The Randy Lerner thread

[blandy]

37 minutes ago, John_Lerwill said:

I'd disagree strongly that Lerner was good at  "appointing ... good people"

To clarify, John, my comment "He's been good on the infrastructure  - appointing and trusting good people" was specifically about the people he got to do the ground, the training ground, etc. i.e related to infrastructure  perhaps I should have been clearer, but it just seems striking to me that for something involving managing "tangible assets"  i.e. building etc. he's bee spot on. But that as we both agree, I think, when to comes to the more human side of it - the managing people, or managing people who manage people all his appointments have gone wrong. The same applied at the American Rugby club he owned - apparent good intentions in hiring people, but the same result of rubbish on field performances.

[John_Lerwill]

43 minutes ago, blandy said:

To clarify, John, my comment "He's been good on the infrastructure  - appointing and trusting good people" was specifically about the people he got to do the ground, the training ground, etc. i.e related to infrastructure  perhaps I should have been clearer, but it just seems striking to me that for something involving managing "tangible assets"  i.e. building etc. he's bee spot on. But that as we both agree, I think, when to comes to the more human side of it - the managing people, or managing people who manage people all his appointments have gone wrong. The same applied at the American Rugby club he owned - apparent good intentions in hiring people, but the same result of rubbish on field performances.

Apologies, Pete ... a bit of over-quick reading on my part. Probably aided by the fact that the infrastructure issue (though of no small value) is probably the least important matter.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, John_Lerwill said:

the infrastructure issue (though of no small value) is probably the least important matter.

No worries. Yes it's less important in some ways, but a club will go nowhere without good infrastructure, so it's a double shame that while getting that side of it right, he's got the other so wrong.

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, John_Lerwill said:

Well, Pete, we all view things in different ways, and I did say Doug "had failings", and a number of those failings are some of those you have listed. However, the interesting thing is that if Doug had not made his move to takeover, what would have happened? I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that question.

However, I'd disagree strongly that Lerner was good at  "appointing ... good people". I'd bet there are quite a few who'd criticise his last two CEO appointments (and their various appointments, including team manager recommendations), especially as they've been visibly non-football people ... and what about the first CEO he did appoint that didn't take long  in giving up after trying to convince Lerner of the way to go (if I am to read things correctly).

Anyhow, this matter of the last two chairmen has been dragged through the mire without achieving much. I'd say we've been lacking good chairmen since 1925 apart from 1969 to 1982 and I frankly don't hold much hope that things will improve in that department. A fans' takeover is the only way to go for me, but the cost of doing so is so prohibitive.

Perhaps we should start again ... I'll let you take the part of Ramsay, Pete!

 

I don't think Bendall was that great a chairman regarding his own input to the club. He just wasn't Ellis and let Saunders get on with his job- when in those days all you needed was a reasonable budget and class manager to do well.  The league and cup triumph was not really based on any long term decision making by him. Which always annoys Doug. There are all sorts of rumours why he hastily sold it back to Ellis only 4 years later....

Edited November 26, 2015 by The Fun Factory

[John_Lerwill]

6 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

I don't think Bendall was that great a chairman regarding his own input to the club. He just wasn't Ellis and let Sanders get on with his job- when in those days all you needed was a reasonable budget and class manager to do well.  The league and cup triumph was not really based on any long term decision making by him. Which always annoys Doug. There are all sorts of rumours why he hastily sold it back to Ellis only 4 years later....

Fair dos, FF ... He (Bendall) was there when Villa achieved worthwhile silverware and that will keep his name remembered I suppose.

Yes, we're still waiting for Fred Rinder to re-appear!  It's been usually a rather sad story since he went, apart from that magical period of 81 and 82.

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

I don't think Bendall was that great a chairman regarding his own input to the club. He just wasn't Ellis and let Saunders get on with his job

Agreed (until he cancelled his rolling contract). He was also caught up in the North stand financing shenanigans. From memory he escaped prosecution (unlike the bloke at the Albion) because he went and died, didn't he?

But yeah, by simply not interfering and not trying to be the main man and "all about me" the club was able to thrive, for a while. I rather wonder about some of the gate receipts and such like - crammed to some of those 48,000 crowd games, there were I'm certain rather more people there than declared. Wonder where the extra money went?

[TheAuthority]

52 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

I don't think Bendall was that great a chairman regarding his own input to the club. He just wasn't Ellis and let Saunders get on with his job- when in those days all you needed was a reasonable budget and class manager to do well.  The league and cup triumph was not really based on any long term decision making by him. Which always annoys Doug. There are all sorts of rumours why he hastily sold it back to Ellis only 4 years later....

What sort of rumors?

[John_Lerwill]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

 I rather wonder about some of the gate receipts and such like - crammed to some of those 48,000 crowd games, there were I'm certain rather more people there than declared. Wonder where the extra money went?

The attendances in the 2010 "Complete Record" show that they dipped in the 1980-81 championship season - except for 2 or 3 or so very big matches - to 25,000 and under.

That was down to the Midlands economic depression that started around that time I believe. The attendances seem to have stayed low in the early 80s.

[The_Rev]

Attendances were down nationwide in that era, I'd think hooliganism had as much to do with it as the economy tanking. 

[John_Lerwill]

12 minutes ago, The_Rev said:

Attendances were down nationwide in that era, I'd think hooliganism had as much to do with it as the economy tanking. 

I don't like to argue, Rev, but when researching the Villa history for that period I did check on other clubs - Liverpool, Man U - and didn't see any downturn to speak of. There may have been downturn at other clubs though.

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, John_Lerwill said:

The attendances in the 2010 "Complete Record" show that they dipped in the 1980-81 championship season - except for 2 or 3 or so very big matches - to 25,000 and under.

They didn't. Not like that. They started off around 26K for the first few matches, crept up to around 29K within a few games, and then pretty consistently stayed in the 30s and 40s apart from one game against Palace, where it was 27K again. They're all available on wikipedia

20 August 1980	Norwich City	Villa Park	1–0	25,970	Shaw
30 August 1980	Coventry City	Villa Park	1–0	26,050	Shaw
13 September 1980	Everton	Villa Park	0–2	25,673
20 September 1980	Wolverhampton Wanderers	Villa Park	2–1	26,181	Hughes (o.g.), Geddis
4 October 1980	Sunderland	Villa Park	4–0	26,914	Evans (2), Morley, Shaw
18 October 1980	Tottenham Hotspur	Villa Park	3–0	30,940	Morley (2), Withe
22 October 1980	Brighton & Hove Albion	Villa Park	4–1	27,367	Mortimer, Withe, Bremner, Shaw
1 November 1980	Leicester City	Villa Park	2–0	29,953	Shaw, Cowans
15 November 1980	Leeds United	Villa Park	1–1	29,106	Shaw
29 November 1980	Arsenal	Villa Park	1–1	30,140	Morley
11 December 1980	Birmingham City	Villa Park	3–0	41,101	Geddis (2), Shaw
26 December 1980	Stoke City	Villa Park	1–0	34,658	Withe
10 January 1981	Liverpool	Villa Park	2–0	47,960	Withe, Mortimer
31 January 1981	Manchester City	Villa Park	1–0	33,682	Shaw
21 February 1981	Crystal Palace	Villa Park	2–1	27,203	Withe (2)
14 March 1981	Manchester United	Villa Park	3–3	42,182	Withe (2), Shaw
23 March 1981	Southampton	Villa Park	2–1	32,467	Morley, Geddis
8 April 1981	West Bromwich Albion	Villa Park	1–0	47,998	Withe
14 April 1981	Ipswich Town	Villa Park	1–2	47,495	Shaw
18 April 1981	Nottingham Forest	Villa Park	2–0	34,707	Cowans (pen), Withe
25 April 1981	Middlesbrough	Villa Park	3–0	38,018	Shaw, Withe, Evans

I think the attendance average at VP was behind only Man Utds that season. everywhere struggled. The last 11 games the average was just short of 39,000, the earlier games far less . And wouldn't a home record with all those wins be good. It takes us years to get that many, now.

[The Fun Factory]

43 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

What sort of rumors?

Tax sort of rumours. Plus the North Stand story. I believed he lived on the Isle of Man. Steve Stride said he never stayed at a hotel when came to watch Villa either!

[John_Lerwill]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

They didn't. Not like that. They started off around 26K for the first few matches, crept up to around 29K within a few games, and then pretty consistently stayed in the 30s and 40s apart from one game against Palace, where it was 27K again. They're all available on wikipedia

I think the attendance average at VP was behind only Man Utds that season. everywhere struggled.

OK, you've tried hard to prove me wrong  but I don't recognise all those attendances - but I have to admit I'm running from memory as my 2010 Complete Record is stored away at the moment (house move). I'm not usually inclined to accept what's on Wiki (so, so many errors!) but taking it that those figures you've given are right, apart from 4 out of the last 6 matches and two others they're still not spectacular for a supposed big side pressing for the championship, and not really enough to fund a take off for the club. Villa's players were so supposed to be on the biggest wage at that time, I believe.

And I seem to recall Doug saying that 25,000 was the break-even point for the club.

Again I could be wrong, but I suspect that season 1981-82 showed a big drop in attendances. Maybe it was that season I was thinking of. I'll have to dig out my Complete Record ...

Edited November 26, 2015 by John_Lerwill

[DCJonah]

8 hours ago, Woodytom said:

No I said 'most shrewd'. You're looking at it purely from a football point of view.

We were talking about it from him being a businessman and he won't be losing more money now than he was when the club was haemorriging money.

Should we get relegated then our losses will increase but il be amazed if they rise to a much bigger level than that when we were doing well football wise.

We were 6th (big wow) so most ppl don't recognise the damage that was going on behind doors. 

We're not in this position because of how we've been ran the past 5 years. We're in this position because of how we were run in the first 4 years.

I don't think that's true at all. We were in a mess and had the opportunity to fix it. We didn't. We hired two useless managers and wasted more money when we were financially struggling. We then hired another useless manager and let him waste the small amount given to him. That got so bad that someone like Sherwood could save us and once again it looks like weve wasted even more money trying to rebuild on the relative cheap for the 3rd summer in a row.

[John]

2 hours ago, John_Lerwill said:

OK, you've tried hard to prove me wrong  but I don't recognise all those attendances - but I have to admit I'm running from memory as my 2010 Complete Record is stored away at the moment (house move). I'm not usually inclined to accept what's on Wiki (so, so many errors!) but taking it that those figures you've given are right, apart from 4 out of the last 6 matches and two others they're still not spectacular for a supposed big side pressing for the championship, and not really enough to fund a take off for the club. Villa's players were so supposed to be on the biggest wage at that time, I believe.

And I seem to recall Doug saying that 25,000 was the break-even point for the club.

Again I could be wrong, but I suspect that season 1981-82 showed a big drop in attendances. Maybe it was that season I was thinking of. I'll have to dig out my Complete Record ...

Nice to see you posting John! 

I can confirm Wiki is correct with those attendance figures (as checked with my copy of "The Essential History of Aston Villa"). As no doubt you are aware the Villa players were on high wages due to the bonuses they got for being top or near the top for much of the season (money well spent in my opinion) . 

Our attendances in 81-82 were 30,097 (Notts County), 37,661 (Manchester United), 25,637 (Stoke), 40,763 (Small Heath), 32,064 (West Ham), 32,652 (Ipswich), 27,316 (Arsenal), 26,847 (Forest), 35,947 (Liverpool), 19,916 (Sunderland), 24,287 (Southampton), 23,877 (Spurs), 24,474 (Coventry), 26,790 (Wolves), 28,440 (WBA), 22,731 (Brighton), 21,098 (Boro), 20,566 (Leeds), 22,150 (Manchester City), 20,446 (Everton) & 18,294 (Swansea). Although winning the EC must have made us a little cash as well given we had 38,579 (Dynamo Kiev) & 38,539 (Anderlecht).

But winning the league and being the champions of Europe were not enough to compensate for us being in £1m debt for Deadly so we cut costs rather than looked to build upon the best 2 seasons we had enjoyed as a club since the end of the century before that one. But all that is now water under the bridge. Our opinions of the previous custodian of our great club differ somewhat and have been debated between us or for many years now. Can we agree that neither our present or previous custodian can claim to be anywhere near to being another Rinder, that Deadly has taken more money out of the club than Randy now looks likely to ever do and that Randy should we be relegated under his watch is running Deadly a lot closer than we would have ever thought possible to the title of our worst ever club custodian?      

[Woodytom]

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

I don't think that's true at all. We were in a mess and had the opportunity to fix it. We didn't. We hired two useless managers and wasted more money when we were financially struggling. We then hired another useless manager and let him waste the small amount given to him. That got so bad that someone like Sherwood could save us and once again it looks like weve wasted even more money trying to rebuild on the relative cheap for the 3rd summer in a row.

Yes but all those decisions are 'punts' if you like. Not actually day to day running of business activity.

So, for example, haemorriging money through an astronomical wage bill is much different to hiring a manager and it not working.

When he hired certain managers he wouldn't have thought this is going to lose me money, where as in the early years he was standing by and watching money go down the drain.

I'm not saying Lerner has proved a good businessman at all during his time. All I'm saying is that his business acumen has been better recently than it originally was because he has cut losses.

People seem to think (or at least the op of this debate implied) that because we were higher in the league we were being ran better as a club/business. Yet that couldn't be further from the truth. 

It's been piss poor throughout but had it carried on the way it was I'm not sure we'd even be here now. 

I said it many times during his time here and sure he made mistakes, but I think the job paul faulkner did I'd overlooked to some extent. 

[DCJonah]

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think we are in this current mess because of the first few years. I think we've had plenty of opportunities to sort ourselves out from his initial mistakes but because he's absolutely useless, those mistakes have just been followed up with others that have made the situation worse. 

I think the last 5 years have been much more damaging than the first 4.

[Woodytom]

45 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think we are in this current mess because of the first few years. I think we've had plenty of opportunities to sort ourselves out from his initial mistakes but because he's absolutely useless, those mistakes have just been followed up with others that have made the situation worse. 

I think the last 5 years have been much more damaging than the first 4.

It was always going to get worse tho on the football field, as the running it as a viable business (or attempting too) was put in place.

Very rare for a football team to run well as a business and do well as a team. 

Again it depends on how you look at it: damaging in terms of football or on tems or making money?

Again, I stress that the original point was made suggesting that Lerner is a terrible businessman because he took a 6th place team to the bottom. No, that makes him the owner of a very poor football team. Does Lerner make more/lose less out of aston villa now. The answer is yes. So in that sense you have to acknowledge that he has got to grips with some of the 'business side' of it. 

As frustrating as it is, I don't really blame him. It's very easy to sit away from it all making out that AVFC should be the most important thing. Actually, if it came down to my money, I'd look after myself first. I've said before (and I put my money into all sorts of crap), I wouldn't put a penny into the running of aston villa, that wasn't in a customer sense.

[PieFacE]

How do you think he could have sorted it out? 

Hiring McLeish was really stupid,  but he didn't even last a year. 

Hiring Houllier had good potential,  similar to what we have with Garde now,  but it didn't work for health reasons. 

I reckon about 90% of Villa fans wanted Lambert,  but he eventually lost the plot a bit.  

Sherwood saved us from relegation,  what was he supposed to do? Sack him in the summer?  You would have gone crazy had he done that! 

 

And here we are with Garde,  a lot of us are thinking its a good appointment,  no doubt if he's awful you'll use that hindsight as a stick to beat Randy with. 

Fixing problems with hindsight is easy. No one expected Sherwood to be so **** useless this year,  and no one expected this squad of players to perform to such a low standard.  I'm sure Randy is just as mystified as we are.  

I'm not trying to defend the bloke,  he's got us in this mess with what he did in the early years imo,  been on a slow decline ever since,  I don't think it's as easy as you state to just fix the problems. 

 

@DCJonah

[PieFacE]

How often do clubs linger around the drop for a few years  and then eventually push themselves up the table? I can't think of any in recent history,  eventually you just drop,  and we're the team to do it this year,  and I don't think it will be a bad thing.