The Randy Lerner thread

[Zatman]

The spending was far from fine.

 

at the time it was. think 2008 or 2009 we were in top5  highest spenders in Europe

[Big_John_10]

Along with Everton and Spurs and to a lesser extent Plop, we were trying to get into the top four and spent to achieve that. That that spending was not sustainable is no one's fault than Randy Lerner's

Those clubs are now in advance of us having been run better.

The spending was fine, the signings were not

Not sure how the spending was fine.

[Cliffy Biro]

 

The spending was far from fine.

 

at the time it was. think 2008 or 2009 we were in top5  highest spenders in Europe

 

Regardless the spending was absolutely ridiculous.

[Big_John_10]

You are still missing the point.

Back then it didn't matter how rich the owner was. Doug got away with investing none of his own money because he didn't need to, in fact he paid himself a lot of money out if the club to buy his houses and cars etc.

That would not fly these days. You need an owner willing to put his hands in his own pockets like Lerner had done.

So how does it show it was easier then?

Lerner needed to spend his own money and he had that money to spend. Can you explain what's difficult about a very wealthy man spending his money?

Edited December 3, 2013 by Big_John_10

[Zatman]

49 million in 2008/09

42 million in 2009/10

 

that money was largely wasted. Carlos Cuellar, Stephen Warnock, James Collins, Steve Sidwell, Nicky Shorey, Luke Young, Habib Beye, Emile Heskey the names still send a shiver down my spine

[Big_John_10]

The spending was far from fine.

at the time it was. think 2008 or 2009 we were in top5 highest spenders in Europe

Using that logic you could say there was nothing wrong with the way Leeds spent money.

[BOF]

You are still missing the point.

Back then it didn't matter how rich the owner was. Doug got away with investing none of his own money because he didn't need to, in fact he paid himself a lot of money out if the club to buy his houses and cars etc.

That would not fly these days. You need an owner willing to put his hands in his own pockets like Lerner had done.

So how does it show it was easier then?

In Ellis' time a chairman didn't need personal wealth to invest in the club and there was only really Chelsea who had a significant sugar daddy in the latter stages of Ellis' tenure. Now a chairman needs to be a billionaire and half the league (or more?) have sugar daddies. That's why it was easier back then. Ellis wouldn't survive in this league the way the landscape has changed and we were on our way out of it before being rescued.

[Zatman]

 

 

You are still missing the point.

Back then it didn't matter how rich the owner was. Doug got away with investing none of his own money because he didn't need to, in fact he paid himself a lot of money out if the club to buy his houses and cars etc.

That would not fly these days. You need an owner willing to put his hands in his own pockets like Lerner had done.

So how does it show it was easier then?

 

In Ellis' time a chairman didn't need personal wealth to invest in the club and there was only really Chelsea who had a significant sugar daddy in the latter stages of Ellis' tenure. Now a chairman needs to be a billionaire and half the league (or more?) have sugar daddies. That's why it was easier back then. Ellis wouldn't survive in this league the way the landscape has changed and we were on our way out of it before being rescued.

 

 

I dont think we would have survived the next season if Ellis had of stayed on for 06/07

[BOF]

I dont think we would have survived the next season if Ellis had of stayed on for 06/07

I agree.

[Stevo985]

 

I dont think we would have survived the next season if Ellis had of stayed on for 06/07

I agree.

 

Thirded

[P3te]

The spending was far from fine.

No, the spending was definitely fine, the problem was that we got absolutely no value for the money we spent. We made little or no money back on the majority of our signings, and they were nowhere near good enough for what they cost both in fees and wages. A shrewd manager who had the  brains to look outside Europe could easily have made us a relative force with the money spent, and the knock on of that is that we wouldn't have had the issue of almost no return when players moved on - even breaking even or losing a million on each player on average wouldn't have put us in the hole we were in.

 

The  issue wasn't the amount being spent, it was that the players it was being spent on were nowhere close to being good enough

 

What we bought was worth about 20% of what we actually paid. Had we brought in players worth what we paid, we  wouldn't be in this mess

Edited December 3, 2013 by P3te

[LondonLax]

I dont think we would have survived the next season if Ellis had of stayed on for 06/07

I agree.

Thirded

Yep.

That letter from the players who were complaining that they had to pay for their physio treatment from their own pocket and the state if the training facilities showed how bad things had gotten before we were rescued by Lerners funds.

[smetrov]

49 million in 2008/09

42 million in 2009/10

 

that money was largely wasted. Carlos Cuellar, Stephen Warnock, James Collins, Steve Sidwell, Nicky Shorey, Luke Young, Habib Beye, Emile Heskey the names still send a shiver down my spine

 

As much as, Andy Carroll,(£35m) Joe Allen (£15m), Stewart Downing (£20m) - Yet Liverpool haven't been reduced to £2m punts from lesser leagues. Sure the players you mention didn't work out - but thats happened at lots of clubs - you don't just cut the spending dead because you have a few flops......

[LondonLax]

Liverpool can sustain flops like that as they are a global power house. They even managed to sell two of those on for big money.

If more of our signings had had some resale value we would be in a healthy position now.

[Shillzz]

I think there's limited value in comparing Lerner to Ellis. While Lerner may be the lesser of 2 evils, being a 'better' owner than Ellis is not exactly the trademark of a successful owner.

 

I think many of us our blinded by our history with Doug & It stops us from being able to discuss Lerner objectively. When discussing Lerner you need to consider the current footballing industry and it's vast amount of wealth. 

[P3te]

 you don't just cut the spending dead because you have a few flops......

 

If that's all we had we would've been fine. No club can sustain the amount of signings we made that were moved on for nothing, or very little

[LondonLax]

you don't just cut the spending dead because you have a few flops......

If that's all we had we would've been fine. No club can sustain the amount of signings we made that were moved on for nothing, or very little

Yes, our transfer policy was criminal.

I put a lot of the blame for that at Lerners feet though.

He came in and fired everyone with any football knowledge then placed the manager in charge of budget and transfer policy. That's like leaving the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

His first appointment needed to be a Chairman with knowledge of the industry, our own Danial Levy, Peter Kenyon or David Gill. Then set a realistic budget and a policy of targeting younger players who we can get value from.

Then you hire a manager who will fit that brief.

If Lerner had his time again I suspect that's what he would have done. It seems to be the current policy at least.

Edited December 3, 2013 by LondonLax

[Big_John_10]

You are still missing the point.

Back then it didn't matter how rich the owner was. Doug got away with investing none of his own money because he didn't need to, in fact he paid himself a lot of money out if the club to buy his houses and cars etc.

That would not fly these days. You need an owner willing to put his hands in his own pockets like Lerner had done.

So how does it show it was easier then?

In Ellis' time a chairman didn't need personal wealth to invest in the club and there was only really Chelsea who had a significant sugar daddy in the latter stages of Ellis' tenure. Now a chairman needs to be a billionaire and half the league (or more?) have sugar daddies. That's why it was easier back then. Ellis wouldn't survive in this league the way the landscape has changed and we were on our way out of it before being rescued.

But Lerner is a billionaire so why is it hard for him? He also had the advantage of being a billionaire owner before others came into the league.

We were usually a top 8 side under Doug in the prem, I fail to see why it's so difficult for a club like us to be that now. The only thing that's made it difficult is the decision making of the owner.

We also talk about personal wealth being spent in the club but now we seem to be happy heading back to the club running on the money it brings in. Which kind of makes Lerner pointless. Because if it's not money what qualities and attributes is he bringing to the role?

There's no doubt Doug had to go when he did, I don't disagree with that. Just don't buy into this argument that it's been so difficult for a billionaire to run the club properly.

[Big_John_10]

The issue wasn't the amount being spent, it was that the players it was being spent on were nowhere close to being good enough

The issue was quite clearly wages in relation to income. Regardless of how good you thought they were it was the increasing wage bill that caused major problems.

The money could have been spent smarter and better but there still needed to be control at the top and that clearly wasn't in place.

[P3te]

 

The issue wasn't the amount being spent, it was that the players it was being spent on were nowhere close to being good enough

The issue was quite clearly wages in relation to income. Regardless of how good you thought they were it was the increasing wage bill that caused major problems.

The money could have been spent smarter and better but there still needed to be control at the top and that clearly wasn't in place.

 

Again though, the wage bill would have been fine if the players were good enough. Had we actually signed players WORTH £50k a week, we wouldn't have been in the mess we are now. We were signing £15k a week players, putting them on £50k and wondering why we couldn't sell them on. Lerner definitely has some blame there, but if he's being told by the man he trusts to run the football side of things that they're worth it and that they'll get us where we need to be, then why would he doubt it?

I don't think the issue has ever been the volume of wages, but rather the wage to value ratio. More often than not you'd expect to be able to sell on signings, rather than being stuck with them, or paying them off to leave for nothing. Better signings for the same money and on the same wages should have broken even over the course of their time at the club. That didn't happen.

Paying big wages is fine if you're going to be able to sell the players on for enough to cover them - or in our case, sell them on for anything at all. If we'd gotten £2m for every player who left for nothing or close to it, we'd have saved the club close to £35m