The Randy Lerner thread

[TRO]

 

Christ, when I heard he didn't know much about football or transfer business, I was delighted...We just had one dark our days for years interfering with the managers dealings and we are free of all that....Oh No....Its now all his fault, cake and eat it springs to mind john.

 

 

You don't have be Mr Meddler to emply people around you that know what they're doing, especially when you've just bought a company in an industry you know nothing about.  To rely on a retired marine and a credit card company customer services manager as your chief source of advice was crazy.  Lerner did seem to have some decent people around him when he took over, but they were quickly ditched in favour of his mates.  I'm only guessing, but I would summise from that that Lerner is the sort of boss who only listens to the advice he likes to hear.

 

 

But like I have said a million times Risso, I/we are not levying Lerner as blameless but his critics seem to deem his manager MON so.

[TRO]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

 

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

 

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

 

seems like we agree to disagree.

[Big_John_10]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

Such a massively naive way of looking at it. There so much sense posted above and yet you still don't see it. It's been said to you many times but you see things so black and white and that just isn't the case.

What ever manager came in after Oneil the wage bill still had to managed, and the dresing room was already in a mess due to massive differecnes in wages, you can blame Houllier all you like, but's no coincidence that our players were in the press for all the wrong reasons off the field, and it happened more than once.

Everyone loved the heights we hit under Oneil, but he messed up big time and left us in a mess. Why do you think nobody of any note touched him with a barge pole after us??

So you think the last 3 years would have been the same no matter who we brought in?

What are you basing that on?

[Big_John_10]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

seems like we agree to disagree.

Like I just said. Do you believe no other manager could have done differently after O'Neill? What of we'd appointed a Lambert type straight after O'Neill and began the rebuild with a stronger position? You can't believe we'd have still dropped like we did can you?

I think we would clearly be in a better position and no one would be questioning the decisions of the owner or where the club is going.

[TRO]

Unlike BJ10, I do hold O'Neill partly accountable, but then if they recognised the errors they made with him, why then did they compound the errors by appointing Houllier and McLeish, and repeat the mistakes they made before with the likes of Given, Ireland, N'Zogbia etc.  Given in particular was an absolutely crazy decision, and I said so at the time.

 

This is only me guessing Risso,

but I don't think they realised they were making mistakes, they were simply misplacing trust in managers to buy well.

 

its only when Houllier and McLeish was repeating much of what O'Neill was doing...the penny dropped, that these managers who are prudent in the transfer market and have a backroom staff to develop them are few and far between. Hence money stopped and Paul Lambert has build this trust back up with the board.

 

unfortunately it ain't "monopoly money"

[sharkyvilla]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

seems like we agree to disagree.

Like I just said. Do you believe no other manager could have done differently after O'Neill? What of we'd appointed a Lambert type straight after O'Neill and began the rebuild with a stronger position? You can't believe we'd have still dropped like we did can you?

I think we would clearly be in a better position and no one would be questioning the decisions of the owner or where the club is going.

IMO what would have been ideal would be if someone like Lambert was brought in as manager and Houllier was director of football. It seemed to me that Houllier very quickly realised he wasn't up to it any more and he almost threw in the towel, but his knowledge would have been invaluable. I reckon if we had someone like David Dein at the club he would have identified something like that but Lerner was inexperienced in the game, as were Faulkner and co. It does seem to me though that they have all learnt valuable lessons and the progress we have made over the last 16 months or so is remarkable and the future should be bright, if initially slow going. I do put a lot of blame at O'Neill's door for obvious reasons, and I still don't know why he wasn't willing to work under tighter financial controls once we had failed in our attempt to get 4th, as its just another challenge of management and he was still being paid well by the club. I just wish we could move on, really, and stop moaning about Randy for those mistakes when he has clearly learnt from them and the club is rebuilding steadily.

[maqroll]

In my opinion, a major mistake that Lerner made was not keeping Steve Stride on, at least as a "bridge" for some continuity, and to help Lerner assimilate into his new business culture. Hiring MON was not a mistake in and of itself. Allowing him to go hog wild with his money on dodgy signings with no checks on his privileges was the mistake. Had we had someone there with experience, to guide Lerner, he wouldn't have let his naivety get the best of him, and the club.

[TRO]

 

 

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

seems like we agree to disagree.

Like I just said. Do you believe no other manager could have done differently after O'Neill? What of we'd appointed a Lambert type straight after O'Neill and began the rebuild with a stronger position? You can't believe we'd have still dropped like we did can you?

I think we would clearly be in a better position and no one would be questioning the decisions of the owner or where the club is going.

 

 on that note, you are right, he did make errors particularly of judgement, but I previously said he was not blameless....Like Briny, I am yet to hear you say O'Neill made errors.

[Big_John_10]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

seems like we agree to disagree.

Like I just said. Do you believe no other manager could have done differently after O'Neill? What of we'd appointed a Lambert type straight after O'Neill and began the rebuild with a stronger position? You can't believe we'd have still dropped like we did can you?

I think we would clearly be in a better position and no one would be questioning the decisions of the owner or where the club is going.

on that note, you are right, he did make errors particularly of judgement, but I previously said he was not blameless....Like Briny, I am yet to hear you say O'Neill made errors.

I think O'Neill did make errors all managers do. I think it's rubbish to continue to blame him though.

Like I said had we managed the situation after her left better we would never have dropped as low as we did.

[TRO]

In my opinion, a major mistake that Lerner made was not keeping Steve Stride on, at least as a "bridge" for some continuity, and to help Lerner assimilate into his new business culture. Hiring MON was not a mistake in and of itself. Allowing him to go hog wild with his money on dodgy signings with no checks on his privileges was the mistake. Had we had someone there with experience, to guide Lerner, he wouldn't have let his naivety get the best of him, and the club.

I do agree with you about Steve Stride and feel the same, but you know what people are like in these  places they like folk they can trust, maybe Randy didn't feel that way towards Steve.

 

The bit that I don't quite get is you are making it sound like Martin O'Neill was the enemy from within, not to be trusted...He was an experienced, successful manager, that was revered in many quarters, so its feasible the new Owner trusted him and let him "get on with it"....Had Randy Lerner made overtures that suggested stringent controls were placed on him, world war 3,  would have taken place and Randy would have been deemed as "the fly in the ointment" HDE Reign all over again, would have been mooted,I can just visualize it now.

[TRO]

 

 

 

 

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

seems like we agree to disagree.

Like I just said. Do you believe no other manager could have done differently after O'Neill? What of we'd appointed a Lambert type straight after O'Neill and began the rebuild with a stronger position? You can't believe we'd have still dropped like we did can you?

I think we would clearly be in a better position and no one would be questioning the decisions of the owner or where the club is going.

on that note, you are right, he did make errors particularly of judgement, but I previously said he was not blameless....Like Briny, I am yet to hear you say O'Neill made errors.

I think O'Neill did make errors all managers do. I think it's rubbish to continue to blame him though.

Like I said had we managed the situation after her left better we would never have dropped as low as we did.

 

 

I could write, Randy did make errors, all chairmen do. I think its rubbish to continue to blame him.

 

....but that would be tantamount to saying he is blameless and I will not hear anything derogatory said about him......and that not what I wrote.

I admitted from the Outset that Randy is not blameless.

 

you have begrudging admitted that O'Neill was at fault, with conditions of lumping every other manager in with him as a cop out.

 

John, you are so pro O'Neill  (who ccould do no wrong)its obvious....lets just drop it.

 

I'll stick with the guy ,who's still with us.

[briny_ear]

 

 

But, by definition, you seemingly are falling over your bootlaces not to blame him at all, there lies some of the imbalance of opinion.

Martin O'Neill had c 4 years and in the region of 100 million to build a new squad.

Gerard Houllier and Alex Mcleish had 12 months each

 

Hi, TRO!

Since there is nothing in what I posted to justify the comment in your first sentence, I confess I didn't study the rest too closely. But I did get as far as the final bit I've quoted. McLeish only had a year! Would you have liked him to stay longer??

 

 

I was referring to just about every one of your posts on this subject, where I have not gleaned a morsel of blame on O'Neill, hence my comment on the first line. The fact that history kinda repeated itself at sunderland in terms of buys not working out, has seemingly not made you think again.

 

So you were commenting on a phantom, a fantasy post that you think I have made repeatedly. The only problem is I have never posted in the way you suggest. I have however insisted that Lerner and Faulkner's financial and management bungling should be fully acknowledged; that Houllier's and McLeish's spells of management should be recognised for the disasters they were; and that the simplistic tendency to blame it all on MON should be resisted.

 

The notes of the "discussion" between Mr Faulkner and the "Villa Trust" suggest he is still trying to shift most of the blame to MON and that simply will not do. (Although of course we only have the "Villa Trust"'s word for what was actually said).

 

What happened at Sunderland has little if anything to do with what happened at Villa - apart from the spookily similar fact that MON was replaced with a complete joke of a manager who then tried to blame it all on him. I think Sunderland's problems are much more intractable than ours, but at least they have an owner who knows when he has to sack his manager.

[TRO]

But, by definition, you seemingly are falling over your bootlaces not to blame him at all, there lies some of the imbalance of opinion.

Martin O'Neill had c 4 years and in the region of 100 million to build a new squad.

Gerard Houllier and Alex Mcleish had 12 months each

Hi, TRO!

Since there is nothing in what I posted to justify the comment in your first sentence, I confess I didn't study the rest too closely. But I did get as far as the final bit I've quoted. McLeish only had a year! Would you have liked him to stay longer??

 

I was referring to just about every one of your posts on this subject, where I have not gleaned a morsel of blame on O'Neill, hence my comment on the first line. The fact that history kinda repeated itself at sunderland in terms of buys not working out, has seemingly not made you think again.

So you were commenting on a phantom, a fantasy post that you think I have made repeatedly. The only problem is I have never posted in the way you suggest. I have however insisted that Lerner and Faulkner's financial and management bungling should be fully acknowledged; that Houllier's and McLeish's spells of management should be recognised for the disasters they were; and that the simplistic tendency to blame it all on MON should be resisted.

 

The notes of the "discussion" between Mr Faulkner and the "Villa Trust" suggest he is still trying to shift most of the blame to MON and that simply will not do. (Although of course we only have the "Villa Trust"'s word for what was actually said).

 

What happened at Sunderland has little if anything to do with what happened at Villa - apart from the spookily similar fact that MON was replaced with a complete joke of a manager who then tried to blame it all on him. I think Sunderland's problems are much more intractable than ours, but at least they have an owner who knows when he has to sack his manager.

so to condense all of that down... was any of it O'Neills fault IYO...despite you saying ALL of it wasn't, does imply some of it was, just want to make it clear, briny.

Edited November 14, 2013 by TRO

[TRO]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

seems like we agree to disagree.

Like I just said. Do you believe no other manager could have done differently after O'Neill? What of we'd appointed a Lambert type straight after O'Neill and began the rebuild with a stronger position? You can't believe we'd have still dropped like we did can you?

I think we would clearly be in a better position and no one would be questioning the decisions of the owner or where the club is going.

on that note, you are right, he did make errors particularly of judgement, but I previously said he was not blameless....Like Briny, I am yet to hear you say O'Neill made errors.

I think O'Neill did make errors all managers do. I think it's rubbish to continue to blame him though.

Like I said had we managed the situation after her left better we would never have dropped as low as we did.

All roads lead to O'Neills blamelessness in your book.

I would suspect had we signed a successful manager after O'Neill, hypothetically of course, Martin O'Neill's disciples would have claimed the mantle of leaving a legacy behind and said manager would only have been carrying on Martins great work....is that how it would have been described John?

[TRO]

If our Chairman and CEO are to blame for all the Financial mismanagement of the club at least they are still here to try and put it right.

[Big_John_10]

The reason I don't blame O'Neill is because I truly believe had we made the right appointment after him we would currently be in a much better position and no one would be moaning about Lerner or past managers. It was the managerial appointments after poor financial control that made us drop and limited funds to Lambert that's making it a slow process to improve.

What ever mistakes O'Neill made could have been fixed better if the right appointment had been made after. Imagine giving the right manager 3 years and the funds we've spent. I'd imagine we'd be like Everton now.

People talk as if it was inevitable that we'd drop this much because of O'Neill. But that's just rubbish that excuses two awful managers and two more years of wasted money.

That first line of yours is really interesting. If you believe that, I can perfectly understand you reasoning.

I feel as equally sure, after 4 years and 100 mill he had his chance and that it wouldn't have got any better and on his transfer record with us I would have been dubious of sanctioning any more money.

seems like we agree to disagree.

Like I just said. Do you believe no other manager could have done differently after O'Neill? What of we'd appointed a Lambert type straight after O'Neill and began the rebuild with a stronger position? You can't believe we'd have still dropped like we did can you?

I think we would clearly be in a better position and no one would be questioning the decisions of the owner or where the club is going.

on that note, you are right, he did make errors particularly of judgement, but I previously said he was not blameless....Like Briny, I am yet to hear you say O'Neill made errors.

I think O'Neill did make errors all managers do. I think it's rubbish to continue to blame him though.

Like I said had we managed the situation after her left better we would never have dropped as low as we did.

I could write, Randy did make errors, all chairmen do. I think its rubbish to continue to blame him.

....but that would be tantamount to saying he is blameless and I will not hear anything derogatory said about him......and that not what I wrote.

I admitted from the Outset that Randy is not blameless.

you have begrudging admitted that O'Neill was at fault, with conditions of lumping every other manager in with him as a cop out.

John, you are so pro O'Neill (who ccould do no wrong)its obvious....lets just drop it.

I'll stick with the guy ,who's still with us.

Good for you. Did you have that I'll stick with the guy who's here with Doug or McLeish?

Drop what? You started debating with me not the other way round.

Why don't you go and have a look at the fees we paid and the contracts we paid out the two years after O'Neill left and try and blame him with those facts.

Simple question, if we had replaced O'Neill with a better manager and that manager had spent the last 3 years with us do you think we'd currently be in a better position? Yes or no?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Big_John_10

[Big_John_10]

If our Chairman and CEO are to blame for all the Financial mismanagement of the club at least they are still here to try and put it right.

That's your best argument?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Big_John_10

[GENTLEMAN]

Who has blamed MON for the last three years?

[Raver50032]

 

Everyone loved the heights we hit under Oneil, but he messed up big time and left us in a mess. Why do you think nobody of any note touched him with a barge pole after us??

 

 

Problem is, Villa is a poisoned chalice of a job. For a whole plethora of reasons, who has ever managed Villa and then gone on to much bigger and brighter things?

 

I can think of nobody. Irrelevent in this discussion, but I can't think of a single Villa manager who has gone on to excell elsewhere.

[Morpheus]

Excellent point Raver.