collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Was Lerner just naive?  (Read 4933 times)

Offline Dave Pountney

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2016, 11:12:42 PM »
I said it on another thread, but Lerner is one of those classic useless nice guys. Means well but is devoid of the vision, strategy, guile and occasional ruthlessness that mark out effective leaders. His niceness and geniality grant him leeway not afforded to others and he gets away with incompetence longer than people who make enemies. What else marks out useless nice guys? Self-delusion, poor judgement, tolerance of failure and indecisiveness.

Tell me that this doesn't describe Lerner to a tee?

Offline kippaxvilla2

  • Member
  • Posts: 23088
  • Location: Back in Solihull
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2016, 11:17:35 PM »
I can see alllll obstacles in my way.

Offline Ron Manager

  • Member
  • Posts: 5710
  • Location: Staffordshire
  • GM : 03.04.2016
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2016, 08:41:32 AM »
Doug knows a mug when he see's one and lets face it the only thing on Mr. Eliis' mind was how much he got in coinage. If Naive is going into a business you know nothing about thinking you're going to take on the experienced sharks who've done it for years, then he was naive. I prefer suicidally arrogant and full of himself, If he'd spent the money on hookersand booze like the average lottery winner he would have at least had fun

Doug Ellis could have sold the club to other interested party''s for the same price. He didn't he chose Randy Lerner. It looked a very good decision for Lerner's first few years, it seemed he was determined to  do the right thing in all aspects, the Acorns sponsorship being one example. In the long run it didn't work out but that is nothing to do with Doug Ellis in any way. Mr Lerner is a decent man who is as suggested naive in the extreme. You have managed to insult the current owner,the previous owner and Lottery winners in general.

Well done!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 08:50:55 AM by Ron Manager »

Offline Mostinho II

  • Member
  • Posts: 360
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2016, 11:19:08 AM »
L plates. That should probably be the protest. Fox or 'Lerner out' isn't allowed apparently. So, everyone bring L plates. It's ambiguous enough that you shouldn't be thrown out of the ground for waving an L in the air but it would be pretty obvious what it meant. And easy for everyone to get one. I don't think this is a new idea but it's a good one.

Let me see your L's in the air.

Offline ClaretAndBlueBlood

  • Member
  • Posts: 713
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2016, 11:23:17 AM »
L plates. That should probably be the protest. Fox or 'Lerner out' isn't allowed apparently. So, everyone bring L plates. It's ambiguous enough that you shouldn't be thrown out of the ground for waving an L in the air but it would be pretty obvious what it meant. And easy for everyone to get one. I don't think this is a new idea but it's a good one.

Let me see your L's in the air.

like it

Offline auntiesledd

  • Member
  • Posts: 1998
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Hoveside (via Erdington)
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2016, 11:30:17 AM »
Doug knows a mug when he see's one and lets face it the only thing on Mr. Eliis' mind was how much he got in coinage. If Naive is going into a business you know nothing about thinking you're going to take on the experienced sharks who've done it for years, then he was naive. I prefer suicidally arrogant and full of himself, If he'd spent the money on hookers and booze like the average lottery winner he would have at least had fun

Hookers & booze? He'd end up with Nuns & a crate of mineral water.

Offline Salsa Party Animal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2144
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Trinity Road Lower Stand or Dance-floor or Bedroom.
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/Salsapartyanimal
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2016, 07:46:23 PM »
and his biggest mistake he trust Martin O'Neill in delivering the dream and appointing no one to balance the book or keep an eye on transfer negotiations or failure replacing Steven Stride.

Online SamTheMouse

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9850
  • Location: The Land of the Fragrant Founders of Human Rights, Fine Wines & Bikinis
  • GM : 03.11.2024
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2016, 07:57:25 PM »
Put it this way. I'm about to write to him to ask if he'd like to buy some of my magic beans.

Offline martin o`who??

  • Member
  • Posts: 1537
  • Location: No mans land
  • Apparently I am my own worst enemy.
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2016, 07:52:53 AM »
Yes he was, i passionately believe the man had the clubs best interests at heart, his mistake was becoming disconnected from the club and allowing Faulkner to effectively run the whole show, i have written elsewhere that Faulkner has a lot to answer for in all this. He allowed MON to spunk Randys cash away unchecked, coupled with Randys divorce which has apparently wounded him, sorry, but i still cant help feeling slightly sorry for the man (Cue abuse).
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 08:14:45 PM by martin o`who?? »

Offline croatian

  • Member
  • Posts: 404
  • Age: 68
  • Location: UK. Not for long if I can help it....
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2016, 08:21:08 AM »
Yes he was, i passionately believe the man had the clubs best interests at heart, his mistake was becoming disconnected from the club and allowing Faulkner to effectively run the whole show, i have written elsewhere that Faulkner has a lot to answer for in all this. He allowed MON to spunk Randys cash away unchecked, coupled with Randys divorce which has apparently wounded him, sorry, but i still cant help feeling slightly sorry for the man (Queue abuse).
No abuse from me mate, but do you think he at least feels slightly sorry for us or our club?
I don't know, because it would appear we're not on the "Need to know" list.
I don't know anything, nor does anyone on here. Because we are not told anything of substance.

All we really do know is where the club is.
Everything else is speculation.

Online dave.woodhall

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61576
  • Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2016, 08:34:47 AM »
Yes he was, i passionately believe the man had the clubs best interests at heart, his mistake was becoming disconnected from the club and allowing Faulkner to effectively run the whole show, i have written elsewhere that Faulkner has a lot to answer for in all this. He allowed MON to spunk Randys cash away unchecked, coupled with Randys divorce which has apparently wounded him, sorry, but i still cant help feeling slightly sorry for the man (Queue abuse).

Most of the spending took place when Fitzgerald was in charge. It was under Faulkner that it stopped.

Offline martin o`who??

  • Member
  • Posts: 1537
  • Location: No mans land
  • Apparently I am my own worst enemy.
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2016, 08:17:20 PM »
Yes he was, i passionately believe the man had the clubs best interests at heart, his mistake was becoming disconnected from the club and allowing Faulkner to effectively run the whole show, i have written elsewhere that Faulkner has a lot to answer for in all this. He allowed MON to spunk Randys cash away unchecked, coupled with Randys divorce which has apparently wounded him, sorry, but i still cant help feeling slightly sorry for the man (Queue abuse).

Most of the spending took place when Fitzgerald was in charge. It was under Faulkner that it stopped.
Without trying to find the Football equivalent of Dark matter do we have a breakdown of the figures, I'd be genuinely interested to see them.

Online dave.woodhall

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 61576
  • Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2016, 08:28:04 PM »
Yes he was, i passionately believe the man had the clubs best interests at heart, his mistake was becoming disconnected from the club and allowing Faulkner to effectively run the whole show, i have written elsewhere that Faulkner has a lot to answer for in all this. He allowed MON to spunk Randys cash away unchecked, coupled with Randys divorce which has apparently wounded him, sorry, but i still cant help feeling slightly sorry for the man (Queue abuse).

Most of the spending took place when Fitzgerald was in charge. It was under Faulkner that it stopped.
Without trying to find the Football equivalent of Dark matter do we have a breakdown of the figures, I'd be genuinely interested to see them.

Faulkner only became CEO a couple of months before O'Neill left so any figures wouldn't be an accurate reflection.

Online Villa in Denmark

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11952
  • Age: 1024
  • Location: Lost
  • On a road to nowhere
  • GM : 07.09.2024
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2016, 11:56:10 AM »
I've long had the feeling that Faulkner won one "it's me or him" against O'Neill and then lost the next one after Lambert's second season when he wanted to give him the boot, but Lerner stood by the man "that had shown outstanding loyalty, the like of which he'd never seen before" and Faulkner took that as a vote of no confidence.

The irony is that for all the, in some cases deserved, brickbats thrown at Faulkner, I think that after 4 years, he'd actually started to get a good feel for what was needed and that summer was another case pf Lerner backing the wrong man.

Offline mr underhill

  • Member
  • Posts: 8493
Re: Was Lerner just naive?
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2016, 11:58:20 AM »
a well meaning but totally inept nincompoop - like something out of P G Wodehouse

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal