The Randy Lerner thread

[Danwichmann]

What I understood from your post was that things were so much better at Villa before and could only have gone so catastrophically wrong under Lerner. If this was not your point, I apologise.

My point is that we were heading the same way before Lerner came in. I've no doubt that was Ellis still here, we would have been relegated long before now, without the reprieve of the O'Neill years having bought us more time. The fact that so many other big clubs have **** up shows it isn't that easy to keep any club in the Premier League, even one the size of Aston Villa.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Where's the lack of perspective. I haven't said we're the only club. If course other clubs have **** up and failed resulting in relegation. What's that got to do with us?

The fact Newcastle made mistakes that resulted in relegation doesn't change the fact that teams like us and them should be able to survive each year. 

As you point out, even at the end of Doug's reign when we were a shambles we still survived. Doesn't that show how difficult it actually is to relegate a club like ourselves? 

But it does have something to do with us. That's the point. 

Look, obviously it depends on when you start counting. If you imagine we're in 2008 for example, you can definitely say 'we should be able to survive this year'. But we weren't in 2008, we were in 2015. At the start of this season, there were 7 or 8 teams with far bigger revenues and turnovers than ourselves that really would have been ridiculous if they'd gone down. If Chelsea had been relegated, that really would have been a story. But we were in a group of around a dozen similarly-sized clubs, of which a quarter would get relegated. That's a high ratio! Now, you could say, well, we had slightly higher revenues than some of those clubs, and we're much bigger than Bournemouth by any metric I can think of, but the stark reality is we have much more in common with Norwich or Sunderland than we do with Liverpool or Spurs. 

The point that @Danwichmann is making with regard to the number of similarly-sized clubs to ourselves that have gone down is that does, in fact, suggest that it 'changes the fact [sic] that teams like us and them should be able to survive each year'. 15% of teams in the league are relegated each year. Logically and statistically, 'never be relegated' is an impossible feat to achieve if 'every year, forever' is the timescale to achieve it in. 

So the next question is how did we get here from 2008. And any remaining Lerner fans have to accept that massive mismanagement of the club on his part has led us to this situation. But Lerner critics also have to admit that FFP simply is one of the main reasons why we are where we are, and need to accept that Lerner opposed FFP and voted against it. 

[mykeyb]

On 28/03/2016 at 03:42, dukes said:

Depends how much free cash he has, if he doesn't fancy propping up the club for a few more years then it's better for him to cut his losses and accept a lower fee now.

if we don't come straight back up then the value of the club will drop in any case as turnover will be much reduced, so it's all about how much of a risk he might want to take. 

The money in Villa is from the Lerner Family fund though I think, so maybe he won't want to risk any more than the £250M that has already been spent.

Or he could ask someone to put together a board with a mandate that the club operates as a business with no further backing from him and when the club gains promotion look to sell and recoup more of his monies than he would be able to during the summer.

[dukes]

27 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

Or he could ask someone to put together a board with a mandate that the club operates as a business with no further backing from him and when the club gains promotion look to sell and recoup more of his monies than he would be able to during the summer.

Of course he could, nobody said he couldn't, but it's still a very big risk, and one that without investment would be unlikely to reap the rewards you talk about.

[TRO]

Where does this notion come from that when Lerner gives a manager a bunch of money and it doesn't work out, that because its his fault.....he has to find another bunch of money, until he gets it right......repeat,repeat,repeat.

I'm afraid those kind of punitive measures as you could put it.....don't work like that.

its more likely the following manager has to carry the can, not fair.....but thats what happens.

[a m ole]

Because that's the business of football, if you don't trust the next manager to spend and you subsequently sack him and get in someone who you give even less or nothing to, then your club gets worse and worse and worse. Case in point: Aston Villa.

[TRO]

8 hours ago, Danwichmann said:

What I understood from your post was that things were so much better at Villa before and could only have gone so catastrophically wrong under Lerner. If this was not your point, I apologise.

My point is that we were heading the same way before Lerner came in. I've no doubt that was Ellis still here, we would have been relegated long before now, without the reprieve of the O'Neill years having bought us more time. The fact that so many other big clubs have **** up shows it isn't that easy to keep any club in the Premier League, even one the size of Aston Villa.

The other thing to consider is under uncle Herbert.....Mon would not have had that amount money to spend over 4 years....so we just don't know how that would have panned out.

[TRO]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

But it does have something to do with us. That's the point. 

Look, obviously it depends on when you start counting. If you imagine we're in 2008 for example, you can definitely say 'we should be able to survive this year'. But we weren't in 2008, we were in 2015. At the start of this season, there were 7 or 8 teams with far bigger revenues and turnovers than ourselves that really would have been ridiculous if they'd gone down. If Chelsea had been relegated, that really would have been a story. But we were in a group of around a dozen similarly-sized clubs, of which a quarter would get relegated. That's a high ratio! Now, you could say, well, we had slightly higher revenues than some of those clubs, and we're much bigger than Bournemouth by any metric I can think of, but the stark reality is we have much more in common with Norwich or Sunderland than we do with Liverpool or Spurs. 

The point that @Danwichmann is making with regard to the number of similarly-sized clubs to ourselves that have gone down is that does, in fact, suggest that it 'changes the fact [sic] that teams like us and them should be able to survive each year'. 15% of teams in the league are relegated each year. Logically and statistically, 'never be relegated' is an impossible feat to achieve if 'every year, forever' is the timescale to achieve it in. 

So the next question is how did we get here from 2008. And any remaining Lerner fans have to accept that massive mismanagement of the club on his part has led us to this situation. But Lerner critics also have to admit that FFP simply is one of the main reasons why we are where we are, and need to accept that Lerner opposed FFP and voted against it. 

And while i have defended Lerner on some issues....I most certainly agree on the mismanagement side.

However judging by the recent changes in senior personnel, I suspect he agrees with us.

[mykeyb]

4 hours ago, dukes said:

Of course he could, nobody said he couldn't, but it's still a very big risk, and one that without investment would be unlikely to reap the rewards you talk about.

What is the big risk, how much further would the club devalue?

I think he will sit tight for 12 months unless he receives a very good offer.

[markavfc40]

28 minutes ago, TRO said:

Where does this notion come from that when Lerner gives a manager a bunch of money and it doesn't work out, that because its his fault.....he has to find another bunch of money, until he gets it right......repeat,repeat,repeat.

I'm afraid those kind of punitive measures as you could put it.....don't work like that.

its more likely the following manager has to carry the can, not fair.....but thats what happens.

There is a lot to agree with in this post TRO. What I would say is though that whilst Lerner has spent a lot of money he has entrusted it in the wrong hands and I don't just mean managers here.

It has been those above the manager be it Faulkner, Fox and now Hollis/Bernstein that have been/will be deciding what manager gets to spend x amount of money. For too long there has been a lack of fore thought into managerial appointments. We go from O'Neill to Houllier to McLeish. From one extreme to another twice. More recently we have seen a manager in Sherwood tasked with overseeing a huge turn over in players who had never bought or old a single player before. In addition he was tasked with doing this alongside a number of other people who he apparently didn't sing from the same hymn sheet with.

The point I am trying to make is that a lack of nous above the manager has led to either the wrong manager being employed or him not being allowed the right support to give him the chance to achieve anything like relative success.

That issue of nous on the board now finally appears to have been addressed. Hopefully that leads to the right manager being appointed and I think with both those things in place it would then be fair for Lerner to cough up further investment as just as investment without expertise in place to over see it led to failure so will the expertise being in place with out the investment. The two need to go hand in hand to be successful.

Edited March 29, 2016 by markavfc40

[TRO]

16 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Because that's the business of football, if you don't trust the next manager to spend and you subsequently sack him and get in someone who you give even less or nothing to, then your club gets worse and worse and worse. Case in point: Aston Villa.

It tends to have that kind of financially volatile tendency agreed.....but is there many owners who have lost more money personally than Lerner in english football?

irrespective of whether it is his own fault or not.

Edited March 29, 2016 by TRO

[TRO]

10 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

There is a lot to agree with in this post TRO. What I would say is though that whilst Lerner has spent a lot of money he has entrusted it in the wrong hands and I don't just mean managers here.

It has been those above the manager be it Faulkner, Fox and now Hollis/Bernstein that have been/will be deciding what manager gets to spend x amount of money. For too long there has been a lack of fore thought into managerial appointments. We go from O'Neill to Houllier to McLeish. From one extreme to another twice. More recently we have seen a manager in Sherwood tasked with overseeing a huge turn over in players who had never bought or old a single player before. In addition he was tasked with doing this alongside a number of other people who he apparently didn't sing from the same hymn sheet with.

The point I am trying to make is that a lack of nous above the manager has led to either the wrong manager being employed or him not being allowed the tight support to achieve anything like relative success.

That issue of nous on the board now finally appears to have been addressed. Hopefully that leads to the right manager being appointed and I think with both those things in place it would then be fair for Lerner to cough up further investment as just as investment without expertise in place to over see it led to failure so will the expertise being in place with out the investment. The two need to go hand in hand to be successful.

If there was such a thing, i would say i agree 101%

the reason i get a tad frustrated is very few people put it as balanced as you have.

Blandy is one of the few, who i can think of who would.

[MikeMcKenna]

51 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

There is a lot to agree with in this post TRO. What I would say is though that whilst Lerner has spent a lot of money he has entrusted it in the wrong hands and I don't just mean managers here.

It has been those above the manager be it Faulkner, Fox and now Hollis/Bernstein that have been/will be deciding what manager gets to spend x amount of money. For too long there has been a lack of fore thought into managerial appointments. We go from O'Neill to Houllier to McLeish. From one extreme to another twice. More recently we have seen a manager in Sherwood tasked with overseeing a huge turn over in players who had never bought or old a single player before. In addition he was tasked with doing this alongside a number of other people who he apparently didn't sing from the same hymn sheet with.

The point I am trying to make is that a lack of nous above the manager has led to either the wrong manager being employed or him not being allowed the right support to give him the chance to achieve anything like relative success.

That issue of nous on the board now finally appears to have been addressed. Hopefully that leads to the right manager being appointed and I think with both those things in place it would then be fair for Lerner to cough up further investment as just as investment without expertise in place to over see it led to failure so will the expertise being in place with out the investment. The two need to go hand in hand to be successful.

I seriously doubt RL will invest further and believe that the reason, Hollis, King and lately Bernstein are choosing their words carefully and being cautious is that the 'reconstruction' has to funded through cuts to costs and player sales. Even with the 1st season parachute payment our revenues are going to plummet next season and Lerner is imo not going to pump in more money. As Bernstein has said the 'football board' will have a 'strong voice' but the ultimate authority still lies with the full board inclusive of Hollis, Krulak and inevitably Lerner despite distancing himself. 

The club appear to have made some positive moves but it is far to early to assume they will cure the rot. I know many fans are desperate to start believing again, but personally I will never trust Lerner or Krulak - clearings in the woods!

Edited March 29, 2016 by MikeMcKenna

[dn1982]

12 minutes ago, MikeMcKenna said:

I seriously doubt RL will invest further and believe that the reason, Hollis, King and lately Bernstein are choosing their words carefully and being cautious is that the 'reconstruction' has to funded through cuts to costs and player sales. Even with the 1st season parachute payment our revenues are going to plummet next season and Lerner is imo not going to pump in more money. As Bernstein has said the 'football board' will have a 'strong voice' but the ultimate authority still lies with the full board inclusive of Hollis, Krulak and inevitably Lerner despite distancing himself. 

The club appear to have made some positive moves but it is far to early to assume they will cure the rot. I know many fans are desperate to start believing again, but personally I will never trust Lerner or Krulak - clearings in the woods!

I don't think income will plummet that much next season because of the new to deal being so high we'll probably end up with what we did this year. I think you get about £60m for last this year but that goes up to £100m next season. The parachute payments in the 1st year if I've read it right are 55%. It's after that we will be in trouble. Lerner is in a rock and a hard place if we don't get up he'll have to put his hand in his pocket to have any hope of getting some money back for the club! 

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, MikeMcKenna said:

 

The club appear to have made some positive moves but it is far to early to assume they will cure the rot. I know many fans are desperate to start believing again, but personally I will never trust Lerner or Krulak - clearings in the woods!

I agree. One thing seems certain though that Lerner will remain owner of the club for some time yet so we had better hope that he does start to get things right and in that regard the changes to the board are as you say a positive. Whether further investment follows remains to be seen but for the new manager to have a decent chance of success and getting us back up he will need it.

[MikeMcKenna]

18 minutes ago, dn1982 said:

I don't think income will plummet that much next season because of the new to deal being so high we'll probably end up with what we did this year. I think you get about £60m for last this year but that goes up to £100m next season. The parachute payments in the 1st year if I've read it right are 55%. It's after that we will be in trouble. Lerner is in a rock and a hard place if we don't get up he'll have to put his hand in his pocket to have any hope of getting some money back for the club! 

Why you think we will have similar revenues to this year? I understand that we will get 66m for this season, but based on the 2014/15 accounts, I am assuming we will make another loss even with this for 2015/16, 

I am not certain of my numbers but my understanding is that for 2016/17 we will get; Season 1 - around 39m, Season 2 - 31m and Season 3 - 14m

Our sponsorship, commercial and match day revenues will all fall in 2016/17 and I wouldn't be surprised if, including the parachute payment, our total revenues are only around 75m. If I am correct revenues will be 35-40m lower than 2015/16. 

Of course if someone can show me differently, I will stand corrected. 

[MikeMcKenna]

10 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I agree. One thing seems certain though that Lerner will remain owner of the club for some time yet so we had better hope that he does start to get things right and in that regard the changes to the board are as you say a positive. Whether further investment follows remains to be seen but for the new manager to have a decent chance of success and getting us back up he will need it.

Mark to be be precise I actually said "appear" to have made some positive moves". I reserve judgement on whether Bernstein, Brian Little et al will be allowed or are actually able to rebuild the footballing side - I remain cynical. With the announcement of Garde's departure like everyone else I wait with baited breath for the next manager to arrive on the chopping block. 

[dn1982]

13 minutes ago, MikeMcKenna said:

Why you think we will have similar revenues to this year? I understand that we will get 66m for this season, but based on the 2014/15 accounts, I am assuming we will make another loss even with this for 2015/16, 

I am not certain of my numbers but my understanding is that for 2016/17 we will get; Season 1 - around 39m, Season 2 - 31m and Season 3 - 14m

Our sponsorship, commercial and match day revenues will all fall in 2016/17 and I wouldn't be surprised if, including the parachute payment, our total revenues are only around 75m. If I am correct revenues will be 35-40m lower than 2015/16. 

Of course if someone can show me differently, I will stand corrected. 

Because of the increased TV deal. I think your numbers are going off of the current one. So we'll get £66m for finishing last this year. You then get 55% as the parachute payment next year apparently but next year bottom gets you £100m ish so as TV money goes it'll only be the appearance money that takes the biggest hit. This is going on current figures they'll probably change it to do us!! It's 55% 45% then about 15% in year if I'm right. I think with our new kit deal and extra games especially if we are top we won't be too far off current levels but if we don't come up we will start to suffer greatly years 2-3

[markavfc40]

3 minutes ago, MikeMcKenna said:

Mark to be be precise I actually said "appear" to have made some positive moves". I reserve judgement on whether Bernstein, Brian Little et al will be allowed or are actually able to rebuild the footballing side - I remain cynical. With the announcement of Garde's departure like everyone else I wait with baited breath for the next manager to arrive on the chopping block. 

Fair enough Mike. Clearly we aren't going to be able to make a definitive judgement on that for some time but for me at least the appointment of Little, Bernstein and hopefully shortly Ashworth is on paper at least a step in the right direction. The first big test of the new board will come over the coming weeks when they make the new managerial appointment and will perhaps indicate if those now on the board will make the right decisions to take us forward. 

[MikeMcKenna]

6 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Fair enough Mike. Clearly we aren't going to be able to make a definitive judgement on that for some time but for me at least the appointment of Little, Bernstein and hopefully shortly Ashworth is on paper at least a step in the right direction. The first big test of the new board will come over the coming weeks when they make the new managerial appointment and will perhaps indicate if those now on the board will make the right decisions to take us forward. 

Is the protest still on Mark?