The Randy Lerner thread

[Big_John_10]

I really think people should look at around when judging Randy Lerner as the worst thing ever happening to this club. It's not a god-given right to have tons of cash, like Chelsea or Manchester City. If we are sold to someone, odds are we are going to be sold to some idiot like Vincent Tan before we are being sold to a new sheik. Our enterprise value is not high, in fact it's quite low. Any semi-rich cowboy could afford to buy us off before they even looked at prospects like Newcastle or Everton. Imagine being owned by the guys from Blackburn (or dare I say she), West Ham or Cardiff. Then you have the guys from Stoke, Sunderland, Fulham, Crystal Palace - not entirely idiots but not anywhere near better than Lerner in the long run.

I just don't get this lowering of expectations in order to defend Lerner at all. When heskey played bad no one mentioned worse players we could have got instead.

The fact is before Lerner we were a team that usually finished in the top 8 in the premiership and now some are happy to accept what ever shit he serves up. Why?

[Big_John_10]

Lerner is guilty of naivety, nothing more. He was naive to let MON run wild with his money, he was naive to take Alex Ferguson's advice, he was naive to think that his P.R. team would be enough to convince supporters that everything was going according to plan, and that feel good gestures like Acorns and the Holte Hotel would be a buffer from criticism.

He came in with considerable money to spend, which was then squandered by MON.

Then the market tanked, he got a divorce, and turned off the tap. He made the right move by hiring Lambert, and since then it's been damage mitigation. Eventually he'll either sell or decide to take another shot at glory, and I believe he'll make that decision within the next two years.

I think naivety is the biggest thing. I don't think he's ever been bad intentioned, that's pretty key. I think when he came in he realized he knew nothing about football so he thought, why not let MON make the decisions, he has a big reputation as a manager and he knows what he's doing. Obviously that wasn't true. At that point all the money that had been wasted on older, poor players had already set the club back.

And then what did he do over the next two years after MON?

[DelboyVilla]

 

 

Lerner is guilty of naivety, nothing more. He was naive to let MON run wild with his money, he was naive to take Alex Ferguson's advice, he was naive to think that his P.R. team would be enough to convince supporters that everything was going according to plan, and that feel good gestures like Acorns and the Holte Hotel would be a buffer from criticism.

He came in with considerable money to spend, which was then squandered by MON.

Then the market tanked, he got a divorce, and turned off the tap. He made the right move by hiring Lambert, and since then it's been damage mitigation. Eventually he'll either sell or decide to take another shot at glory, and I believe he'll make that decision within the next two years.

I think naivety is the biggest thing. I don't think he's ever been bad intentioned, that's pretty key. I think when he came in he realized he knew nothing about football so he thought, why not let MON make the decisions, he has a big reputation as a manager and he knows what he's doing. Obviously that wasn't true. At that point all the money that had been wasted on older, poor players had already set the club back.

And then what did he do over the next two years after MON?

 

 

 

MON was wasteful prick but at least some of players were sold for a profit which compared to Faulkner/Lerner (they must have OKed Ireland), Houllier and McLeish is not bad going.

 

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

[AshVilla]

 

 

 

Lerner is guilty of naivety, nothing more. He was naive to let MON run wild with his money, he was naive to take Alex Ferguson's advice, he was naive to think that his P.R. team would be enough to convince supporters that everything was going according to plan, and that feel good gestures like Acorns and the Holte Hotel would be a buffer from criticism.

He came in with considerable money to spend, which was then squandered by MON.

Then the market tanked, he got a divorce, and turned off the tap. He made the right move by hiring Lambert, and since then it's been damage mitigation. Eventually he'll either sell or decide to take another shot at glory, and I believe he'll make that decision within the next two years.

I think naivety is the biggest thing. I don't think he's ever been bad intentioned, that's pretty key. I think when he came in he realized he knew nothing about football so he thought, why not let MON make the decisions, he has a big reputation as a manager and he knows what he's doing. Obviously that wasn't true. At that point all the money that had been wasted on older, poor players had already set the club back.

And then what did he do over the next two years after MON?

 

 

 

MON was wasteful prick but at least some of players were sold for a profit which compared to Faulkner/Lerner (they must have OKed Ireland), Houllier and McLeish is not bad going.

 

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

 

 

Houllier and McLeish were bad going

 

I hate to think how much compensation we paid out to these two personally plus SHA and the FFF

 

Nobody wanted McLeish and he completely ignored the fans. As for Houllier he did an ok job minus the anfield wankfest but with his health record i can't believe he was given the job in the first place given the high pressured nature of it. I know he was given the all clear but he would have been more suited to a stable side not one in decline where the pressure would be very much on from day one

Edited December 20, 2013 by AshVilla

[VillaForever1970]

Hilarious if true, I can see it now...

'Lerner is such a shit owner, terrible.'

Starts spending money.

'Oh he's not that had.'

Haha

What a ridiculous post.

If he starts doing better then of course that would go towards peoples opinion changing.

Why wouldn't it. Don't worry though what ever happens you'll get the chance to moan at fans.

So if he suddenly started spending shit loads, buying players here and there you’d still be moaning all the time about how he runs the club?

Cause you would.

[Big_John_10]

Hilarious if true, I can see it now...

'Lerner is such a shit owner, terrible.'

Starts spending money.

'Oh he's not that had.'

Haha

What a ridiculous post.

If he starts doing better then of course that would go towards peoples opinion changing.

Why wouldn't it. Don't worry though what ever happens you'll get the chance to moan at fans.

So if he suddenly started spending shit loads, buying players here and there you’d still be moaning all the time about how he runs the club?

Cause you would.

Well that's me told then.

Haha

[GENTLEMAN]

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

 

That is funny because it is untrue. 

[Big_John_10]

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

That is funny because it is untrue.

And you know this how?

[GENTLEMAN]

He mistakenly thought that Villa, being the biggest club for miles around, could reguarly fill a 42,000 seater stadium with a team challenging for champions league. He thought wrong.

Under MON we did regularly sell out. And we can improve our attendances in the future when the team develops. I do not think it is the sole reason for Lerner's decision to cut spending.

[BOF]

And then what did he do over the next two years after MON?

The amount of times you've asked questions like this in this thread are making me think you really don't know the answer. It seems to be every 30 pages or so.

[GENTLEMAN]

 

 

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

That is funny because it is untrue.

And you know this how?

 

Who is to say we will not increase fees/wages in the future once the wage bill is sustainable? It is another cynical myth about Lerner. 

[Big_John_10]

And then what did he do over the next two years after MON?

The amount of times you've asked questions like this in this thread are making me think you really don't know the answer. It seems to be every 30 pages or so.

Only in response to those who seem to have wiped these years from their memory in order to place more blame on one manager and less on the owner.

[BOF]

The problem with the funding question is that neither side knows the answer. On one hand those who aren't against Lerner have to concede funding is down and on the other hand those who are against Lerner have to concede that a period of squad rationalisation was required for the sustainability of the club. We simply don't know what will happen next but it seems rather than waiting, we are deciding before the event based on whether we're fond of him or not.

[Big_John_10]

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

That is funny because it is untrue.

And you know this how?

Who is to say we will not increase fees/wages in the future once the wage bill is sustainable? It is another cynical myth about Lerner.

Yes who knows.

But you said it was untrue and actually so untrue it caused you to laugh. So I was wondering how you knew it was untrue?

[Risso]

 

I have always kept an eye on the financial reports at Villa. These reflect the true state of the situation at the club and any move could be significant.

Today, Reform Acquisitions Ltd, which is the vehicle Lerner uses to own the club, posted what I think could be a significant change. They have changed their memorandum of associations to remove the restriction on authorised share capital.

Now this could mean nothing at all or it could mean a lot. I have asked an accountant to comment on this but maybe some time before he replies so I am asking the wider community if this is significant.

I do think any move of this type is not done for a simple move but would have a meaning behind it. It could be the lifting of this restrictions allows Randy to swap some shares for debt (not a bad thing) or it could allow for other investment (also not a bad thing).

Of course it could be nothing at all, I’ll allow you to judge that.

 

http://www.astonvillanewsandviews.co.uk/exciting-news-from-the-club/

 

Possible investment from other sources? Anybody know more about this?

 

 

At the moment, the authorised share capital is limited to £200m, and in the last accounts Lerner was up to about £130m if memory serves.  This could mean one of a few things:

 

He needs to put more money in as share capital, and is getting close to the limit already, or

There's outside investment coming in, or

He's converting some debt into equity

Or it's just a precautionary thing in case he wants to do any of the above in future.

[Spoony]

It's ridiculous to speculate whether Lerner will inject cash back into the transfer kitty. None of us knows whether he will or whether he will well up.

I don't think that's the main cause for discontent though. I think it's more that it was all so badly mismanaged under MON that we can't spend anything now and it's going to take us ages to recover and it's already made the club the useless husk it is now. And the whole McLeish episode. All the indicators are that we're unlikely to achieve any sort of success under Lerner.

One thing I will give him is at times he has shown a lot more nous than us fans or other chairmen. He stuck with/sticks with lambert when people call for his head and he has let the managers get on with the football side of things.

[GENTLEMAN]

 

 

 

 

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

That is funny because it is untrue.

And you know this how?

Who is to say we will not increase fees/wages in the future once the wage bill is sustainable? It is another cynical myth about Lerner.

Yes who knows.

But you said it was untrue and actually so untrue it caused you to laugh. So I was wondering how you knew it was untrue?

 

Because you do not know this. It is unreasonably cynical. Lerner has spent big fees and wages after he started the reduction in the wage bill. Once the wage bill has been corrected and the income is growing, why would he not spend more on players?

[Big_John_10]

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

That is funny because it is untrue.

And you know this how?

Who is to say we will not increase fees/wages in the future once the wage bill is sustainable? It is another cynical myth about Lerner.

Yes who knows.

But you said it was untrue and actually so untrue it caused you to laugh. So I was wondering how you knew it was untrue?

Because you do not know this. It is unreasonably cynical. Lerner has spent big fees and wages after he started the reduction in the wage bill. Once the wage bill has been corrected and the income is growing, why would he not spend more on players?

I haven't claimed to know. He might spend again in the summer and he might not. I just wondered how you knew it was so hilariously untrue.

[GENTLEMAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people are clutching at straws if they think this cheap and cheerful policy is short term not long term under Lerner.

That is funny because it is untrue.

And you know this how?

Who is to say we will not increase fees/wages in the future once the wage bill is sustainable? It is another cynical myth about Lerner.

Yes who knows.

But you said it was untrue and actually so untrue it caused you to laugh. So I was wondering how you knew it was untrue?

Because you do not know this. It is unreasonably cynical. Lerner has spent big fees and wages after he started the reduction in the wage bill. Once the wage bill has been corrected and the income is growing, why would he not spend more on players?

I haven't claimed to know. He might spend again in the summer and he might not. I just wondered how you knew it was so hilariously untrue.

 

Fine.

Edited December 20, 2013 by GENTLEMAN

[GENTLEMAN]

The problem with the funding question is that neither side knows the answer. On one hand those who aren't against Lerner have to concede funding is down and on the other hand those who are against Lerner have to concede that a period of squad rationalisation was required for the sustainability of the club. We simply don't know what will happen next but it seems rather than waiting, we are deciding before the event based on whether we're fond of him or not. 

 

I appreciate what you are saying, but I am not basing my view on personal emotions or popularity. I think it is reasonable to assume that RL will spend more on individual players in the future.

Edited December 20, 2013 by GENTLEMAN