Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Jimmy Buffett on March 13, 2016, 07:34:50 PM
-
I know that Randy Lerner has brought AVFC to the brink of oblivion. However, I wonder if this man is just another 'aw shucks' American abroad who hasn't got a clue about what is going on around him. Here is a guy with inherited wealth who apparently had a soft spot for the Villa, formed in his time as a student in the UK. He bought us and promptly handed over the running of the club at every level to a mixture of incompetents, parasites, cynics and piss takers. The results are there for all to see. Perhaps Deadly D has a bit of a case to answer here for selling AVFC to an amateur, albeit well meaning at the start?
-
I can see clearly now the rain has gone.
-
People wanted DD out, hingsight is a wonderful thing, ay? Cleveland Browns fans told us this would happen...
-
I don't believe that he was that naive, but he took a gamble that MON could get us into the Champions League from which point the Club should have been self financing at the highest level. The gamble failed and the arrival of the new owners at Man Citeh further reduced the chance of us playing at the CL level. Despite having access to a multi billion family trust fund, he would not sustain the level of expenditure incurred in the early years.
Where Lerner has really failed badly was in the quality of appointments that he has made, both on executive and playing sides. Having decided to manage the finances more closely, it should not have been impossible to compete at Top 8 level while not breaking the bank. Sadly Lerner does not seem to have much of a vision for the Club and despite an education from one of the best establishments on the planet, does not appear to have the accumen to run a competitive organisation. Ultimately his failure to appoint talented people has led the club to the edge of disaster.
I just wonder whether he will use the parachute payment to cover his losses and let the club go for peanuts.
-
No. He's B-B-B-B-B-B-Baaaaaaaaaaaaad to the Bone.
-
Perhaps Deadly D has a bit of a case to answer here for selling AVFC to an amateur, albeit well meaning at the start?
I don't think anybody was critical of the choice at the time. In fact, for the first four seasons approval ratings probably increased. Blaming Ellis for our troubles now is a bit like the Tories blaming things on previous Labour governments.
-
Ive said this before and thought this several times, on here, and to whoever will listen, that RL is being taken for a ride by the £1m plus gang who are in it for themselves, not the fans and certainly not AVFC.
-
Irresponsible and stupid more like. Spend $250m and for six years not get involved with how it's managed.
-
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
-
He's not naive, he's just a tw4t.
-
I know that Randy Lerner has brought AVFC to the brink of oblivion.
Really ???
-
This Lerner really did have L plates.
-
He is naive and easily led e.g. The letter from SAF recommending McLeish. He is an old fashioned romantic who unfortunately doesn't live in the real world. Inherited his money had most things I imagine on a plate throughout his life. We really must be an itch he wants but can't get rid of.
-
I know many will disagree , but I just think he was Naive. The decision to appoint McLeish did smack of "I'll show you" , but even that was naive.I might be wrong , but I don't think any of the many bad decisions he has made were with malice.
-
Whatever enthusiasm Lerner had was bled dry by Mr O'Neil's behaviour. I think that R L was led to believe (as we all did at the time) that MO'N was some kind of managerial guru. But lots of money spent; lots of well paid players sat on bench or not even in the squad; promising youngsters sold; and then he storms off when his shortcomings were questioned. That's when I believe RL started to fall out of love with Aston Villa and football and losing an industrial tribunal just killed it dead.
Maybe it is us who were naive as much, if not more so, than RL. He was never in the Abramovich or the arabian oil sheik league regarding disposable income but we all hoped he was going to be the sugar daddy we craved and turned a blind eye to the reality.
-
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?
-
I can see alllll obstacles in my way.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Put it this way. I'm about to write to him to ask if he'd like to buy some of my magic beans.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
a well meaning but totally inept nincompoop - like something out of P G Wodehouse
-
a well meaning but totally inept nincompoop - like something out of P G Wodehouse
Ha, yes. Jeeves and Wooster. Unfortunately without Wooster.
-
and not much Jeeves
-
Oh B####CKS!
-
Randy Blandings Lerner
-
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.
L yeah 8)
-
"that had shown outstanding loyalty, the like of which he'd never seen before"...what type of loyalty did Lambert need to show? The type the rejects the advances of Blackburn Rovers and other Championship bottom-feeders?
I can't remember the (publicly known) details of Faulkner's departure. Was he happy to get out?
-
"that had shown outstanding loyalty, the like of which he'd never seen before"...what type of loyalty did Lambert need to show? The type the rejects the advances of Blackburn Rovers and other Championship bottom-feeders?
I can't remember the (publicly known) details of Faulkner's departure. Was he happy to get out?
I think the Lambert loyalty thing was some b/s in the aftermath of the Karsa / Culverhouse bullying saga. (i.e. he was happy to stick the boot into his mates to keep the job he wanted to be sacked from)
I'm not sure Faulkner was happy to go. It looked like something that had been there in the background for a short while and was suddenly announced about 24 hours after he'd done that charity abseil off the roof of The Holte.
The Faulkner thing is purely my unsubstantiated theory. The Lambert quote may not be verbatim, but it's close and definitely that level of protectionism.
-
I think Faulkner was a combination of his relationship with Randy not being what it had been previously, a bit of personal and possibly he could see what was coming and didn't think it was worth the aggravation.
-
I think Faulkner was a combination of his relationship with Randy not being what it had been previously, a bit of personal and possibly he could see what was coming and didn't think it was worth the aggravation.
I think that sounds right, and that the years of poor performance took its toll on their relationship. That's the problem of having a small board, when the shit starts to hit the fan the blame gets concentrated rather than spread around.