Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Fergal on January 17, 2011, 09:15:38 PM
-
Anyone still doubt Randy's commitment to the club?
-
Between "the bearhug" and these two deals, I'd like to see anyone come out with any anti-Randy stuff now. It's been a rough few weeks, but the sun is high in the sky again. Lots and lots of work to do but these signings makes things much easier.
-
Hats off 2 u Randy ;D
-
The real messiah.
-
I've never doubted him. It's pissed me off all season trying to explain to people the money is there and he'll back the manager when needed, everyone just believes whatever the media says.
-
I heard Pat Murphy having a snidey pop at him about not speaking to the press again tonight, this deal should change everyones view of Randy.
-
I've never doubted him. It's pissed me off all season trying to explain to people the money is there and he'll back the manager when needed, everyone just believes whatever the media says.
I was chatting with my West Ham mate yesterday who said its obvious why MON left Villa, the reason is Randy would not spend any more money on Villa. I said bollocks is it, watch this space!
-
Anyone still doubt Randy's commitment to the club?
pmk1981 says otherwise...
Serious though, I never doubted Randy - he was right to tell O'Twat to fuck off. He's a committed man towards Villa - he's still got enormous enthusiasm for the club and it's obvious he wants us to get back up where we belong challenging at the top that is why he's prepared to go out and spend the money on that goal scorer we need.
Randy Lerner is the man.
-
He's never been away. On VT they are reporting that Randy has just texted MysteryMan with "al u mofos can suk my dik"
-
I heard Pat Murphy having a snidey pop at him about not speaking to the press again tonight, this deal should change everyones view of Randy.
.
I heard it too, and old Pat was using the Bent deal to talk up MON on the basis that Randy should have given O'Neill the money. He never pointed out that if O'Neill had been prepared to hang around for a few months he might have got the money anyway when some of his overpaid under performers left the Club. Of course MON knew that between August and January it was going to be a rocky road. THAT is why he left us in the lurch, to save HIS reputation. And you what? It didn't work.
-
I have never doubted Randy! That's the truth. I doubted Mon & Houllier I will admit, Never Randy.
The Gen was right all along
-
How could I ever have doubted Randy, there's a rumour that we might buy a player!!! Actually I never have doubted him but calm down folks, it's not done yet, we're looking a bit deparate here.
-
Never doubted RL, I can say that with sincerity.
All the times he's been questioned in the past -generally at the height of silly season in the summer transfer window, he's come through with the goods. I was quite prepared to view the last pre season as the exception, rather than the rule. The events of early August being completely out of kilter with what had gone on before.
That said, I do think he or someone close to him could have communicated the position better. Even prior to August, MON was was subtly trying to make out that he was operating with one arm behind his back and weren't we the bad bastards for not letting him have his way completely.
I understand RL's reticence when it comes to the media, he prefers to do rather than say. But even if he wasn't comfortable conversing with them, General K could have given a straightforward interview to one of the more respectable papers outlining that there was money available and we weren't purely set on a downscaling/ cost cutting exercise.
Whereas in previous summers (yes, last year wasn't the first time that bobbins had started to circulate) we've dispelled that type of guff by spending, last summer probably needed a different approach. In the light of little direct communication from the club (save for the General's thread on this and other sites) the spin, waffle and outright bullshit from a number of media outlets became accepted fact. Sell to buy/ Villa are broke and so on.
-
In the light of little direct communication from the club (save for the General's thread on this and other sites) the spin, waffle and outright bullshit from a number of media outlets became accepted fact. Sell to buy/ Villa are broke and so on.
Which might - and this is only supposition - have just saved us a few million quid.
-
I've never doubted him. It's pissed me off all season trying to explain to people the money is there and he'll back the manager when needed, everyone just believes whatever the media says.
This with knobs on. That's why I diddn't bother, except in the GM club.
Bunch of moaning minnies.
-
Mystery man reckons were not finished with the spending as well, Hope he's right
-
He can't go wrong saying that, can he? Office supplies, fertiliser for the grass, new left-hand drive training cones for Bodymoor...
-
It's all very well mocking him, but he knew this deal was happening a week ago.
-
ITSOTP.
That's great for him. I'm quite happy to wait for the Villa top held aloft pics at Bodymoor.
-
ITSOTP.
What does that mean BE ? Excuse my ignorance.
In answer to the thread question. No.
-
ITSOTP?
-
In the shirt on the pitch
-
It's all very well mocking him, but he knew this deal was happening a week ago.
Didn't we all?
-
Thanks Phil.
-
It's all very well mocking him, but he knew this deal was happening a week ago.
Didn't we all?
Well you did. Don't worry Dave, you're still my favourite. ;)
-
I said having backed houllier that randy had to fully back him with a lot of cash this window and he has done so, well done to randy, Paul, the general and pelty for reassuring us we were chasing a big signing- and well done to gerard!
-
Hey dave how come BBC didn't have you on midlands today? They had some woman slaggin off the manager and moaning we should sign miller and not bent!
-
Couldn't afford his fee.
-
Never doubted Randy, I still am not convinced that GH is the right man for the job, but that has nothing to do with our great chairman.
-
Amidst all the euphoria, I am staggered at the amount of money Lerner is committing this month. I thought he would back Houllier but these sums are unbelievable. Where is this money coming from?
On a cautionary note, he is taking a huge financial gamble on Houllier turning the side around over the next four months. Fair play for backing him but it would be financial armageddon if the unthinkable happened.
For the moment though, it's exciting to be a Villa fan again.
-
Ive NEVER ever doubted randy. the only thing that has let him down has been his naive faith in MON and his f-ing ridiculous signings and general 1970s way of doing things. He has since seen the error of his ways and got in an intellegent manager that WILL lead us onto better things. As long as the short sighted instant success craving idiots dont have their way and start with the houllier out crap if we lose a couple more, the good times will be restored to this club. mark my words
Randy
Gerrard
Sid
KMac
Bent
Gabby
Clark
Albrighton
Delfounso
Gardner
The right people in the right places
-
He's backed his man. Fair play to him.
-
Never doubted him and never will, even if the Bent deal doesn't happen
-
Today has been such a bolt out of the blue. Never thought I'd see us put up that sort of money. What a way to show we mean business!
I really hope we see Bent in a villa shirt at BH tomorrow!
-
Maybe because the General took the time in the summer to explain why funds would always be available but we should get rid of players that had zero future in the manager's plans, I've never doubted the clubs objectives. The media and other clubs fans never quite understood and even today, reading Sunderland, WHU and the Rags forums all thought we are skint, sighting it as the reason MON left before the start of the season.
A lot could be done to improve the communication between the press and the club but for now I'd prefer we do our talking on the pitch. In the end, that's all that matters.
-
In the light of little direct communication from the club (save for the General's thread on this and other sites) the spin, waffle and outright bullshit from a number of media outlets became accepted fact. Sell to buy/ Villa are broke and so on.
Which might - and this is only supposition - have just saved us a few million quid.
There is that.
But my concern was that this myth was said so often, repeated in so many quarters that it created a negative image of the club. Which could -in turn- impact on the calibre of player we might hope to attract. Who wants to join a club on the slide?
You could make the argument that if any player has such concerns, a good way to convince them if to pay the fee and wages required. End of story. By the sounds of it, an England international currently playing for a club making good progress in the league wanted out as soon as he knew we were interested. So our reputation can't have taken too much of a hit over the past few months. We're still an attractive option for decent players.
-
In some quarters we could have signed Rooney, Messi and Tevez, and still they'd have said we were skint. Some quarters will never forgive us for not begging their mate Martin to stay.
-
I've never doubted Randy, he loves the club and if you get a chance to go on the tour of Villa Park then speak to the staff and you will hear more stories about his love for the Villa than you will ever read in the press.
-
Never doubted... The guy is class...
-
Its been extremely frustrating at times reading some of the absolute bollocks coming from the media, I know I should rise above it and not let it bother me but when so many of them are turning it into a pantomime with MON as the good guy and Randy as the Villain with such things as 'Mon may have left Villa physically, but not before Randy left them spiritually' it makes my blood boil, not once was it said that funds would'nt be available, they just put their own twist on it, I knew signings would be made in this window but the amount we've spent and the manner we've done it is amazing and a big fuck you to the pro-MON media
-
I doubted Randy Lerner's commitment to the club. It appears I was wrong. While Bent is chronically overpriced etc etc, relegation would mean meltdown for this club. I cant see Gabby or Carew getting 5 goals between now and the end of the season (even between them they will be doing well on current form) but if injury free Bent will guarantee Id say 5-8 goals. That will keep us up imo and the additional money will be worth it.
It is a major statement of intent and will add a few thousand to the gate at Villa Park I would imagine and give every player who has a future at Villa Park a boost. Bent does have a fine goalscoring record at EPL level. At 27, you would hope that will continue for another 3 or 4 seasons. He needs to play off someone so 433/451 is out I would say. The mixture of Heskey/Gabby/Carew should suffice until the end of the season where I suspect we will be in the market again. For the remaining months of the season, Makoun, Walker and Bent will hugely improve our side. I still have huge doubts about Houllier but you cant deny the quality of those three signings anyway. It will be enough to keep us up.
On Downing, I'm not gone on him as a player. He is having a decent season and dont get me wrong is a tidy player. But unless he settles supplying bullets for Bent I wouldnt be averse to us getting our money back on him in the summer particularly if Young stays. I just think the balance is wrong slightly with our wide players at the moment - Young, Albrighton and Downing. They all like to stand on the touchline which leaves our two in midfield a little stretched. I wouldnt mind having a narrower option there too
-
I believed before we have the best owner in the UK* and today has just re-affirmed this viewpoint.
*possibly the World but I don't know enough about foreign football to judge.
-
There is an alternate view: after the largesse of the MON years, Randy did indeed plan on paring back the spending on playing staff. He perhaps thought that a combination of the young players coming through, and a manager supposedly with a finger on the pulse of the European scene yielding some relatively cheap buys, would suffice.
He then surveys the scene in January. Piss-poor performances on the pitch and a club free-falling towards relegation. He looks at the spreadsheets and sees what life in the Championship would do the value of his investment and the projected fall in income.
He then does the mother of all U-turns and tells Houllier to get spending.
This is a pragmatic decision about protecting his investment, rather than a declaration of an undying love for the Villa.
-
In some quarters we could have signed Rooney, Messi and Tevez, and still they'd have said we were skint. Some quarters will never forgive us for not begging their mate Martin to stay.
How right you are
-
Anyone that says that they didn't have a single doubt is either very naive or very stupid. We were inactive in two transfer windows last year, we sold our best player and lost a successful manager. Most of the criticism of the owners was over the top and misplaced but there was every reason to start to wonder if the global financial situation and the new money in the PL had caused Randy to reconsider how he wanted to go forward.
The Bent deal is a great signal of intent but I bet even those claiming that they didn't give a second thought to his position were surprised that we were in the market at that sort of level.
-
There is an alternate view: after the largesse of the MON years, Randy did indeed plan on paring back the spending on playing staff. He perhaps thought that a combination of the young players coming through, and a manager supposedly with a finger on the pulse of the European scene yielding some relatively cheap buys, would suffice.
He then surveys the scene in January. Piss-poor performances on the pitch and a club free-falling towards relegation. He looks at the spreadsheets and sees what life in the Championship would do the value of his investment and the projected fall in income.
He then does the mother of all U-turns and tells Houllier to get spending.
This is a pragmatic decision about protecting his investment, rather than a declaration of an undying love for the Villa.
I agree with the above more than any of the earlier posts 8)
-
Can't see how anyone could've doubted someone who's done so much for the club in such a short space of time. Even if we don't spend loads in January, he's still been extremely beneficial for Aston Villa.
A chairman cannot consistently spend money on players and wages, it's just not possible, unless they own Man City.
-
Anyone that says that they didn't have a single doubt is either very naive or very stupid. We were inactive in two transfer windows last year, we sold our best player and lost a successful manager. Most of the criticism of the owners was over the top and misplaced but there was every reason to start to wonder if the global financial situation and the new money in the PL had caused Randy to reconsider how he wanted to go forward.
The Bent deal is a great signal of intent but I bet even those claiming that they didn't give a second thought to his position were surprised that we were in the market at that sort of level.
100% how i feel. I notice there are some on here that now claim they've 'never doubted Randy', but the same posters have recently suggested the the GFC and Man Citeh have made RL realise that we couldn't compete - can't have it both ways.
I don't doubt Randy's love for the Villa, and i'm happy that he doesn't give GH or whoever Ridsdale style blank cheques to throw around. It's our future thats at stake just as much as his.
-
I'm a cynic by nature and I doubt everyone.
Let's seal the Bent deal, let's see whether anyone will be sold to finance it, let's see whether we stay in the premier league ( fuck me, can't believe I'm typing that).
-
Other fans of other clubs that I come across - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man U etc etc - always go on about us being skint and that's why O'Neill left. I always wondered at the pure puzzlement in their eyes when I said that money was there but O'Neill was told to sell, but wouldn't, before he could get his hands on it. I think now they'll believe it. Whether its the right amount for the right person is another question. What isn't in question though is what teh General has always said, Randy will back his manager.
-
Amidst all the euphoria, I am staggered at the amount of money Lerner is committing this month. I thought he would back Houllier but these sums are unbelievable. Where is this money coming from?
My guess would be that Lerner has made the Milner money (£18m) available, which has just about funded the Bent deal. On top of which, there was almost certainly some transfer budget set aside last summer, which wasn't used up at all, and then I'd imagine there is a second transfer budget for January. So, it might look as if we're on a crazy spending spree, when in fact we're not - we're self-funding in the main.
That, in some ways, is following a sell to buy policy but in the right way, not in the way the papers seemed to think. And I think it's a sensible way forward. GH has begun to trim the squad; Sidwell's wages probably cover Makoun's wages, the initial loan fee Fulham have paid us for Sidwell probably covers whatever we've had to pay Spurs for Walker's loan.
I think we'll see at least one or two more departures by the close of the window - Carew, Ireland, Warnock looks finished. If we're really lucky, Beye. I wouldn't mind betting that we'd be close to balancing the transfer books by the end of January, or we'll have a reasonably modest net spend.
-
we missed the last window, so this is a bit of catchup,
we are doing what Randy always wanted to do, buy some big named players, but MON wanted well you know... Harwood and heskey
he just ran out of trust with MON and so did i as did a lot of other fans,
when other supporters say to me 'but you finished 6th last year' i say yeah, but you didnt have to watch it,
as bad as its been so far this season some of are performances last season especially at home nearly made me give up the will to live.
i was delighted when MON went.
then we had a long period picking a new manager, some felt this was because Randy didnt know what he was doing or was a weak man,
i just think he was thorough, and once the decision was made he was always going to stand by his man,
because he's strong not weak.
now we will see the team Houllier will build, after prem saftey is secured , i'm hopefull it will be more entertaining than the last couple of years,
but we wont know untill Houllier is given a bit of time to build and get rid of a bit of deadwood, so we'l see.
Randy for me is the best Chairman in the prem league, only made the one mistake [ the badge/crest] but we can forgive him for that
-
I think when Randy took over we thought we'd be getting deals like this more often, but with MON seemingly so reluctant to spend the really big money the doubts set in.
Hopefully come April we'll be on the first page of ceefax, smoking a cigar, thinking back to those crazy days in January when we thought we might go down.
-
I must admit to being one how didn't necessarily doubt Randy, but at least asked a question or two in the summer.
He's just answered them.
-
Randy is a brilliant owner i'm glad we have got him, he is doing the right things i allways had faith in RL and allways will he as seen we need a striker to score goals and he as gone out and got one of the best in the business which is fair play to him, and he is also getting rid of the deadwood at Villa Park so i take my hat off to him.
-
I did try telling you that there was cash available. Perhaps some who questioned it might believe me now.
Well done Randy. This window is one where football will sit up and take notice of what we have done.
-
Amidst all the euphoria, I am staggered at the amount of money Lerner is committing this month. I thought he would back Houllier but these sums are unbelievable. Where is this money coming from?
My guess would be that Lerner has made the Milner money (£18m) available, which has just about funded the Bent deal. On top of which, there was almost certainly some transfer budget set aside last summer, which wasn't used up at all, and then I'd imagine there is a second transfer budget for January. So, it might look as if we're on a crazy spending spree, when in fact we're not - we're self-funding in the main.
That, in some ways, is following a sell to buy policy but in the right way, not in the way the papers seemed to think. And I think it's a sensible way forward. GH has begun to trim the squad; Sidwell's wages probably cover Makoun's wages, the initial loan fee Fulham have paid us for Sidwell probably covers whatever we've had to pay Spurs for Walker's loan.
I think we'll see at least one or two more departures by the close of the window - Carew, Ireland, Warnock looks finished. If we're really lucky, Beye. I wouldn't mind betting that we'd be close to balancing the transfer books by the end of January, or we'll have a reasonably modest net spend.
We are absolutely nothing like self funding. Take a look at our financial figures.
We've just spent 7m on Makoun and 18-24m on Darren Bent. That's a spending spree by anyone's definition.
I can't believe anyone thinks that is anything but a gigantic investment in the club by the chairman.
-
Aside from Man City, and old school Chelsea this investment is big in anyones books. To think otherwise would be ludicrous. I still believe the goal of the club is bring salaries into line with revenues, but going down would have blown just about everything up. Backing Houllier in this manner obviously has its strings. Just as it did with MON. I'm just very confident that Houllier will carry through on the plan as opposed to storming out.
And while we are congratulating Randy, can I also say fair fucking play to Paul Faulkner. He gets overlooked but he's been brilliant in getting these deals pushed through with the minimum of fuss. You see the relationship he has with Randy from the Chelsea game. These deals should elevate him in our eyes too.
-
I never doubted him, I always thought the fact he had that tatoo was proof enough for me that he means us to do well.
He has/will make mistakes but just about as good an owner as you can get.
Look around and thank god we dont have some owners I could mention.
-
Amidst all the euphoria, I am staggered at the amount of money Lerner is committing this month. I thought he would back Houllier but these sums are unbelievable. Where is this money coming from?
My guess would be that Lerner has made the Milner money (£18m) available, which has just about funded the Bent deal. On top of which, there was almost certainly some transfer budget set aside last summer, which wasn't used up at all, and then I'd imagine there is a second transfer budget for January. So, it might look as if we're on a crazy spending spree, when in fact we're not - we're self-funding in the main.
That, in some ways, is following a sell to buy policy but in the right way, not in the way the papers seemed to think. And I think it's a sensible way forward. GH has begun to trim the squad; Sidwell's wages probably cover Makoun's wages, the initial loan fee Fulham have paid us for Sidwell probably covers whatever we've had to pay Spurs for Walker's loan.
I think we'll see at least one or two more departures by the close of the window - Carew, Ireland, Warnock looks finished. If we're really lucky, Beye. I wouldn't mind betting that we'd be close to balancing the transfer books by the end of January, or we'll have a reasonably modest net spend.
We are absolutely nothing like self funding. Take a look at our financial figures.
We've just spent 7m on Makoun and 18-24m on Darren Bent. That's a spending spree by anyone's definition.
I can't believe anyone thinks that is anything but a gigantic investment in the club by the chairman.
Bottom line is it will still be money owed by Villa to Lerner. We seem to have gone from taking action to bring our wages to earnings ratio to a more manageable percentage to taking a gamble on investing whatever is required to ensure we remain in the League this season.
There could already be plans in place in the Summer that sees the likes of Young and Downing leave to offset this window. However, as I said in my earlier post, should the unthinkable happen, and we go down (and we have a lot to do despite everyone assuming Bent will be the saviour), as a club we will have serious financial problems to address.
-
Bottom line is it will still be money owed by Villa to Lerner. We seem to have gone from taking action to bring our wages to earnings ratio to a more manageable percentage to taking a gamble on investing whatever is required to ensure we remain in the League this season.
There could already be plans in place in the Summer that sees the likes of Young and Downing leave to offset this window. However, as I said in my earlier post, should the unthinkable happen, and we go down (and we have a lot to do despite everyone assuming Bent will be the saviour), as a club we will have serious financial problems to address.
When you think about it, Randy is far miore likely to want to pump money into HIS asset if such money remains within it. With transfers that's the case as the balance sheet would reflect the transfer value of the squad. Basically, buying Bent means Villa is worth more.
The difference with wages is that this money goes out of the club and as such too large a wagebill detracts from the asset value. So if he's funding them he's spending money to see the club worth less.
In that case, his actions are understandable in wanting the wages lowered, but still being willing to fund the signings.
I'm sure some accountant will now put me right on that....
-
Would most, if not all, of the players have a clause in their contract reducing their wages to more manageable levels if we were relegated?
-
And still they try to find fault ?
What exactly do you want Randy to do?
Provide Man City / Old Chelsea type funding ? Which club apart from Villa has been top or second in the transfer spending over the last 4 years. Pages of what looks now total inane rubbish has been sprouted by the usual idiots and some more respected contributors on how the club was broke, how Randy was pulling his money out, that Randy no longer cared about Villa, that he needed to bring in the loans and as such needed to sell players, BEFORE we bought again.
Did anyone expect him to try and get a striker for 18-24 mill and that after spending 6 mill on Makoun and with several other potential purchases in the offing.
No you bloody smart arses didn't and so far I've seen only one, and that a qualified apology. Perhaps those threads should be highlighted so we can see again exactly who the naysayers were.
I'd also like to add in this little rant, that if the deal goes through like the Makoun deal, the Walker deal, its been done quickly efficiently and mostly at a great surprise to every Villa fan and most media sources. What a refreshing change that is from the last 4 seasons under turncoat O'Neill.
Whether the deal comes off or not its obvious it won't be Villa's, Randy's, Faulkner's or Houlliers fault if it doesn't and that for me is a refreshing show of intent and one which puts all those smart arsed doomsayers, many who were totally shitfaced by O'Neills exit, sitting licking their wounds even more.
Considering what the guy has done for the club already, in comparison to past owners/Directors and most other owners the guys a gem. I don't always see eye to eye with his policies and dealings in and out of Villa, but I can't see how anyone can denigrate what the guy has done for Villa, even if we do get relegated.
When I think of the wasted opportunities that have gone before, the present attacks even when such a signing looks imminent is a disgrace to the name of Aston Villa fandom.
-
what a prize prick
-
I want Randy's baby. I love him.
-
Did anyone expect him to try and get a striker for 18-24 mill and that after spending 6 mill on Makoun and with several other potential purchases in the offing.
No you bloody smart arses didn't
Did you?
I won't expect you to answer as i'm now convinced you're lying in a dark room crying.
-
Anyone that says that they didn't have a single doubt is either very naive or very stupid. We were inactive in two transfer windows last year, we sold our best player and lost a successful manager. Most of the criticism of the owners was over the top and misplaced but there was every reason to start to wonder if the global financial situation and the new money in the PL had caused Randy to reconsider how he wanted to go forward.
The Bent deal is a great signal of intent but I bet even those claiming that they didn't give a second thought to his position were surprised that we were in the market at that sort of level.
Why were we inactive in the last two transfer windows? IIRC we went over budget when we bought Warnock in during the summer, so it was no surprise we didn't bring anybody in during January. Last summer we all know what happened with the manager's position.
The question is, do you believe that Randy was unhappy paying wages to players that were not being used? I for one certainly hope he was. The General stated in the summer that funds were available for MON but wanted wages paid to players that deserved them, not the players in the squad that were never used. That was understandably seen as a waste of resources. Apparently MON understood the situation. We don't know what made MON leave, maybe it was he thought he'd lose face with Randy when we only got peanuts for some of the players he'd bought. We don't know but I never thought Randy had closed his wallet, just he wanted to make better use of the expenditure.
I remember when our financial results were posted on here and a few quite rightly questioned how we could support such numbers. The General again posted how the numbers were no surprise to the club and that the debt had been factored in to their business plan. Nothing had changed in terms of their overall objectives.
Now I guess the big question is should we believe the General. Putting aside his honourable character, the fact that if he were to lie/mislead us on here and the other sites he posts on, his whole credibility would instantly go out the window; it would be a massive PR disaster, undoing 4 years good work. To avoid such a situation, it would have been better for him not to give answers regarding financial issues or deflect with half answers. That never happened.
Now you can call me "very naive or very stupid" but why should I doubt him? I'm a cynical bastard at the best of times but over these last four years he's earned my trust (as well as my respect). I understand why people question Randy's objectives, especially when we look back at our previous chairman and the circus that is modern day football, especially in England. I just think we still haven't quite come to terms with just how fortunate we are to have Randy Lerner as our owner. Obviously things can change and they probably will but right now I wouldn't want anybody else running our club.
As for the Bent signing, you're right, I never thought we'd be in for that level of investment, as least not now, not this window. I just hope it pays off, not only for ourselves but also for Randy Lerner. What's obvious is our turnover doesn't come anywhere near supporting this type of investment and with a wage bill that accounts for 85% of it, he must be mad or extremely dedicated. Probably both.
-
Most of it, but particularly this:
Now you can call me "very naive or very stupid" but why should I doubt him? I'm a cynical bastard at the best of times but over these last four years he's earned my trust (as well as my respect). I understand why people question Randy's objectives, especially when we look back at our previous chairman and the circus that is modern day football, especially in England. I just think we still haven't quite come to terms with just how fortunate we are to have Randy Lerner as our owner. Obviously things can change and they probably will but right now I wouldn't want anybody else running our club.
Spot on MK.
-
Most of it, but particularly this:
Now you can call me "very naive or very stupid" but why should I doubt him? I'm a cynical bastard at the best of times but over these last four years he's earned my trust (as well as my respect). I understand why people question Randy's objectives, especially when we look back at our previous chairman and the circus that is modern day football, especially in England. I just think we still haven't quite come to terms with just how fortunate we are to have Randy Lerner as our owner. Obviously things can change and they probably will but right now I wouldn't want anybody else running our club.
Spot on MK.
Doubting Randy is akin to being a high-maintenance girlfriend saing to her cash cow that she's 'doubting' how much he loves her, unless she keeps buying her loads of expensive shit.
Yes Lerner has, once again, but his money where is mouth is. But there was little reason to doubt him in December, in September when he appointed GH, in August when he laid down the law to MON, and the three years before that.
RL is putting the hard yards in, has put them in and puts other new-money foreign benefactors to shame with his emotional commitment, let alone his financial ones.
In Randy I trust, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
-
From a financial perspective we ended the summer window about £12-14m up on transfer fees, plus unspent monies on league placing (I assume that that money remains set aside for transfer fees). So 18m on Bent and 6m on Makoun (less 2-3m for Sidwell) isn't that far wide of that. Add in that the window is not yet closed and we could see departures and I don't think the case is firmly proven that the levels of investment we have seen before year on year are continuing.
Sfx412 (whats that moniker about?!) - I'll put my post up for criticism as a "naysayer" - if on the 31st Jan the net transfer fee spend is greater than 20 million then I'll offer an apology, unreserved, to who ever is asking for it.
Log this post.
-
I think the problem was a lack of communication, other than the General on here who couldn't and wouldn't get draw on specifics. What we saw was our best player go, plus Shorey, following no signings in Jan, when MON admitted it was 'sell to buy'. There were numerous reasons put up for this, but with the emergence of Man City and Spurs our CL ambitions seemed further away than ever, and if Randy also thought that then it may have explained the change in approach.
As I said a page or two back - it wasn't a matter of doubting him, but it was fair to ask a question or two. However, actions speak louder than words so rather than pamper to the likes of me he kept his own council and then put his money where his mouth wasn't.
Fair fucks to him, but even if some like to have a pop I think querying what was going was justified at the time.
-
Call me naive, or trusting, but I never doubted for a moment that they would back the manager with whatever was necessary. Maybe the last couple of months have shown that the Lerner Vision needs heavy short-term investment to keep the long-term goals achievable.
-
Mark, I gave my reasons why I thought it was reasonable for doubts, not about his commitment but as to the direction he wanted to go, i.e. the changed global financial climate and the altered landscape since Man City started throwing around cash like confetti. It's not unreasonable that would cause people to look at the situation and wonder if he might review the business model at VP.
This thread is starting to sound like a McCarthyite challenge with everyone desperate to prove just how loyal they are. It is not a heresy to have stopped to think about things given the circumstances.
-
Call me naive, or trusting, but I never doubted for a moment that they would back the manager with whatever was necessary. Maybe the last couple of months have shown that the Lerner Vision needs heavy short-term investment to keep the long-term goals achievable.
It was only a few weeks ago that you were saying how you thought we were more likely to be looking at the "stars of the future". This is at the opposite end of the spectrum to that approach.
-
Once it was clear that GH was staying I thought he would be backed up with money, just nowhere near this much. Its incredible.
-
I think the problem was a lack of communication, other than the General on here who couldn't and wouldn't get draw on specifics.
To be fair, I don't think it was anything of the sort. Other clubs don't tell their fans who they are going to buy and sell either.
It is true that the press piled onto this "pulling the plug" thing wholeheartedly, but with Lerner's track record of investment in us, it was really disappointing to see so many people point the finger at him, sometimes quite aggressively.
I thought the least he deserved, the very least, was the benefit of the doubt.
-
Mark, I gave my reasons why I thought it was reasonable for doubts, not about his commitment but as to the direction he wanted to go, i.e. the changed global financial climate and the altered landscape since Man City started throwing around cash like confetti. It's not unreasonable that would cause people to look at the situation and wonder if he might review the business model at VP.
This thread is starting to sound like a McCarthyite challenge with everyone desperate to prove just how loyal they are. It is not a heresy to have stopped to think about things given the circumstances.
Thank you for eloquently putting down views that are not dissimilar to my own. He's been good for this club, but is not perfect, and we're not through the window yet to clearly see if this is new investment or going to be recycled transfer fees.
For this club to really push on, I believe they need to continue the investment beyond means if they want to challenge for Europe. Its not clear if that is still the case (and won't be until this window closes) - there's been a stalling in the last two transfer windows and noises from the General making clear that RAL had invested alot of money (but with no re-assurance that that was to continue), the media do have a view on events and surely there is no smoke without fire. With deafening silence from the club on such matters its more than reasonable to question strategy without being a heretic.
-
"recycled transfer fees"
you couldnt make it up.
-
sorry, i'm clearly a heretic.
-
When a club smashes its transfer record I would imagine their strategy is pretty clear, no matter what a director might or might not say.
-
I think the problem was a lack of communication, other than the General on here who couldn't and wouldn't get draw on specifics.
To be fair, I don't think it was anything of the sort. Other clubs don't tell their fans who they are going to buy and sell either.
It is true that the press piled onto this "pulling the plug" thing wholeheartedly, but with Lerner's track record of investment in us, it was really disappointing to see so many people point the finger at him, sometimes quite aggressively.
I thought the least he deserved, the very least, was the benefit of the doubt.
Personally I felt I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it was always a case of seeing what happened in the next window to alay those doubts, which he has done.
And I do think communication was a problem. We are not very media savvy as a club so the press made up their own stories, favouring the sensational as per usual, without anything coming out to say different.
Now I know we shouldn't believe the press, but as fans we were left in the dark as much as anyone until they club had a chance to act. Personally it's not a problem once something like this happens, but until it does you have uncertainty fed by media spin.
-
I agree on the uncertainty re media spin. My point was that it was disappointing so many opted to believe that, rather than a board which thus far has not let us down.
-
Short term: absolutely delighted funds have been made available for squad strengthening. Suprised at level of investment.
Medium/long term: still worried about getting the club self-sustaining, including repaying loan notes (from 2016 onwards). Doubting Randy or just being an unduly nervous Nerris for the future of AVFC, not sure - some previous investment has been converted to shares vs base + 2% interest and "management" fees.
-
I haven't read all this thread, but this seems as good a place as any to say:
WELL DONE RANDY. THANK YOU.
-
Mark, I gave my reasons why I thought it was reasonable for doubts, not about his commitment but as to the direction he wanted to go, i.e. the changed global financial climate and the altered landscape since Man City started throwing around cash like confetti. It's not unreasonable that would cause people to look at the situation and wonder if he might review the business model at VP.
Sure, the two points you make are certainly valid; the changed global financial climate and the arrival of Man City's billions. I'm sure Randy Lerner spent many an hour thinking how these will impact on our plans.
I agree that "most of the criticism of the owners was over the top and misplaced" and to steal another of your lines, it was "either very naive or very stupid" as it was based on absolutely no evidence. Even when the General came out and explained our position, some just refused to accept it. As John M points out, our communication could certainly be improved and the "sell to buy" line should have been addressed by the club, not just by the General on the forums.
-
Nice one Randy
Nice one Son
Nice one Randy
Now lets have another one ....
or Two or Three
-
Thank you Randy.
-
Mark, I gave my reasons why I thought it was reasonable for doubts, not about his commitment but as to the direction he wanted to go, i.e. the changed global financial climate and the altered landscape since Man City started throwing around cash like confetti. It's not unreasonable that would cause people to look at the situation and wonder if he might review the business model at VP.
Sure, the two points you make are certainly valid; the changed global financial climate and the arrival of Man City's billions. I'm sure Randy Lerner spent many an hour thinking how these will impact on our plans.
That, plus the Portsmouth situation and the new FIFA regulations set to come in all probably impacted on strategy vis a vis wages.
RL might not be intending to bail anytime soon, but it's prudent to plan for most eventualities. If, for the sake or argument, part of his wealth was wiped out in the next 18 months or he faced a family crisis that meant his interest in Villa was no longer a priority where would we be then with the wage bill in the state it was in?
That's why I never had an issue with the clubs stance this summer and why I had little sympathy for MON.
Prior to that (and indeed after) RL (via the General) always maintained that funds would be available, but not at Chelsea/ Man Citeh levels. And that's fair enough. I guess it partly comes down to what you expected of him when he came in. I thought that we'd have a guy who would invest a decent amount to get the squad competitive and up to scratch and that -in time- we'd get to a situation where we would be self financing to a degree. That is, having enough assets on the books to sell at profit and trade that way. My criticism towards Ellis at the end was he wasn't prepared to invest the sums on talented youngish players that would even allow for us to do that.
Others probably expected marquee signings. Nowt wrong with that either.
As it stands, with this latest expenditure (plus by all accounts more by Feb 1st) I'd like to see where we are in terms of overall spends compared to other English clubs since Aug 2006. I'm pretty certain we'll be near the top.
-
As it stands, with this latest expenditure (plus by all accounts more by Feb 1st) I'd like to see where we are in terms of overall spends compared to other English clubs since Aug 2006. I'm pretty certain we'll be near the top.
More valid is from January 2007 as MON only had the chance to bring in Petrov in August 2006, which obviously makes the figures less impressive than they really are.
-
I agree on the uncertainty re media spin. My point was that it was disappointing so many opted to believe that, rather than a board which thus far has not let us down.
I don't think most did, but barring any evidence or assurance to the contrary I think some rightly asked a question or two.
-
I think this proves that Randy was always willing to spend, he just wasn't willing to give the money to O'Neill with the prospect of him spending it on McGeady and Keane.
-
I think this proves that Randy was always willing to spend, he just wasn't willing to give the money to O'Neill with the prospect of him spending it on McGeady and Keane.
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
-
A major major statement of intent.
I havent felt like this about a new signing since Dean Saunders.
-
A major major statement of intent.
I havent felt like this about a new signing since Dean Saunders.
Collymore or Saunders, I would agree. Saunders was the better return on investment, but was still pretty short lived, although he was in the twilight of his career when we got him.
-
I think this proves that Randy was always willing to spend, he just wasn't willing to give the money to O'Neill with the prospect of him spending it on McGeady and Keane.
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
I think it was pretty obvious that Randy had doubts about O'Neill, hence the refusal to allow him to buy anymore players before the ones he had already bought and hardly used were moved on. I don't think it was just about wages (although this was definitely a factor), it was also about value for money, and players like Sidwell, Davies and Harewood did not provide it.
Now of course all managers make bad signings, but O'Neill's stubbornness when asked to admit to his and move them on was the reason he walked. (In my opinion!)
-
I think this proves that Randy was always willing to spend, he just wasn't willing to give the money to O'Neill with the prospect of him spending it on McGeady and Keane.
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
The issue was always about wages to players that would never play.
-
I think this proves that Randy was always willing to spend, he just wasn't willing to give the money to O'Neill with the prospect of him spending it on McGeady and Keane.
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
I think it was pretty obvious that Randy had doubts about O'Neill, hence the refusal to allow him to buy anymore players before the ones he had already bought and hardly used were moved on. I don't think it was just about wages (although this was definitely a factor), it was also about value for money, and players like Sidwell, Davies and Harewood did not provide it.
Now of course all managers make bad signings, but O'Neill's stubbornness when asked to admit to his and move them on was the reason he walked. (In my opinion!)
They did have doubts about his transfer targets, but the main issue was wages.
Keane was asking for a weekly wage similar to what he was demanding from the Dog shit and McGeady was demanding a wage far in excess of his abilities.
Combined fee for the both of them was nearly the full Milner proceeds.
Value for money?
-
I agree on the uncertainty re media spin. My point was that it was disappointing so many opted to believe that, rather than a board which thus far has not let us down.
I don't think most did, but barring any evidence or assurance to the contrary I think some rightly asked a question or two.
Asking a question is one thing. The lack of trust and respect shown by many was truly embarrassing. It might not have been the majority but the number of people who turned in him at the first opportunity was depressing.
-
I agree on the uncertainty re media spin. My point was that it was disappointing so many opted to believe that, rather than a board which thus far has not let us down.
I don't think most did, but barring any evidence or assurance to the contrary I think some rightly asked a question or two.
Asking a question is one thing. The lack of trust and respect shown by many was truly embarrassing. It might not have been the majority but the number of people who turned in him at the first opportunity was depressing.
I agree. RL's reluctance to converse with the media and tell all has been a stick to beat him by some so they make up what they think is happening and it then becomes fact while at the same time completely forgetting what has gone before.
-
I agree on the uncertainty re media spin. My point was that it was disappointing so many opted to believe that, rather than a board which thus far has not let us down.
I don't think most did, but barring any evidence or assurance to the contrary I think some rightly asked a question or two.
Asking a question is one thing. The lack of trust and respect shown by many was truly embarrassing. It might not have been the majority but the number of people who turned in him at the first opportunity was depressing.
It was indeed.
I think anybody who pays attention to my posts (and that should be everybody.....right?) will know my thoughts already.
I can hand on heart say that I did not doubt Randy's full support for one second and I defy anybody to call me stupid or naive. Nor am I claiming to be special, loyal or whatever and neither am I criticising anybody who was asking the odd question, its only natural. But the level of some of the snidey, underhanded and downright abusive remarks was quite ridiculous at times.
You dont have to buy players in every window to prove your support. You dont have to back a manager that is wasting resources with reckless profligacy and will not take steps to arrest it, in fact its right for the club not to. Everything Randy has done since he came to us, chose us, has earned him a pass when any doubts arise in my opinion. At the very least that.
I cant believe anybody would doubt him after his investment, and I'm not just talking financial but emotional.
When you lift up the slabs and see the lengths Randy has gone to in restoring this club, the little things, the fine details that he really doesn't need to do yet has with gusto, then its just a matter of common sense for me. If he does that, he has the club in his heart. Therefore he'll do the right thing as he sees it. He'll invest when he feels he can and should and what else can you ask?
Will it always be this way? I dont know. I cant see him getting bored as such but one day he may feel he has done all he can and wants to retire to the background and let somebody else have a crack. I hope that day is a long, long way off, but I think he'll always have Villa in his heart, just like any of the most dedicated of us. He is one of us.
-
I think this proves that Randy was always willing to spend, he just wasn't willing to give the money to O'Neill with the prospect of him spending it on McGeady and Keane.
No, I don't see it that way at all.
Randy has never struck me as the sort of chairman who would 2nd guess his manager's judgement on a player. It's not that he objected to signing Keane and McGeady, but he objected to signing them before high wage earners that weren't getting a look in were moved on.
-
I dont think Randy would second guess a managers dealings in isolation but when its a long spell of wasting money, I'd be disappointed and suprised if he didn't have an opinion on it.
-
think it all comes down to whether you think there was sort of a plan. Not the semi-mythical 5 year plan but a solid idea of getting the side into the top4. I believe there was, and like investing in say an extension, if after 4 years its not finished, doesn't look like being finished and the builder wants another 20k to finish it, you're gonna look round for someone else to do it.
-
I agree on the uncertainty re media spin. My point was that it was disappointing so many opted to believe that, rather than a board which thus far has not let us down.
I don't think most did, but barring any evidence or assurance to the contrary I think some rightly asked a question or two.
Asking a question is one thing. The lack of trust and respect shown by many was truly embarrassing. It might not have been the majority but the number of people who turned in him at the first opportunity was depressing.
Yeah, some did go way over the top.
I agree with Maz that his heart is and always was in the right place. That I never doubted.
-
It seemed obvious to me that RL wasn't happy with so much money being tied up in "assets" that were being, at best, under utilised, and which were sucking money out of the club with no apparent benefits accruing. I think that's an attitude that any sensible business man might adopt, and I think he was quite right to pick O'Neill up on it. It looked to me as if he offered O'Neill the opportunity to rectify the situation but O'Neill chose to walk out instead. I never really understood why this was interpreted as RL having pulled the plug on any further investment, but I suppose the delay over appointing the new manager and therefore having no opportunity to make signings in that window added fuel to the little fire that was being so avidly fanned by the media and a few others.
My attitude though was that the subsequent two windows would provide the answers. January is always difficult because clubs don't like to part with good players half way through a season, so while I'm not surprised RL has backed GH, I am actually a little surprised at the extent of the investment made so far, with possibly more to come. Well done RL and co.
-
It's a shame that some supporters believe what they read in the papers. Especially when its written by the O'Neill fan club.
The amount of ex players,press who have come out recently stating that they cant believe Randy didnt give this money to O'Neill,their blindness to the facts is amazing.
-
There is an alternate view: after the largesse of the MON years, Randy did indeed plan on paring back the spending on playing staff. He perhaps thought that a combination of the young players coming through, and a manager supposedly with a finger on the pulse of the European scene yielding some relatively cheap buys, would suffice.
He then surveys the scene in January. Piss-poor performances on the pitch and a club free-falling towards relegation. He looks at the spreadsheets and sees what life in the Championship would do the value of his investment and the projected fall in income.
He then does the mother of all U-turns and tells Houllier to get spending.
This is a pragmatic decision about protecting his investment, rather than a declaration of an undying love for the Villa.
A very plausible take on things, in my view. Not necessarily true, but plausible nonetheless.
-
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
I doubt any Mon fan would expect a man to be honest, honourable and willing to stick with someone even if he thought things were not as viable as he'd like.
-
THis is as good a place as any to mention this, but does anyone else agree with me the wages situation isn't any better now than they were when MON walked?
Harewood had already gone.
Milner's and Ireland's wages were reported to be roughly the same.
We've lost Shorey and Sidwell (£90,000 a week?), but this is almost taken up by Bent alone, then there's Makoun and a relatively small amount for Walker.
So maybe Randy has had some sort of rethink as the likes of Beye and Davies are still drawing a wage and our overall bill has increased?
-
It's all very well blaming O'Neill for everything, and while I obviously wasn't his biggest fan, it was Randy writing the cheques for people like Beye. £40K a week for three years for a 31 year old reserve, when we already had Luke Young and Cuellar playing in that position. If his relationship with O'Neill wasn't strong enough to question that kind of madness, then he should have sacked the manager earlier and possibly prevented the situation we find ourselves in at the moment.
-
The wage bill is one thing, what those players are doing to earn it was another and then wanting more players on big money when so many were earning big money for nothing another still.
Our turnover will have increased by a fair amount in 09/10 compared to the year previous.
I'm guessing that the wage bill was outrageous but possibly just about acceptable to Randy but what we were getting for that wage bill was not.
-
Yes, John, as of today it is about the same (I think) but I expect there to be some leaving VP whether on loan or sale before 31st which will reduce it and also I think Randy has seen who will be leaving in May (either sold or out of contract) and what that will do for the wage bill.
I think he is looking at the usage of those players in the squad as to whether the wage bill is justified which is what most people believe was the problem in August. If the usage is correct then I am sure steps will be taken to upgrade income so that the percentage level of wages to income is reduced.
Will be interesting to see what next seasons ticket prices are?
-
Stan Collymore was on talksport last night.
He was at Villa Park for the press conference, he said he spoke to Randy Lerner and asked him aboutbthe Bent deal.
Stan was worried that spending this much now might compromise our spending power in the long term, Randy said NO
This is great news and proves Randy is here to stay!
We have basically swapped Milner for Ireland and Bent, if we can sell Ireland jobs a
Gooden.
-
The wage bill is one thing, what those players are doing to earn it was another and then wanting more players on big money when so many were earning big money for nothing another still.
Our turnover will have increased by a fair amount in 09/10 compared to the year previous.
I'm guessing that the wage bill was outrageous but possibly just about acceptable to Randy but what we were getting for that wage bill was not.
See, that makes sense, but if you follow it through I doubt MON wanted the likes of McGeady and Keane as reserves, so it still goes back to the notion that Randy is trusting Gezza more. Maybe not in terms of who he signs, but how he uses them and the squad as a whole.
And I still think the whole 'what we get for the money' is the results on the pitch and not our opinion of the squad.
-
Stan Collymore was on talksport last night.
He was at Villa Park for the press conference, he said he spoke to Randy Lerner and asked him aboutbthe Bent deal.
Stan was worried that spending this much now might compromise our spending power in the long term, Randy said NO
This is great news and proves Randy is here to stay!
We have basically swapped Milner for Ireland and Bent, if we can sell Ireland jobs a
Gooden.
Stan should've asked Randy this before he went on national radio on Monday night screaming and shouting the odds. He was pissing almost every Villa fan off with his "eggs in one basket" analogy, despite not having a clue what he was talking about. I'd love to have seen is very punchable face when Randy told him there was more money in kitty.
-
I don't know what the wages situation is now, if it is better or worse, but I would imagine that Randy realises he can't expect a new manager to come in and tackle it immediately by lopping off wages, more a case of something to work towards, and a plan how to do it.
That may involve the bill going up initially but down later on, as players are moved on
-
Stan Collymore was on talksport last night.
He was at Villa Park for the press conference, he said he spoke to Randy Lerner and asked him aboutbthe Bent deal.
Stan was worried that spending this much now might compromise our spending power in the long term, Randy said NO
This is great news and proves Randy is here to stay!
We have basically swapped Milner for Ireland and Bent, if we can sell Ireland jobs a
Gooden.
Stan should've asked Randy this before he went on national radio on Monday night screaming and shouting the odds. He was pissing almost every Villa fan off with his "eggs in one basket" analogy, despite not having a clue what he was talking about. I'd love to have seen is very punchable face when Randy told him there was more money in kitty.
Slight tangent, but i heard Kevin Phillips on the radio this morning backtracking massively from his reaction of Monday.
-
I don't know what the wages situation is now, if it is better or worse, but I would imagine that Randy realises he can't expect a new manager to come in and tackle it immediately by lopping off wages, more a case of something to work towards, and a plan how to do it.
That may involve the bill going up initially but down later on, as players are moved on
It makes sense and is the sort of practical approach you'd expect from Randy.
I'm perfectly happy with him backing Gezza, but I do think we need to realise he has moved the goalposts slightly from what (we believe) MON was aksed to do in the summer.
-
I don't know what the wages situation is now, if it is better or worse, but I would imagine that Randy realises he can't expect a new manager to come in and tackle it immediately by lopping off wages, more a case of something to work towards, and a plan how to do it.
That may involve the bill going up initially but down later on, as players are moved on
It makes sense and is the sort of practical approach you'd expect from Randy.
I'm perfectly happy with him backing Gezza, but I do think we need to realise he has moved the goalposts slightly from what (we believe) MON was aksed to do in the summer.
If he has, it is probably because we've found ourselves with a new manager at late notice - asking a manager who has worked with the squad for four years to trim the wage bill is one thing.
Asking a manager to come in at short notice, get the team playing his way AND trim the wage bill immediately is a totally different thing.
-
The thing is John, any good chairman, CEO etc will look at the business and see where expenses are going and how they can be better used. In no way is buying a player for several million pounds, paying them 50k a week for three or four years and not using them acceptable, especially when you have a much vaunted youth system.
Of all the things I liked about MON, how he used the squad and his transfer dealings in general were not amongst them.
Now, if Randy can be criticised for anything, and he's not perfect, its giving MON too much power in who he bought and particularly what he paid for them.
Its fair enough to a degree because this is his first football club and MON was a name with enough clout to expect to know what he's doing. Randy probably felt that he had his own opinions but MON obviously knew better so gave him his headroom.
Well it hasnt turned out so. He made a few brilliant if predictable signings but mostly, in hindsight, you'd have to say the money was inappropriately used. Or at least I would.
So I can see why he was, if not reined in, asked to clean up his own mess. Put some toys away to make room for any new ones he was getting out.
In the end, something had to give and it was MON's apparent petulance and refusal to do a bit of housekeeping that made itself known first. I believe Randy would have given him time to do this and supported him but got his arse in his hands and moped about all summer, the pre-season games were a real eye opener, we were pathetic. And then, at the worst possible time, he decided to walk away rather than sort his own mess out and was quite happy to let the blame and media idiocy fall on Randy who has never done anything but support him. Not only that but he showed no regard to us or how we'd cope. What a complete wanker.
Never have I lost so much respect for one person, so quickly.
-
The thing is John, any good chairman, CEO etc will look at the business and see where expenses are going and how they can be better used. In no way is buying a player for several million pounds, paying them 50k a week for three or four years and not using them acceptable, especially when you have a much vaunted youth system.
Of all the things I liked about MON, how he used the squad and his transfer dealings in general were not amongst them.
Now, if Randy can be criticised for anything, and he's not perfect, its giving MON too much power in who he bought and particularly what he paid for them.
Its fair enough to a degree because this is his first football club and MON was a name with enough clout to expect to know what he's doing. Randy probably felt that he had his own opinions but MON obviously knew better so gave him his headroom.
Well it hasnt turned out so. He made a few brilliant if predictable signings but mostly, in hindsight, you'd have to say the money was inappropriately used. Or at least I would.
So I can see why he was, if not reined in, asked to clean up his own mess. Put some toys away to make room for any new ones he was getting out.
In the end, something had to give and it was MON's apparent petulance and refusal to do a bit of housekeeping that made itself known first. I believe Randy would have given him time to do this and supported him but got his arse in his hands and moped about all summer, the pre-season games were a real eye opener, we were pathetic. And then, at the worst possible time, he decided to walk away rather than sort his own mess out and was quite happy to let the blame and media idiocy fall on Randy who has never done anything but support him. Not only that but he showed no regard to us or how we'd cope. What a complete wanker.
Never have I lost so much respect for one person, so quickly.
Some valid points made, even if I would argue about your conculsions, which I won't as it goes over too much old ground.
However, two things I'd like to pick up on:-
1. Players can't be viewed as assets in the same way other things can. Yes, a chairman might rightly say "Why do you need two warehouses when you only use one? Sell the other!" But applying that to say goalkeepers would leave us in a pickle. A mixture of the two approaches is what's called for and we don't know how far down either view Randy and MON were.
2. I don't want to get into the whole debate of our expeniture against other clubs, but depsite our views on how the money was spent, he did get the results with it. So while we may not like the methods used, the outcome was acceptable, IMO.
-
The wage bill issue wasn't of Houllier's making so it would be unfair to expect him to sort it out without any backing for his own plans. I think it had more to do with under utilisation of those players, and the youth players coming through, that made Randy call a time-out on O'Neill's activities. I think it was fair enough to expect O'Neill, after 4 years of unquestioned backing, to address these issues. Houllier has shown he is willing to actually make use of at least some of the players that were ostracized or deemed not good enough under O'Neill, or to get shot of them. O'Neill seemed unwilling or unable to do either.
Those criticising Lerner for not giving O'Neill this kind of money are missing the point completely.
-
2. I don't want to get into the whole debate of our expeniture against other clubs, but depsite our views on how the money was spent, he did get the results with it. So while we may not like the methods used, the outcome was acceptable, IMO.
The question isn't whether he got results or not - he did, to a certain level. The question is whether he could have got those results more efficiently. If you look at the wages to turnover ratio, it suggests that is something we can not ignore.
In all the accusations and moaning, the General, before he left, made a point which people mostly just ignored, which was that it was "about making sure the right money goes to the right people".
That's a really important point which a lot of people didn't get - instead many people saw it as "sell to buy".
For example, does our second choice, hardly ever used right back need to be on 40k a week for three years, age 35? How much value do you think we'll be getting from our 2m plus a year for Beye's wages in a year? How much are we getting now?
Look at the defence under MON - Davies, Collins, Dunne, Cuellar - four centre backs, total spent almost 30 million pounds, if we assume their salaries as 35, 40, 50 and 45 - that's 170k a week on centrebacks. Throw in NI and other costs, and it is more like 190k. Over the year, that is over 9 million pounds in salaries for centre halves alone.
Is that good allocation of resources?
Does our fourth choice centre back need to be one we had 9.5m pounds worth of transfer fee and 35k or so a week tied up in? Is that efficient use of resources?
If we pay Darren Bent 80k a week but lose Sidwell and, say, Carew, we've reduced the wage bill by on the surface not a great amount, but how much do you think we're strengthened by that move?
We will not be able to compete financially with Man CIty or the other really big spenders. That's obvious. We've got a chairman who has a few bob and has proven himself willing to put his hand in his pocket and support the manager big style, but does that mean we can ignore things like the wage bill? Of course it doesn't. If we didn't have to worry about money, we'd all be having free season tickets.
-
example, does our second choice, hardly ever used right back need to be on 40k a week for three years, age 35? How much value do you think we'll be getting from our 2m plus a year for Beye's wages in a year? How much are we getting now?
That particular signing is galling.
O'Neill's unwillingness to look under his nose has cost us nearly £10m with that signing, Eric Lichaj has shown he can be a perfectly good 2nd choice right back.
-
My first thought after MON flounced off was that he'd bottled it, but I was worried that maybe Randy had too. I didn't lose faith exactly, I just didn't know if he was still as committed - none of us did, really. I suppose the most pertinent question about Randy over the last few months would be "Did he lose faith in the whole Villa project, or just MON"?
He answered that yesterday IMO.
-
2. I don't want to get into the whole debate of our expeniture against other clubs, but depsite our views on how the money was spent, he did get the results with it. So while we may not like the methods used, the outcome was acceptable, IMO.
The question isn't whether he got results or not - he did, to a certain level. The question is whether he could have got those results more efficiently. If you look at the wages to turnover ratio, it suggests that is something we can not ignore.
In all the accusations and moaning, the General, before he left, made a point which people mostly just ignored, which was that it was "about making sure the right money goes to the right people".
That's a really important point which a lot of people didn't get - instead many people saw it as "sell to buy".
For example, does our second choice, hardly ever used right back need to be on 40k a week for three years, age 35? How much value do you think we'll be getting from our 2m plus a year for Beye's wages in a year? How much are we getting now?
Look at the defence under MON - Davies, Collins, Dunne, Cuellar - four centre backs, total spent almost 30 million pounds, if we assume their salaries as 35, 40, 50 and 45 - that's 170k a week on centrebacks. Throw in NI and other costs, and it is more like 190k. Over the year, that is over 9 million pounds in salaries for centre halves alone.
Is that good allocation of resources?
Does our fourth choice centre back need to be one we had 9.5m pounds worth of transfer fee and 35k or so a week tied up in? Is that efficient use of resources?
If we pay Darren Bent 80k a week but lose Sidwell and, say, Carew, we've reduced the wage bill by on the surface not a great amount, but how much do you think we're strengthened by that move?
We will not be able to compete financially with Man CIty or the other really big spenders. That's obvious. We've got a chairman who has a few bob and has proven himself willing to put his hand in his pocket and support the manager big style, but does that mean we can ignore things like the wage bill? Of course it doesn't. If we didn't have to worry about money, we'd all be having free season tickets.
Now you do raise some good points there, but the balance is always players like Milner and Ash, who increased their fees and, as close as any footballer can these days, earned their money. That's why I look at results as the only true measure as everything else is somewhat subjective.
And a lot of these problems come from not having enough faith in the youth to be back up, I agree.
about making sure the right money goes to the right people
Thing is, you can get as many answers to that as people you ask. Ultimately if the manager thinks they are the right people then you either back him or sack him. We did neither, which lead to the limbo-esque summer and then him walking out.
-
Here are some players that we hardly used last season and a ballpark figure for their wages.
Sidwell - 50k p/w
Shorey - 33k p/w
Harewood - 27k p/w
Beye - 40k p/w
Davies - 30k p/w
That's £26 million in fees and £182,000 per week in wages.
It's no wonder he was told to sort it and, let's get this right, it wasn't the wage bill per se that was the problem. They wanted a more equitable distribution of that outlay.
-
My first thought after MON flounced off was that he'd bottled it, but I was worried that maybe Randy had too. I didn't lose faith exactly, I just didn't know if he was still as committed - none of us did, really. I suppose the most pertinent question about Randy over the last few months would be "Did he lose faith in the whole Villa project, or just MON"?
He answered that yesterday IMO.
Excellent summary.
-
about making sure the right money goes to the right people
Thing is, you can get as many answers to that as people you ask. Ultimately if the manager thinks they are the right people then you either back him or sack him. We did neither, which lead to the limbo-esque summer and then him walking out.
The thing is, though, the manager thought they were the right people so much that .... he never used them.
Regarding "we did neither" - we don't know that. All we know is that the General said Randy and Martin agreed that we'd move on some of the players who were sapping money and contributing next to nothing, then towards late summer, he changed his mind, decided he didn't want to and walked.
The General also said that money was, and always has been, available to spend. Yesterday we smashed our transfer record and bought one of the best strikers in the league. That puts more than a considerable amount of doubt on the assertion that there was no money available.
Now, whether he was right to walk or not is his decision, but:
1. The fact he did it when he did, whatever his reasoning, shows a very scant regard for Aston Villa or the club's supporters. You might look for reasons to defend his actions, but how much thought do you think he was giving us by doing that?
2. All managers have to manage a budget, all of them. Why couldn't he do it? Was he above it? Would a season of consolidation (as Everton have had plenty of times) beneath him? Would it besmirch his cv?
Very good managers are judged on what they achieve in their post, but they are also judged on their legacy, and MON, whilst doing a good job for four years, left us with a squad of unused, unbothered high earners, gaping holes - like the striker we needed for at least three years - and an entire football staff to find five days before the start of the season. In other words, utter turmoil.
Whatever he felt over the summer, I hope he had a fucking good reason to inflict that on us.
-
I can't believe some people on here.
Randy has never moved the goalpost's.
He realised Martin was no good for Villa.
Martin paid 12 million for Downing on about 50k a week, when we had Albrighton ready.
Martin was no good for Villa long term, he never gave young lads a chance just wanted to buy old players on high wages to sit on the bench.
Houllier will use the squad and help bring on Academy players, whereas Martin would have driven them all away ie, Gary Cahill!
-
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
I doubt any Mon fan would expect a man to be honest, honourable and willing to stick with someone even if he thought things were not as viable as he'd like.
Sorry, you're posting in Everral gibbersish again so I have no idea of the point you are trying to make and as it's a few hours since you posted I suspect neither do you.
-
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
I doubt any Mon fan would expect a man to be honest, honourable and willing to stick with someone even if he thought things were not as viable as he'd like.
Sorry, you're posting in Everral gibbersish again so I have no idea of the point you are trying to make and as it's a few hours since you posted I suspect neither do you.
Don't be sorry Chris I fully understand, and appreciate you know exactly the point I'm making, and cannot in any way show you do
-
If you have a squad of 24 players then even if you use all subs each week you are going to have 10 of them being paid without kicking a ball in anger. Even if you rotate players your still going to be left with the same number not doing anything. O'Neill's approach was fairly old school in that he thought of it as a first team and then the rest as cover for injury etc and this was his downfall, I think, but if he'd played Beye and Sidwell more often then the wage bill would have been just the same although results might have been worse.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the squad over coming months but we're in the fortunate position of having a decent crop of youngsters to step up as we inevitably lose more experienced players as their contracts run down.
-
Regarding "we did neither" - we don't know that. All we know is that the General said Randy and Martin agreed that we'd move on some of the players who were sapping money and contributing next to nothing, then towards late summer, he changed his mind, decided he didn't want to and walked.
Disagree - don't think we KNOW that at all.
My own opinion, trying to read between the lines, is that they agreed to sell some on and when that didn't happen, for whatever reason, MON wanted to keep spending anyway, which Randy didn't agree with.
2. All managers have to manage a budget, all of them. Why couldn't he do it? Was he above it? Would a season of consolidation (as Everton have had plenty of times) beneath him? Would it besmirch his cv?
I'd argue that he did manage his budget, but some didn't like how he was doing it. The issues then came when that budget, in terms of wages, was basically reduced and we had difficulty shifting some of our fringe players.
Look - I have no issue with Randy wanting to see things handled differently and although it's largely supposition on our part, what we understand he wanted makes sense to me and shows the flaws in how Martin ran things. However, I can't see how we can call the money he spent wasted when on balance he produced the results. Whatever we do or spend off the pitch is in order to win football matches on it, so the only true measure is pounds spent to points won and everything else is subjective.
-
I don't think it proves any such thing but if it did it wouldn't reflect well on Randy. If he doubts about MON he should have done something about it, why would he just let things drift instead?
The issue was always about wages.
I doubt any Mon fan would expect a man to be honest, honourable and willing to stick with someone even if he thought things were not as viable as he'd like.
Sorry, you're posting in Everral gibbersish again so I have no idea of the point you are trying to make and as it's a few hours since you posted I suspect neither do you.
Don't be sorry Chris I fully understand, and appreciate you know exactly the point I'm making, and cannot in any way show you do
Seriously, I don't. Please explain. I think it might be intended as some sort of dig but shrouded in your usual weird phrasing as you haven't got the bottle to be staright.
-
I can't believe some people on here.
Randy has never moved the goalpost's.
He realised Martin was no good for Villa.
Martin paid 12 million for Downing on about 50k a week, when we had Albrighton ready.
Martin was no good for Villa long term, he never gave young lads a chance just wanted to buy old players on high wages to sit on the bench.
Houllier will use the squad and help bring on Academy players, whereas Martin would have driven them all away ie, Gary Cahill!
I used the goalposts phrase as he wanted players wages shed before spending in the summer, but now seems happy to spend on the understanding they go soon/later. No a criticism, just an observation.
If he was no good for Villa and Randy knew this, why didn't he sack him?
And would that be the same Downing that's out top scorer this season?
-
If Sidwell and Beye had played more and weren't good enough, then he shouldn't have bought them.
But using them more would have been some justification for buying them in the first place.
Also, if you're going to buy somebody who is just for cover, dont pay them £40k-£50k per week.
-
If you have a squad of 24 players then even if you use all subs each week you are going to have 10 of them being paid without kicking a ball in anger. Even if you rotate players your still going to be left with the same number not doing anything. O'Neill's approach was fairly old school in that he thought of it as a first team and then the rest as cover for injury etc and this was his downfall, I think, but if he'd played Beye and Sidwell more often then the wage bill would have been just the same although results might have been worse.
I agree, you will have players doing nothing, the argument though is that those players not being used were sapping a huge amount of money.
The whole first XI plus cover being his downfall is something I'd agree with, and that's another argument entirely, but even if you accept that that was his approach, was it necessary to have such expensive big earners as the cover?
It will be interesting to see what happens to the squad over coming months but we're in the fortunate position of having a decent crop of youngsters to step up as we inevitably lose more experienced players as their contracts run down.
That's true. I doubt those youngsters would have got a look in under MON either, another failing of his.
-
If Sidwell and Beye had played more and weren't good enough, then he shouldn't have bought them.
But using them more would have been some justification for buying them in the first place.
Also, if you're going to buy somebody who is just for cover, dont pay them £40k-£50k per week.
Also as someone pointed out, Mat Kendrick, I think:
2009: Collins + Dunne + Warnock = 18m
2007/8: Shorey + Knight + Davies + Cuellar = 26m
That's a somewhat scattergun approach to building a squad. Buy left back, barely use him, a year later buy another one to replace him. Buy three centre backs, a year later buy more, making it 32 or 33m on centre halves.
Then there's buying no right back for ages, playing Mellberg, NRC, Gardner, Bardsley on loan there, then buying two of them, both on big money, then opting to play neither of them there, instead sticking one of your centre halves there, whilst occasionally your actual right back makes an appearance at LB, and the other right back you bought spends his Saturday afternoons wandering around Selfridges looking for ways to spend his 40k a week.
I'm not going to say MON didn't get decent results - he did - but I find it really hard how anyone could argue there was any consistency in his transfer policy.
-
How much did MON squander on Sidwell, Beye, Davies, Shorey, Salifou, Harewood : best part of £30m plus the wages - another £15m ? - £45m and what will we get back ? less than £10m - Shocking
No wonder RAL had had enough
-
Here are some players that we hardly used last season and a ballpark figure for their wages.
Sidwell - 50k p/w
Shorey - 33k p/w
Harewood - 27k p/w
Beye - 40k p/w
Davies - 30k p/w
That's £26 million in fees and £182,000 per week in wages.
It's no wonder he was told to sort it and, let's get this right, it wasn't the wage bill per se that was the problem. They wanted a more equitable distribution of that outlay.
And all those players were available for transfer in the summer with MON's agreement as well as Luke Young and NRC. The club held meetings with their agents at the beginning of the summer to inform them of what the club wanted.
It's also worth noting that most of those players were first team choice at some point and needed to be moved on due to lack of performance or due to our having recruited better replacements.
We've seen to our cost this season what happens when you rely too heavily on inexperienced youth as injury cover.
-
Here are some players that we hardly used last season and a ballpark figure for their wages.
Sidwell - 50k p/w
Shorey - 33k p/w
Harewood - 27k p/w
Beye - 40k p/w
Davies - 30k p/w
That's £26 million in fees and £182,000 per week in wages.
It's no wonder he was told to sort it and, let's get this right, it wasn't the wage bill per se that was the problem. They wanted a more equitable distribution of that outlay.
And all those players were available for transfer in the summer with MON's agreement as well as Luke Young and NRC. The club held meetings with their agents at the beginning of the summer to inform them of what the club wanted.
It's also worth noting that most of those players were first team choice at some point and needed to be moved on due to lack of performance or due to our having recruited better replacements.
We've seen to our cost this season what happens when you rely too heavily on inexperienced youth as injury cover.
The main problem this season has not been the kids brought in to cover injuries, it has been experienced players who have let us down.
Also, those players, how frequently and for how long were they first choices?
"Needed to be moved on for lack of performance" - ie "they were shit", so who bought them in the first place?
Or "having recruited better replacements" - so we bought Shorey, replaced him the next season. We bought Davies and Cuellar, then the next season bought two more centre halves.
It is also very well holding meetings with agents and telling them their clients could move.
What do you reckon Habib Beye's agent said? I think I can guess. He's 32/33 and with 18 months at 40k a week left to run on his contract, which expires in August 2012
That's another 3,040,000 in wages we've got to pay him yet.
-
Anyone posted this from Neil Moxey in the Daily Mail?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1348577/The-Midlander-Villa-fans-doubt-64-carat-owner-Lerner--does-care.html
Aston Villa fans: Don't take 64-carat owner Randy Lerner for granted - he does care
By NEIL MOXLEY
If I owned a cap, I’d be doffing it in the direction of Aston Villa owner Randy Lerner.
'Does he still care?' they asked.
'He’s fed up with his plaything,' they claimed.
Well, yes, he does still care. And no, he is still fully committed to making Aston Villa a success.
I mean... wow! A £24million commitment in transfer fees, not to mention a contract worth in excess of £15m on the club’s record transfer signing Darren Bent.
Statement of intent: Villa fans will be delighted to see new signing Darren Bent training for the first time since his £24million arrival
While we are at it, Jean Makoun’s signing, from Lyon is another major outlay, a £5m fee and all the associated salary costs. (I understand too, that it may not be the last. Although Villa say there is no interest in Wigan Athletic left-back Maynor Figueroa, the rumour-mill is awash with suggestions that a £4m bid is in the offing.)
Whatever the outcome of the next fortnight before the window closes, the statement from Lerner could not have been more emphatic.
First, that we don’t want to go down. Secondly, that I back Gerard Houllier.
And really, how lucky is the Frenchman? My last Midlander column upset the hierarchy at Villa Park. I’m sorry about the fact they were brassed off, but perhaps it was a natural consequence of the drip, drip, drip of negativity over the past four months. It wasn’t written out of malice. More out of a sense of duty to supporters who clearly felt so strongly after the Sunderland game that they called for their own manager’s head. As a subjectivist, am I meant to ignore that? Furthermore, do you know what?
That last piece was read over 10,000 times on this site. I’m lucky enough to have a few twitter followers too.
And I can’t even remember one supporter who moaned that I had been out of order. Which probably makes Lerner’s actions all the more creditable. He’s stuck to his guns and backed his man.
And how. Villa lie 17th in the Barclays Premier League table and, basically, Houllier has been handed a get-out-of-jail free card. Sorry, a get-out-of-jail for £50m card. Never mind what has passed before. Rows, ostracised players, poor results, etc. Never mind the fact that I understand the chief executive, Paul Faulkner, has been acting in a calm and composed manner in trying to smooth the ruffled feathers of one or two of the disgruntled players. That’s really good, solid, management. Evidence that Faulkner is really growing into his job in a mature manner. And as for former boss Martin O’Neill, I wondered what he was thinking this week when he learnt that Lerner had reached for his chequebook again. I mean, I had a chuckle when he was linked with David Sullivan and David Gold.
I wish I had the time and inclination to lay that particular bet. Nil chance of working for that pair for any significant length of time. Not a prayer.
Anyway, I digress. Was it really only six months ago that there was a ‘we must make ends meet,’ diktat issued at the Holte pub? You know, it reminds me of that tale - I’m sure it’s apocryphal - but one day a bloke in a spanking new Range Rover goes shopping. It’s really busy in the town centre and he can’t find anywhere to park for love nor money.
Eventually, after a 15-minute search, he spies a free car parking space. He shapes up to reverse into it. But before he can do so, an old mini roars in from nowhere and beats him to it. Triumphant, the driver of the old heap sticks his head out of the window and taunts the bloke in the Range Rover. 'That’s what you can do when you can drive,' shouts the driver who then gets out and walks ten yards away from his car to the shops. Suddenly, the man in the Range Rover slams his own car in reverse, smashes into the mini, shunting it out of the space.
He winds down his own window and says: 'That’s what you can do when you’re rich.'
I think it’s a little bit like that with O’Neill. Houllier is now receiving the backing the Irishman might well have received from Lerner had he played the game a tad cuter. But talk about backing your manager. Phew. I think it’s unprecedented, given
Cue applause: Randy Lerner proved he cares about Aston Villa with his expensive outlays this week
the amount of trouble Villa are in, if you look at the current Barclays Premier League table. I’m not going to be so hypocritical as to say now that Houllier is the best thing since sliced bread because there’s a good chance that results will improve thanks to the acquisition of a £24m forward. But it’s a fact that barring two players - the full-backs - the team that should have carried a victory back to Aston on Sunday was choc-ful of the players left behind by O’Neill.
It’s also a fact that Randy Lerner continues to show his deep-rooted affection and care for his club that he has gone to such lengths to ensure survival. Look at that snap-shot at Stamford Bridge when Ciaran Clark’s late equaliser went in and Lerner was jumping around like he was in the middle of the Holte End, even though a bit of decorum is usually called for in the directors’ box. He cares all right.
Let’s face it Villa fans, if you want a look at how not to act during the transfer window, you need only look over at St Andrew’s and have a chortle. But that’s another story.
Onwards and upwards: Villa, who held champions Chelsea twice this season, now need to push on and revive their season I fully expect a fresh air of optimism to be around Villa Park come 5.30pm on Saturday evening. Villa Park, under lights, is always atmospheric. I’ve used this pay-off line before. But, as Doug Ellis used to say when I moaned he was repeating the same message to the fans over and again: ‘Neil, you need to remind people every three months of the obvious, or else they will take it for granted.’ If Villa Park can’t find it within itself to cheer Houllier - then they can prevent themselves from charges (like me) of hypocrisy by backing someone else, because he really deserves the thanks.
So step forward Randy Lerner - the sixty-four carat owner.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1348577/The-Midlander-Villa-fans-doubt-64-carat-owner-Lerner--does-care.html#ixzz1BUoVom9R
-
Also, if you're going to buy somebody who is just for cover, dont pay them £40k-£50k per week.
Spot on.
But we can't lay all the blame at the door of the Villa hating madman.
Randy and the board most take equal blame i'm afraid.
-
Also, if you're going to buy somebody who is just for cover, dont pay them £40k-£50k per week.
Spot on.
But we can't lay all the blame at the door of the Villa hating madman.
Randy and the board most take equal blame i'm afraid.
Problem is you are competing with teams who have players on that and more sitting on the bench. I accept that we might not be able to afford it but in that case we have to accept that our ambitions might also have to be trimmed.
-
Also, if you're going to buy somebody who is just for cover, dont pay them £40k-£50k per week.
Spot on.
But we can't lay all the blame at the door of the Villa hating madman.
Randy and the board most take equal blame i'm afraid.
Problem is you are competing with teams who have players on that and more sitting on the bench. I accept that we might not be able to afford it but in that case we have to accept that our ambitions might also have to be trimmed.
I agree with you Chris, but the Beye signing is beyond the pale.
You don't shell out nearly £10m for a bloke of his age, who O'Neill almost certainly wanted as back up only.
-
It probably goes beyond that as well ... O'Neil kept trotting out the same 11, game after game. And while they were crawling off the pitch in exhaustion around Feb/March, MON refused to use his "cover" guys earning 150k in weekly wages. At least the teams we're competing with will occasionally swap in some of the spare parts to take the load off of the main guys.
MON insisted on paying out the yang for guys to sit on the bench, while driving the starting 11 into the ground. So you have one group of guys getting paid top coin to sit and another group getting paid well to be exhausted and inefficient.
-
It probably goes beyond that as well ... O'Neil kept trotting out the same 11, game after game. And while they were crawling off the pitch in exhaustion around Feb/March, MON refused to use his "cover" guys earning 150k in weekly wages. At least the teams we're competing with will occasionally swap in some of the spare parts to take the load off of the main guys.
MON insisted on paying out the yang for guys to sit on the bench, while driving the starting 11 into the ground. So you have one group of guys getting paid top coin to sit and another group getting paid well to be exhausted and inefficient.
Exactly.
-
It probably goes beyond that as well ... O'Neil kept trotting out the same 11, game after game. And while they were crawling off the pitch in exhaustion around Feb/March, MON refused to use his "cover" guys earning 150k in weekly wages. At least the teams we're competing with will occasionally swap in some of the spare parts to take the load off of the main guys.
MON insisted on paying out the yang for guys to sit on the bench, while driving the starting 11 into the ground. So you have one group of guys getting paid top coin to sit and another group getting paid well to be exhausted and inefficient.
He played what he considered his best team, as I said it's old school where the rest were cover for injuries or suspensions. The whole knackered in March/
April thing has been massively over played in my opinion, look back to the results last year. It might be old fashioned but it is his way of working and as the manager he has to be allowed to do things his way. Just as Houlier now should have the same opportunity.
-
I can't believe some people on here.
Randy has never moved the goalpost's.
He realised Martin was no good for Villa.
Martin paid 12 million for Downing on about 50k a week, when we had Albrighton ready.
Martin was no good for Villa long term, he never gave young lads a chance just wanted to buy old players on high wages to sit on the bench.
Houllier will use the squad and help bring on Academy players, whereas Martin would have driven them all away ie, Gary Cahill!
I used the goalposts phrase as he wanted players wages shed before spending in the summer, but now seems happy to spend on the understanding they go soon/later. No a criticism, just an observation.
If he was no good for Villa and Randy knew this, why didn't he sack him?
And would that be the same Downing that's out top scorer this season?
My point is Randy should have sacked him.
I think we all agree we didnt need a crocked Downing, Albrighton was ready, we should have bought Bent then.
If Martin was still here Bannan, Albrighton, Clark, Wieman, Gardner and mabe Del boy would probably not signed/been offered a contract.
Randy hasnt moved the goalpost's, because i think its fairly obvious Carew, Davies, Warnock will be sold or loaned out, plus sidwell has gone. So we have just moved quickly and got players first unlike Martin who would wait till the last day.
What ever anybody's opinion, the facts are Randy still loves Villa and is ensuring we have a solid future.
He could quite easily have done a Middlesborough or too a lesser extent Chelsea and let all the experienced players on high wages go without replacing them, but he hasnt he has backed Gerrard and i think we all agree the players he has bought make MOST of Martin's look lazy and one-dimentional.
-
Can people stop talking about relegation now (unless talking about the blouse going down) and talk about reclaiming our 6th place this season. Only 12 points behind with a game in hand against wigan, I make that 9 points behind 6th place with almost half a season to catch up.....bring it on.
-
Think already the general feeling has changed the whole mentality of fans and media pundits ........
-
Can people stop talking about relegation now (unless talking about the blouse going down) and talk about reclaiming our 6th place this season. Only 12 points behind with a game in hand against wigan, I make that 9 points behind 6th place with almost half a season to catch up.....bring it on.
Put in a good enough performance on Saturday and that's what the talk will be about.
-
I dint think there is any point going into the ins and outs of MON's transfers for the umpteenth time.
My head is still spinning at Randy's seemingly sudden deicision to give Houllier this warchest! Maybe it was planned all along. But I still cant help wondering why it wasnt available to MON in the summer. If he didnt have faith in his ability to deal in the transfer market, then why the hell not just get rid of him?
MON leaving when he did, the long time to appoint a replacement and Houllier's, eh, slow start means that it is very unlikely we can salvage much from this season (maybe FA Cup?).
I will admit I did doubt Randy in so far as I thought he had decided to scale back on the money he was putting in and in fairness the indicators were there. At the same time, most of the Bent deal will be covered by the Milner money and it will be interesting to see what money is available in the summer without having to sell the likes of Young.
-
Just thinking, Salifou will be here till June, that means we will have paid him over £2m in wages during the near 4 years he will have been here.
Shocking.
-
I dint think there is any point going into the ins and outs of MON's transfers for the umpteenth time.
My head is still spinning at Randy's seemingly sudden deicision to give Houllier this warchest! Maybe it was planned all along. But I still cant help wondering why it wasnt available to MON in the summer. If he didnt have faith in his ability to deal in the transfer market, then why the hell not just get rid of him?
MON leaving when he did, the long time to appoint a replacement and Houllier's, eh, slow start means that it is very unlikely we can salvage much from this season (maybe FA Cup?).
I will admit I did doubt Randy in so far as I thought he had decided to scale back on the money he was putting in and in fairness the indicators were there. At the same time, most of the Bent deal will be covered by the Milner money and it will be interesting to see what money is available in the summer without having to sell the likes of Young.
You can't ignore MON's signings, because we've been told ever since he left, and it was mentioned in the Bent press conference even, that we have to do something about our wage bill, and the wage bill - rightly or wrongly - is a result of those signings.
Also, the Bent deal being covered by the Milner money doesn't make it any less 18-24 million pounds. If he was all about clawing back his money as many thought - and still seem to in the media - then he'd have kept hold of that cash.
-
I can't believe some people on here.
Randy has never moved the goalpost's.
He realised Martin was no good for Villa.
Martin paid 12 million for Downing on about 50k a week, when we had Albrighton ready.
Martin was no good for Villa long term, he never gave young lads a chance just wanted to buy old players on high wages to sit on the bench.
Houllier will use the squad and help bring on Academy players, whereas Martin would have driven them all away ie, Gary Cahill!
I used the goalposts phrase as he wanted players wages shed before spending in the summer, but now seems happy to spend on the understanding they go soon/later. No a criticism, just an observation.
If he was no good for Villa and Randy knew this, why didn't he sack him?
And would that be the same Downing that's out top scorer this season?
My point is Randy should have sacked him.
I think we all agree we didnt need a crocked Downing, Albrighton was ready, we should have bought Bent then.
If he had lost faith in him as you think then yes, and ultimately that was Randy's fault for not acting.
About Albrigthon, and I'm probably in the monority here, but what I saw of him last season is a lot different to now. Yes, that was a limited amount of game time and yes, it doesn't mean MON would have played him now, but I don't exactly reacall multiple threads on here saying he should play or the Holte chanting his name to come on a la Carew.
-
About Albrigthon, and I'm probably in the monority here, but what I saw of him last season is a lot different to now. Yes, that was a limited amount of game time and yes, it doesn't mean MON would have played him now, but I don't exactly reacall multiple threads on here saying he should play or the Holte chanting his name to come on a la Carew.
I think what might have brought Albrighton's game on from last season was a happy accident in that Kevin Mcdonald was in charge at the beginning of this season. Mcdonald knew Albrighton and had confidence in him and I think this reflected in his performance against West Ham and beyond.
-
Would this Martin O'Neill whose selection policy meant that his players were all 'knackered' by March be any relation of the bloke whose 'knackered' team won him the Manager of the Month Award for April 2010?
-
Would this Martin O'Neill whose selection policy meant that his players were all 'knackered' by March be any relation of the bloke whose 'knackered' team won him the Manager of the Month Award for April 2010?
That's him. We beat Hull, Blues, Portsmouth, and Bolton that month, whilst drawing against Everton and losing to Chelsea.
What about the other three years?
-
Would this Martin O'Neill whose selection policy meant that his players were all 'knackered' by March be any relation of the bloke whose 'knackered' team won him the Manager of the Month Award for April 2010?
That's him. We beat Hull, Blues, Portsmouth, and Bolton that month, whilst drawing against Everton and losing to Chelsea.
What about the other three years?
So one less win in April 2010 than in all of this season so far.
-
Would this Martin O'Neill whose selection policy meant that his players were all 'knackered' by March be any relation of the bloke whose 'knackered' team won him the Manager of the Month Award for April 2010?
That's him. We beat Hull, Blues, Portsmouth, and Bolton that month, whilst drawing against Everton and losing to Chelsea.
What about the other three years?
So one less win in April 2010 than in all of this season so far.
Indeed.
But the relevance of that to the fact that MON's teams were usually knackered by March is?
-
That Marchis before April?
-
That Marchis before April?
Didn't spot the word "usually", John?
-
That Marchis before April?
Didn't spot the word "usually", John?
We had a better team than we'd had in previous years hence they were able to sustain their form.
-
That Marchis before April?
Didn't spot the word "usually", John?
We had a better team than we'd had in previous years hence they were able to sustain their form.
The team was so much better, it finished in the same position as the year before, and the year before that, and accumulated another two points.
-
Yes, it was a better team. It kept the league form running while managing two good cup runs, something we'd not before. What is the alternative explanation as to why we stayed strong through those months?
-
Would this Martin O'Neill whose selection policy meant that his players were all 'knackered' by March be any relation of the bloke whose 'knackered' team won him the Manager of the Month Award for April 2010?
That's him. We beat Hull, Blues, Portsmouth, and Bolton that month, whilst drawing against Everton and losing to Chelsea.
What about the other three years?
I seem to recall Villa finished 2006/2007 pretty strongly.