Randy Lerner exclusive on the OS

[pauliewalnuts]

Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was

Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham

Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time

Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.

[MarkM]

Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was

Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham

Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time

Its interesting to read you say 'the best we could have hoped for' no, the best we could have hoped for would have been managers on the same level as Furguson et al.

What we got was what the Aston Villa FC of 2011 was on a par with.

We may not like it but we are now and are likely to remain just one of the PL also rans, hoping for but not expecting an odd cup run to keep us happy.

[Concrete John]

Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was

Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham

Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time

Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.

There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher.  For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.

And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.

[pauliewalnuts]

Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was

Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham

Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time

Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.

There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher.  For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.

And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.

I know, but Hookey was using the continued availability of two of those managers as a reason to suggest that AM was the best we could get.

That's like saying the continued availability of Ancelotti means that actually AM was a better choice than him too.

It's morre complicatead than that (as you suggested)

[Toronto Villa]

Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was

Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham

Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time

Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.

There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher.  For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.

And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.

I get the impression with Hughes that we would have just been a stepping stone for him, just as Fulham was. I'm still convinced Randy wanted Moyes, and failing that wanted a Moyes look-a-like so to speak. A manager that would be there for the long haul and make us competitive as a long term project without the riches that the likes of Hughes or Benitez would have demanded. What I'm still sure of is that once the dust settles and we get our house in some semblance of order, AM will have significantly more funds to play with than he realised in his first transfer window.

[Concrete John]

I get the impression with Hughes that we would have just been a stepping stone for him, just as Fulham was. I'm still convinced Randy wanted Moyes, and failing that wanted a Moyes look-a-like so to speak. A manager that would be there for the long haul and make us competitive as a long term project without the riches that the likes of Hughes or Benitez would have demanded. What I'm still sure of is that once the dust settles and we get our house in some semblance of order, AM will have significantly more funds to play with than he realised in his first transfer window.

I think the first part of that is the most likely scenario of all those we've speculated about.  As for the second part - I hope so!

[Merv]

Finally - a long overdue interview with Randy. Not exactly thrilled with what he said, but for me it does at least demonstrate his commitment to the club, which I know was being questioned in some quarters.

A couple of other things:

I wouldn't have had a problem with this Hughes clause. For him to be approached by one of the big four would have meant he'd done something pretty special with us. Even then, I'd have been surprised had any of them gone for him - one of them being the club that once sacked him.

The Ferguson letter is a bit cringeworthy, I'm sorry. Asked for advice beforehand, he's only ever going to speak well of one of his former players, and such a key player for him in the past. I recall some of his comments (not in the locked-away letter, comments he made publicly) that were along the lines of AM would do a decent job with a limited budget, as he'd done so in Scotland. It all felt a little bit like a pat on the head for Villa.

All in all, good to hear from the owner, though.

[Toronto Villa]

Finally - a long overdue interview with Randy. Not exactly thrilled with what he said, but for me it does at least demonstrate his commitment to the club, which I know was being questioned in some quarters.

A couple of other things:

I wouldn't have had a problem with this Hughes clause. For him to be approached by one of the big four would have meant he'd done something pretty special with us. Even then, I'd have been surprised had any of them gone for him - one of them being the club that once sacked him.

The Ferguson letter is a bit cringeworthy, I'm sorry. Asked for advice beforehand, he's only ever going to speak well of one of his former players, and such a key player for him in the past. I recall some of his comments (not in the locked-away letter, comments he made publicly) that were along the lines of AM would do a decent job with a limited budget, as he'd done so in Scotland. It all felt a little bit like a pat on the head for Villa.

All in all, good to hear from the owner, though.

the thing with the Hughes clause is that with Kia Joorabchian behind the scenes it wouldn't take much to have him develop itchy feet. I think above all else, the board wanted an end to the managerial uncertainty that plagued us last season.

As for the Ferguson reference, I think it's a lot of nothing. Was he asked about it, or did he volunteer it readily and is all giddy about it? Does it really matter. It will only matter if it indeed becomes a really good appointment and gets under Fergies's skin when we beat him. Until then it's food for internet conversation but of little consequence besides.

[Hookeysmith]

Its interesting to note that 4 big contenders for the villa job before AM was

Martinez - more likely to take Wigan down this year than any other
Hughes - still out of work
Benitez - still out of work
Jol - doing a piss poor job at Fulham

Maybe Eck was the best we could have hoped for and Randy will be proved right in time

Only if you accept that the reason Hughes and Benitez are still out of work is because they're not as good as McLeish.

There are numerous criteria to the appointment of a manger and I don't think it's totally unrealistic to believe that on some of them Randy would rate AM higher.  For instance, following what MON did and the way Hughes left Fulham, loyalty may have been an issue, just as I think willingness to work within a budget ruled out Benitez.

And no, that wouldn't have lead me to McLeish had it been my decision, but the board does have to take a number of things into account.

I know, but Hookey was using the continued availability of two of those managers as a reason to suggest that AM was the best we could get.

That's like saying the continued availability of Ancelotti means that actually AM was a better choice than him too.

It's morre complicatead than that (as you suggested)

My point was Hughes obviously came across like a mercenary and after the MON fiasco i am sure RL would want to stay well clear of people like him.

Benitez - i think was believing his own hype - lets face it the best chance any 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' team have had to win the league was his final year and it was he that went all "mental" towards the end and threw it away + the way he conducted himself with American owners good bad or indifferent would not have enamoured himself to RL

Martinez / Whelan used us as a pawn to get himself a better deal - we looked foolish and to be honest as much as i liked Martinez i doubt evry much the results would have been any better with him. And more to the point it seesm AM has showed a few of our big time charlies who is the boss - Dunnes little clique would have eaten Martinez alive

Ancelloti - has been quoted many times that he wants a London job due to family etc so i never saw him in the frame to be honest as much as i would have liked.

The more i hear RL talk about hard work / acadamy / budgets etc then AM does seem like a perfect choice from a RL point of view

If Given and N'Zog come off then once the deadwood higher earners have pissed off then i am sure he will be trusted to  spend a little more each time.

[Merv]

the thing with the Hughes clause is that with Kia Joorabchian behind the scenes it wouldn't take much to have him develop itchy feet.

I don't know; Hughes has hardly stockpiled loads of clubs so far in his career, still doesn't strike me as the sort to jump from club to club (spent decent spells at Wales and Blackburn before his spell at City, sacked there - only a year at Fulham but then, I still wonder whether he only left there for the chance of the Villa job, which then quickly disappeared).

For a better manager, you have to be prepared to accept that one day, someone might come calling. Yes, McLeish is a safer bet - this is perhaps the biggest job he'll have.

[Mister E]

I'm still convinced Randy wanted Moyes, and failing that wanted a Moyes look-a-like

Well, he's ugly and speaks with a scottie accent so I guess he got what he wanted.

I think - as you say, TC - Hookey has got the scenario about right: RL saw McMinge as spot on for the situation the club was in; so far, he'll think he got his judgement right too, but the away game tonight mayreinforce the gap that there appears to be between us (in mid-table) and the trophy challengers. Which will merely re-emphasise that RL has taken a"holding pattern" approach to Villa rather than "another push for the summit".

[garyfouroaks]

the thing with the Hughes clause is that with Kia Joorabchian behind the scenes it wouldn't take much to have him develop itchy feet. I think above all else, the board wanted an end to the managerial uncertainty that plagued us last season.

As for the Ferguson reference, I think it's a lot of nothing. Was he asked about it, or did he volunteer it readily and is all giddy about it? Does it really matter. It will only matter if it indeed becomes a really good appointment and gets under Fergies's skin when we beat him. Until then it's food for internet conversation but of little consequence besides.

Good points, well made.

[Risso]

Hang on a second.  Hughes operated completely legally and within the terms of his contract.  Both he and his club had agreed a break clause in his contract.   McLeish on the other hand ended up costing us a load in compensation.   So where's the honour in approaching a manager under contract?

[Compass]

I want him gone. Not because he isn't spending huge amounts. That's not the point. The point is he has no idea what's he doing and he's been with us for 5 years. That's inexcusable. He's not the man to take us forward.

[Legion]

I want him gone. Not because he isn't spending huge amounts. That's not the point. The point is he has no idea what's he doing and he's been with us for 5 years. That's inexcusable. He's not the man to take us forward.

So who is?