The Randy Lerner thread

[OutByEaster?]

Makes me wonder what all the fuss was about regarding the desperation to see Doug sell the club.

Because Lerner has put more of his own money into the club this summer than Doug did in his entire life?

 

It's impossible to really compare eras, but I think it's fair to say that Doug wouldn't have been able to be involved in running a modern football club - I doubt there's an owner in the Premier league who isn't regularly running to his own piggy bank in order to prop up his club - Doug never did that; he never put a penny of his own money into the football club and he took out more than Lerner ever has.

 

We're at a very interesting point in our development in the Lerner era - we're almost on an even keel - it's interesting that we talk about being self sufficient or being balanced as a normal aim for a football club - "Phew, we're back on an even keel" - when in reality, if we get back to a point where this club supports itself without needing Lerner to continue to bang in a small fortune of his own money every year, then we'd be pretty much the only club in the league doing that.

 

Premier league clubs don't run on an even keel, that's not the game - and there will be a question as to whether Lerner continues to throw money at the club once we reach that tipping point. If not, then he'll be looking to sell and will have set the club up reasonably well in order to do so - but then we'll be looking for someone else willing to throw tons of their own money at it.

 

The idea that Doug and Randy are similar, or even comparable is laughable, one was a fat provincial leech in a time of provincial leeches, the other a multi-millionaire benefactor in an age of billionaire benefactors.

 

Oddly, I can see what was in it for Doug, he made a fortune and got his face in the local papers on a constant basis - I've no idea what's in it for the modern owner, something to do with the fishy modern world of money and profile and influence and all that crap no doubt, but it seems to me that a modern owner needs to be able to pay out a fortune on an ongoing basis for no return to a group of overpaid prima donna's for a pack of insatiable dreamers.

 

Frankly, whether he's been a good owner or a bad owner, it's hard to make a case for Lerner, or anyone that buys a Premier league team being anything but an idiot.

 

Anyways; I think we've done excellent work in controlling our costs, we may be about to become a profitable Premier league club (possibly the only one) which means we might have missed the point, and I'm very interested to find out what we'll do once we get there.

[TRO]

It's amazing how one defeat has added about half a dozen pages in this thread, after most people thought he and Lambert had had a positive 6 months or so.

 

Saying we're outplayed in every department makes it sounds like we were murdered in each game it something. We could very early have drawn or won both or either had we taken out chances a little more clinically. We didn't though, but we've hardly been hopeless, despite what some think

Saying we're outplayed in every department makes it sounds like we were murdered in each game it something. We could very early have drawn or won both or either had we taken out chances a little more clinically. We didn't though, but we've hardly been hopeless, despite what some think

Saying we're outplayed in every department makes it sounds like we were murdered in each game it something. We could very early have drawn or won both or either had we taken out chances a little more clinically. We didn't though, but we've hardly been hopeless, despite what some think

Saying we're outplayed in every department makes it sounds like we were murdered in each game it something. We could very early have drawn or won both or either had we taken out chances a little more clinically. We didn't though, but we've hardly been hopeless, despite what some think

 

 

Pete, Pete, Pete

 

we could have won both games with chances, we could have won the Chelsea game too

 

.....but we was outplayed. Ben Arfa was moving the ball like we could only dream of.....and more importantly, we let him.

 

If it was a boxing match we would have been outpointed by a margin in all of those games.

[P3te]

Newcastle were more clinical, we were not. We had better chances than them and individual errors and poor performances cost us. How can Lambert do anything about that gabby miss, or lowton having a stinker?

For the liverpool game how could we have expected mignolet to make two ludicrous saves to keep us out. We weren't great in either game, but we weren't as bad as people say. But, hey, it wouldn't be VT without overreaction and negativity

[Big_John_10]

The idea that Doug and Randy are similar, or even comparable is laughable, one was a fat provincial leech in a time of provincial leeches, the other a multi-millionaire benefactor in an age of billionaire benefactors.

And how has having one running the club improved your enjoyment as a villa fan over the other?

[P3te]

The idea that Doug and Randy are similar, or even comparable is laughable, one was a fat provincial leech in a time of provincial leeches, the other a multi-millionaire benefactor in an age of billionaire benefactors.

And how has having one running the club improved your enjoyment as a villa fan over the other?

It's all short term with you isn't it. Absolutely no appreciation of long term security. **** the club being stable, let's only worry about the immediate future, eh? Who cares about long term

[StefanAVFC]

5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park.

What an owner.

 

I'm not judging him on home wins.

 

 

[TRO]

....Its not over reaction or negativity its about developing a ruthless streak.

 

I watched Eigur Gudjohnssen make a mistake against us many moons ago....Mourinho reacted by jumping from the bench and "Hooking him"....its hard, but it sends a clear message to everyone. .The players, the fans, the club officials, don't short change me.

 

sometimes tough decisions have to be made to get the message across to everyone.

 

We all need to be ascertive not passive.

 

we wasn't yesterday.

[Big_John_10]

The idea that Doug and Randy are similar, or even comparable is laughable, one was a fat provincial leech in a time of provincial leeches, the other a multi-millionaire benefactor in an age of billionaire benefactors.

And how has having one running the club improved your enjoyment as a villa fan over the other?

It's all short term with you isn't it. Absolutely no appreciation of long term security. **** the club being stable, let's only worry about the immediate future, eh? Who cares about long term

And its all dream world for you. What might be under such a great owner. What Lerner could do for us.

We all wanted doug gone so we could be better. Well what's so much better? How is it more enjoyable as a villa fan since we finally got rid of Doug?

Were we not stable under Doug? Did you have this attitude when people held up £ signs?

Edited September 15, 2013 by Big_John_10

[P3te]

The idea that Doug and Randy are similar, or even comparable is laughable, one was a fat provincial leech in a time of provincial leeches, the other a multi-millionaire benefactor in an age of billionaire benefactors.

And how has having one running the club improved your enjoyment as a villa fan over the other?

It's all short term with you isn't it. Absolutely no appreciation of long term security. **** the club being stable, let's only worry about the immediate future, eh? Who cares about long term

[ciggiesnbeer]

To be fair, how long is the long term? Do we have a plan to actually try and win things? Celebrating not being relegated gets a bit pathetic after three seasons in a row of it.

[Big_John_10]

I know some like to gush over him putting his own money into the club but he will no doubt sell the club for more than what he paid for it and if he takes back his loans before doing this then he'll be fine.

[suttonpaul]

Less spending has not meant profit for anyone, Lerner or otherwise, it had many less losses for the club, but losses nonetheless

We're pushing towards being a self sufficient club, currently at the cost of not being able to spend as much, but are people not willing to suck it up for a few years so that the club can stop hemorrhaging money? Are you all that **** impatient that you'd rather see us losing tens of millions a year for the same of finishing a couple is places higher, rather than reigning it in to break even point and being able to push on in the future? Either with the current owner or a new one?

Lerner regularly foots the bill for our losses, putting £19/20/30m in, and all it does is plug the gaps temporarily. I'd rather us be is a position where that money is able to be spent on pushing us forward not keeping us afloat, but that won't happen until the club is breaking even every year, and like it or not, that means not spending a ton of money.

We have among the cheapest tickets in the league, yet we almost never sell out. It's time for people to realize, we aren't a big club any more, not by any measure that's not purely historical, and that hurts us financially too.

Give me self sufficience and 10m from the owner over 30m losses and 30m from the owner any day

 

 

I'm with this guy here we aren't a massive club anymore and there just happens to be 6 of those currently in our league.

 

If we were a club that deserved to be up there we would generate the revenue to be up there BUT WE DONT.

 

We tried and we had the sixth highest revenue when we were sixth in a time when Spurs and City were making some big strides and making it much more difficult for us to ever take that step up.

 

FACE FACTS we should be happy with 7th to 9th top 3 in best of the rest because those are the revenues we make. What will happen when West Ham a London club move to the Olympic stadium? they will become 7th highest earners..... money = place in the league maybe not over the course of a season but over 3/4/5 seasons it always does.

 

So like I said about 10 pages ago we either move the club to London (cant and wont happen) or we get a billionaire who wants to throw 500m to a billion at the club WE WONT BE A MASSIVE CLUB unless we do something completely left field like we have with all these kids and unknown players. So either this pays off or it makes us more attractive for a sale having a low wage bill (especially when those last few really high earners go next summer) and low debts.

 

Please stop all this my great club bollocks we are average PL fodder that doesn't make us Southend......

[P3te]

To be fair, how long is the long term? Do we have a plan to actually try and win things? Celebrating not being relegated gets a bit pathetic after three seasons in a row of it.

Who's celebrating?

[Big_John_10]

FACE FACTS we should be happy with 7th to 9th

You say this like we've finished there and people aren't happy.

In 10/11 we scraped into 9th place with 2 excellent results when the manager Lerner hired was too ill to be around the first team.

We then finished in 16th place the 2 seasons that followed. So not sure what the point is here.

Please stop all this my great club bollocks we are average PL fodder

So have we become this under Lerner or were we like this under Doug? Because under Doug we seemed to all expect more but now we're just average so we should be happy if we achieve mediocrity.

[AvfcTheObsession]

5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park.

What an owner

Its worse than that its 9 wins in our last 40 home league games. I was a bit pissed for a second today when they announced the attendance at the game that there was under 38k but then I thought really its not that surprising is it when you look at how shit our home record has been. Add that to the fact for the last 3 seasons the vast majority of that time we have spent in the bottom six battling relegation.

Whilst Randy doesn't pick the team or kick a ball for us he has been the guy picking the managers and then giving them the funds to spend. I think he has potentially a very good manager in Lambert but for me he hasn't backed him well enough both in terms of transfer funds and wages to bring the level of player in that will really see us kick on.

For me it is how the funds are being spent as well. Lambert has just spent 7m on a striker who doesn't fit into our first XI with our chosen system as we have Benteke.

[OutByEaster?]

 

The idea that Doug and Randy are similar, or even comparable is laughable, one was a fat provincial leech in a time of provincial leeches, the other a multi-millionaire benefactor in an age of billionaire benefactors.

And how has having one running the club improved your enjoyment as a villa fan over the other?

 

It's a strange question - I'll try to give it a sensible answer. I guess in terms of how the team fares, then there hasn't been a deal of difference between how Doug did during the era in which he was our owner and Randy has during his time as our owner. They've each presided over some good times and some not so good.

 

I think the difference is between the eras - I think if Randy had owned us and  invested in the way he has from say 1985-1998, then we'd have won a number of Championships during that time, we'd have been amongst the richest clubs and we'd have been able to really do something with his investment. If Doug had continued to own us until the present day, then I think we'd most likely be in League 1 or have racked up a debt so massive that we'd have more in common with our neighbours than we'd like. Of course, Doug recognised that he could no longer afford to run a football club and sold out and Randy had no interest until Sky started to bung money in so that point makes no sense - different eras.

 

You see for me, things have changed so much that comparing Doug to Randy is like comparing Steven Gerrard to Alastair Cook. I think maybe a better question would be how Randy Lerner would compare to a. n. other billionaire owner - and in this regard it's hard to tell without speculating wildly.

 

I'd very much prefer Villa to be owned by the same folks that own Man City - I know we all get on our high horse about money ruining the game nowadays and we can take the moral high ground around not wanting to be just a fake billionaire's plaything club - but the fact is that this is a fake billionaire plaything league - there is no history, there is no victory through artistry, endeavour or organisation - you can win the occasional battle through these things, but the war is decided on money and the Premier league table is just a cash counting machine. So the best owner is the richest - nothing more, nothing less.

 

Randy's ownership has occasionally brought me enjoyment when he's tried to stand up for some sort of sane or decent method in the face of the way things are, it's sometimes brought me enjoyment on the field, and it's sometimes brought me enjoyment in being a part of something. It's also brought me disappointment, a little anger occasionally and regular touch of frustration.

 

Ultimately, it's become a little bit less important though - it seems to me that at some point in the past, a good owner could take the money a club generated and invest it wisely, develop the football club, bring in the right people and succeed - the owner was key in the things that he did - his actions mattered, it mattered if he was clever, if he was cunning, if he knew the game and could act on that knowledge. That's all still useful, but not to the degree it used to be - I think nowadays an owner is mostly just a wallet - his job is to throw money at the club and keep throwing money at it until it wins or he runs out of money - to that extent, how good Lerner is as an owner isn't really that important - he could be brilliant, but he hasn't got as much money as Man City or Arsenal or Chelsea or Man Utd so it doesn't matter. He could be awful, but we've got more money that West Brom, or Hull or Crystal Palace so we'll be okay.

 

I guess in the face of knowing that you'll only ever be as good as your wallet and that spending every penny you have still won't actually make a difference, the current approach makes some sense - it just isn't very you know, enjoyable I guess.

 

But then I don't think the Premier league give much of a **** for enjoyability.

[P3te]

We shouldn't be happy with mediocrity, but we need to realize that unless we change things (which we are), mediocrity is the ceiling. If we're patient and give ourselves the time to sort things out (particularly since nobody else is taking this step yet), we'll go a lot further and do a lot more, without spending add much or risking the stability of the club.

3-4 years of finishing 8-10th while burning money, followed by massive uncertainly and another spate of cutting outgoings, or another few years of getting on top of things followed by the financial freedom to push on for the foreseeable future? I know what I'll take, but then I'm not expecting unrealistic things, or convincing myself we're something we're not. I see what we are and I see how we can move forward, and I'm not expecting it overnight

[OutByEaster?]

We are in mediocrity - but we can't change that - you can't change Aston Villa enough to make a difference (or you can't unless you're one of the richest half a dozen people on the planet) - we need to change the world - it's easier.

[Big_John_10]

I see what we are

And yet you down seem to have a single problem with it.

The idea that Doug and Randy are similar, or even comparable is laughable, one was a fat provincial leech in a time of provincial leeches, the other a multi-millionaire benefactor in an age of billionaire benefactors.

And how has having one running the club improved your enjoyment as a villa fan over the other?

It's a strange question - I'll try to give it a sensible answer. I guess in terms of how the team fares, then there hasn't been a deal of difference between how Doug did during the era in which he was our owner and Randy has during his time as our owner. They've each presided over some good times and some not so good.

 

I think the difference is between the eras - I think if Randy had owned us and  invested in the way he has from say 1985-1998, then we'd have won a number of Championships during that time, we'd have been amongst the richest clubs and we'd have been able to really do something with his investment. If Doug had continued to own us until the present day, then I think we'd most likely be in League 1 or have racked up a debt so massive that we'd have more in common with our neighbours than we'd like. Of course, Doug recognised that he could no longer afford to run a football club and sold out and Randy had no interest until Sky started to bung money in so that point makes no sense - different eras.

 

You see for me, things have changed so much that comparing Doug to Randy is like comparing Steven Gerrard to Alastair Cook. I think maybe a better question would be how Randy Lerner would compare to a. n. other billionaire owner - and in this regard it's hard to tell without speculating wildly.

 

I'd very much prefer Villa to be owned by the same folks that own Man City - I know we all get on our high horse about money ruining the game nowadays and we can take the moral high ground around not wanting to be just a fake billionaire's plaything club - but the fact is that this is a fake billionaire plaything league - there is no history, there is no victory through artistry, endeavour or organisation - you can win the occasional battle through these things, but the war is decided on money and the Premier league table is just a cash counting machine. So the best owner is the richest - nothing more, nothing less.

 

Randy's ownership has occasionally brought me enjoyment when he's tried to stand up for some sort of sane or decent method in the face of the way things are, it's sometimes brought me enjoyment on the field, and it's sometimes brought me enjoyment in being a part of something. It's also brought me disappointment, a little anger occasionally and regular touch of frustration.

 

Ultimately, it's become a little bit less important though - it seems to me that at some point in the past, a good owner could take the money a club generated and invest it wisely, develop the football club, bring in the right people and succeed - the owner was key in the things that he did - his actions mattered, it mattered if he was clever, if he was cunning, if he knew the game and could act on that knowledge. That's all still useful, but not to the degree it used to be - I think nowadays an owner is mostly just a wallet - his job is to throw money at the club and keep throwing money at it until it wins or he runs out of money - to that extent, how good Lerner is as an owner isn't really that important - he could be brilliant, but he hasn't got as much money as Man City or Arsenal or Chelsea or Man Utd so it doesn't matter. He could be awful, but we've got more money that West Brom, or Hull or Crystal Palace so we'll be okay.

 

I guess in the face of knowing that you'll only ever be as good as your wallet and that spending every penny you have still won't actually make a difference, the current approach makes some sense - it just isn't very you know, enjoyable I guess.

 

But then I don't think the Premier league give much of a **** for enjoyability.

Good answer and a good little read.

[P3te]

You're right, I don't have a problem with it. There's no point. I'm concerned with how we realistically get out of it