Randy Lerner

[paul_e]

I see Steve Stride more as an excellent Chief Operations Officer and one who would do a fantastic job at VIlla Park. The role of a football clubs CEO is complex having a need to combine the accountancy skills needed in negotiations etc, to recognition of the the importance of success on the field through support of the team manager. Someone is needed who is experienced in footballing matters, is well connected, and has boardroom experience. I am sure there are others but certainly Graham Taylor , John Deehan ( albeit at lower league level) seem to have the CV required.

How would people like Deehan or Taylor have the accountancy or financial skills you mention?  The point about a good board of directors is that you have people with differing skills (eg finance, operations, sales and marketing etc) who combine to ensure that a company as a whole is well run, with a strategy that calls on all of their experience.  What seems to have happened in the O'Neill years is that the financial strategy for the club was non-existent, with Lerner apparently giving O'Neill carte blanche to just sign whatever players he wanted, on whatever salary.  There doesn't seem to have been any sort of budget setting or cost analysis undertaken.

The 'what seems to have happened' in there is the key bit as it allows you to then continue the sentence based around you're opinions which are no more valid or verified than anything else.  We were aiming for the champions league, that much is clear.  We had our first 6th place, at which point we hadn't spent massively and had a wage bill that was perfectly acceptable for a team who were in the top 6 of the richest league in the world.  We then had a big spending summer where we tried to bridge that gap, at that point we moved into speculation, whereby the wage bill was extended to slightly more than a top 6 side of our financial size was comfortable with but still not massively out of line with our earnings.  That didn't work either with MoN clearly arguing that the forwards were fine but we needed to repalce Barry (Downing) and buy a defence to take us to the next level.  RL agreed to that on the provision that we had to make the champions league as at that point our wage bill went through the roof, when it was clear we weren't going to make it again MoN was told he had to get the wages down to a suitable level because we couldn't keep gambling on making the top 4.

Everything since then comes back to us not making that step up despite funding both in terms of fees and wages being sufficient to do so (and thereby totally reliant on us doing so).

I genuinely don't see what he's done that was so wrong.

Someone with a bit of football knowledge on the board might have questioned the value of signing Collins and Dunne when we had Cuellar and Davies as existing expensive central defenders and only allowed 1 or the other, and other similar queries but fundamentally MON sold himself as being able to deliver the top 4 and RL gave him the backing to do it and made financial restrictions based on MON delivering.

In hindsight he got it wrong but I can't believe anyone thinks the fan base would've been happy to read reports saying RL had pulled the plug on various deals because they were ridiculous when we were comfortably top 6.  As mentioned, the comparisons to Doug not having the balls pony up the cash would've been everywhere and he'd have been no different to the previous guy.

The reality is he did exactly what the fans wanted when he came in, he put fuck loads of cash on the table and said "win me things", he just didn't have the right guy in front of him when he did it (but I doubt many people thought that at the time).

[Ad@m]

I see Steve Stride more as an excellent Chief Operations Officer and one who would do a fantastic job at VIlla Park. The role of a football clubs CEO is complex having a need to combine the accountancy skills needed in negotiations etc, to recognition of the the importance of success on the field through support of the team manager. Someone is needed who is experienced in footballing matters, is well connected, and has boardroom experience. I am sure there are others but certainly Graham Taylor , John Deehan ( albeit at lower league level) seem to have the CV required.

How would people like Deehan or Taylor have the accountancy or financial skills you mention?  The point about a good board of directors is that you have people with differing skills (eg finance, operations, sales and marketing etc) who combine to ensure that a company as a whole is well run, with a strategy that calls on all of their experience.  What seems to have happened in the O'Neill years is that the financial strategy for the club was non-existent, with Lerner apparently giving O'Neill carte blanche to just sign whatever players he wanted, on whatever salary.  There doesn't seem to have been any sort of budget setting or cost analysis undertaken.

The 'what seems to have happened' in there is the key bit as it allows you to then continue the sentence based around you're opinions which are no more valid or verified than anything else.  We were aiming for the champions league, that much is clear.  We had our first 6th place, at which point we hadn't spent massively and had a wage bill that was perfectly acceptable for a team who were in the top 6 of the richest league in the world.  We then had a big spending summer where we tried to bridge that gap, at that point we moved into speculation, whereby the wage bill was extended to slightly more than a top 6 side of our financial size was comfortable with but still not massively out of line with our earnings.  That didn't work either with MoN clearly arguing that the forwards were fine but we needed to repalce Barry (Downing) and buy a defence to take us to the next level.  RL agreed to that on the provision that we had to make the champions league as at that point our wage bill went through the roof, when it was clear we weren't going to make it again MoN was told he had to get the wages down to a suitable level because we couldn't keep gambling on making the top 4.

Everything since then comes back to us not making that step up despite funding both in terms of fees and wages being sufficient to do so (and thereby totally reliant on us doing so).

I genuinely don't see what he's done that was so wrong.

Someone with a bit of football knowledge on the board might have questioned the value of signing Collins and Dunne when we had Cuellar and Davies as existing expensive central defenders and only allowed 1 or the other, and other similar queries but fundamentally MON sold himself as being able to deliver the top 4 and RL gave him the backing to do it and made financial restrictions based on MON delivering.

In hindsight he got it wrong but I can't believe anyone thinks the fan base would've been happy to read reports saying RL had pulled the plug on various deals because they were ridiculous when we were comfortably top 6.  As mentioned, the comparisons to Doug not having the balls pony up the cash would've been everywhere and he'd have been no different to the previous guy.

The reality is he did exactly what the fans wanted when he came in, he put fuck loads of cash on the table and said "win me things", he just didn't have the right guy in front of him when he did it (but I doubt many people thought that at the time).

Nail. On. Head.

Let's face it, at the time he was appointed 99% of fans were ecstatic at MON arriving and the wider world thought it was a fantastic appointment.  He was being touted as the next Man Utd manager and the best British or Irish manager there was, after Fergie.

Randy backed him to the hilt and the only criticism you can level at him was that he left it too late to reign him in, but as you rightly point out, Randy was in a no-win situation there because had he reigned him in any sooner the fans would've gone apeshit.

Like it or not, our billionaire isn't as rich as some other club's billionaires and therein lies part of the problem in modern football.

[Matt Collins]

Yes. Except we didn't complain when he was bankrolling us while clubs like Everton were having to compete with us whilst living within their means. Football fans are very hypocritical on this point. How many city fans do you think used to argue that it was wrong for clubs like Man U to have so much financial clout?

[dave.woodhall]

I pretty much agree with all of the above, except I also think that the board believed that proper marketing and a whiff of success would bring in the crowds to the point where a 51k stadium was both viable and filled most of the time, and our merchandise would be sold around the world. That might be naive in hindsight but a lot of us thought that once Doug had gone the club would soar to the heavens regardless of who was in charge. 

[Risso]

Sorry, I think that's a load of old horseshit.  How would we have known that Lerner had "reigned" (sic) him in or not?  How would we have known that instead of spending £40m a year and letting wages get to over 100% of turnover, that a more sensible budget had been set that meant that wages for the forseeable future would be sustainable?  Good ownership isn't just about letting a manager buy whatever old shit he wants on stupid contracts, but actually working out what you can afford.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you employ too many people on £50K a week contracts that you're still liable to pay this three or four years down the line.

[Ad@m]

Sorry, I think that's a load of old horseshit.  How would we have known that Lerner had "reigned" (sic) him in or not?  How would we have known that instead of spending £40m a year and letting wages get to over 100% of turnover, that a more sensible budget had been set that meant that wages for the forseeable future would be sustainable?  Good ownership isn't just about letting a manager buy whatever old shit he wants on stupid contracts, but actually working out what you can afford.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you employ too many people on £50K a week contracts that you're still liable to pay this three or four years down the line.

You really think MON would've worked under those terms without telling all his chums in the press?  Within days there would've been headlines about Randy holding the club back, etc, etc.

Anyway, the second Lerner/Faulkner did get tough on MON he stormed off in a strop.

He was in a no-win situation.

[pauliewalnuts]

There's no doubting Randy splashed the cash in the MON years, and we were doing nothing to persuade him not to.

However, we didn't know just how close to the financial cliff-edge it was pushing us.

Plus, all that money to try to qualify for the CL - that alone would not have been enough. We'd more than likely have got booted out before the big money started, and in any case, to keep us there would have required even more money.

Whenever Randy gets discussed, too many people just see it as "you don't rate the bloke because he's stopped spending", when that's not the case, certainly not for me. What I want him to do isn't start spending money he hasn't got, and is not sell up to whoever he can and move on, it is to start running the club more effectively, because, whatever he's done over the last few years, it's been a feat of some accomplishment to have spent all that money to wind up with a squad full of kids at the arse end of the table.

Ultimately, he owns the club, he runs it, he therefore has to take a great chunk of the blame for having managed us to where we are now. Given that his running of the Browns was equally poor, you do have to start wondering if the bloke is in the wrong job.

Tottenham and Everton are the two clubs we have been compared to on this thread, and both of those clubs look way better run than we have been. Moyes gets results on a shoestring. Spurs sell their best players, too, but they always seem to manage to replace them, and to move on dead wood from their squad - and all on a wage bill much lower than ours.

[Ad@m]

I pretty much agree with all of the above, except I also think that the board believed that proper marketing and a whiff of success would bring in the crowds to the point where a 51k stadium was both viable and filled most of the time, and our merchandise would be sold around the world. That might be naive in hindsight but a lot of us thought that once Doug had gone the club would soar to the heavens regardless of who was in charge. 

I think you're right and I've put posts on here before showing that Villa relatively punch below their weight given the population of the West Midlands and the local competition when compared to other regions.  I'm sure Randy looked at that and thought it was a relatively easy win.  Couple that with the fact that HDE's vice-like grip on the finances meant we had no debt and we were a fantastic investment opportunity.

[dave.woodhall]

I pretty much agree with all of the above, except I also think that the board believed that proper marketing and a whiff of success would bring in the crowds to the point where a 51k stadium was both viable and filled most of the time, and our merchandise would be sold around the world. That might be naive in hindsight but a lot of us thought that once Doug had gone the club would soar to the heavens regardless of who was in charge. 

I think you're right and I've put posts on here before showing that Villa relatively punch below their weight given the population of the West Midlands and the local competition when compared to other regions.  I'm sure Randy looked at that and thought it was a relatively easy win.  Couple that with the fact that HDE's vice-like grip on the finances meant we had no debt and we were a fantastic investment opportunity.

I think part of the problem is that we've got too much local competition rather than not much. We share an area of approx. 2 million people with three other major clubs - and for all we look down on them, they've spent much of our history all in the top division with us. That doesn't happen anywhere else; if you compare the top clubs in London as one, you may as well throw in Stoke and the East Midlands to us. 

[DB]

Sorry, I think that's a load of old horseshit.  How would we have known that Lerner had "reigned" (sic) him in or not?  How would we have known that instead of spending £40m a year and letting wages get to over 100% of turnover, that a more sensible budget had been set that meant that wages for the forseeable future would be sustainable?  Good ownership isn't just about letting a manager buy whatever old shit he wants on stupid contracts, but actually working out what you can afford.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you employ too many people on £50K a week contracts that you're still liable to pay this three or four years down the line.

Agree. Randy has run the club awfully since day he arrived. Now it caught up with us. Hindsight is great though isnt it..

[Ad@m]

I pretty much agree with all of the above, except I also think that the board believed that proper marketing and a whiff of success would bring in the crowds to the point where a 51k stadium was both viable and filled most of the time, and our merchandise would be sold around the world. That might be naive in hindsight but a lot of us thought that once Doug had gone the club would soar to the heavens regardless of who was in charge. 

I think you're right and I've put posts on here before showing that Villa relatively punch below their weight given the population of the West Midlands and the local competition when compared to other regions.  I'm sure Randy looked at that and thought it was a relatively easy win.  Couple that with the fact that HDE's vice-like grip on the finances meant we had no debt and we were a fantastic investment opportunity.

I think part of the problem is that we've got too much local competition rather than not much. We share an area of approx. 2 million people with three other major clubs - and for all we look down on them, they've spent much of our history all in the top division with us. That doesn't happen anywhere else; if you compare the top clubs in London as one, you may as well throw in Stoke and the East Midlands to us. 

People in the West Midlands just don't go to football as much as people in the North West or North East.  I've no idea how I'd find my post but I did an analysis based on the average attendances of all league clubs in each area and the population of those areas.  IIRC on average 3.5% of the West Midlands population went to a football match every fortnight, versus 4% in the North East and 4.5% in the North West.  I'm sure Randy's advisors thought they could change that with the right marketing, etc as you said.

[dave.woodhall]

People in the West Midlands don't go to anything as much as others do.

[Chris Smith]

I pretty much agree with all of the above, except I also think that the board believed that proper marketing and a whiff of success would bring in the crowds to the point where a 51k stadium was both viable and filled most of the time, and our merchandise would be sold around the world. That might be naive in hindsight but a lot of us thought that once Doug had gone the club would soar to the heavens regardless of who was in charge. 

I think you're right and I've put posts on here before showing that Villa relatively punch below their weight given the population of the West Midlands and the local competition when compared to other regions.  I'm sure Randy looked at that and thought it was a relatively easy win.  Couple that with the fact that HDE's vice-like grip on the finances meant we had no debt and we were a fantastic investment opportunity.

I think part of the problem is that we've got too much local competition rather than not much. We share an area of approx. 2 million people with three other major clubs - and for all we look down on them, they've spent much of our history all in the top division with us. That doesn't happen anywhere else; if you compare the top clubs in London as one, you may as well throw in Stoke and the East Midlands to us. 

People in the West Midlands just don't go to football as much as people in the North West or North East.  I've no idea how I'd find my post but I did an analysis based on the average attendances of all league clubs in each area and the population of those areas.  IIRC on average 3.5% of the West Midlands population went to a football match every fortnight, versus 4% in the North East and 4.5% in the North West.  I'm sure Randy's advisors thought they could change that with the right marketing, etc as you said.

I don't remember seeing the analysis but lots of people in the West Midlands go to Manchester to watch football, and I'd suggest at least 30% of the Old Trafford crowd is made up of non-locals. Similarly Liverpool attract support from a wide catchment area. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that analysing the flat figures will not give an accurate representation.

[Ad@m]

I pretty much agree with all of the above, except I also think that the board believed that proper marketing and a whiff of success would bring in the crowds to the point where a 51k stadium was both viable and filled most of the time, and our merchandise would be sold around the world. That might be naive in hindsight but a lot of us thought that once Doug had gone the club would soar to the heavens regardless of who was in charge. 

I think you're right and I've put posts on here before showing that Villa relatively punch below their weight given the population of the West Midlands and the local competition when compared to other regions.  I'm sure Randy looked at that and thought it was a relatively easy win.  Couple that with the fact that HDE's vice-like grip on the finances meant we had no debt and we were a fantastic investment opportunity.

I think part of the problem is that we've got too much local competition rather than not much. We share an area of approx. 2 million people with three other major clubs - and for all we look down on them, they've spent much of our history all in the top division with us. That doesn't happen anywhere else; if you compare the top clubs in London as one, you may as well throw in Stoke and the East Midlands to us. 

People in the West Midlands just don't go to football as much as people in the North West or North East.  I've no idea how I'd find my post but I did an analysis based on the average attendances of all league clubs in each area and the population of those areas.  IIRC on average 3.5% of the West Midlands population went to a football match every fortnight, versus 4% in the North East and 4.5% in the North West.  I'm sure Randy's advisors thought they could change that with the right marketing, etc as you said.

I don't remember seeing the analysis but lot's of people in the West Midlands go to Manchester to watch football, and I's suggest at least 30% of the Old Trafford crowd is made up of non-locals. Similarly Liverpool attract support from a wide catchment area.

Which is probably a fair point and not one I imagine Randy or his advisors realised before he bought the Villa.

[dave.woodhall]

I think - and this is only guesswork - that they didn't really understand the psyche of the English football supporter and believed it would be possible to get fans of other clubs to our matches.