Doug or Randy?

[TopDeck113]

People buy war books. It doesn't mean they want to fight another one.

Or perhaps they want to whistfully recall another time when, despite all the very real hardships, there was a sense of common purpose that is sadly lacking today.

[Risso]

Looking at it objectively, Doug was in charge when well run clubs had a chance of competing at the top without necessarily spending fortunes, see the likes of Forest, Norwich, us, Sheffield Wednesday, Wimbledon etc.  As the Premier League has gone on, and more foreign billionaires have come in, this has been steadily eroded.  It's just our luck that our foreign billionaire owner is an idiot.

[dave.woodhall]

Doug! For all his faults at least he showed he love the Villa.

By sacking a European Cup winning manager and replacing him with Hereford's manager?
By taking us from Champions of Europe to relegation in 5 seasons?
By overseeing the destruction of our famous Trinity Road stand?

True, but you missed out the bit about him giving us our longest unbroken stint in the top division in decades?

Well there's an achievement, and no mistake. He kept us up for 18 years - what's ruining the European Champions compared to that?

The team he took over had just finished 11 th in the league dave , yes it was broken up too soon but it's harsh to blame doug totally when the slide in the league of 10 places happened before he came back.

I am not saying he's blameless but when we were relegated we had dropped from 11th t o relegation in those 5 years , not from 1st to relegation.

Doug made many mistakes but he wasnt all bad.

They'd just won the European Cup, or had that slipped your attention?

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The Invisible man? Does it really matter if he's at the game or not? Doug never missed a game but that never stopped us being shit and getting relegated. It also never made him financially support his manager every bloody window.

A chairman's role is very simple, you just need three things:

1. Appoint a good manager.
2. Financially support him.
3. Let the manager get on with him job.

On point one, Randy Lerner made a big mistake with TSM but we were all in agreement he'd made up for it with Lambert.
On point two, up until now, Lerner has always supported his manager. We are a top 6 spending side since his arrival.
On three, unlike Ellis, Lerner is not claiming to be 'Director of Football', he let's the man get on with his job, as it should be.

[TonyD]

It begs the question:  why did Lerner buy the villa in first place as it seems very apathetic. 

[eastie]

Doug! For all his faults at least he showed he love the Villa.

By sacking a European Cup winning manager and replacing him with Hereford's manager?
By taking us from Champions of Europe to relegation in 5 seasons?
By overseeing the destruction of our famous Trinity Road stand?

True, but you missed out the bit about him giving us our longest unbroken stint in the top division in decades?

Well there's an achievement, and no mistake. He kept us up for 18 years - what's ruining the European Champions compared to that?

The team he took over had just finished 11 th in the league dave , yes it was broken up too soon but it's harsh to blame doug totally when the slide in the league of 10 places happened before he came back.

I am not saying he's blameless but when we were relegated we had dropped from 11th t o relegation in those 5 years , not from 1st to relegation.

Doug made many mistakes but he wasnt all bad.

They'd just won the European Cup, or had that slipped your attention?

Yes we had just won the European cup and finished 11th in the league that same season - the team was broken up too quickly and the turner appointment a huge risk , but those 5 yrs since Ellis took over saw us from 11th to relegation .

The fortunate thing is he appointed the perfect man in graham Taylor to get the club back up and turned around - an appointment as good as the McNeill one was bad .

Doug was frustrating and made a lot of errors but his reign was by no means a total disaster.

The fact that he presided over promotion at the 1st attempt and we were runners up 2 years later, and again runners up 3 years later seems to be glossed over by the bad  times-  there were many highs and lows under doug .

[dave.woodhall]

It wasn't a disaster but he started at a much better point than Randy did and had a LOT of luck - not least Graham Taylor becoming available at the exact time we were the best option for him and when Sir Graham's closest friend was running a shop in Witton Road. As I said earlier, you're also judging his best years against Randy's worst.

[eastie]

Fair enough dave , Even now I often wonder what would have happened if England hasn't came calling and Taylor had spent a few more years with us , it was very sad to lose him when we did but of course he had to take the job.

[Fergal]

Dave, I know the history.  And the point remains that Ellis originally came into a club that was in seemingly terminal decline - and left it (the second time) as one of a handful of permanent fixtures in the Premier League.  There was some very good seasons during his tenure - and a few best forgotten - but generally the club reached and maintained a level that it has "enjoyed" for most of the last 100 years.  So whilst many of the criticisms levelled at him are, for the most part, probably justified, he didn't really sell us short in running a club that a supporter of the 1920s or 1950s would recognise: i.e. a club that was in the top flight and on an occasional basis challenging for an honour.

And got relegated twice, once from a position of strength unparalleled since 1897.

Not really like for like though.

And at least when Doug flogged players the money was reinvested (Merson and  Dublin from Yorke being a prime example).

You're absolutely right it isn't like for like. Two relegations versus none. £40 million taken out versus £200 million+ put in. Shall I continue?

That £200+ million is a loan though isn't it?

[dave.woodhall]

Fair enough dave , Even now I often wonder what would have happened if England hasn't came calling and Taylor had spent a few more years with us , it was very sad to lose him when we did but of course he had to take the job.

We'd have won the league within two years. I've always been convinced of that. 

[steffo]

There is one man who runs the show when Lerner is not around. Faulkner.

No coincidence since his arrival, we are - where we are.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

Doug! For all his faults at least he showed he love the Villa.

By sacking a European Cup winning manager and replacing him with Hereford's manager?
By taking us from Champions of Europe to relegation in 5 seasons?
By overseeing the destruction of our famous Trinity Road stand?

Shrewsbury Town actually.

[Karlos96]

I can't say I like either of them but for me Ellis was worse.  A lot of people seem to have forgotten just how bad he was (we should dig up some of the old threads on here it would make interesting reading).

Some of the things Ellis did we can never forget:-

Taking a team that was European Champions to relegation in five years.
His treatment of Tony Barton and his family.
For me as well it was his inability to take us to the next level especially at the start of the Premiership.  When it started we were easily on par with teams like Arsenal he completely wasted that opportunity and we have never recovered from that.

[Irish villain]

Dave, I know the history.  And the point remains that Ellis originally came into a club that was in seemingly terminal decline - and left it (the second time) as one of a handful of permanent fixtures in the Premier League.  There was some very good seasons during his tenure - and a few best forgotten - but generally the club reached and maintained a level that it has "enjoyed" for most of the last 100 years.  So whilst many of the criticisms levelled at him are, for the most part, probably justified, he didn't really sell us short in running a club that a supporter of the 1920s or 1950s would recognise: i.e. a club that was in the top flight and on an occasional basis challenging for an honour.

And got relegated twice, once from a position of strength unparalleled since 1897.

Not really like for like though.

And at least when Doug flogged players the money was reinvested (Merson and  Dublin from Yorke being a prime example).

You're absolutely right it isn't like for like. Two relegations versus none. £40 million taken out versus £200 million+ put in. Shall I continue?

That £200+ million is a loan though isn't it?

I think so, I'm not 100% sure.

Also, I seem to remember reading that the club is charged for something like 'administrative/management services' each year? Isn't it something like £11m a year or am I wrong in that?

[Fergal]

Dave, I know the history.  And the point remains that Ellis originally came into a club that was in seemingly terminal decline - and left it (the second time) as one of a handful of permanent fixtures in the Premier League.  There was some very good seasons during his tenure - and a few best forgotten - but generally the club reached and maintained a level that it has "enjoyed" for most of the last 100 years.  So whilst many of the criticisms levelled at him are, for the most part, probably justified, he didn't really sell us short in running a club that a supporter of the 1920s or 1950s would recognise: i.e. a club that was in the top flight and on an occasional basis challenging for an honour.

And got relegated twice, once from a position of strength unparalleled since 1897.

Not really like for like though.

And at least when Doug flogged players the money was reinvested (Merson and  Dublin from Yorke being a prime example).

You're absolutely right it isn't like for like. Two relegations versus none. £40 million taken out versus £200 million+ put in. Shall I continue?

That £200+ million is a loan though isn't it?

I think so, I'm not 100% sure.

Also, I seem to remember reading that the club is charged for something like 'administrative/management services' each year? Isn't it something like £11m a year or am I wrong in that?

I cant be sure but I think I read somewhere that we are paying it back at around 7 or 8 million a year plus admin fees.  Any of you in the financial know cafe to enlighten us?