Badly run clubs eventually get relegated

[brian green]

What well run club with its fans having endured the excruciating humiliation at the hands of Bradford just three days before would put the name of that club in huge black letters on the television screen at the game on every conceivable opportunity?

[Ian.]

It is getting harder and harder to defend the way our club is being run. Footballing decisions throughout the club have been appalling for too long, from the types of contracts handed out, wages, players bought at cost and not used, managerial appointments and even as far back as dropping out of Europe to try and finish fourth. All in all its been a shambles and we have been going down hill for some time.

This approach of Lambert's (whether it is self inflicted or if he is working within constraints of the club) might have worked if he was appointed this season after we had been relegated from TSM reign. However I really can not see him turning it around at all now. I really thought he was the man for the job, but he looks so defeated now.

There has been glimpses, not many mind, of promise and at times I was waiting for it too come good and go on a run. We have gone a run, but a run I never expected. Injuries have not helped as our squad is thread bear. The term 'Men against boys' certainly springs to mind.

[Shrek]

I agree, Things started getting worse as soon as Randy had to start making important decisions.

But I do think that if we stay up and yes that's a big IF then Lambert is the right man who can take us forward with the criteria our shambolic club have set.

[OzVilla]

And that's the thing.  I think IF we can stay up then Lambert will be great for us and the kids will mature into a decent side with the addition of some older heads.  But you just can't play them all now.

We are in an absolute mess right now though and everyone looks shell shocked. 

This doesn't excuse Randy's appalling decision making but we could be great in 2/3 years time if they stick together.  Let's hope we've not ruined them by then.

[Ducksworthy]

As I've said previously Villa really miss Steve Stride right now. We look a bit rudderless, and a young MBNA executive with no previous football experience is not going to save us. I do not harp back to the days of Doug, per se, but I definitely feel we need someone who's been in this fairly unique business for a while and to me, the only way we can do that is to move heaven and earth to get Steve to come home. I don't know if he ever would, but if he did I think things may well be somewhat more stable.

As an aside, Paul McGrath tweeted on us today and made me laugh, though I suppose today is a laugh-or-cry day:

Villa players show some bottle .no pun intended jasus please .

[Villadroid]

I must thank Pauliewalnuts because until he presented the evidence that Villa is a badly run club, I actually believed that it might be true.

You don't have to think too long, when presented with the examples he offers, to conclude that Villa are not a badly run club.

Certainly not brilliant but not bad by football's standards.

Once the examples of Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle are offered up, clubs which range from from the criminal to the ridiculous, Villa's minor failings are put into perspective.

The assumption that the only criterion of a well-run club is the avoidance of relegation at any price is seriously flawed.

For those who think entirely in terms of consuming the football product these things cannot matter, but for anyone who thinks they support a club, I am afraid they must.

So thanks Pauliewalnuts, you brought light to a gloomy night.
 

It's far from the only criteria.

How about four successive years of huge losses in the accounts?  Check
Selling all of the valuable assets of the company and replacing them with inferior replacements? Check
A falling and unhappy consumer base? Check
Likely to miss out on a huge increase in turnover as a result of getting relegated? Check
Poor customer relations and no apparent strategy for success? Check
A feeble and ineffective board led by somebody completely out of his depth? Check

For a start off, just because I conclude that Villa is not a badly run club, does not mean that you must agree, I am only stating my own view.

But if you insist on a critique of your list of criteria, I would say that it is logically flawed because most of the items on the list are mutually exclusive.

So you can't possible list huge losses as a bad thing and then claim that the result of solving that bad thing - selling the causes of those losses, is a bad thing: that is logically inconsistent.

You have to choose.

Your only real unassailable standpoint is that as a consumer of the football product you should not be required to concern yourself with the long-term sustainability of the company providing the service, just as you could not be expected to concern yourself with any other company which was supplying you with a service at a loss.

Stating that consumers of Villa's football product are were happier when that product was supplied at a loss, is not saying anything much, except to say that most consumers are happy to get products and services at a loss.

Again I ask: Birmingham City? Leeds? Newcastle?

Try making a comparison between Liverpool's downgrade and Villa's - which seems to provide a more realistic comparison.





 

[brian green]

I think Liverpool are just us but two years behind.   They got an American owner with a background of sport franchise administration and that owner threw a huge dollop of money at the first manager they chose.   KKK did much the same as MON and pissed most of the money up the wall and got replaced.   Liverpool are now in phase 2 of american model ownership getting some more money but not enough to satisfy their folie de grandeur.   They will bump along a downward slope until they hit the levels we are already at.

English football has reached the point where only limitless financial investment can deliver secure top level football in the premiership.   Any other club, ours included, which tries to survive within its means will yo yo.   One day in the distant future reality will reassert itself but not until the communists regain power in Russia, the oil runs out and Ferguson's luck runs out.

[Ads]

At least the Red Sox won the World Series.

[Fergal]

I must thank Pauliewalnuts because until he presented the evidence that Villa is a badly run club, I actually believed that it might be true.

You don't have to think too long, when presented with the examples he offers, to conclude that Villa are not a badly run club.

Certainly not brilliant but not bad by football's standards.

Once the examples of Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle are offered up, clubs which range from from the criminal to the ridiculous, Villa's minor failings are put into perspective.

The assumption that the only criterion of a well-run club is the avoidance of relegation at any price is seriously flawed.

For those who think entirely in terms of consuming the football product these things cannot matter, but for anyone who thinks they support a club, I am afraid they must.

So thanks Pauliewalnuts, you brought light to a gloomy night.
 

It's far from the only criteria.

How about four successive years of huge losses in the accounts?  Check
Selling all of the valuable assets of the company and replacing them with inferior replacements? Check
A falling and unhappy consumer base? Check
Likely to miss out on a huge increase in turnover as a result of getting relegated? Check
Poor customer relations and no apparent strategy for success? Check
A feeble and ineffective board led by somebody completely out of his depth? Check

For a start off, just because I conclude that Villa is not a badly run club, does not mean that you must agree, I am only stating my own view.

But if you insist on a critique of your list of criteria, I would say that it is logically flawed because most of the items on the list are mutually exclusive.

So you can't possible list huge losses as a bad thing and then claim that the result of solving that bad thing - selling the causes of those losses, is a bad thing: that is logically inconsistent.

You have to choose.

Your only real unassailable standpoint is that as a consumer of the football product you should not be required to concern yourself with the long-term sustainability of the company providing the service, just as you could not be expected to concern yourself with any other company which was supplying you with a service at a loss.

Stating that consumers of Villa's football product are were happier when that product was supplied at a loss, is not saying anything much, except to say that most consumers are happy to get products and services at a loss.

Again I ask: Birmingham City? Leeds? Newcastle?

Try making a comparison between Liverpool's downgrade and Villa's - which seems to provide a more realistic comparison.





 

Cant you see that if we go down for the want of spending 30 Million then we will miss out on 70 million?
If we go down we will stay down for a very long time, this squad is barely championship level let alone premiership.
How do you go from a squad capable of finishing 6th three years running to this?
Randy has fucked it up.

[pestria]

I must thank Pauliewalnuts because until he presented the evidence that Villa is a badly run club, I actually believed that it might be true.

You don't have to think too long, when presented with the examples he offers, to conclude that Villa are not a badly run club.

Certainly not brilliant but not bad by football's standards.

Once the examples of Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle are offered up, clubs which range from from the criminal to the ridiculous, Villa's minor failings are put into perspective.

The assumption that the only criterion of a well-run club is the avoidance of relegation at any price is seriously flawed.

For those who think entirely in terms of consuming the football product these things cannot matter, but for anyone who thinks they support a club, I am afraid they must.

So thanks Pauliewalnuts, you brought light to a gloomy night.
 

It's far from the only criteria.

How about four successive years of huge losses in the accounts?  Check
Selling all of the valuable assets of the company and replacing them with inferior replacements? Check
A falling and unhappy consumer base? Check
Likely to miss out on a huge increase in turnover as a result of getting relegated? Check
Poor customer relations and no apparent strategy for success? Check
A feeble and ineffective board led by somebody completely out of his depth? Check

For a start off, just because I conclude that Villa is not a badly run club, does not mean that you must agree, I am only stating my own view.

But if you insist on a critique of your list of criteria, I would say that it is logically flawed because most of the items on the list are mutually exclusive.

So you can't possible list huge losses as a bad thing and then claim that the result of solving that bad thing - selling the causes of those losses as a bad thing: that is logically inconsistent.

You have to choose.

Your only real unassailable standpoint is that as a consumer of the football product you should not be required to concern yourself with the long-term sustainability of the company providing the service, just as you could not be expected to concern yourself with any other company which was supplying you with a service at a loss.

Stating that consumers of Villa's football product are were happier when that product was supplied at a loss, is not saying anything much, except to say that most consumers are happy to get products and services at a loss.

Again I ask: Birmingham City? Leeds? Newcastle?

Try making a comparison between Liverpool's downgrade and Villa's - which seems to provide a more realistic comparison.
 

Not sure I follow all your arguments, but a recurrent theme in your defence in Villa being a well run club is that when Lerner was spending cash we acheived on the pitch and nobody complained.

Two points to make on this.  Firstly Lerner's management team were one trick ponies.  The only plan they had was to spend money on players - and this simply wasn't sustainable.  Relying on unsustainable levels of spending with no credible plans to increase revenue is surely the definition of poor management.

Secondly, there were a number of people on this site saying that it was unsustainable at the time and these people were also concerned about the financial structuring of loans to fund the spending.  Sure they were in the minority, but not everyone was simply was satisfied with your bread and circuses line.

[bob]

Your only real unassailable standpoint is that as a consumer of the football product you should not be required to concern yourself with the long-term sustainability of the company providing the service, just as you could not be expected to concern yourself with any other company which was supplying you with a service at a loss.

Stating that consumers of Villa's football product are were happier when that product was supplied at a loss, is not saying anything much, except to say that most consumers are happy to get products and services at a loss.

This seems flawed to me.

If a service, as you put it, is one you sign up for for life then I think you are entitled to be concerned for its wellbeing. It doesn't have to be run at a loss to satisfy its customers who want to see it do well, they would be satisfied to see the owners stop making avoidable errors.

[Ads]

Lerner is the root cause of the past three years of hell.

[frank black]

And that's the thing.  I think IF we can stay up then Lambert will be great for us and the kids will mature into a decent side with the addition of some older heads.  But you just can't play them all now.

We are in an absolute mess right now though and everyone looks shell shocked. 

This doesn't excuse Randy's appalling decision making but we could be great in 2/3 years time if they stick together.  Let's hope we've not ruined them by then.

If we keep the same business model, as soon as the kids mature they must be sold. We won't be able to pay prem wages. It's not like these kids will have us pushing for Europe, the good ones will want away as soon as someone half decent come sniffing around.

The more you think about how we've been going the last 2-3 yrs relegation is an inevitability.

[preston28]

Excellent thread but the more you think about it the more it is common sense. Badly run businesses go bust, badly run hospitals require government bale outs & badly run banks got the country in the shite.

And yes badly run football clubs do badly..................

[oldham_villa]

Randy let MON spunk all the money of the holiday on the first couple of nights on cocktails and lap dancing.  We are now struggling to survive the rest of holiday on bottles of San Miguel cooling in the bath before the plane home.

Fuck all wrong with a cold bath full of San Miguel

We're minesweeping for lukewarm halves of Amstel

Skol skol skol skol skol skol skol skol skol.

San Miguel, Amstel and Skol - these three beers sum up our team perfectly - gash beers