Randy Lerner "State of Aston Villa" Statement

[bertlambshank]

I just don't see the point of the letter.It's almost as if the chairman and CEO are looking for us to feel sorry for them.

[Brend'Watkins]

I just don't see the point of the letter.It's almost as if the chairman and CEO are looking for us to feel sorry for them.

With supporters criticising  RL for not keeping us in the picture via the media the board might have felt the need to address the fans through a more personal medium.

The letter is nothing we didn't know already.  Like many clubs we are cutting our cloth to suit and so we should for the long term stability of the club.

[bertlambshank]

Don't get me wrong if we haven't got the money I am ok with that.
I think it's about time they told the General to stop saying the money is there when it isn't.

[Risso]

1) Yes they tried but equally they failed.

2) When he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy it will have been his own money. While he charges the club interest then he is, on behalf of the club borrowing the money and spending (wasting) it. Not my idea of good management.

3) Don't care whether Randy says anything or not but the silence at critical times over the last few years is deafening. Look at the way we handled the appointment of both Houllier, who was announced but couldn't start till (well nobody knew at the time) , and McLeish, well the less said about that the better. 

4) I have never heard of any business above one or two man bands which doesn't have a strategy. What the hell is any board there for if not to define and constantly evaluate the strategy. Strategies change - there is nothing wrong with that and ours has clearly changed. Yet we get a letter which states their ambitions have not changed. The General has constantly stated exactly the same. Who believes them?

5) We may well know why the CEO's left but if the board is so weak as to not stand up to the manager then I would certainly class that as poor management. 

Entirely correct on all five points.

[K3Villa]

I really don't know what to make of the letter. It might be just me but I also found it read quite badly due to the over use of the comma.

[Merv]

I think McLeish has made our situation pretty clear in his latest press conference - at least we know where Villa stand now. I prefer to hear that kind of honest appraisal of the situation than the summer of ambiguous 'manager will be backed' and 'we're aiming for 4th.... ooops, did I type 4th? My finger must have slipped, I meant 5th... to 9th' comments that we've been treated to.

No players in, until players out. And that applies to free transfers too. Just need to accept it.

[Risso]

I think McLeish has made our situation pretty clear in his latest press conference - at least we know where Villa stand now. I prefer to hear that kind of honest appraisal of the situation than the summer of ambiguous 'manager will be backed' and 'we're aiming for 4th.... ooops, did I type 4th? My finger must have slipped, I meant 5th... to 9th' comments that we've been treated to.

No players in, until players out. And that applies to free transfers too. Just need to accept it.

Yes, the General has been trotting out a right load of old shite.  I guess that's why he was too embarrassed to carry on posting on here.

[Mister E]

1) Yes they tried but equally they failed.

2) When he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy it will have been his own money. While he charges the club interest then he is, on behalf of the club borrowing the money and spending (wasting) it. Not my idea of good management.

3) Don't care whether Randy says anything or not but the silence at critical times over the last few years is deafening. Look at the way we handled the appointment of both Houllier, who was announced but couldn't start till (well nobody knew at the time) , and McLeish, well the less said about that the better. 

4) I have never heard of any business above one or two man bands which doesn't have a strategy. What the hell is any board there for if not to define and constantly evaluate the strategy. Strategies change - there is nothing wrong with that and ours has clearly changed. Yet we get a letter which states their ambitions have not changed. The General has constantly stated exactly the same. Who believes them?

5) We may well know why the CEO's left but if the board is so weak as to not stand up to the manager then I would certainly class that as poor management. 

Entirely correct on all five points.

Actually it's not correct on all five points ....
1. RL has competed in the transfer market; he's paid the "going rate" on wages and he originally put his faith in a well-respected football man, MON. He found approximately 18 months' ago that the approach they'd set out on was not working and has attempted to rein the excess. Not unreasonable for the bloke who owns the club!
2. Wrong. He is simply acknowledging that he is loaning the club a large sum of money, for which he rightly expects some return. But there's also the need to show (in advance of the FFP) that he has not simply gifted the money to the club: by taking an interest charge he is establishing the commercial framework by which a third party would judge the club under the terms of the FFP. Abramoviich has done similarly at Chelski.
3. His PR has not been great but - as Dave said  above - it's certainly better than under Good Ol' Doug. And at least we have had access in the past to CK, even if latterly he seems to have gone off piste.
4. Since I haven't seen the full text of the letter - I have had to let my ST lapse this season - I can't comment, but I too have concerns about their approach, even though much of what they have done operationally in their first five years has been very good.
5. Re senior personnel, I seem to remember everyone being quite excited here when RL first introduced his management team. Steve Stride aside, he seemed to have picked a decent management team. I cannot really comment on Paul Faulkner - I haven't met him - but he does seem to be struggling to make a positive impact.

I think it's fine to question the owner about stuff, but I do think some recognition of his ownership - and the good things that have happened / the bad things that have been avoided - should be given. I know I fought for the removal of Ellis for many years and do not regret his passing one iota; nor do I regret his choice of new owner in RL, even if the cold reality of competing in the EPL only now seems to have dawned on our American friend.

[Villa'Zawg]

The assertion that Randy Lerner's investment in the team has been in any way excessive or extravagant is complete and utter bollocks.

He invested an average of £20m a season for four seasons. He then stopped investing and has now reversed. To put that in perspective, £20m net spend is the same amount of money that McLeish spent at Blues during his final two seasons.

Net spend for the last five years:

# 2006 - 2011 Purchased Gross --- Sold --- Nett --- Per Season

1 Manchester City --- £455,670,000 --- £75,550,000 --- £380,120,000 --- £76,024,000
2 Chelsea --- £199,500,000 --- £101,800,000 --- £97,700,000 --- £19,540,000
3 Tottenham --- £230,300,000 --- £135,100,000 --- £95,200,000 --- £19,040,000
4 Aston Villa --- £145,350,000 --- £67,650,000 --- £77,700,000 --- £15,540,000
5 Sunderland --- £122,850,000 --- £65,725,000 --- £57,125,000 --- £11,425,000
6 Liverpool --- £253,240,000 --- £205,280,000 --- £47,960,000 --- £9,592,000
...

We went for broke and the chance has gone. Time to reign it in.

Can I ask how you collated these figures. I began looking at them by checking the Chelsea and Spurs figures and can't reconcile them to your figures.

Here's what Transfer Markt shows for the Spurs balance sheet 2006/20011.

2010/2011    2.582.800 £    37    22.968.000 £    41    -20.385.200 £
2009/2010    27.984.000 £    37    35.464.000 £    38    -7.480.000 £
2008/2009    74.844.000 £    40    125.400.000 £    40    -50.556.000 £
2007/2008    20.130.000 £    24    83.732.000 £    27    -63.602.000 £
2006/2007    34.012.000 £    23    53.680.000 £    25    -19.668.000 £

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/tottenham-hotspur/transferbilanz/verein_148.html

[dave.woodhall]

1) Yes they tried but equally they failed.

2) When he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy it will have been his own money. While he charges the club interest then he is, on behalf of the club borrowing the money and spending (wasting) it. Not my idea of good management.

3) Don't care whether Randy says anything or not but the silence at critical times over the last few years is deafening. Look at the way we handled the appointment of both Houllier, who was announced but couldn't start till (well nobody knew at the time) , and McLeish, well the less said about that the better. 

4) I have never heard of any business above one or two man bands which doesn't have a strategy. What the hell is any board there for if not to define and constantly evaluate the strategy. Strategies change - there is nothing wrong with that and ours has clearly changed. Yet we get a letter which states their ambitions have not changed. The General has constantly stated exactly the same. Who believes them?

5) We may well know why the CEO's left but if the board is so weak as to not stand up to the manager then I would certainly class that as poor management. 

1) No they didn't fail. They increased revenue, then a number of factors meant it didn't grow as much as they liked. We've also, incidentally, just had our biggest-ever sponsorship deal but that one tends to be overlooked in the "Randy Is Useless" diatribes.

2) Yet again, he should spend his money and never want it back. Why?

3) This is the crux of a lot of the criticism. Villa didn't appoint the manager critics wanted, so everything they do by default is wrong.

4) You complain that they don't have a strategy, then say their strategy is wrong. What's it to be?

5) They did stand up to him once their ideas differed.  Look what happened then.

[pauliewalnuts]

1. Non TV commercial revenue has been flat for a while.

2. Fine, if that's what he wants, but he doesn't get to keep the "most supportive chairman" crown.

3. No. He was getting lots of criticism before he appointed the manager, and over the course of last year.

4. They seem to have a strategy, but it's all about Deloitte rankings rather than PL ones.

5. Fair enough, but then again, they were the ones who let him accrue so much power in the first place.

For what it's worth, I reckon he's looking at Everton as a model. That's fine but Everton are lucky to have such a good manager at that level, and to have held on to him for so long. The flip side of that is that Everton hardly ever sign players these days and Kenwright doesn't put money in (in his case because he doesn't have it).

The McLeish appointment to me looks like he's thought "I can't get Moyes because he won't come, so I'll try to create my own". That to me sounds almost as fanciful as General Krulak telling VT that he thiniks we can finished fourth - then getting lots of stick and saying "sorry, typo, meant 5th" - as if it is the difference between 5th and 4th that people were raising eyebrows about.

I've defended the board massively in the past, I've never been one of the serial moaners where they're concerned, but to me they look out and touch and as if they're floating around not knowing what they're doing, and they have for a while.

[Villa'Zawg]

In Doug's final year our revenue was £49m and wages were £38.3m . So £10.7m left over after paying salary costs.

With revenue having risen to £90m primarily on the back of TV and ticket price increases, why shouldn't we be able to pay at least £70m in wages?

[bertlambshank]

It's not like MON had to hide what was paying the players,he did it with the full backing of the board.It was left far too late before they tried to stop him spunking more of Randys money.

[dave.woodhall]

1. Non TV commercial revenue has been flat for a while.

2. Fine, if that's what he wants, but he doesn't get to keep the "most supportive chairman" crown.

3. No. He was getting lots of criticism before he appointed the manager, and over the course of last year.

4. They seem to have a strategy, but it's all about Deloitte rankings rather than PL ones.

5. Fair enough, but then again, they were the ones who let him accrue so much power in the first place.

1) Try selling Villa outside the West Midlands. It's not easy.

2) He doesn't have to, but neither does he deserve the demonisation he's been getting lately.

3) As I said.

4) I don't know of any club who admits what their strategy is, and if they have one - which would be difficult in football.

5) Without it he might not have taken the job, but it is Randy's single biggest fault. 

[BC54 VFC]

In Doug's final year our revenue was £49m and wages were £38.3m . So £10.7m left over after paying salary costs.

With revenue having risen to £90m primarily on the back of TV and ticket price increases, why shouldn't we be able to pay at least £70m in wages?

...because there is now a substantial level of debt on the balance sheet which needs servicing, and if we tie players onto 3/4/5 year contracts which cumulatively total circa £70M p.a. then what happens if income declines through a combination of reduction in attendances and reduced commercial income; both are feasible in view of the present continuing difficult economic climate. Oh, and don't forget you will probably want a net spend on transfers from the difference between income and expenditure, also.