The Randy Lerner thread

[McGregor1888]

 

 

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.

 

Joe Mercer.

[markavfc40]

 

but I can't think of a single Villa manager who has gone on to excell elsewhere.

 

 

You are spot on. No manager in my 30 odd years, aside from Graham Taylor who left to manage England, has gone on to anything like a bigger or even equal club.

 

As this thread seems to have once again been turned into a Mon fest I'll add my two penneth worth.

 

For me given what he had to spend in terms of fees and wages I have always believed he achieved about what you would expect. No more no less. Three sixth place finishes with the eigth, sixth and sixth highest wage bill. Throw in a couple of very good cup runs and a fantastic record against all of our local rivals and on many occasions more than holding our own against the so called big boys. He had a net spend of 80 mill or 60 mil if you take into account the 20 mill sale of Milner a few days after he left. I don't think for a second for that kind of net spend over 4 years we should of expected to go from a shambles of a club when Lerner and O'Neill arrived in 2006 to one that should be overtaking one of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and a quickly emerging Man City. You can also throw into the mix Spurs.

 

In terms of wages, which seems to have been the biggest issue over the last 3-4 years, then I firmly put the blame for that getting out of control at Lerner's door. He knew what was going out and what was coming in. It wasn't O'Neill's responsibility to get income up to a level to sustain having the sixth highest wage bill. Given that level of wages he achieved what was expected.

 

Possibly the most damning argument against blaming O'Neill for the fact the level of wages became unsustainable is the fact that after he left the wage bill went up dramatically. Under Houllier we spunked another 100k a week onto it with the permanent signings of Bent and Makoun and for a while another 50+k a week with the loan signings of Pires, Walker and Bradley. The only difference then being, that instead of contending for a top 4 finish and finishing in the top 6 as we did under O'Neill, we now found ourselves with a much higher wage bill and spending the vast majority of the season in or around the relegation places.

 

I said on these forums a few months after O'Neill left that blaming a guy that no longer has f all to do with the club and can do nothing about our current predicament was a very dangerous game. It is one the club have played though and look where it has gotten us. The fact that it seems, coming on to 4 seasons after he left, they are still blaming him is insulting peoples intelligence. It is expected, but still somewhat surprising, that some supporters have been gullible enough to have fallen for it.

Edited November 15, 2013 by markavfc40

[Mantis]

Not many people are blaming O'Neill solely for the recent mess but it's naive at the very least to not admit that he has played a part in things, as have Lerner, Houllier, McLeish and possibly even Lambert to an extent.

[ozvillafan]

Not many people are blaming O'Neill solely for the recent mess but it's naive at the very least to not admit that he has played a part in things, as have Lerner, Houllier, McLeish and possibly even Lambert to an extent.

 

I'd agree, though I'd add that Lambert's contribution has been more positive than negative.

[AvfcTheObsession]

Not many people are blaming O'Neill solely for the recent mess but it's naive at the very least to not admit that he has played a part in things, as have Lerner, Houllier, McLeish and possibly even Lambert to an extent.

 

Should we also put the fans in that list as we are blaming everybody else?

 

Crowds dropped by 6k from 39-40k under O'Neill to 33-34k under McLeish, causing a big drop in income.

[TJVillan]

Lerner has now got the finances in check. He continues to provide decent money for transfers. He has brought in a manager that most are fully behind with a strategy that is sustainable and can make us successful long term if executed well. I think he's finally got his s*** together. I'm not saying Randy is the best owner by any stretch, but at least he is no longer making poor decisions that hold us back. 

 

I don't want him to sell up just for the sake of "getting him out", when he sells I want it to be to someone that knows what they are doing, and have the resources to make us a top side.

[romavillan]

 

Not many people are blaming O'Neill solely for the recent mess but it's naive at the very least to not admit that he has played a part in things, as have Lerner, Houllier, McLeish and possibly even Lambert to an extent.

 

I'd agree, though I'd add that Lambert's contribution has been more positive than negative.

 

yeah, Lambert has not conributed to the decline, weird to put him in that list.

MON must shoulder the most blame in my eyes, he was deciding where the money got spent. Hot on his heels are Faulkner and Lerner as they were agreeing to the wages that put us in the mess. His and the boards attempts to break the top 4 at any cost, was reckless. Lerner should have seen it coming a bit sooner, but it was MON who was identifying players and as we have seen they weren't worth the money.

 

Houllier I'm not sure contributed so much, he came into a difficult situation. He did littlel to put things right though. McLeish, well, on the football side he destroyed us! In terms of cutting wages etc. he didn't really help much did he? Given? Hutton? 

After MON walked/was pushed, then the rot caused by him and the board really set in. The ship was sinking when Houllier stepped on it and nearly went down under McLeish. The start of Lamberts tenure was fighting against it going under and now we're only just starting to steady the ship. There are STILL some liggers on hanging about on high wages and only when they are gone can we really say the hangover from the recklessness of the MON era will finally be over.

 

Hopefully Lerner has learnt something along the way and he backs Lambert and tries his best to keep him on to see through his long term vision for the club. 

[Big_John_10]

but I can't think of a single Villa manager who has gone on to excell elsewhere.

You are spot on. No manager in my 30 odd years, aside from Graham Taylor who left to manage England, has gone on to anything like a bigger or even equal club.

As this thread seems to have once again been turned into a Mon fest I'll add my two penneth worth.

For me given what he had to spend in terms of fees and wages I have always believed he achieved about what you would expect. No more no less. Three sixth place finishes with the eigth, sixth and sixth highest wage bill. Throw in a couple of very good cup runs and a fantastic record against all of our local rivals and on many occasions more than holding our own against the so called big boys. He had a net spend of 80 mill or 60 mil if you take into account the 20 mill sale of Milner a few days after he left. I don't think for a second for that kind of net spend over 4 years we should of expected to go from a shambles of a club when Lerner and O'Neill arrived in 2006 to one that should be overtaking one of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and a quickly emerging Man City. You can also throw into the mix Spurs.

In terms of wages, which seems to have been the biggest issue over the last 3-4 years, then I firmly put the blame for that getting out of control at Lerner's door. He knew what was going out and what was coming in. It wasn't O'Neill's responsibility to get income up to a level to sustain having the sixth highest wage bill. Given that level of wages he achieved what was expected.

Possibly the most damning argument against blaming O'Neill for the fact the level of wages became unsustainable is the fact that after he left the wage bill went up dramatically. Under Houllier we spunked another 100k a week onto it with the permanent signings of Bent and Makoun and for a while another 50+k a week with the loan signings of Pires, Walker and Bradley. The only difference then being, that instead of contending for a top 4 finish and finishing in the top 6 as we did under O'Neill, we now found ourselves with a much higher wage bill and spending the vast majority of the season in or around the relegation places.

I said on these forums a few months after O'Neill left that blaming a guy that no longer has f all to do with the club and can do nothing about our current predicament was a very dangerous game. It is one the club have played though and look where it has gotten us. The fact that it seems, coming on to 4 seasons after he left, they are still blaming him is insulting peoples intelligence. It is expected, but still somewhat surprising, that some supporters have been gullible enough to have fallen for it.

Complete sense

[srsmithusa]

 

 

but I can't think of a single Villa manager who has gone on to excell elsewhere.

You are spot on. No manager in my 30 odd years, aside from Graham Taylor who left to manage England, has gone on to anything like a bigger or even equal club.

As this thread seems to have once again been turned into a Mon fest I'll add my two penneth worth.

For me given what he had to spend in terms of fees and wages I have always believed he achieved about what you would expect. No more no less. Three sixth place finishes with the eigth, sixth and sixth highest wage bill. Throw in a couple of very good cup runs and a fantastic record against all of our local rivals and on many occasions more than holding our own against the so called big boys. He had a net spend of 80 mill or 60 mil if you take into account the 20 mill sale of Milner a few days after he left. I don't think for a second for that kind of net spend over 4 years we should of expected to go from a shambles of a club when Lerner and O'Neill arrived in 2006 to one that should be overtaking one of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and a quickly emerging Man City. You can also throw into the mix Spurs.

In terms of wages, which seems to have been the biggest issue over the last 3-4 years, then I firmly put the blame for that getting out of control at Lerner's door. He knew what was going out and what was coming in. It wasn't O'Neill's responsibility to get income up to a level to sustain having the sixth highest wage bill. Given that level of wages he achieved what was expected.

Possibly the most damning argument against blaming O'Neill for the fact the level of wages became unsustainable is the fact that after he left the wage bill went up dramatically. Under Houllier we spunked another 100k a week onto it with the permanent signings of Bent and Makoun and for a while another 50+k a week with the loan signings of Pires, Walker and Bradley. The only difference then being, that instead of contending for a top 4 finish and finishing in the top 6 as we did under O'Neill, we now found ourselves with a much higher wage bill and spending the vast majority of the season in or around the relegation places.

I said on these forums a few months after O'Neill left that blaming a guy that no longer has f all to do with the club and can do nothing about our current predicament was a very dangerous game. It is one the club have played though and look where it has gotten us. The fact that it seems, coming on to 4 seasons after he left, they are still blaming him is insulting peoples intelligence. It is expected, but still somewhat surprising, that some supporters have been gullible enough to have fallen for it.

Complete sense

 

... Except for nonsense at the end.  People on here, fans, pundits, some others blame O'Neill but the club does not.  I have heard Lambert, Faulkner, and others talk about the club's performance.  Not a word of blaming anyone, much less O'Neill.  Could they blame O'Neill?   Probably some.  But I don't agree that "the club" has played the blame O'Neill game.  If they did at all, it was in the first season, and frankly, at that point, was pretty valid.

[Mantis]

Fair points about Lambert. Half of me only put him on that list because I thought I'd probably get my head bitten off by some if I didn't put him on there.

 

 

Not many people are blaming O'Neill solely for the recent mess but it's naive at the very least to not admit that he has played a part in things, as have Lerner, Houllier, McLeish and possibly even Lambert to an extent.

 

Should we also put the fans in that list as we are blaming everybody else?

 

Crowds dropped by 6k from 39-40k under O'Neill to 33-34k under McLeish, causing a big drop in income.

 

 

No. I never once said or even implied that the fans should share some of the blame.

[Cliffy Biro]

 

Not many people are blaming O'Neill solely for the recent mess but it's naive at the very least to not admit that he has played a part in things, as have Lerner, Houllier, McLeish and possibly even Lambert to an extent.

 

Should we also put the fans in that list as we are blaming everybody else?

 

Crowds dropped by 6k from 39-40k under O'Neill to 33-34k under McLeish, causing a big drop in income.

 

 

Dont **** ignore thousands of fans and hire mcleish then, jesus wept. If you want someone to blame for the drop in attendances then its lerner and faulkner simple as.

[sne]

 

 

Not many people are blaming O'Neill solely for the recent mess but it's naive at the very least to not admit that he has played a part in things, as have Lerner, Houllier, McLeish and possibly even Lambert to an extent.

 

Should we also put the fans in that list as we are blaming everybody else?

 

Crowds dropped by 6k from 39-40k under O'Neill to 33-34k under McLeish, causing a big drop in income.

 

 

Dont **** ignore thousands of fans and hire mcleish then, jesus wept. If you want someone to blame for the drop in attendances then its lerner and faulkner simple as.

 

I agree, and the worlds economy imploding around the same time we start playing dire football probably helped keep fans way from Villa Park too.

 

Many people have less disposable income atm, football is expensive.

It's easier to justify staying home and saving your money when you know the team is playing god awful football and fighting in the bottom of the table.

[TRO]

but I can't think of a single Villa manager who has gone on to excell elsewhere.

 

You are spot on. No manager in my 30 odd years, aside from Graham Taylor who left to manage England, has gone on to anything like a bigger or even equal club.

 

As this thread seems to have once again been turned into a Mon fest I'll add my two penneth worth.

 

For me given what he had to spend in terms of fees and wages I have always believed he achieved about what you would expect. No more no less. Three sixth place finishes with the eigth, sixth and sixth highest wage bill. Throw in a couple of very good cup runs and a fantastic record against all of our local rivals and on many occasions more than holding our own against the so called big boys. He had a net spend of 80 mill or 60 mil if you take into account the 20 mill sale of Milner a few days after he left. I don't think for a second for that kind of net spend over 4 years we should of expected to go from a shambles of a club when Lerner and O'Neill arrived in 2006 to one that should be overtaking one of Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and a quickly emerging Man City. You can also throw into the mix Spurs.

 

In terms of wages, which seems to have been the biggest issue over the last 3-4 years, then I firmly put the blame for that getting out of control at Lerner's door. He knew what was going out and what was coming in. It wasn't O'Neill's responsibility to get income up to a level to sustain having the sixth highest wage bill. Given that level of wages he achieved what was expected.

 

Possibly the most damning argument against blaming O'Neill for the fact the level of wages became unsustainable is the fact that after he left the wage bill went up dramatically. Under Houllier we spunked another 100k a week onto it with the permanent signings of Bent and Makoun and for a while another 50+k a week with the loan signings of Pires, Walker and Bradley. The only difference then being, that instead of contending for a top 4 finish and finishing in the top 6 as we did under O'Neill, we now found ourselves with a much higher wage bill and spending the vast majority of the season in or around the relegation places.

 

I said on these forums a few months after O'Neill left that blaming a guy that no longer has f all to do with the club and can do nothing about our current predicament was a very dangerous game. It is one the club have played though and look where it has gotten us. The fact that it seems, coming on to 4 seasons after he left, they are still blaming him is insulting peoples intelligence. It is expected, but still somewhat surprising, that some supporters have been gullible enough to have fallen for it.

Mark, you too are still failing to see what has/is being said.

We ARE NOT BLAMING O'NEILL for what is happening now, but his actions had an effect on the club after he had gone....slightly different to what you are portraying has been said.In just the same manner as O'Neill took over and struggled to begin with, because it was O'Leary's team. you can't just take over as a manager say its your team, it takes time to mould good, bad or indifferent.

Further more our Home record under Mon was poor despite the 6-6-6 lending itself to the argument there was no substance as I illustrated in previous posts. This is one area that you must get right its where your season ticket paying customers get their kicks.

just because we had 2 poor replacements doesn't by definition make O'Neill better than he was.

In my own opinion, I did not like the style of football he brought to us it was a bit too direct for me to say it was "hoofball" may be a bit harsh,(can understand those that deem it so) but was a bit unsophisticated and most of the time the players generally looked uncomfortable on the ball.

Your post is good and represents the good things about O'Neill which is acceptable, perhaps the best one for me is the "PRIDE HE GIVES US BACK" undeniable that.

My gripes with him was Transfer Market/Style of football/reluctance to change the personnel during a game...His arrogance towards the fans at the Moscow dinner in the Holte didn't do much for me either.

look as some say, its immaterial now.

we do have to move on, I agree with that.

Ps its not being gullible not agreeing with argument in its entirety and only partial.

Edited November 16, 2013 by TRO

[briny_ear]

  People on here, fans, pundits, some others blame O'Neill but the club does not.  I have heard Lambert, Faulkner, and others talk about the club's performance.  Not a word of blaming anyone, much less O'Neill.  Could they blame O'Neill?   Probably some.  But I don't agree that "the club" has played the blame O'Neill game.  If they did at all, it was in the first season, and frankly, at that point, was pretty valid.

 

The day after O'Neill left, General Krulak was on here trying to pass the entire blame onto him, claiming he had failed to address the issue of wages to income.  

 

This little bit of discussion in this thread was sparked by the "Villa Trust"'s account of a recent meeting with Paul Faulkner in which he was reported to say the following:

 

 

Competing against the likes of “Spurs”: Back in 2010, Club was 6th  in league, cup runs. MON exit 4 days before the start of the season was a major blow to plans. We are now rebuilding and on a journey. Strategy is based on continuity of management.

which is really a quite astounding account of the history of Aston Villa since 2010. No mention of their appointments of Houllier and McLeish, who continued to sign players up to high wage contracts but delivered us progressive decline in perfomance. Continuity of management? They're having a laugh.

 

Of course, we only have the "Villa Trust"'s word that this is what was said but, if accurate, it demonstrates a remarkable failure to accept responsibility for the damage that has been done to the club over the past 3 years.

Edited November 17, 2013 by briny_ear

[Zatman]

meh I think we should forget the charlatan, he has been found out as the fraud he was.

 

time to move onto the future and hope Lambert gets the backing he wants which while people will argue I think he is happy enough with it as I dont think he wants to spend a lot on players as he has tried shift the high earners except Gabby

[Big_John_10]

meh I think we should forget the charlatan, he has been found out as the fraud he was.

time to move onto the future and hope Lambert gets the backing he wants which while people will argue I think he is happy enough with it as I dont think he wants to spend a lot on players as he has tried shift the high earners except Gabby

Well hairy hands admitted Lambert was not backed for some of his targets in the summer so I doubt that's true.

[Morpheus]

meh I think we should forget the charlatan, he has been found out as the fraud he was.

 

time to move onto the future and hope Lambert gets the backing he wants which while people will argue I think he is happy enough with it as I dont think he wants to spend a lot on players as he has tried shift the high earners except Gabby

Not sure at all about the part in bold 'Zatman.'

 

He wanted Dempsey. He wanted Lukaku even though on loan (wages) and HH confirmed he wasn't backed on all of his targets.

 

No like the vast majority of managers Lambert wanted to spend money alright but simply wasn't given the funding to do so.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Morpheus

[Zatman]

I just dont think he likes players on big wages and egos to match. following players all on big salaries he discarded last season when other managers probably would have kept them on in situation we were in

 

Given

Warnock

Collins

Dunne

Hutton

Bent

Ireland

Makoun

[Big_John_10]

I just dont think he likes players on big wages and egos to match.

That may be true to some extent but different to your previous post which was asked at defending the owner with the current amount we spend on transfers.

[Zatman]

wasnt really defending him but I dont think Lambert is type of guy that would allow this if he felt he wasnt getting backed. he he seems like would have walked