Have we seen the last of Mr. Lerner and the General?

[pauliewalnuts]

Hopefully yes because they've been found out. When the General came out with just think what McLeish could do if he was backed (thank god he hasn't that much though, he's already proven to waste alot of money on Hutton and N'Zogbia) and thinking we would manage to get 4th oops my finger slipped 5th, then you just knew the General hasn't got a clue.

I've got a lot of time for the General, and he was always in a difficult position fielding questions like that, but I had to say, the above statements really did make me wonder whether they understand the PL at all.

When you find yourself on the same side of the fence of a troll like Comp(lete)ass then it's time to reconsider your standpoint.

Randy and McLeish have had one transfer window.

With respect, Chris, that's provocative nonsense, and you know it is.

I'm agreeing with him on the point that asking us to imagine what it'd be like if AM had a chairman who backed him - prior to a window in which we sold our best players, recouped transfer money, and cut the wage bill - and then setting a ridiculous objective like 4th, prior to adjusting it to 5th - as if that was what people were worried about, the difference between those two positions - was daft given what actually transpired. They set themselves up for a kicking, which is what they rightly got.

I don't think many of us would disagree with that.

Still, if you think the wage control / austerity measures are going to suddenly be dropped in the next window or two, good luck to you.

[SashasGrandad]

Can't put a comment on the Randy and the Arabs thread.

Was going to suggest he was talking to a chap called  Gaddafi but the reception was so poor as he was in a storm drain!

[Chris Smith]

Still, if you think the wage control / austerity measures are going to suddenly be dropped in the next window or two, good luck  ???to you

.

I'm suggesting that deciding that Randy isn't going to back the manager ever after a single transfer window is, at best, short sighted.

I still think that wages is the issue, something most seemed to agree on 12-18 months ago.

[ChrissyPrice]

People were shocked when they thought they had seen the annual appearance of RL today at VP.

However, everyone calmed down when they realised the phantom was just the ghost from Aston Hall queuing for tickets for the Norwich game.

An obvious wind-up. Clearly no-one is going to have to queue for tickets for the Norwich game.

[brian green]

Apart from Mansour and City, there cannot be a single Premiership owner who is not aware of the need for economic stringency in the months and years ahead.   Arsenal have already trimmed their sails and are well placed to ride out any storm.  The Chelsea owner faces weeks in court trying not to lose a massive chunk of his personal wealth.   The smoke and mirrors of the Glazers is well documented and the owners of Liverpool are financially very much on a par with Randy Lerner.   Tottenham have borrowed heavily to give Redknapp his head and the prospect of a new stadium either in Tottenham or on the site of the Olympic stadium in the present financial climate fanciful to say the least.   All the others are strapped for cash.   Add to that mix the landmark judgement granted the pub landlady to show football via Greece and you have a landscape from horizon to horizon of no more obscene money washing around football.

Despite last weekend's make or break summit about the eurozone crisis the rising markets lasted only one day - yesterday.   Today they are falling sharply again.

Only a fool would ignore what is happening in the world and neither Randy Lerner or Charles Krulak is a fool.   Faulkner maybe.

[Dave Clark Five]

I wouldn't be surprised if the desire of Chelsea's owner to build a new ground ends in tears. Utd and Arsenal have much bigger grounds that they fill every week. If the owner wants the income of another 20000 at every home game, he will succeed or pack in.

Sorry if I have missed any recent update on this.

[old man villa fan]

The Jan before that saw the comments from MON about selling before buying.  So I guess it was somethime after summer 2009 when Randy revised his strategy.   

I think it was the General that said MON had gone over budget in the summer of 2009 with the signing of Warnock. MON was just a spoiled child with those comments and I guess the writing was on the wall thereafter.

I think those comments from the General where after the event though?  As I recall MON ws asked at the time if he had to 'sell to buy', to which he replied "I wouldn't be the only manager in that position."  I don't remember hearing anything else about it suring the Jan 2010 window?

For me it was sometime between this and out last big outlay in summer 2009 that the club's approach changed.

I still firmly believe that MON was only allowed to go on his last buying spree in summer 2009 on the proviso that he got rid of some of the deadwood.  He failed to do so and that is when it all went tits up.  If that was the case, he welched on the deal.

I still do not believe in the constructive dismissal idea.  I think it may have been similar to Mark Hughes at Fulham where he was prevented from taking another job for a period of time.  My reasoning being that it took a full season to resolve and it was only after this period that a financial settlement was agreed i.e. his salary for a years gardening leave.

From the above, I would agree that the balancing of the books started 2 years ago.

[dave.woodhall]

It's interesting that the general always gets lumped in with the good/bad debate when he's only ever been a non-exec and his input has always been limited.

[Californian Villain]

It's interesting that the general always gets lumped in with the good/bad debate when he's only ever been a non-exec and his input has always been limited.

He's the self-appointed spokesman for the board though, and by carrying that message it's not unreasonable that he should be associated with it.

[dave.woodhall]

It's interesting that the general always gets lumped in with the good/bad debate when he's only ever been a non-exec and his input has always been limited.

He's the self-appointed spokesman for the board though, and by carrying that message it's not unreasonable that he should be associated with it.

The important word there being 'self-appointed.' I may be doing him a disservice but I always get the impression that his main role was cheerleader and head motivator with the important work being done by others.

[cheltenhamlion]

The General is way out of the loop and has been for a long time. He is an honourable and truthful man without question though. Chief Cheerleader, maybe. A bare faced liar? Not even close.

[Californian Villain]

It's interesting that the general always gets lumped in with the good/bad debate when he's only ever been a non-exec and his input has always been limited.

He's the self-appointed spokesman for the board though, and by carrying that message it's not unreasonable that he should be associated with it.

The important word there being 'self-appointed.' I may be doing him a disservice but I always get the impression that his main role was cheerleader and head motivator with the important work being done by others.

I agree with that - and as a motivator I think he was very successful. Having said that, after the imposition of the current financial restraints, and the related criticism of the board, his role (if you can call it that) became much more challenging. No wonder he found something better to do.

[PaulMcGrathsNo5Shirt]

It's interesting that the general always gets lumped in with the good/bad debate when he's only ever been a non-exec and his input has always been limited.

He's the self-appointed spokesman for the board though, and by carrying that message it's not unreasonable that he should be associated with it.

The important word there being 'self-appointed.' I may be doing him a disservice but I always get the impression that his main role was cheerleader and head motivator with the important work being done by others.

I agree with that - and as a motivator I think he was very successful. Having said that, after the imposition of the current financial restraints, and the related criticism of the board, his role (if you can call it that) became much more challenging. No wonder he found something better to do.

He would still know an awful lot more about the running of the club than any of us lot. It's a shame he is no longer around.

[brian green]

It is a shame he is not around.   Villa and football cannot afford to lose men of such calibre.

[eastie]

From randys point of view i guess he feels it would take enormous investment to hit the top 4 and why spend £40m on players to earn a couple of million more in prize money -the top 4 is where its at and anywhere below that financially it would not make sense to throw £40m plus on players to finish top 6 or thereabouts.

would you spend £40m in the hope of earning £2m more in prize money , because lets face it to reach the top 4 would take £100m plus and we just dont have those finances.