The Randy Lerner thread

[CrackpotForeigner]

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

Not sure when would have been a good time for MON to resign, except maybe just before he signed Heskey. Considering that it's more-or-less universally agreed that MON's spending (no matter who you blame) was completely unsustainable and not always wise, I don't see how this is really a stick to beat Faulkner with.

Edited December 25, 2012 by CrackpotForeigner

[briny_ear]

Not sure when would have been a good time for MON to resign, except maybe just before he signed Heskey. Considering that it's more-or-less universally agreed that MON's spending (no matter who you blame) was completely unsustainable and not always wise, I don't see how this is really a stick to beat Faulkner with.

I'm not really using it as a stick to beat Faulkner with. I just think if you look dispassionately at the events of summer 2010, the only reasonable interpretation is this: Lerner decided he had to reduce spending drastically, MON was never really on board with this, Lerner failed to sort the situation throughout the whole summer, and retreated to the USA with the situation unresolved, leaving it to Faulkner to tell MON he couldn't spend the money from the sale of Milner on new players, at which point MON walked out.

I'm not judging whether that action was right or wrong but the timing and handling of the whole thing was pretty inept although I think the main blame for that lies with Lerner, not Faulkner.

Edited December 26, 2012 by briny_ear

[ciggiesnbeer]

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.

I had forgotten about that one. To be fair to him I was happy to see our CEO looking up, not down. But yeah, in retrospect he did look a bit daft.

Edited December 26, 2012 by ciggiesnbeer

[Richard]

Not even in retrospect. It was a rank stupid statement at the time

[Big_John_10]

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.

.

I genuinely think this is the worst post I've ever read on this website. I'm actually stunned at how stupid it is and to what ridiculous lengths you go to shift any blame from Lerner.

The fact it's so long and has such an arrogant tone to it just adds to how shockingly bad this post is.

I don't think I'll ever read anything as poor again.

Thanks for finishing off 2012 with such an enjoyable highlight on VT.

[CI]

Yougaslavia doesn't even exist anymore does it ?

[pacbuddies]

Yougaslavia doesn't even exist anymore does it ?

Yougaslavia never did exist. Yugoslavia once did though.

[blandy]

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

Yes. MO'N among them. Final straw, maybe, but certainly not entirely down to PF. And I could add that it was Randy who put PF in place, based around finance, it was not somehow PF usurping MO'N of his own choice.

[TrentVilla]

I'm just not so sure O'Neill going should be deemed a bad thing, in many ways it is a shame he didn't go earlier.

I think it is clear Faulkner's elevation had a hand in O'Neill's departure, or rather it seems logical to assume so but as Blandy says I think it is wrong to put it all down to that. Whatever way I look at it his departure was down to one man and one man alone ultimately, that man is Lerner and is a consequence of his quite terrible management of the club/business in this period.

All roads lead ultimately back to Randy, all fingers should be pointed firmly at him for the mess we've found ourselves in and although others had a hand in it he is the one who should carry the can.

[markavfc40]

I'm just not so sure O'Neill going should be deemed a bad thing, in many ways it is a shame he didn't go earlier.

I think it is clear Faulkner's elevation had a hand in O'Neill's departure, or rather it seems logical to assume so but as Blandy says I think it is wrong to put it all down to that. Whatever way I look at it his departure was down to one man and one man alone ultimately, that man is Lerner and is a consequence of his quite terrible management of the club/business in this period.

All roads lead ultimately back to Randy, all fingers should be pointed firmly at him for the mess we've found ourselves in and although others had a hand in it he is the one who should carry the can.

I agree with much of this.

O'Neill made some terrible signings there is no doubt about that. Whether he was responsible for the extortionate wages some of them players were on is debatable.

The bottom line in all that has happened while Lerner has been in charge is this. He purchased a club that had just avoided relegation and had been on the slide for a number of years. In his first 4 years we had a net spend of around 70 million, much less if you include the sale of Milner, and in the second, third and fourth seasons we had the eighth, sixth and sixth highest wage bill. For that outlay we finished sixth three times on the spin. Therefore I think what we achieved in those first 4 years was about right. We certainly didn't over achieve but we didn't under achieve.

I have to say I was totally oblivious to the fact that the club could not sustain having the sixth highest wage bill whilst finishing sixth but worryingly in the summer of 2010 it seems Randy was shocked to find the club could not sustain it and what followed for the next two years has been a total shambles and should have resulted in relegation. He firstly appointed a manager that had been out of football management for 4 years and at a time of cost cutting was a known cheque book manager. He then had to not surprisingly give that manager the best part of 30 mill to drag us way from relegation. He then appoints a manger that had just managed a team to relegation, known for playing dour football at a time when our attendances were already on the wane. We then sell our two best players and give the new manager of transfer budget of minus 20 mill.

For me Randy has made numerous mistakes. One allowing spending to get to a level that we couldn't sustain. Two for then making a couple of extremely poor managerial appointments and thirdly for recklessly and irresponsibly trying to put right his first mistake by cost cutting and trying to rebalance the books in too short a time frame. The only saving grace in all this has been that by some miracle we haven't yet been relegated.

I think he got it right with Lambert but he needs substantial backing if we are to again get anywhere near to being a top six club. In fact top six is a million miles away and he is going to need decent backing in January just to help stave off the threat of relegation.

Edited December 26, 2012 by markavfc40

[jimmygreaves]

Blame is the name of the game and I want to play along with you......

[Richard]

I agree with much of this.

O'Neill made some terrible signings there is no doubt about that. Whether he was responsible for the extortionate wages some of them players were on is debatable.

The bottom line in all that has happened while Lerner has been in charge is this. He purchased a club that had just avoided relegation and had been on the slide for a number of years. In his first 4 years we had a net spend of around 70 million, much less if you include the sale of Milner, and in the second, third and fourth seasons we had the eighth, sixth and sixth highest wage bill. For that outlay we finished sixth three times on the spin. Therefore I think what we achieved in those first 4 years was about right. We certainly didn't over achieve but we didn't under achieve.

I have to say I was totally oblivious to the fact that the club could not sustain having the sixth highest wage bill whilst finishing sixth but worryingly in the summer of 2010 it seems Randy was shocked to find the club could not sustain it and what followed for the next two years has been a total shambles and should have resulted in relegation. He firstly appointed a manager that had been out of football management for 4 years and at a time of cost cutting was a known cheque book manager. He then had to not surprisingly give that manager the best part of 30 mill to drag us way from relegation. He then appoints a manger that had just managed a team to relegation, known for playing dour football at a time when our attendances were already on the wane. We then sell our two best players and give the new manager of transfer budget of minus 20 mill.

For me Randy has made numerous mistakes. One allowing spending to get to a level that we couldn't sustain. Two for then making a couple of extremely poor managerial appointments and thirdly for recklessly and irresponsibly trying to put right his first mistake by cost cutting and trying to rebalance the books in too short a time frame. The only saving grace in all this has been that by some miracle we haven't yet been relegated.

I think he got it right with Lambert but he needs substantial backing if we are to again get anywhere near to being a top six club. In fact top six is a million miles away and he is going to need decent backing in January just to help stave off the threat of relegation.

top post mark and for me accurately sums up events at vp in the last three years

[omariqy]

Yup good post.

[Tayls]

Although some posters have made some good comments here about events of the past three years, I am confused as to why we keep going over this stuff? We know what has happened now and its not good. Why arnt we talking about the future and how we can actually realistically improve in a way which is sustainable to get to where we belong?

Enough of the past already.

[TRO]

I'm not really using it as a stick to beat Faulkner with. I just think if you look dispassionately at the events of summer 2010, the only reasonable interpretation is this: Lerner decided he had to reduce spending drastically, MON was never really on board with this, Lerner failed to sort the situation throughout the whole summer, and retreated to the USA with the situation unresolved, leaving it to Faulkner to tell MON he couldn't spend the money from the sale of Milner on new players, at which point MON walked out.

I'm not judging whether that action was right or wrong but the timing and handling of the whole thing was pretty inept although I think the main blame for that lies with Lerner, not Faulkner.

Lerner had to reduce spending/costs to address previous mismanagement of the team building.

That mismanagement in the main was monies spent on players that failed to produce the required standard of football which would normally have resulted in better revenue for the club.

In short we bought shite and had to redress the issue.

someone had to clear up the mess....It was money Lerner was responsible for, so ultimately he had to do it.

[TRO]

Although some posters have made some good comments here about events of the past three years, I am confused as to why we keep going over this stuff? We know what has happened now and its not good. Why arnt we talking about the future and how we can actually realistically improve in a way which is sustainable to get to where we belong?

Enough of the past already.

good point.

but if you don't learn from the past it is likely to regurgitate.

[mikeyp102]

(and lambert did not spend all of his summer allowance )

The main reason for this would be lamberts choice though surely? He had amble to time throughout the summer to complete transfers , but waited until after the season, ergo not giving himself time to complete deals

[AvfcRigo82]

I agree with much of this.

O'Neill made some terrible signings there is no doubt about that. Whether he was responsible for the extortionate wages some of them players were on is debatable.

The bottom line in all that has happened while Lerner has been in charge is this. He purchased a club that had just avoided relegation and had been on the slide for a number of years. In his first 4 years we had a net spend of around 70 million, much less if you include the sale of Milner, and in the second, third and fourth seasons we had the eighth, sixth and sixth highest wage bill. For that outlay we finished sixth three times on the spin. Therefore I think what we achieved in those first 4 years was about right. We certainly didn't over achieve but we didn't under achieve.

I have to say I was totally oblivious to the fact that the club could not sustain having the sixth highest wage bill whilst finishing sixth but worryingly in the summer of 2010 it seems Randy was shocked to find the club could not sustain it and what followed for the next two years has been a total shambles and should have resulted in relegation. He firstly appointed a manager that had been out of football management for 4 years and at a time of cost cutting was a known cheque book manager. He then had to not surprisingly give that manager the best part of 30 mill to drag us way from relegation. He then appoints a manger that had just managed a team to relegation, known for playing dour football at a time when our attendances were already on the wane. We then sell our two best players and give the new manager of transfer budget of minus 20 mill.

For me Randy has made numerous mistakes. One allowing spending to get to a level that we couldn't sustain. Two for then making a couple of extremely poor managerial appointments and thirdly for recklessly and irresponsibly trying to put right his first mistake by cost cutting and trying to rebalance the books in too short a time frame. The only saving grace in all this has been that by some miracle we haven't yet been relegated.

I think he got it right with Lambert but he needs substantial backing if we are to again get anywhere near to being a top six club. In fact top six is a million miles away and he is going to need decent backing in January just to help stave off the threat of relegation.

Could not have put it better myself Mark. Sums up exactly how I have felt about the whole situation.

.

[briny_ear]

Lerner had to reduce spending/costs to address previous mismanagement of the team building.

That mismanagement in the main was monies spent on players that failed to produce the required standard of football which would normally have resulted in better revenue for the club.

In short we bought shite and had to redress the issue.

someone had to clear up the mess....It was money Lerner was responsible for, so ultimately he had to do it.

I think what I'm saying, TRO, is that Lerner patently failed to deal with the situation. It was Lerner's financial mis(lack of?)management that had got him into the position where he couldn't sustain his level of spending, he had a manager who expected to go on spending and clearly wasn't on board with cost reduction, yet he left the UK in August 2010 believing everything was fine, leaving Faulkner to do his dirty work.

I'm aware that many posters take the easy route of blaming all our ills on MON but the argument that if he had bought better players we would have made more money so wouldn't have got into a financial mess just doesn't add up.

Villa had healthy crowds during MON's era so the main factor that a manager can affect was positive for MON. Lerner didn't spend enough to guarantee continuous CL football - you have to look to Chelsea and Man C to see how much that costs - so even if we had miraculously made top 4 every season, it is questionable whether Lerner could have subsidised the impossibly large wage bill he committed to.

Also bear in mind that a lot of the money that Lerner has spent on the club in the past 3 disastrous seasons has come from selling off the good players that MON bought. When people bang on about the rubbish players that MON bought, they conveniently overlook the fact that a lot of his best players are now gracing clubs challenging for Champions League places and the money we got for them has helped fund payoffs for useless managers who were sacked, panic buys to save us from relegation, etc.

[blandy]

Whatever way I look at it his departure was down to one man and one man alone ultimately, that man is Lerner ...

All roads lead ultimately back to Randy, all fingers should be pointed firmly at him for the mess we've found ourselves in and although others had a hand in it he is the one who should carry the can.

I think, genuinely, that it's far from all down to Randy Lerner. I think it's more complicated. I thin, for example that MO'N pretty much knew he had hit a glass ceiling - both with his own abilities to challenge higher than 6th, and to be on a level with Chelsea, Man U etc. I think many fans would accept that, myself - that MO'N does not have the abilities to stand up against those clubs, regularly, and come out on top regularly. He knows he ha hit that limitation. He knows he spent a heck of a lot of money on wages and fees, only to come up against obstacles he couldn't defeat. He knows that some key refereeing decisions stopped him winning a trophy, and he knew and felt that his time was ebbing away at Villa. I really don't think it's all down to Randy. Yes they fell out over money and signings and sales and transfer policy, but truth be told, as you imply (kind of) MO'N was basically in the wrong over that and there's an argument he should have gone earlier, maybe his heart had just gone.

The bottom line in all that has happened while Lerner has been in charge is this....For me Randy has made numerous mistakes. One allowing spending to get to a level that we couldn't sustain. Two for then making a couple of extremely poor managerial appointments and thirdly for recklessly and irresponsibly trying to put right his first mistake by cost cutting and trying to rebalance the books in too short a time frame. The only saving grace in all this has been that by some miracle we haven't yet been relegated.

I think he got it right with Lambert but he needs substantial backing if we are to again get anywhere near to being a top six club. In fact top six is a million miles away and he is going to need decent backing in January just to help stave off the threat of relegation.

That's all fair comment, Mark.

Blame is the name of the game and I want to play along with you......

Exactly. It's water under the bridge, and eruptions of "it's all [whoever's] fault every time we have a bad run or whenever is just, to me, people looking for an outlet for their disappointment and frustration. I don't know why we need this "blame" thing. It's very destructive.

good point.

but if you don't learn from the past it is likely to regurgitate.

True, and the club is operating very differently. Perhaps they have learnt some lessons from their mistakes and their actions previously?