The Randy Lerner thread

[TrentVilla]

For some reason I can't understand you're happy for us to be a nothing team and think we can't expect better.

You dont get it, you seem to be only happy supporting a club if they are spending money and appear like they could do something. Villa will do nothing unless large amounts of money will be spent and it wont be.

Like a hell of a lot of other clubs, are they all depressed and suicidal like some Villa fans are...

If you cannot take that, why not support a club with loads of money, if thats difficult.

If not support the club through thick and thin, rather than looking for the next bad buy to blame everything on.

I'm not happy we cannot spend money i just understand that its not he be all and end all, i still enjoy going to watch Villa whether they were top of the league or bottom of league 1.

Some fans have lost sight of that and feel the need to wave their pitch forks at someone.

It isn't just about the money but you seem incapable of accepting that point.

I'd say its less about being incapable and more about being unwilling.

The accusation that its just about money has been answered time and time again but is always ignored. I guess its just an easy and rather simplistic way of trying to dismiss peoples concerns/frustrations and complaints as being daft rather than actually try and engage in a real debate or discussion.

Its a very obvious and transparent tactic and an argument that doesn't become accurate simply because its repeated over and over.

[makouns_grin]

Already pointed out that the team that pissed all over us last night cost less to put together than our starting 11.

So the owner good or bad should control who is signed?

O'Neill would have been out the door sooner rather than later if that was the case.

Lerner wrongly trusted O'Neill i'm sure he has learnt from it.

Yet if he was still here and we were going through the same situation, i imagine there would be only a quarter of the hysteria.

End of the world down Villa Park.

[Risso]

No, incapable, due to a distinct lack of intelligence.

[maqroll]

Don't Feed the Troll

[BG_Villa_Fan]

He must be SnC in disguise.Must be!

[Bazdavies79]

I think Lerner is doing a decent job and has been a vast improvement on Doug!

[John_Lerwill]

Lerner wrongly trusted O'Neill i'm sure he has learnt from it.

It doesn't look like it. In the past 18 months (in his further managerial appointments) RL has shown he continues to misunderstand the situation and what is required.

And most of that is down to the fact of whom he consults to make major decisions (PF). That individual appears to be the weak link in the structure in respect of making serious football decisions.

There are several here that agree that the appointment of a Director of Football (with powers) is needed. Someone with football nous and (perhaps more importantly) someone with a real feel for the Villa and its supporters. Perhaps Brian Little?

[Bazdavies79]

Who do you think in the Premier league has the right set up, John?

[John_Lerwill]

Who do you think in the Premier league has the right set up, John?

Well, Man U haven't been doing too badly for the past 20 years, and Arsenal (in relation to their spend) are perhaps an even better model.

But, Baz, we're concerned here about Villa - not the others.

RL may be a perfectly nice guy with better motives than many chairmen (particularly the overseas ones), but the issue we're facing is the set up that he has created at Villa Park which (i.m.o.) is not fit for purpose when it comes to making football decisions.

If you want to see Villa go downhill under the chairmanship of a nice guy who appears not able to make effective football appointments, that's up to you.

As I keep on saying to people - I was there and saw that machinery in operation. Any set up that allows a supporter of 60 years (and acknowledged, if I may say, to be deeply knowledgable about the club's history) to be marched through the gates as though he's committed a crime, must have something wrong about it.

At the time I wondered and hardly said anything, but having seen the decisions of the last 18 months at the public level then I can see some of the same weak thinking that was used at my own dismissal.

The situation is serious i.m.o. but hopefully correctable.

[Houlston]

People seem to be dismissive of MakounsGrins but he does have a point.

Arguably our "successful" period has come at a time of spend, now had Randy put a halt on that spending earlier, which he should have, its likely that O'neill would have left sooner. Its also likely that people would be moaning that he wasnt entrepreneurial enough and isnt doing things to generate extra cash because he was given his money by his dad.

Now imagine that the spending had carried on and O'neill was still here, more than likely we would now be fighting for sixth possibly fourth. The finances would be worse than they are now. IMO some on here would be concerned but the vast majority of us, me included, would not be that bothered and would probably think he was a good owner.

Some think Houllier was a good appointment some do not. So i'm not sure how Randy can be labelled a bad owner for this appointment when so many are in conflict. McLeish, especially after Monday, seems to be a poor appointment and when it was announced it made little sense, for this I get the critisism but it hardly makes him a bad owner.

Finally the communication aspect, well for some its important it seems but I dont see the Glazers making announcements, I dont see Abramovich saying anything most of them never say anything. The only one the talks a lot is Whelan and what a prick he is.

[John_Lerwill]

Whatever Makoun's valid point may have been (and I think it was only one) does not cover the litany of relevant issues that others have argued with.

I don't think we need to keep on re-listing them ad infinitum.

[Bazdavies79]

Who do you think in the Premier league has the right set up, John?

Well, Man U haven't been doing too badly for the past 20 years, and Arsenal (in relation to their spend) are perhaps an even better model.

But, Baz, we're concerned here about Villa - not the others.

RL may be a perfectly nice guy with better motives than many chairmen (particularly the overseas ones), but the issue we're facing is the set up that he has created at Villa Park which (i.m.o.) is not fit for purpose when it comes to making football decisions.

If you want to see Villa go downhill under the chairmanship of a nice guy who appears not able to make effective football appointments, that's up to you.

As I keep on saying to people - I was there and saw that machinery in operation. Any set up that allows a supporter of 60 years (and acknowledged, if I may say, to be deeply knowledgable about the club's history) to be marched through the gates as though he's committed a crime, must have something wrong about it.

At the time I wondered and hardly said anything, but having seen the decisions of the last 18 months at the public level then I can see some of the same weak thinking that was used at my own dismissal.

The situation is serious i.m.o.

Man Utd have been dinning out on the Ferguson appointment for years, their current owners paid through the nose for that set up, which was implemented by a board who judging by their previous, fluked upon Ferguson. To be fair to them, they got it right by just letting him get on with it and didn't interfere much. Arsenal the same, Dein has had to appoint 2 managers, his first was Rioch, he then got Wenger and has dinned out on that one for a few years now.

I'll give my tuppence, I think at a football club, you've got to get your managerial appointment right. That's the holy grail. I don't think there is a skill to it, you study the form and pick the best available to you. No real football 'nous' required in that. If you pick a good one (you've probably gone through several shit ones and a lot of money to get there) you're 90% of the way there. All you have to do then is let him get on with it and keep him happy, whilst balancing the books, as we are doing.

However, even with the right manager our income, as a club, dictates that we'd be doing very well to get any higher than 5th in the current football climate (which is why I find comparisons to Doug's (the chairman who would very likely have had us relegated) 1990's achievements misleading (not that they're anything to shout about either)).

Randy has picked the wrong man, show me a club that hasn't. We're balancing the books, show me a club that isn't (other than that freak show in Manchester).

[makouns_grin]

Randy has picked the wrong man, show me a club that hasn't. We're balancing the books, show me a club that isn't (other than that freak show in Manchester).

Randy shouldn't make any mistakes!

He also didn't earn his money and was given it, that counts as well apparently.

[John_Lerwill]

]Man Utd have been dinning out on the Ferguson appointment for years, their current owners paid through the nose for that set up, which was implemented by a board who judging by their previous, fluked upon Ferguson. To be fair to them, they got it right by just letting him get on with it and didn't interfere much. Arsenal the same, Dein has had to appoint 2 managers, his first was Rioch, he then got Wenger and has dinned out on that one for a few years now.

You seem to simply skimp over the fact that those two clubs have a good model and it has worked in each case for 15 years or more. How Ferguson came about is not really relevant. The issue is that the system (who appointed and who was appointed) there has worked.

You could also point to Everton, Spurs (now) and, in a smaller way, Stoke.

I'll give my tuppence, I think at a football club, you've got to get your managerial appointment right. That's the holy grail. I don't think there is a skill to it, you study the form and pick the best available to you. No real football 'nous' required in that. If you pick a good one (you've probably gone through several shit ones and a lot of money to get there) you're 90% of the way there. All you have to do then is let him get on with it and keep him happy, whilst balancing the books, as we are doing.

Well, a lot of that is OK. In Villa's case, however, the latest appointment was clearly one to fit Villa's lack of money syndrome and (forgetting that he came from Blews, I don't think that's relevant) has a reputation for non-enterprising football - and it's shown. I could go on, but it's all in this thread by others able to speak on it more eloquently than I.

AM's appointment and consequent level of football has been a bombshell. Many are objecting to paying what they do to watch the faire that's being provided.

I could comment a lot more, but I've said that I will see what happens by January.

However, even with the right manager our income, as a club, dictates that we'd be doing very well to get any higher than 5th in the current football climate (which is why I find comparisons to Doug's (the chairman who would very likely have had us relegated) 1990's achievements misleading (not that they're anything to shout about either)).

Randy has picked the wrong man, show me a club that hasn't. We're balancing the books, show me a club that isn't (other than that freak show in Manchester).

Agreed, but the total scenario - Randy's scaling down of investment, plus AM's appointment plus the fact of lack of quality in the side - could be pointing Villa to relegation. Villa's position in the league is a false one. All this in addition to the lack of communication to the fans during all this process.

As I keep on saying, it's not worth discussing more about these issues until January.

[Bazdavies79]

You seem to simply skimp over the fact that those two clubs have a good model and it has worked in each case for 15 years or more. How Ferguson came about is not really relevant. The issue is that the system (who appointed and who was appointed) there has worked.

You could also point to Everton, Spurs (now) and, in a smaller way, Stoke.

You're only reading what you want to read John. The Man Utd set up also picked a few duff managers before Ferguson. Ferguson is the set up at Man Utd. Spurs the same with Redknapp, before him, mostly shite. As for Everton and Stoke, I've no idea why you think they're a model for success.

Well, a lot of that is OK. In Villa's case, however, the latest appointment was clearly one to fit Villa's lack of money syndrome and (forgetting that he came from Blews, I don't think that's relevant) has a reputation for non-enterprising football - and it's shown. I could go on, but it's all in this thread by others able to speak on it more eloquently than I.

AM's appointment and consequent level of football has been a bombshell. Many are objecting to paying what they do to watch the faire that's being provided.

I could comment a lot more, but I've said that I will see what happens by January.

I agree the AM appointment was crap. But you're kind of missing the point of my post again.

Agreed, but the total scenario - Randy's scaling down of investment, plus AM's appointment plus the fact of lack of quality in the side - could be pointing Villa to relegation. Villa's position in the league is a false one. All this in addition to the lack of communication to the fans during all this process.

As I keep on saying, it's not worth discussing more about these issues until January.

We have more than enough quality to keep us up. Scaling down investment is balancing the books. Do you want us to run at a loss? Communication could be improved but it's not the major issue it's made out to be by you and others IMO.

[John_Lerwill]

You're only reading what you want to read John.

Now it's getting personal is it ...? Apart from the inaccuracy of that statement.

The Man Utd set up also picked a few duff managers before Ferguson.

No they didn't unless you want go back to pre-1975 after Matt Busby stood down.

Just because they didn't win the League till Ferguson doesn't mean they had rubbish managers. They won the FA Cup a few times and played good football in the main.

Ferguson is the set up at Man Utd. Spurs the same with Redknapp, before him, mostly shite. As for Everton and Stoke, I've no idea why you think they're a model for success.

Who's talking about "success"? In Villa's current financial situation I'd be quite happy to see them finish above or even on half-way.

I was referring to well-run clubs, even though (except Spurs) they're not rich.

(snip)

We have more than enough quality to keep us up.

There might be ... just. But you're happy with that? If so, then there's no point in further discussion.

Scaling down investment is balancing the books. Do you want us to run at a loss? Communication could be improved but it's not the major issue it's made out to be by you and others IMO.

All of which shows a complete misunderstanding of my (and others) statements.

[Bazdavies79]

John I have to go, I'll take you up on those points later.

[John_Lerwill]

John I have to go, I'll take you up on those points later.

Baz, there's no need to "take me up on those points". If you have a different point of view (as you appear to have) then we simply have to agree to disagree.

It may all depend on what we hope for at Aston Villa. Your hopes and views on the club may be at a more cosmetic level, whereas I take history and gut feelings into account.

Anyone who has had a deep affinity with the club will take a more emotional stance on how the club is run. I am sure everyone was happy with RL coming in and giving a really good face-lift to the old club and, importantly, giving important financial support to MON.

However, although MON (OK it can be seen mostly in retrospect) made a few duff but expensive signings, there were pretty good signings he made that have been sold off at a good profit (plus Barry). Again, though his style of management was not perfect, there were some high spots during his tenure and a complete welcome after the 6 or 7 years of comparative sterility at VP under HDE.

Now I feel we have lurched back into another period of sterlility, and after those 4 years of comparative success I am sure it has been a shock to all genuine Villa fans. And it has been done without proper communication, which you claim is not a serious issue. Well, alongside the big decisions, it may not be as important, but to fans in shock, they probably see it differently.

RL's apparent need to scale back can be understood, but to combine that with AM's appointment and the lack of panache that we see in his teams adds to the shock. Meanwhile fans are expected to pay for STs and turn up as the obedient flock that RL seems to think they are. This whole approach seems to be a return to HDE's atitude towards the fans; yet another shock. I know that Blandy is keen to say that Doug was a far worse character, but I'm not going to get into an argument about that.

I repeat that I feel we are lurching towards the relegation zone. We may avoid relegation, but that's not quite what was expected this season. If a hefty wad of money is paid out in January to keep us up, the question could well be asked, "why wasn't it invested in the summer to keep Villa in the top-half". And that investment may also have given better quality football. ... Or would it, under AM?!

We have to wait till January to get a better clue as to how all this is to pan out.

[Bazdavies79]

Now it's getting personal is it ...? Apart from the inaccuracy of that statement.

Take it as you wish, you did completely miss my point.

No they didn't unless you want go back to pre-1975 after Matt Busby stood down.

Just because they didn't win the League till Ferguson doesn't mean they had rubbish managers. They won the FA Cup a few times and played good football in the main.

They were in Liverpool's shadow and not achieving their goals. I stand by my previous points related to that.

Who's talking about "success"? In Villa's current financial situation I'd be quite happy to see them finish above or even on half-way.

I was referring to well-run clubs, even though (except Spurs) they're not rich.

I think we will achieve your goal of a mid table finish. Spurs well run? How many crap managers have they been through? George Graham, Glenn Hoddle, David Pleat and Jacques Santin - the terrible sacking of Jol, wasn't it via mobile phone or something? They've now stumbled on a decent manager having a good run they're a well run club in your eyes?

There might be ... just. But you're happy with that? If so, then there's no point in further discussion.

I'm not happy with that, I'm questioning peoples blame and solutions.

All of which shows a complete misunderstanding of my (and others) statements.

What do you mean by scaling down investment then John?

EDIT : I posted that ^ before I saw your latest post John.

[Risso]

Spurs made mistakes, but learned from them. That's the sign of a decent businessman. Lerner appointed the dreadful Houllier, and amazingly, managed to follow that up by appointing somebody even worse.