The Randy Lerner thread

[kevpants]

FIFA (the game) and the World Cup may well be the salvation of Aston Villa Football Club.

[ThunderPower_14]

That's all really hopeful but it was all really hopeful in the offseason where we apparently had investors from all over the world lining up.

 

Hopefully someone can see the potential we have as historically one of the bigger clubs in England as well as the relatively low cost of entry. They'll have to spend a bit of money when they get here but it's all about running the club well.

[AntrimBlack]

We can discuss all we want about who is to blame for the state of our club, but to me it is not just one person, and has been cumulative over the years.

It has been Lerner, Oneill, Houllier, McLeish, and Lambert, all, to a greater or lesser degree, having played a part in getting us into the mess we are in now.

And a mixture of good intentions, outside factors beyond our control, and incompetence. And not forgetting good old Dougie, who missed numerous opportunities to keep us up with the big boys.

 

The blame is widespread, Ellis did it all on his own, but Lerner had plenty of help from others in creating the problems we now have.

[danceoftheshamen]

We can discuss all we want about who is to blame for the state of our club, but to me it is not just one person, and has been cumulative over the years.

It has been Lerner, Oneill, Houllier, McLeish, and Lambert, all, to a greater or lesser degree, having played a part in getting us into the mess we are in now.

And a mixture of good intentions, outside factors beyond our control, and incompetence. And not forgetting good old Dougie, who missed numerous opportunities to keep us up with the big boys.

 

The blame is widespread, Ellis did it all on his own, but Lerner had plenty of help from others in creating the problems we now have.

 

This^^

[avfc1982]

We can discuss all we want about who is to blame for the state of our club, but to me it is not just one person, and has been cumulative over the years.

It has been Lerner, Oneill, Houllier, McLeish, and Lambert, all, to a greater or lesser degree, having played a part in getting us into the mess we are in now.

And a mixture of good intentions, outside factors beyond our control, and incompetence. And not forgetting good old Dougie, who missed numerous opportunities to keep us up with the big boys.

 

The blame is widespread, Ellis did it all on his own, but Lerner had plenty of help from others in creating the problems we now have.

Nonsense. Randy Lerner is entirely to blame for the mess at Aston Villa. The buck stops with the chairman just like it did with Ellis.

[foreveryoung]

Yes he gave 'ONeil' the run of the club who financially killed us off. Now we are still in recovery. Taking on another manager at that time, spending wisely and coaching players instead of looking for the next over priced player, maybe we could have been in the top half building on that every season from then on. Austerity killed us!!

[TRO]

 

 

Randy Lerner is like a chameleon he has changed...The first 4 years were very much different from the last 4 years....The first 4 were not austerity....the second 4 years was and very much as a result of the problems attributed to buying and selling of players in the that period.

 

If I was comparing Aston villa with Everton.....I would be more inclined to attribute their success over us on the basis of their managers than the owners. If you say that they have spent more on individuals than us, you would be right.... but is that due to the prudency of the managers sales or the chairmans pocket?

 

No I know that the first 4 years weren't but as I've already stated, it was the lack of financial control in those years by Lerner that set the conditions under which the managers were forced to work for the next 4 years. Terrible management of the club by Lerner.

 

That means Moyes was provided with a far more stable environment in which a football club could be built. 

 

Yes the success Everton had on the pitch was down to Moyes but I'm baffled how anyone can't see the different between how Everton and Villa have been run and the fact that it has a barring on what happens on the football side of the club. 

 

You talk about prudence of managers but it isn't for managers to budget/set budgets that is for those above them, if you keep giving any manager money he is likely to go and spend it unless its Wenger obviously.

Yes our managers have wasted money compared to Moyes but that is going to happen when you chop and change players and when you lurch in styles of manager from O'Neill to Houllier to McLeish. 

 

 

TRO, (not looking to point score so please don't view it as such although based on our discussion to date I'm sure you won't) I just wanted to pick this discussion up from a few pages back.

 

You may or may not have seen the latest Everton financial results posted, if not take a look they make for startling viewing in comparison to ours. I won't post them here as its not a thread about them but you can find them easily enough.

 

When you read them though you can see the level of financial control that has been exercised since Kenwright took over and which was so conspicuous in its absence in the early years of Randy Lerner. I would also argue that the seemingly widely held belief, that the poor financial management of the club ended with the O'Neill departure is wrong and that it continued through the short lived and ill fated Houllier era and McLeish appointment as the signing of Bent (yes I know we needed it and he kept us up) and later Given on a 5 year deal were, in the wider context of the finances of the club, utter madness.

 

Just take a look at their profit, their wage to revenue ratio and the other factors in their results which contribute to them being far far better run than us over a prolonged period of time.

 

Yes, I accept that some will argue that their financial performance is a direct consequence of their managerial appointments and performances and without question there is an element of truth in that. However more true I believe, is that in a modern football club, the financial platform, control and resources are in some ways more important than the manager at the helm and dictate or strongly influence the impact a manager can have.

 

We've had a succession of managers now that have been tasked with maintaining PL football, rebuilding a squad, reducing wages and net spend. That is what I'm talking about when I talk about the condition set by those running a club for those tasked with running the football team. Oh and while having to push numerous players out the doors on free transfer's because they couldn't be sold and seemingly couldn't be afforded any more.

 

That is without getting into all the behind the scenes like dealing with contracts and contract extensions, player sales and purchases or scouts and scouting budgets.

 

Would Everton have allowed themselves to get into the situation we are with Delph? I rather suspect not.

 

I'm not absolving Lambert from blame or any who went before him but the conditions each manager have worked under have been significant factors for each and a consistent issue throughout Lerner's time here.

 

That is why I have long held him chiefly responsible for our performance and demise and will continue to do so, I don't expect everyone to agree entirely or even at all in some cases but hopefully at least you now understand my position a little more and the things I think that support it.

 

As I say, take a look at those Everton results they will make for an interesting comparison when ours come out early next year.

 

 

Trent I do understand your point but i don't entirely agree with it.

 

In a typical business model in a normal industry the chairman would have far more control over finances along with his trusty FD than happens in football

 

The problem with football is it all centres around the ability in the transfer market and that responsibility lies with the manager and his staff.

 

I still maintain over the last 8 years if the quality of player had of been achieved in sufficient quantity as opposed to one or two...the financial climate of our club would have been different.

 

It wasn't that we spent too much money of fee's and wages.....it was the fact we never got any return in performance from TOO MANY players.

 

Now that problem can be 2 fold

 

1) The player was not of merchantable quality in the first place

 

2) The football management at the club failed to get the best out of the player or failed to blend them in to maximise their effect.

 

When either scenario was established then and only then......did he realise a financial implication.

 

Randy Lerner rightfully or wrongfully stepped in with the controls you speak of when he realised we was signing too many players, we were failing to get any performance related return from.

 

Maybe, he should have reacted much sooner, that is a legitimate claim, but let me remind you.

 

Singling out one manager ...Martin O'Neill ,who had four years at the helm as opposed to the other 2 who had 12 months.

 

Martin came in with the general sense that he was the new messiah, just about everyone was unanimous in their opinion that this WAS the man....along with a fresh from the bank chairman carried away on the same enthusiasm as us , we started the rebuilding that the last incumbent denied us of ( for various reasons i.e he hadn't got the personal wealth).

 

Randy Lerner right or wrong put all his trust in O'Neill , just as the chairman of yesteryear put their trust in the likes of Brian Clough. Had the controls come in much sooner as suggested ( hindsight being an exact science) Randy would have come under sever criticism from the fans particularly as MON had delivered a 6-6-6 despite a sub opinion from some fans of the doubt of the substance of his style of football being of a sustainable type.

 

Of course there have been managers since who have contributed to our demise, but equally and without prejudice, Randy give them their moments to prove themselves as everyone would expect otherwise what was the point of recruiting them.

 

My opinion of it all is this.

 

We have appointed Managers and managers have bought players that we have simply got little return from in the main, sure there have some exceptions but in percentage terms we have been on the wrong side of good.

 

You can blame who you like, but some have had more time than others to have made a mark on this club for the better and that surely, must be factored in to your opinion.

 

Some ( i.e manager/owner)have had more direct effect to things on the pitch and that too should be factored in to your opinion.

 

However, Trent, I do accept your point that the owner does a have a responsibility to create the right conditions for a manager to operate in, I'm just hoping you can see the point that a managers poor trading in the transfer market (or equally failing on the training ground to blend) over a period of time can have a profound effect on the owners pocket and his ability to believe in the managers ability to trade....after all he is only human too ( well maybe some would disagree on that)

Edited November 2, 2014 by TRO

[ThunderPower_14]

Agree that O'Neill seemed like an inspired choice at the time, and we played some great football under him with a very exciting team.

 

Obviously Randy wasn't a football person and as such put a lot of trust in O'Neill, which O'Neill pissed up the wall with his inflated contracts for poor players. What could Randy have really done? You have to back your manager and his decisions all the way. Unfortunately by the time Randy realised that maybe MON wasn't making great decisions in regards to transfers and contracts, it was too late to fix it quickly.

 

What could have been done to avoid the situation? A Director of Football type appointment overseeing MON? Would MON have agreed to that? Randy having a bit more input with transfers and contracts? Would MON have agreed to that?

 

It seemed like as soon as Randy questioned anything O'Neill was doing, he was off, so you'd have to say that he probably wouldn't have agreed to any less autonomy.

 

I don't really blame Randy for what happened under O'Neill. He backed his manager which is the right thing to do, he just unfortunately didn't realise how bad it had gotten until it was way too late.

 

But once that had happened, it was Randy's responsibility to pick up the pieces, and the way he's done it can definitely be criticised. Not a lot of stability, some questionable appointments, and probably worst of all a CEO who wasn't very good at his job. When we needed leadership at the top, we had an absentee owner and a CEO who wasn't a football guy, and it showed. 2010 was the time to poach someone like Tom Fox. Late 2014 is too late. Randy needed to recognise that clearly there had been some bad decisions made due to a lack of accountability with MON and ensure that that didn't happen again.

 

We really needed to get the right people in place running the club asap following the MON crisis and instead we faffed around for a few years under austerity measures while our squad deteriorated and much smaller football clubs caught up and overtook us.

 

And now, we appear to have gotten the huge wage bill monkey off of our backs, and we are totally rudderless moving forward until a buyer can be found. Make no mistake, if we are lucky enough to fluke the points to stay up this season, things will need to change dramatically if we are to stay up the following season. We're as good as down this year or next on our current path, and the way the club is currently being run, we're much more likely to do a Leeds than a Newcastle.

 

Randy wont be getting 150 million pounds for a Championship club if he can't get it for a Premiership club. We need a definite, noticeable change in strategy and we need it before the next transfer window opens. Whether that comes with new owners or a new manager or what, it doesn't really matter at this point. We just need to start swinging haymakers.

[TRO]

Agree that O'Neill seemed like an inspired choice at the time, and we played some great football under him with a very exciting team.

 

Obviously Randy wasn't a football person and as such put a lot of trust in O'Neill, which O'Neill pissed up the wall with his inflated contracts for poor players. What could Randy have really done? You have to back your manager and his decisions all the way. Unfortunately by the time Randy realised that maybe MON wasn't making great decisions in regards to transfers and contracts, it was too late to fix it quickly.

 

What could have been done to avoid the situation? A Director of Football type appointment overseeing MON? Would MON have agreed to that? Randy having a bit more input with transfers and contracts? Would MON have agreed to that?

 

It seemed like as soon as Randy questioned anything O'Neill was doing, he was off, so you'd have to say that he probably wouldn't have agreed to any less autonomy.

 

I don't really blame Randy for what happened under O'Neill. He backed his manager which is the right thing to do, he just unfortunately didn't realise how bad it had gotten until it was way too late.

 

But once that had happened, it was Randy's responsibility to pick up the pieces, and the way he's done it can definitely be criticised. Not a lot of stability, some questionable appointments, and probably worst of all a CEO who wasn't very good at his job. When we needed leadership at the top, we had an absentee owner and a CEO who wasn't a football guy, and it showed. 2010 was the time to poach someone like Tom Fox. Late 2014 is too late. Randy needed to recognise that clearly there had been some bad decisions made due to a lack of accountability with MON and ensure that that didn't happen again.

 

We really needed to get the right people in place running the club asap following the MON crisis and instead we faffed around for a few years under austerity measures while our squad deteriorated and much smaller football clubs caught up and overtook us.

 

And now, we appear to have gotten the huge wage bill monkey off of our backs, and we are totally rudderless moving forward until a buyer can be found. Make no mistake, if we are lucky enough to fluke the points to stay up this season, things will need to change dramatically if we are to stay up the following season. We're as good as down this year or next on our current path, and the way the club is currently being run, we're much more likely to do a Leeds than a Newcastle.

 

Randy wont be getting 150 million pounds for a Championship club if he can't get it for a Premiership club. We need a definite, noticeable change in strategy and we need it before the next transfer window opens. Whether that comes with new owners or a new manager or what, it doesn't really matter at this point. We just need to start swinging haymakers.

 

I just about agree with all that wholeheartedly...thats exactly how I see it.

 

In my humble opinion the day Martin O'Neill walked out a large chunk of Randy Lerner went out through another door....it broke his spirit and enthusiasm and clouded his forthcoming judgment on new managers.

 

I don't know the man personally, but i certainly ain't going to blame him "directly" ....for some of the turgid, low grade football I have witnessed, this last few years.

 

.....but as i have said many times on here..... provided an owner can provide "reasonable" funds the major part of the footballing side of the club ( the bit i am interested in) is down to the manager and the players he chooses.

[Kingman]

We can discuss all we want about who is to blame for the state of our club, but to me it is not just one person, and has been cumulative over the years.

It has been Lerner, Oneill, Houllier, McLeish, and Lambert, all, to a greater or lesser degree, having played a part in getting us into the mess we are in now.

And a mixture of good intentions, outside factors beyond our control, and incompetence. And not forgetting good old Dougie, who missed numerous opportunities to keep us up with the big boys.

 

The blame is widespread, Ellis did it all on his own, but Lerner had plenty of help from others in creating the problems we now have. 

 

 

 

Sorry but strongly disagree, If my Ltd company goes tits up tomorrow then its my fault. 

 

You have to look at the people who employ these people.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Kingman

[useless]

Managers have to take some responsibility for what goes wrong at football clubs, otherwise by the same token you might not give them praise when they're succesful, giving credit to the chairman instead for hiring them in the first place and not sacking them.

[briny_ear]

Personally, I think it's entirely wrongheaded to say that Lerner did the right thing by backing O'Neill without any means, it seems, of assessing the implications of the expenditure on the financial state of the club. That's the key thing you need from a chairman - the ability to take an overview of where the club is going and how it is going to sustain its ability to continue to invest coupled with a measure of success on the pitch.

 

Lerner spent very rashly in the first few years, then allegedly pulled the plug while continuing to spend irresponsibly, e.g. Bent, as well as making a puzzling series of managerial appointments that suggested he had no conception at all of an overall strategy for the club, or how we would continue with organic growth and development of the squad despite inevitable managerial changes. Then when he really did pull the plug he provided funds barely fit to sustain a Championship club.

 

Very little of that is down to the managers he has employed, whose job is primarily to try to win matches.

[Kingman]

Lerner hired Faulkner to take care of the micro management side of things, yet of whom was not fit for purpose. 

 

Again, You have to look at the people who employ these people.

[DCJonah]

He's the boss so ultimately he has to take responsibility.

I blame Lambert for continuing with the same way we play so I'd have to blame the owner for hiring poor managers.

[TRO]

Personally, I think it's entirely wrongheaded to say that Lerner did the right thing by backing O'Neill without any means, it seems, of assessing the implications of the expenditure on the financial state of the club. That's the key thing you need from a chairman - the ability to take an overview of where the club is going and how it is going to sustain its ability to continue to invest coupled with a measure of success on the pitch.

 

Lerner spent very rashly in the first few years, then allegedly pulled the plug while continuing to spend irresponsibly, e.g. Bent, as well as making a puzzling series of managerial appointments that suggested he had no conception at all of an overall strategy for the club, or how we would continue with organic growth and development of the squad despite inevitable managerial changes. Then when he really did pull the plug he provided funds barely fit to sustain a Championship club.

 

Very little of that is down to the managers he has employed, whose job is primarily to try to win matches.

 

Briny, in a normal business, I would agree, football business is not normal.

 

Where i think i differ from Trent and yourself is that the finances may well have been self regulating had the quality of player been realised.

 

In much the same way Leeds did it, we did something similar.....Had we of signed players that delivered the quality that we planned for sufficient revenue would have been generated to fund their transfer and wages....The truth is (in hindsight) we bought next to "pigs in pokes"...that to me is a manager problem first....the owner problem was to come next and may i dare say compounded as a result of the manager problem.

 

Look, I respect you and Trent have your views....but as i reiterate football is not a normal business....If it was Football managers would not have as much status in some clubs as CEO's.

Edited November 2, 2014 by TRO

[TrentVilla]

In a typical business model in a normal industry the chairman would have far more control over finances along with his trusty FD than happens in football

 

The problem with football is it all centres around the ability in the transfer market and that responsibility lies with the manager and his staff.

 

I still maintain over the last 8 years if the quality of player had of been achieved in sufficient quantity as opposed to one or two...the financial climate of our club would have been different.

 

It wasn't that we spent too much money of fee's and wages.....it was the fact we never got any return in performance from TOO MANY players.

 

 

See, I disagree here because I think you are merging two distinct things into one.

 

Yes businesses are run that way but so too are football clubs, or they should be because they are sadly first and foremost businesses these days. Now granted most aren't run at a profit but all need to be run in a sustainable way, we weren't and that was entirely Lerner's fault not O'Neill's.

 

I doubt O'Neill knew what we could or couldn't afford to be spending and it wasn't his job to worry about that it was his job to try and build a winning football side. Yes there needs to be some thoughts about sustainability from the manager, through those signings made but the financial management of the club is not the managers responsibility.

 

You won't see me disagree about your general point about how money was spent by a succession of managers, you certainly won't see me defend O'Neill a man I wanted rid of at least 12 months before he went. I agree if managers performances had been better we would have done better financially.

 

But I think your last line in the part of your post above is completely and utterly wrong as is shown by the financial results of the club. Even when we were finishing 6th we were spending too much on wages relative to our income, it wasn't sustainable, it was never ever sustainable without the financial support of Lerner which he decided to stop giving to the same extent after the first 4 years.

 

 

Randy Lerner right or wrong put all his trust in O'Neill , just as the chairman of yesteryear put their trust in the likes of Brian Clough. Had the controls come in much sooner as suggested ( hindsight being an exact science) Randy would have come under sever criticism from the fans particularly as MON had delivered a 6-6-6 despite a sub opinion from some fans of the doubt of the substance of his style of football being of a sustainable type.

 

Of course there have been managers since who have contributed to our demise, but equally and without prejudice, Randy give them their moments to prove themselves as everyone would expect otherwise what was the point of recruiting them.

 

My opinion of it all is this.

 

We have appointed Managers and managers have bought players that we have simply got little return from in the main, sure there have some exceptions but in percentage terms we have been on the wrong side of good.

 

You can blame who you like, but some have had more time than others to have made a mark on this club for the better and that surely, must be factored in to your opinion.

 

Some ( i.e manager/owner)have had more direct effect to things on the pitch and that too should be factored in to your opinion.

 

However, Trent, I do accept your point that the owner does a have a responsibility to create the right conditions for a manager to operate in, I'm just hoping you can see the point that a managers poor trading in the transfer market (or equally failing on the training ground to blend) over a period of time can have a profound effect on the owners pocket and his ability to believe in the managers ability to trade....after all he is only human too ( well maybe some would disagree on that)

 

 

There is a vast difference between putting complete trust in a manager and getting carried away and allowing them to build a club on a completely unsustainable wage base which is what he did.

 

It isn't hindsight to say that the club should be run in a sustainable way (either through income or a continuing ability/willingness to fund privately) its just common sense. We should have tried to grow steadily over a period of time but Randy was seemingly in a rush, most likely as he always intended to cash out in 10 years and thought he could get us to CL level before selling at a tidy profit.

 

I absolutely agree with you about the impact (positive or negative) of managers on the financial position of a club, no question about that, but I'm sure equally you can see the impact Lerner's decisions have had on the platform from which they make those decisions and the limitations therefore placed upon them i.e. reducing wage bills and making decisions on players because of it.

 

The irony is that Lerner is now probably running the club in the right way, the problem is the damage has largely been done over the last 4 years and there are question marks about the managers ability to do any more than simply survive in this league.

 

Anyway, I think we agree more than we disagree and the part you thought we disagreed on, i.e. the impact of managers on the financial position of a club we in fact agree on.

[TRO]

 

In a typical business model in a normal industry the chairman would have far more control over finances along with his trusty FD than happens in football

 

The problem with football is it all centres around the ability in the transfer market and that responsibility lies with the manager and his staff.

 

I still maintain over the last 8 years if the quality of player had of been achieved in sufficient quantity as opposed to one or two...the financial climate of our club would have been different.

 

It wasn't that we spent too much money of fee's and wages.....it was the fact we never got any return in performance from TOO MANY players.

 

 

See, I disagree here because I think you are merging two distinct things into one.

 

Yes businesses are run that way but so too are football clubs, or they should be because they are sadly first and foremost businesses these days. Now granted most aren't run at a profit but all need to be run in a sustainable way, we weren't and that was entirely Lerner's fault not O'Neill's.

 

I doubt O'Neill knew what we could or couldn't afford to be spending and it wasn't his job to worry about that it was his job to try and build a winning football side. Yes there needs to be some thoughts about sustainability from the manager, through those signings made but the financial management of the club is not the managers responsibility.

 

You won't see me disagree about your general point about how money was spent by a succession of managers, you certainly won't see me defend O'Neill a man I wanted rid of at least 12 months before he went. I agree if managers performances had been better we would have done better financially.

 

But I think your last line in the part of your post above is completely and utterly wrong as is shown by the financial results of the club. Even when we were finishing 6th we were spending too much on wages relative to our income, it wasn't sustainable, it was never ever sustainable without the financial support of Lerner which he decided to stop giving to the same extent after the first 4 years.

 

 

Randy Lerner right or wrong put all his trust in O'Neill , just as the chairman of yesteryear put their trust in the likes of Brian Clough. Had the controls come in much sooner as suggested ( hindsight being an exact science) Randy would have come under sever criticism from the fans particularly as MON had delivered a 6-6-6 despite a sub opinion from some fans of the doubt of the substance of his style of football being of a sustainable type.

 

Of course there have been managers since who have contributed to our demise, but equally and without prejudice, Randy give them their moments to prove themselves as everyone would expect otherwise what was the point of recruiting them.

 

My opinion of it all is this.

 

We have appointed Managers and managers have bought players that we have simply got little return from in the main, sure there have some exceptions but in percentage terms we have been on the wrong side of good.

 

You can blame who you like, but some have had more time than others to have made a mark on this club for the better and that surely, must be factored in to your opinion.

 

Some ( i.e manager/owner)have had more direct effect to things on the pitch and that too should be factored in to your opinion.

 

However, Trent, I do accept your point that the owner does a have a responsibility to create the right conditions for a manager to operate in, I'm just hoping you can see the point that a managers poor trading in the transfer market (or equally failing on the training ground to blend) over a period of time can have a profound effect on the owners pocket and his ability to believe in the managers ability to trade....after all he is only human too ( well maybe some would disagree on that)

 

 

There is a vast difference between putting complete trust in a manager and getting carried away and allowing them to build a club on a completely unsustainable wage base which is what he did.

 

It isn't hindsight to say that the club should be run in a sustainable way (either through income or a continuing ability/willingness to fund privately) its just common sense. We should have tried to grow steadily over a period of time but Randy was seemingly in a rush, most likely as he always intended to cash out in 10 years and thought he could get us to CL level before selling at a tidy profit.

 

I absolutely agree with you about the impact (positive or negative) of managers on the financial position of a club, no question about that, but I'm sure equally you can see the impact Lerner's decisions have had on the platform from which they make those decisions and the limitations therefore placed upon them i.e. reducing wage bills and making decisions on players because of it.

 

The irony is that Lerner is now probably running the club in the right way, the problem is the damage has largely been done over the last 4 years and there are question marks about the managers ability to do any more than simply survive in this league.

 

Anyway, I think we agree more than we disagree and the part you thought we disagreed on, i.e. the impact of managers on the financial position of a club we in fact agree on.

 

 

 

we have success....I find it hard to disagree with that.....not that i was looking to try and disagree.

[Kingman]

Just **** man up and sack this useless word removed you word removed!

[AntrimBlack]

 

We can discuss all we want about who is to blame for the state of our club, but to me it is not just one person, and has been cumulative over the years.

It has been Lerner, Oneill, Houllier, McLeish, and Lambert, all, to a greater or lesser degree, having played a part in getting us into the mess we are in now.

And a mixture of good intentions, outside factors beyond our control, and incompetence. And not forgetting good old Dougie, who missed numerous opportunities to keep us up with the big boys.

 

The blame is widespread, Ellis did it all on his own, but Lerner had plenty of help from others in creating the problems we now have. 

 

 

 

Sorry but strongly disagree, If my Ltd company goes tits up tomorrow then its my fault. 

 

You have to look at the people who employ these people.

 

 

I absolutely agree that the buck stops with Lerner, but I also think that others share some responsibility, to a greater or less degree.

[suttonpaul]

He won't sack lambert until at least 10 games with less than 3 points at this stage