Randy Lerner

[Ad@m]

You have to say there are some short memories on here.

Three years ago it was almost unanimous that Randy was the best chairman any club could possibly hope for.  It wasn't just Villa fans saying it, fans of other clubs like Man U, Liverpool, etc were saying it too.

Go back to HDE days and there were annual protests against him and he was virtually universally hated.

Present day and to some posters Randy's now an unmitigated disaster and they long for the days Herbert was in charge.  Talk about changing history.

Things change. So what?

This is now , 3 years ago we were challenging the top 4 , now we are once again battling relegation , we must look at the here and now .

Randy did a decent job in his first 3 years , since then he not been doing a decent job.

And three years before that we were battling relegation; and five years before that we were battling relegation; and three years before that we were battling relegation; etc, etc.

Yes, Randy isn't perfect, but neither is he the disaster that some are now making him out to be, just because we're struggling.  There are many more direct reasons for our troubles (like overpaid players who don't give a shit, poor managers over the past two years, an apparently crap chief exec who's agreed some of these contracts with players and managers, etc) than Randy.

And for those three years you say Randy did a good job you're only basing that on the fact he put £200m in to the club and kept out of the limelight.  Well what's changed now?  He's not putting as much money in which is fairly understandable given money doesn't grow on trees and is still staying out of the limelight.

If you want an Ambramovich or a Mansour then good luck to you - for one, they're not exactly easy to find, and for two, it'll be a very different place at VP.  Yes we'd be challenging for trophies but we wouldn't necessarily win them, we'd be changing managers every year or so, ticket prices will sky rocket, the place will be full of glory hunters, going to games will get boring, etc etc.

Randy is such a better chairman than Ellis I'm astounded we actually have this thread.

[LeeB]

Just fuck off with this Doug shit, whatever Lerner's faults he's got a long way to go before he ever stoops to Ellis levels.

Care to elaborate?

Are you new to supporting us?

Relatively - I've only had my first season ticket in 1969 and so can only comment on two chairmen.  You?

So you've kept a flame for Doug mark 1 for all these years? That's quite touching.

I only remember Doug mark 2, and my first season down there was 86-87, the culmination of his exercise in cost-cutting and purging the club of those whose success would have embarrassed him.

[eastie]

You have to say there are some short memories on here.

Three years ago it was almost unanimous that Randy was the best chairman any club could possibly hope for.  It wasn't just Villa fans saying it, fans of other clubs like Man U, Liverpool, etc were saying it too.

Go back to HDE days and there were annual protests against him and he was virtually universally hated.

Present day and to some posters Randy's now an unmitigated disaster and they long for the days Herbert was in charge.  Talk about changing history.

Things change. So what?

This is now , 3 years ago we were challenging the top 4 , now we are once again battling relegation , we must look at the here and now .

Randy did a decent job in his first 3 years , since then he not been doing a decent job.

No, Randy didn't do a decent job - we thought he was but he gave MON all the money and let him loose buying whoever (from the British Isles) he wanted. Then he realised MON had spunked it on high wages & average players etc. If he had any business brain he would have stopped it or taken more control earlier on. We may not have found ourselves in this position now, fighting relegation.

We were challenging for a top 4 place in those 3 years and bought in some quality players , along with 2 trips to Wembley- the owner backed his manager and unfortunately mon wasted a lot of money on some average overpaid players.

Randys mistakes since mon left have mainly been choice of managers and the reeling in of spending which has seen quality players going and being replaced with cheaper options.

I was not unhappy with his first 3 years as I think he gave it a real go to try and achieve a top 4 place , since then ambition has waned.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

I have supported Villa since pre Doug and will say that over his whole tenure he did more good than bad , that is my opinion and I know there are plenty who would disagree.
The important point is that money has changed football at the top level so much that comparisions between Doug and Randy are now irrelevant.
If a club the size of Villa sank back to the depths it did in 1968, it would simply be impossible for a local businessman to come in and haul the club back into the very upper reaches. Yes I know he wasnt here when we won the League and European Cup and I know we had a relegation, but we were also amongst the top four (and top two) at times under him. It is now all about money, lots and lots of money. So if your not a big city club with billions being pumped in. whoever you are you can just forget it.
The days of locally based businessmen running top clubs is gone forever. It can never ever be done again, in the same way a Clough with Derby/Forest or Ramsey with Ipswich can ever take a smaller club to the top.
Yeh maybe the Villa are shit right now but at other times we wont be quite as shit. Blame owners, managers, executives all you like but I will never feel the Villa are as shit as I think modern money football is. We, along with about 20 other clubs have been cut adrift from those rich rich bastards at the top. Until the Premier came in there was always hope that you could rise to be top dogs in the country if only for a season or two every few decades. That has all gone forever.   

[eastie]

I have supported Villa since pre Doug and will say that over his whole tenure he did more good than bad , that is my opinion and I know there are plenty who would disagree.
The important point is that money has changed football at the top level so much that comparisions between Doug and Randy are now irrelevant.
If a club the size of Villa sank back to the depths it did in 1968, it would simply be impossible for a local businessman to come in and haul the club back into the very upper reaches. Yes I know he wasnt here when we won the League and European Cup and I know we had a relegation, but we also amongst the top four (and top two) at times under him. It is now all about money, lots and lots of money. So if your not a big city club with billions being pumped in. whoever you are you can just forget it.
The days of locally based businessmen running top clubs is gone forever. It can never ever be done again, in the same way a Clough with Derby/Forest or Ramsey with Ipswich can ever take a smaller club to the top.
Yeh maybe the Villa are shit right now but at other times we wont be quite as shit. Blame owners, managers, executives all you like but I will never feel the Villa are as shit as I think modern money football is. We, along with about 20 other clubs have been cut adrift from those rich rich bastards at the top. Until the Premier came in there was always hope that you could rise to be top dogs in the country if only for a season or two every few decades. That has all gone forever.   

Very good post.

[TopDeck113]

Re: Doug.  God knows he had his faults, but ingrained in him was the murkier ways in which the football business works and the fact that everyone within the game would take his call.  I'd be resonably confident that over the duration of his tenure that did us more good than harm.  I can't say the same for the present incumbents.

[pestria]

@adam

I don't think anyone on here is 'keeping a flame' for Ellis. 

For my part I was trying to point out that the myth of Lerner putting money into the club vs. Ellis taking it out is very simplistic in both the context of modern football and business in general.

i have been a mild critic of Lerner almost from day one and have been derided on here many times for being so.  My main points have always been that football is  a business, admittedly a rather specialised one, and that Lerner is not a businessman or indeed a football man - which is ok if you get the right people into to help you.  Unfortunately he has failed to do this and so we end up in the current mess.

I don't we should have any sympathy for Lerner if his football toy has cost him a few bob.  He hasn't given his money to us the fans. We don't owe him anything. 

I do believe however, that as custodian of this great club, Lerner owes the fans a commitment whether it be financial or otherwise to be able to compete inthe premier league.  He has failed to do this for some time - let's hope things change soon.

[Dribbler]

The reasons for our current predicament are many and I don't think you can lay the blame at any one person's door. Yes at the end of the day the Chairman has to take ultimate responsibility, he hires the Chief Executive, and with advice chooses the manager, he also determines the finances and defines the overall structure of the club, but I think he is far from being a bad owner. He has invested heavily in this club, even post MoN, and has backed Houllier, McLeish and Lambert with not inconsiderable amounts of money in the transfer market over the last 3 years. We are still one of the biggest spenders on players over the last few years so I think this not investing in the club or the  team myth should be put to bed.

MoN was manager when he took over, he invested heavily in him, and despite all of MoNs faults in his style of play, choice of players and squad usage, he got us within a hairs breadth of breaking into the holy grail of the top four and getting cup success. In retrospect it looks like it was a boom  or bust approach, and MoN unfortunately left us bust when he left, with the timing of his departure but more importantly with very shaky structural foundations and the number of average premiership players with long contracts and high wages. 

Personally I don't think Houllier was a bad appointment, apart from the verbal gaffs he made, which IMO unduly aroused the ire of some overly precious supporters, I think he was trying to build a good footballing side and trying to turn around a very difficult situation, coming in when the season had already started. The illness wasn't good obviously, but even after his illness I think had we stayed with him, we would have done well. Even McAllister would have been a good option to keep on, he'd strung a good set of results together against some good teams at the end of the season to see us safe and would have provided the necessary continuity into the next season.

The big gaff was McLeish, it was a vastly unpopular decision which was never going to work because of his history, but IMO it was the wrong decision primarily because it lacked continuity regarding the style of football and the direction we wanted to go. We then had a whole new set of McLeish signings to add to the MoN core of the team and the Houllier signings and were again veering back towards an old school footballing style rather than the progressive style of football we were trying to develop under Houllier.

I think in the summer most people were in agreement that Lambert was a good choice as manager, young, ambitious and successful (albeit outside of the premiership) and his vision of building a good progressive footballing side from young and hungry players fitted the clubs vision that we'd originally had with Houllier. He was backed with money in the summer, and by all accounts could have spent more if he'd wanted. Whilst the club have stressed they want to go with a youth type policy, Lambert made his own choices of transfers (apart from Holman) and has made his own choices regarding his treatment of the existing senior core of the team when he came in. Lambert was yet another change in direction of managerial style but he has made his decisions on transfers, training, football style and tactics and squad choice. He has to take responsibility for those and the fact that given what he has to had to play with, there is no excuse for performing as badly as we have many times this season.

All in all I don't think Randy has been, or is, a bad owner, the McLeish choice was baffling and pivotal in our current predicament because of the volte face it had on the teams philosophy and direction, but the ethos and investment have been there and I don't believe for one minute he has lost interest.

I also want to address the often cited argument that we are where we are because we sold all of our best players and replaced them with lesser players. Who are all of the amazing players we have 'got rid of'? To my mind Young, Milner and Downing are the only ones most of us would say we didn't really want sold, even then some people wanted rid, and it seems all 3 wanted to leave. We have brought some good players in since, we've also brought some cack players in, and on big money. The managers have to stand by their signings at the end of the day.

So who's fault is all this? Well IMO no one person's, the chairman yes, the CEO, most definitely yes, MoN most definitely yes, subsequent managers, yes, and of course many of the players. The prime reason for me historically that explains where we are is the lack of continuity and the failure of the so called '5 year plan', ultimately as I started with that comes down to the owner and more specifically the CEO, who I think has to go at the end of the season.

Lambert however has to stand up and take responsibility as the current manager of the team and for trying to change things to quickly, if we survive this season we will be fine next season and things will be promising, if not, well I fear we will be buggered. Let's just hope then that significant investment comes in January and that it is spent wisely and we get the players in needed to secure our future.

[dave.woodhall]

HDE made his gains in the main by selling to Lerner, not from the coffers of the club.  Of course he took a decent salary, but so does Faulkner and no doubt a few more of lLerner's team.

Are you on a windup?

Ellis was the first football club chairman to pay himself a salary - taking money out of a club in this way was his idea.  I haven't got the numbers to hand but wasn't he paying himself a couple of million a year by the end?

Also, he made millions when he floated the club, sold a load of his shares for £12 (I think) to fans before those shares plummeted in value to less than a tenth of that during his chairmanship.  The fans lost all that money while Ellis became a multi-millionaire off it.

Dont't know about his final salary, but I doubt it was that much different from what the current management team are paid.

As for the shares.  All existing shareholders got the same deal/opportunity: convert to the new shares at the rate you mention and then hold, sell or buy more as you please.  Such is modern life that investors made losses - nobody forced fans to be investors.

However, not many of them had the opportunity to buy shares for £5 when they knew they were worth much more than that, or to use their block vote to convert special shares to ordinary shares at a rate that made even stock market analysts raise an eyebrow.

[Chrisupnorth]

I don't think Randy's intentions have ever been anything but honourable towards the Club.  However, this article seems to mirror everything that has been happening at B6 in recent times. 

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2012/08/randy_lerners_reign_over_the_c.html

[eastie]

I don't think Randy's intentions have ever been anything but honourable towards the Club.  However, this article seems to mirror everything that has been happening at B6 in recent times. 

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2012/08/randy_lerners_reign_over_the_c.html

Very interesting article.

[pestria]

HDE made his gains in the main by selling to Lerner, not from the coffers of the club.  Of course he took a decent salary, but so does Faulkner and no doubt a few more of lLerner's team.

Are you on a windup?

Ellis was the first football club chairman to pay himself a salary - taking money out of a club in this way was his idea.  I haven't got the numbers to hand but wasn't he paying himself a couple of million a year by the end?

Also, he made millions when he floated the club, sold a load of his shares for £12 (I think) to fans before those shares plummeted in value to less than a tenth of that during his chairmanship.  The fans lost all that money while Ellis became a multi-millionaire off it.

Dont't know about his final salary, but I doubt it was that much different from what the current management team are paid.

As for the shares.  All existing shareholders got the same deal/opportunity: convert to the new shares at the rate you mention and then hold, sell or buy more as you please.  Such is modern life that investors made losses - nobody forced fans to be investors.

However, not many of them had the opportunity to buy shares for £5 when they knew they were worth much more than that, or to use their block vote to convert special shares to ordinary shares at a rate that made even stock market analysts raise an eyebrow.

Fair point - we all know he was no angel.

I suppose that means he diluted the equity held by the rest of the shareholders, which stinks, but i'm not sure it equates to taking money out of the club as has been implied.

[kippaxvilla2]

You do realise you're all getting free flags for the Bradford game don't you.

[dave.woodhall]

He paid himself a very good wage, plus bonuses, regardless of the club's performance.

Whether he took the bulk of his money from Villa or from outside sources is a moot point but the fact is that he became very rich on the back of the club and never put a single penny in from the day he bought back control from the Bendalls.

[LeeB]

He paid himself a very good wage, plus bonuses, regardless of the club's performance.

Whether he took the bulk of his money from Villa or from outside sources is a moot point but the fact is that he became very rich on the back of the club and never put a single penny in from the day he bought back control from the Bendalls.

And he put the prices up when we went down.