The Randy Lerner thread

[Big_John_10]

At the time you could reckon that 100 million could get you close to Champions League

Based on?

When you look at how much it took city to break Into the top 4 for the first time it's clear it was never going to be enough.

When you look at the constant investment spurs have had in order to break into the top 4 it was clear it was never going to be enough. Spurs couldn't even repeat that achievement.

[blandy]

thats the same as saying "sell to someone who can"

No it really isn't. Before you can "sell to someone who can" you need to actively look for the "someone" and then you need to vet them for suitability, as many Clubs have found to their belated detriment.

Very simply, the isue with the last bloke was he, for a long time ran the club in such a way that costs were cut and cut, while new income was not sought. Because he didn't put money in himself, it was a one way trip of decline, but it kept him in publicity, to keep his ego buffed.

It's perfectly valid for people to decide they don't think RL is up to it, and that they would like to see him actively making efforts to see if someone else ("better"/richer") would like to be involved or take over. I don't subscribe to that, myself, but have no issue with people who do.

It is not, though, IMO, valid to just say "sell to someone who can fund..[etc]" because such a person or persons are unknown / non-existent, and because the next step, when he doesn't find this mythical person is "you didn't do what we demanded, you're even worse than we said last time".

When you have no identified "someone" you can't credibly demand that someone "sells" only that someone starts looking, or that it's time they started looking.

[Richard]

No it really isn't. Before you can "sell to someone who can" you need to actively look for the "someone" and then you need to vet them for suitability, as many Clubs have found to their belated detriment.

To be honest that goes without saying

The end result is still the same "sell to someone who can". Just because I did not put the steps to get to that point does not make it wrong as actively looking and vetting is ultimately leading to the same end point of selling to someone who can.

It is the end point which is the important bit of the argument.

On all the banners we had years ago we didn't have bullet points

1. Start the proces for seeking new owners
   
2. Employ someone to market the club
   
3. Vet applicants
   
4. Carry out due dilligence of them
   
5. Receive the money, transfer the holding
   

We just had "Ellis Out". That was the important bit to us as fans, and that is why if that argument was a valid argument to give then, then it is valid now.

[Big_John_10]

No it really isn't. Before you can "sell to someone who can" you need to actively look for the "someone" and then you need to vet them for suitability, as many Clubs have found to their belated detriment.

Yes, us being one of them.

[blandy]

To be honest that goes without saying

The end result is still the same "sell to someone who can". Just because I did not put the steps to get to that point does not make it wrong as actively looking and vetting is ultimately leading to the same end point of selling to someone who can.

It is the end point which is the important bit of the argument.

On all the banners we had years ago we didn't have bullet points

1. Start the proces for seeking new owners
   
   
2. Employ someone to market the club
   
   
3. Vet applicants
   
   
4. Carry out due dilligence of them
   
   
5. Receive the money, transfer the holding
   

We just had "Ellis Out". That was the important bit to us as fans, and that is why if that argument was a valid argument to give then, then it is valid now.

So advertising your house for sale, in the estate agents window is the same as actually selling it? Once it's advertised, it's sold, is it - being as it's "the same thing"

Re Banners - they tend to have a bit of a character limit - like Twitter, only more so. As an additional point, one oft voice comment to those who wanted Ellis to look for new ownership was "well who's he gonna sell to" or "you just want him to sell to anyone, no matter who they are". And those people had a point (even if they did sometimes misrepresent what was actually being asked) - I guess I could say I learnt something from them - that "just calling for him to sell up and go" (whoever the "him" is) is not enough. It's not a viable plan or aim or objective.

As I said earlier, it's valid to ask for him to seek out and advertise and signal intent for new ownership (as Reading did and Everton have been doing), but it's just froth to demand "Randy Sell up now" without accepting that there are stages to be gone through and hurdles to be jumped.

WIth Ellis, many said "once you make it clear you are ready to hand over, people will start to appear who might be interested". They did, some good, some bad. The same applies now, though times are harder, and the price would be much higher, I guess.

That said, I'm OK with Randy in charge at the moment.

[Pilchard]

"There have been plenty of custodians of Aston Villa since 1874 and if I can’t make it work, I will do what the others did, move on and let someone else try". - Randy Lerner.

[P3te]

Based on?

When you look at how much it took city to break Into the top 4 for the first time it's clear it was never going to be enough.

When you look at the constant investment spurs have had in order to break into the top 4 it was clear it was never going to be enough. Spurs couldn't even repeat that achievement.

given how close we were on a couple of occasions, and the almost universally agreed viewpoint that we bought poorly, surely the money spent could well have gotten us into the CL had it been better spent

[briny_ear]

given how close we were on a couple of occasions, and the almost universally agreed viewpoint that we bought poorly, surely the money spent could well have gotten us into the CL had it been better spent

It may well be an almost universally agreed viewpoint, but it's not necessarily right. We bought some excellent players - Lerner sold them. If you want to see how they are doing, have a look up the table, in particular at the clubs who are competing for the league title.

I think the argument about "poor spending" is more about getting in a lot of players on wages higher than Mr Lerner could afford and who would not be sold for a similar or higher value because they were late in their careers. So it's about their value as an investment, not what they contributed on the pitch.

In my view, a lot of the spending that was poor as an investment was driven by the unrealistic aim of getting to the top 4 and sticking there within 4-5 years. Lerner certainly wasn't providing enough money for that so MON tried to buy in a high level of experience in the hope that this would create a strong enough team to see us through. In retrospect he would probably have done better to tell Lerner the task was just impossible in the timescale and on the budget envisaged.

[NurembergVillan]

Based on?

When you look at how much it took city to break Into the top 4 for the first time it's clear it was never going to be enough.

When you look at the constant investment spurs have had in order to break into the top 4 it was clear it was never going to be enough. Spurs couldn't even repeat that achievement.

They weren't trying to break the top 4, they were spending to win the league. And they gave the money to Mark Hughes, who spent it on Kolo Toure, Roque Santa Cruz, Robinho, Emmanuel Adebayor and put Stephen Ireland on £80k a week.

[Big_John_10]

But they finished 3rd the first time they managed to break the top 4 and it took them an absolute fortune to achieve that.

It also took spurs a shit load of constant investment and they couldn't repeat it the following year.

I don't think the money we spent was enough to really break the top 4 and i can't see how we could have possibly repeated it.

If it was Lerner gambling on top 4 then it was a stupid gamble.

[NurembergVillan]

They finished 3rd because the manager invested the money badly and they didn't win enough matches because he's not a good manager.

It could be argued that we finished 6th because the manager invested the money badly (we're still paying the price) and didn't rotate the squad well enough so we didn't win enough matches (we never won a game in March under MON iirc).

[NurembergVillan]

Lerner's first mistake at VP was not having a proper football person around him in the early days. Someone like Graham Taylor as an advisor would have helped things massively and we likely wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

[Big_John_10]

They finished 3rd because the manager invested the money badly and they didn't win enough matches because he's not a good manager.

It could be argued that we finished 6th because the manager invested the money badly (we're still paying the price) and didn't rotate the squad well enough so we didn't win enough matches (we never won a game in March under MON iirc).

But it still took them a massive amount of money to go from a nothing team to a top 4 team.

And what about spurs? Years and years of constant investment was needed for them to break into the top 4.

[Robbie09]

Lerner's first mistake at VP was not having a proper football person around him in the early days. Someone like Graham Taylor as an advisor would have helped things massively and we likely wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

100% spot on. For all his good intentions Lerner hasn't had the right people around him to oversee the running of the club whilst he's the other side of the Atlantic.

[NurembergVillan]

It did, but our aim was top 4 whilst theirs was Champions hence them spending even more.

Spurs have invested heavily, yes, but similarly they've sold a lot of players for profit down the years too. Carrick, Berbatov, Modric - all players they've sold and then re-invested into the squad. That's another failing of ours. When we've sold star players we've not replaced them with like for like.

[Big_John_10]

Not sure you can blame a lack of advisor or wether it would of made a difference.

As an owner in a sport he fully understood it was still his decision making that continued to hold them back. If he could do that in a sport he had knowledge in i'm not sure an advisor would have made much of a difference here.

[Robbie09]

Not sure you can blame a lack of advisor or wether it would of made a difference.

As an owner in a sport he fully understood it was still his decision making that continued to hold them back. If he could do that in a sport he had knowledge in i'm not sure an advisor would have made much of a difference here.

Although it could be argued that someone with a football background wouldn't have appointed McLeish.

[NurembergVillan]

Aren't you arguing against yourself there? If his decision making in a sport "he fully understood" was holding his team back then surely an advisor was essential in a sport he didn't understand?

I think Browns fans would argue whether it was a sport he fully understood though.

If there had been a GT type figure around then MON wouldn't have been able to run rings around him throwing lucrative contracts at players who didn't deserve them.

[Big_John_10]

But the wages wasn't just about who deserved it, the wages in relation to our income was the issue and not sure a football man would be the best advisor for that.

Surely that kind of planning comes from the finance men at the club, the men who can clearly see how much money the club makes, how much they will make in the future and the level of spending we can manage in relation to that.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Big_John_10

[Big_John_10]

Aren't you arguing against yourself there? If his decision making in a sport "he fully understood" was holding his team back then surely an advisor was essential in a sport he didn't understand?

I think Browns fans would argue whether it was a sport he fully understood though.

If there had been a GT type figure around then MON wouldn't have been able to run rings around him throwing lucrative contracts at players who didn't deserve them.

My point is, the nfl was a sport he had been around and understood and he still made the wrong decisions.

Whats to say he would have listened to an advisor or made different decsions here. Like i said earlier the way he ran the finances wouldn't have been changed by a football man.