is it Randy's decision, with PF then charged with ensuring the budget is kept to?

In terms of footballing decisions, is it up to Paul Faulkner to determine player fees and wages, or is it Randy, or is it the manager, or is it all 3 of them?

Given the situation at the Club at the time PF became CEO, have things improved in the areas he has responsibility for, or have they got worse in those areas? Whichever the answer, the follow up is "is that because of him, or despite him"?

At the time he became CEO, we had spent, as a club a hell of a lot of money, financed by loans and cash from Randy. Those loans are being paid back over a long time - the money is still on the accounts as owed. We're still losing money because of decisions made before he was CEO. Those decisions were, we are led to believe, made largely by MO'N. Was it Paul Faulkner's remit, before he was CEO, to control what MO'N did?

Like it or not, the club is where it is as a consequence of events that are largely outside of the sphere of Paul Faulkner.

The club, when Randy took over, adopted a deliberate policy of spending heavily on all areas - the ground, the infrastructure, the playing staff, the manager, the fans, even. The aim was to grow the Club back to a decent standard (and better). it was partially successful, at the time. But with hindsight, the financial crash hit the world, it hit Randy, Man City came along with a bottomless pit of money, to go with Chelsea's and Man Utd's and Arsenal's. And then there were Clubs like Liverpool and Spurs and so on, all with more money than Villa, too.

So we ended up with lots of liabilities, financially, and without the Champions League income to support them. The players were overpaid, mostly of poor value, and not good enough to achieve what the Club was hoping to. The best of them left. We were left with an ageing, overpaid and overpriced set of players, plus a lot of unproven prospects in the youth and academy.

MO'N resigned at the worst possible time. Finding a manager at that particular point in time was as hard as it could be, with the season just startiing.

All of that is outside PF's control or responsibility, but we're still feelings the effects.

That's the context to what PF is working with. So, given that, what exactly is it that's his fault?

I have some personal views, but like everyone else, unless I/we know the remit he has, then it's impossible to apportion "blame" to him, or to Randy, or to whoever.

So I think we are forced to look at the people who run the club collectively as responsible for where we are. The decision to appoint that Scottish Manager was just so ignorant as to be incomprehensible.

The decisions right at the start to spend heavily (copied with equal lack of success by Liverpool's American owners, recently) were a gamble that was understandable, but risky.

The choice of Houllier was understandable, but didn't work, unfortunately. The choice of Paul Lambert was a very good one.

The investment in the Academy and training facilities was a brilliant decision, and money well spent. It's being copied by other Clubs, trying to catch up in that area.

The current policy of paying sensible wages, trying to build a side with a footballing ethos, teamwork, team-first, Villa-first is a good one. It's definitely a work in progress, but it's the right way to go.

The decisions on offering a number of lower priced tickets for fans is a good one (though, for me ticket prices are mostly still too high).

The decisions we see less of, like not paying vast sums to agents, that are being acted upon are also in the right direction. The commercial side is better.

The communication with supporters is OK, not brilliant, but OK. It's got better. The collective board understanding of how football in the UK works has got better. PF has a place on the FA and will pick up knowledge from that involvement.

The board collectively has got a lot of things right, and some key things wrong at various stages. But in terms of where we are now, things are getting better, not worse.

Basically, an injection of financial sanity, forced or otherwise, together with hard work and dedication is turning the ship around, in my view. It was headed off in the wrong direction. We've a good manager, a young team that works hard, but is lacking experience and will need to be built up from within and without over the next couple of years. We've got a sensible plan, in my view, to ensure the club is sustainable. There are signs of things looking brighter, and signs of worrying callowness on the pitch.

So to me, the accustations made above that Paul Faulkner is "Shit" and "don't have a sodding clue what [he is] doing" are neither logical nor sustainable.

But we all look at things through different eyes, I guess. Happy Christmas.

[CI]

Rigorous, a decent analogy if you forget the fact that Lerner actually hired the CEO from another part of his business, and if he is that shit ( no argument there ) then why is he still here

Because Lerner doesn't have the skill of surrounding himself with great leaders or businessmen. Whilst I think he's an odious person, Peter Kenyon would have been good for us.

I'd even have kept Mark Ansell or Steve Stride over Faulkner who is just a walking bombscare .

[TrentVilla]

A lot of that is fair enough Blandy and I agree with much of it but then Faulkner didn't exactly help the perception of himself by claiming we were aiming/pushing for Europe last season under McLeish when almost everyone else could see the truth.

[AshVilla]

Lerner all i want for christmas is 20 million

We just need 2 quality players to come in January with further strengthening in the summer

[Humanoid]

At least 2 quality players are needed

[blandy]

A lot of that is fair enough Blandy and I agree with much of it but then Faulkner didn't exactly help the perception of himself by claiming we were aiming/pushing for Europe last season under McLeish when almost everyone else could see the truth.

That's true, he didn't. I guess he may have believed it, though I doubt it personally. It was the sort of drivel we used to get from the previous Chairman. For sure he's made mistakes, but then who hasn't? He's learning.

[CrackpotForeigner]

That argument seems to be that "since Paul Faulkner's been in place, everything has gone badly, therefore it's all his fault".

To me that's not "logical", that's just putting 2 things together and saying they must incontrovertably be the cause and effect.

It's rather sketchy on any kind of detail. For example, what is Paul Faulkner's sphere of authority or decision making? Is he responsible for managerial appointments, or is that Randy's "job"?

Is it up to Paul Faulkner to set the operating budget, or is it Randy's decision, with PF then charged with ensuring the budget is kept to?

In terms of footballing decisions, is it up to Paul Faulkner to determine player fees and wages, or is it Randy, or is it the manager, or is it all 3 of them?

Given the situation at the Club at the time PF became CEO, have things improved in the areas he has responsibility for, or have they got worse in those areas? Whichever the answer, the follow up is "is that because of him, or despite him"?

At the time he became CEO, we had spent, as a club a hell of a lot of money, financed by loans and cash from Randy. Those loans are being paid back over a long time - the money is still on the accounts as owed. We're still losing money because of decisions made before he was CEO. Those decisions were, we are led to believe, made largely by MO'N. Was it Paul Faulkner's remit, before he was CEO, to control what MO'N did?

Like it or not, the club is where it is as a consequence of events that are largely outside of the sphere of Paul Faulkner.

The club, when Randy took over, adopted a deliberate policy of spending heavily on all areas - the ground, the infrastructure, the playing staff, the manager, the fans, even. The aim was to grow the Club back to a decent standard (and better). it was partially successful, at the time. But with hindsight, the financial crash hit the world, it hit Randy, Man City came along with a bottomless pit of money, to go with Chelsea's and Man Utd's and Arsenal's. And then there were Clubs like Liverpool and Spurs and so on, all with more money than Villa, too.

So we ended up with lots of liabilities, financially, and without the Champions League income to support them. The players were overpaid, mostly of poor value, and not good enough to achieve what the Club was hoping to. The best of them left. We were left with an ageing, overpaid and overpriced set of players, plus a lot of unproven prospects in the youth and academy.

MO'N resigned at the worst possible time. Finding a manager at that particular point in time was as hard as it could be, with the season just startiing.

All of that is outside PF's control or responsibility, but we're still feelings the effects.

That's the context to what PF is working with. So, given that, what exactly is it that's his fault?

I have some personal views, but like everyone else, unless I/we know the remit he has, then it's impossible to apportion "blame" to him, or to Randy, or to whoever.

So I think we are forced to look at the people who run the club collectively as responsible for where we are. The decision to appoint that Scottish Manager was just so ignorant as to be incomprehensible.

The decisions right at the start to spend heavily (copied with equal lack of success by Liverpool's American owners, recently) were a gamble that was understandable, but risky.

The choice of Houllier was understandable, but didn't work, unfortunately. The choice of Paul Lambert was a very good one.

The investment in the Academy and training facilities was a brilliant decision, and money well spent. It's being copied by other Clubs, trying to catch up in that area.

The current policy of paying sensible wages, trying to build a side with a footballing ethos, teamwork, team-first, Villa-first is a good one. It's definitely a work in progress, but it's the right way to go.

The decisions on offering a number of lower priced tickets for fans is a good one (though, for me ticket prices are mostly still too high).

The decisions we see less of, like not paying vast sums to agents, that are being acted upon are also in the right direction. The commercial side is better.

The communication with supporters is OK, not brilliant, but OK. It's got better. The collective board understanding of how football in the UK works has got better. PF has a place on the FA and will pick up knowledge from that involvement.

The board collectively has got a lot of things right, and some key things wrong at various stages. But in terms of where we are now, things are getting better, not worse.

Basically, an injection of financial sanity, forced or otherwise, together with hard work and dedication is turning the ship around, in my view. It was headed off in the wrong direction. We've a good manager, a young team that works hard, but is lacking experience and will need to be built up from within and without over the next couple of years. We've got a sensible plan, in my view, to ensure the club is sustainable. There are signs of things looking brighter, and signs of worrying callowness on the pitch.

So to me, the accustations made above that Paul Faulkner is "Shit" and "don't have a sodding clue what [he is] doing" are neither logical nor sustainable.

But we all look at things through different eyes, I guess. Happy Christmas.

Too bad all this common sense will wash over the heads of the people who need to understand it.

[pacbuddies]

I think you will find it is the same person that is advised from there CEO about managers, players etc.

Don't sit and pretend that Paul Faulkner did not have any say or doing in the signing of Ireland (whilst we were managerless!), and two controversial managerial appointments aswell.

Yes it's Randy who signs the dotted line but it's the advice being given to him by his trusted ceo right hand man {that he has to trust on verdicts and advice given to take his Business & our football club forward} that has something major to do with some of the **** ups we have witnessed happen to this club since his arrival.

Since this ceo has stepped foot in the door the club has just basically appeared to have really gone to **** and are desperately trying to recover and all the facts are there for all to see if you can be bothered to dig back in time and view them over various football websites.

His response Logical??

It is he, the CEO who should be up for scrutiny and not always Lerner that gets the backlash - he is simply being ill advised by someone that don't have a sodding clue what they are doing. Again the facts are out there how poor this guy is for all to see. Graham Taylor did not speak to highly of him a few years back either.

It is people that chose to be ignorant and ignore the fact of what 's what when you step back and look at the bigger picture.

It's not logical nor rocket science when you take a look at the facts and decline of Aston Villa since the arrival of this person that is advising the man with less 'in the game knowledge' than most chairman have.

But if we want to be logical then It is like me buying a Yugoslavian business of some sort that I knew could make me money but I was not too clued up about the ins and outs of the industry in that country.

I try it out for a couple of years anyway on my own before I hire a right hand man or CEO.

A ceo I can I trust to have the nack and knowledge of the industry I have brought into aswell as good business skills to run my business for me in my absense whilst still advising me the right and wrong decisions before signing dotted lines on deals.

When after a good first few years have happened in my business I think Okay, this is running steady and now the CEO I have hired can be left to steer the ship for me.

But after a couple of years since employing my ceo I have noticed the man working under the ceo (let's be imaginative and call him a manager) has walked out, eventually the expensive tools I purchased to help build this business were all being dismantled and sold on like some cash for gold frenzy but never really replaced with quality machinery.

Since the first replacement manager started the company {who cost me alot of money to employ but I was advised by my ceo he is the right man out of all the interviewees for the role} struggled in his role as he does not know how to use the machinery correctly and eventually quits.

My ceo then hires another manager that when he arrived pissed the rest of the work force off immediately and **** moral from the off.

More poor value for money second hand machinery is purchased but blew up and never really worked out. He got sacked

Now a 3rd manager is in place and I have pledged a hefty sum of money and buy some good machinery that is an up and coming brand to help the company again.

By now since my ceo arrived I had all the quality machinery I first purchased sold off and not really replaced properly, 2 shift managers hired and fired and a disgruntled small workforce along the way and alot of my money pissed in the air.

I am now in a position that if something happens to this machinery or this manager then questions and investigations as to what the **** is going on in my company will be raised and someones arse going out the door. - It won't be the 3rd manager's either.

Logical enough to understand?

Merry Christmas to you all.

.

Wow, what a lengthy reply. I'll keep it short though. Lerner hired and continues to employ Faulkner. Lerner hired and continued to employ whoever was looking after the day to day management of Cleveland Browns.

Both have been **** up. The common denominator is............

Answers on a postcard please.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Thought so.

[briny_ear]

MO'N resigned at the worst possible time. Finding a manager at that particular point in time was as hard as it could be, with the season just startiing.

I would say the timing of MON's resignation was entirely down to Paul Faulkner. I there anyone who seriously doesn't believe that?

[Tayls]

Wow, what a lengthy reply. I'll keep it short though. Lerner hired and continues to employ Faulkner. Lerner hired and continued to employ whoever was looking after the day to day management of Cleveland Browns.

Both have been **** up. The common denominator is............

Answers on a postcard please.

But, Mr Lerner hasn't F***ed anything up at Villa. I personally love the man, think he is great. Somebody post a link to that song on YouTube about him i've forgotten how to do it (plus I'm on an iPhone)...

Edited December 25, 2012 by Tayls

[Tayls]

I would say the timing of MON's resignation was entirely down to Paul Faulkner. I there anyone who seriously doesn't believe that?

It has to have been, MON didn't like what he was told to do, so he downed tools and bolted.