To What End?

[levico]

@patmurphybbc: Paul Faulkner CEO of @AVFCOfficial  has just told me he's spoken to Randy Lerner,who's rubbished stories that he's looking to sell up.

I doubt if he'd say anything different.
Does anyone know if Lerner denied he was looking to sell the Browns before he actually did?

But if it is true then this is one of the most depressing things I've heard for a long time. Surely we're destined for more of the same until we actually get relegated and some form of revolution has to take place.

Well in that case lets all commit mass suicide as its so depressing!

I was talking in the context of AVFC -- but you knew that didn't you?

[Ad@m]

Effectively Michael Cunnah, although his title wasn't CEO.

There's still a gap.  Fitzgerald left in Jan 2008, Cunnah left in May 2008 and Faulkner was appointed in May 2010.  There's a 2 year gap there which coincided with the time things started going pear-shaped for MON.

I know (through work) the person who was at 32 Red (at Director level) who negotiated their sponsorship deal with us (and it was incredibly cheap, btw, cheaper than the figures that got banded around at the time, by far).

He is also a close friend of Richard FitzGerald, and still sees him socially now.

He told me - actual face to face conversation, when i specifically asked him about it, not a random line dropped in an email - that the reason FitzGerald left was that MON pretty much refused to work with him, and made his job impossible.

As far as he was concerned, it was "his" club, and he didn't want anyone else running things.

I would assume that what happened with the CEO position was that it became clear that MON wasn't going to be having it, hence that gap after Cunnah, and when it was eventually filled, it's interesting that it was by someone who was already working with Lerner (and one assumes, would have no illusions about how MON saw his role).

This contact of mine isn't a Villa fan (although all his children now are, following the sponsorship, so he watches us an awful lot still), so wasn't speaking with any natural axe to grind, but he made it absolutely crystal clear what had happened with FitzGerald.

Well if that's the case and it sounds like we effectively had no CEO for two years then Randy has no one to blame but himself for MON going crazy with the cheque book.  It's probably credit to Faulkner that within three months of joining MON had realised his game was up and pissed off.

[ChicagoLion]

However, if we're not competing, if circumstances find us in that bottom twelve of the Premier League, then fine, no problem, that's easy enough to put up with - it's the fact that our football is so extraordinarily uncheerable which gets us down.

You didn't cheer on Wednesday night?

As for why do we exist, and the apparent connection between that and challenging for honours, how many years in our history have we genuinely challenged for the league title?  I'd suggests the number of seasons we haven't stood a chance of challenging massively outweigh those we've had a realistic chance of winning the league.  And yet we're still one of the largest clubs in the country - what about all those fans of smaller clubs who've never challenged for the championship?

I don't think anyone's saying what we've got at the moment is ideal or the end product but the relentless depression of some on here isn't half wearing.  We came to a very precarious financial position at the end of MON's tenure and we're lucky we had an owner who carried on putting money in whilst the operating costs were sorted out.  You don't have to look very far down the road to see what happens when the owner is unwilling or unable to put extra cash in.

And just like I imagine not many people saw the financial retrenchment coming before MON left who's to say that once the wage base isn't sorted we won't start spending some serious money again?  Most people who complain about Randy conveniently ignore the fact we remain one of the highest spending clubs in the league when it comes to transfer spending - we're just not paying shit players like Habib Beye £40k a week any more.

Lerner did not have a choice, it was not like he would let the Club go bust. He had to protect his investment. That is what he is doing now attempting to reduce cash outflows whilst retaining Prem League status. It looks like it is working or just about.

[Toronto Villa]

Effectively Michael Cunnah, although his title wasn't CEO.

There's still a gap.  Fitzgerald left in Jan 2008, Cunnah left in May 2008 and Faulkner was appointed in May 2010.  There's a 2 year gap there which coincided with the time things started going pear-shaped for MON.

I know (through work) the person who was at 32 Red (at Director level) who negotiated their sponsorship deal with us (and it was incredibly cheap, btw, cheaper than the figures that got banded around at the time, by far).

He is also a close friend of Richard FitzGerald, and still sees him socially now.

He told me - actual face to face conversation, when i specifically asked him about it, not a random line dropped in an email - that the reason FitzGerald left was that MON pretty much refused to work with him, and made his job impossible.

As far as he was concerned, it was "his" club, and he didn't want anyone else running things.

I would assume that what happened with the CEO position was that it became clear that MON wasn't going to be having it, hence that gap after Cunnah, and when it was eventually filled, it's interesting that it was by someone who was already working with Lerner (and one assumes, would have no illusions about how MON saw his role).

This contact of mine isn't a Villa fan (although all his children now are, following the sponsorship, so he watches us an awful lot still), so wasn't speaking with any natural axe to grind, but he made it absolutely crystal clear what had happened with FitzGerald.

Well if that's the case and it sounds like we effectively had no CEO for two years then Randy has no one to blame but himself for MON going crazy with the cheque book.  It's probably credit to Faulkner that within three months of joining MON had realised his game was up and pissed off.

When MON arrived almost everyone was in support of it. He was arguably the biggest name out of football management in Britain at the time. He'd never have come had Randy insisted on any kind of structure that limited his freedom at the club. We can all say in hindsight that Randy should have had that person in place but it could never have happened. Even if Randy had tried to reign things in earlier than he did MON would have just walked earlier than he did. MON had all of the power at the club and friends in the media to support much of what he did. That was also important because it influenced opinion about him and the board knew that. By the time the chairman and CEO stepped in the damage was already done.

[brian green]

You are completely correct TV especially the part about O'Neill's friends in the media.   His record was way way short of the level of power he was able to demand from a rookie owner.   If HDE had ever had O'Neill as a manager Aston would have had the Richter scale rocking.

[Boz]

You are completely correct TV especially the part about O'Neill's friends in the media.   His record was way way short of the level of power he was able to demand from a rookie owner.   If HDE had ever had O'Neill as a manager Aston would have had the Richter scale rocking.

Didn't HDE appoint MON?

[N'ZMAV]

You are completely correct TV especially the part about O'Neill's friends in the media.   His record was way way short of the level of power he was able to demand from a rookie owner.   If HDE had ever had O'Neill as a manager Aston would have had the Richter scale rocking.

Didn't HDE appoint MON?

He did, but at that time Lerner was firmly in the picture.

[paul_e]

I still think Randy agreed to give mon 1 final attempt to go all out at it in the summer when we got Dunne, etc. I think the Barry departure had made him realise that we had to make it that year or the likes of Young and Milner would be looking to move and we'd be back to square one.  I think he knew exactly what the situation was in terms of finances (GK told us repeatedly to not worry about the wage bill) but I think they saw it as an acceptable risk.  I also think that mon was made well aware of that, which is why his behaviour towards the end of his last season seemed to odd.  Lots of people put it down to him wanting the liverpool job, which may well be the case, but i think it was that he realised he missed out on his best chance of making the champions league with us.

Since then we've been trying to complete that 'back to square one' rebuild process and I personally think we're there now.  This summer will be very interesting in answering the questions on this thread, we need 3-4 players in the £4-7m range (similar to Vlaar, Okore, Benteke and Kozak) and most of that money needs to go into the midfield and that doesn't account for replacing anyone.  If he gets it right (which he generally has done when dealing with these figures)I think the bigger picture of where we're heading will become a lot clearer.  So far Lambert has spent big (comparatively) money on defence and attack but very little in the middle and that's pretty obvious when you look at our weaknesses.  He needs to address that this summer and I think he will be given the funds to do so, I just think his demands for an expensive midfielder are very high and he's struggling to find someone with the skillset he wants for anything like a price he's willing to pay.

I predict this summer will see 4 players come in:

A full-back (probably Bertrand)
A Delph-like box-to-box midfielder
An attacking midfielder (I think Kiyotake will be available and high on the list here)
A wide forward

I reckon at least one of them will be a lower league punt though.

[Malandro]

I still think Randy agreed to give mon 1 final attempt to go all out at it in the summer when we got Dunne, etc. I think the Barry departure had made him realise that we had to make it that year or the likes of Young and Milner would be looking to move and we'd be back to square one.  I think he knew exactly what the situation was in terms of finances (GK told us repeatedly to not worry about the wage bill) but I think they saw it as an acceptable risk.  I also think that mon was made well aware of that, which is why his behaviour towards the end of his last season seemed to odd.  Lots of people put it down to him wanting the liverpool job, which may well be the case, but i think it was that he realised he missed out on his best chance of making the champions league with us.

I think Randy pulled the plug on the project and Martin wasn't happy with it. That is my understanding.

[eastie]

I still think Randy agreed to give mon 1 final attempt to go all out at it in the summer when we got Dunne, etc. I think the Barry departure had made him realise that we had to make it that year or the likes of Young and Milner would be looking to move and we'd be back to square one.  I think he knew exactly what the situation was in terms of finances (GK told us repeatedly to not worry about the wage bill) but I think they saw it as an acceptable risk.  I also think that mon was made well aware of that, which is why his behaviour towards the end of his last season seemed to odd.  Lots of people put it down to him wanting the liverpool job, which may well be the case, but i think it was that he realised he missed out on his best chance of making the champions league with us.

I think Randy pulled the plug on the project and Martin wasn't happy with it. That is my understanding.

Probably right mal.

[pauliewalnuts]

Well if that's the case and it sounds like we effectively had no CEO for two years then Randy has no one to blame but himself for MON going crazy with the cheque book.  It's probably credit to Faulkner that within three months of joining MON had realised his game was up and pissed off.

If you look at it from Randy's point of view, though, it kind of made sense when he came here.

He starts to buy the club, hears that everyone wants O'Neill as manager. Speaks to him, and - have no doubt - MON will have told him he'd run all the football side of things for him.

It would have been perfect at the time - Randy, not knowing anything about owning a football club, presented with an accomplished, highly popular, proven applicant for the job. I don't blame him for it at all, at least not at the outset.

Let's be honest, none of us were really complaining at the time, either. Yes, we spent an awful lot of money, but we assumed the club was being run in a prudent way - enough people asked Gen Krulak about it on here, even specifically about the wage bill, and they told us "don't worry, we know what we're doing with the money".

If anything, I think it was naivety. Naivety to let the wages situation get to that point, and naivety to let the manager see off CEOs so easily and quickly.

I imagine when MON flounced, it was an enormous shock and the beginning of having to learn lots of things, very quickly. Nobody could have predicted he'd go so abruptly, but I do think their problem was that they had so much of the task of running the club invested in one single person.

[glasses]

Paul Faulkner was at the club a good while before he became CEO.

I heard from someone I know who met him, that he was heavily involved in our transfer dealings long before he even became CEO.

The gist was that MON identified the playes he wanted, and PF did the deals. He was like a DOF, only MON told him who he wanted.

I never stick up for MON with regard to the way he just walked off, or that he signed a few duffers, but the money thing never sits right with me.

I don't think we can hold him solely responsible for wage budgets and transfer fees.

[Dave Clark Five]

While both sides are sworn to secrecy, we can only continue to think of him as the Poison Dwarf.

[pauliewalnuts]

I don't think we can hold him solely responsible for wage budgets and transfer fees.

Nor me, but to be honest, that's not an opinion you hear much around here in any case, pretty much everyone seems to acknowledge it was a poor show all round but without blaming any one person for it entirely.

Where we differ, I guess, is how we allocate the blame.

I think most people understand the financial cut backs since then, but I think the point at which people differ is not about whether they need to happen at all, but the pace of them, and where they've been applied.

Returning to the thread title, though, I think one of the problems is that there is a very thin line indeed between "we're going to buy young, lower wage (they won't say it, but that's what it means) players who we can improve, and combine them with academy players" and "we are going to only buy cheap players, because we can't afford much else, and maintaining our PL status is the only ambition we have".

Basically, one man's spotting of talented, promising players is another's doing things on the cheap.

I then think there's another problem in thinking that the answer lies in just buying loads of young players, in that it is a bit arrogant to assume that this is something that hasn't been tried before, firstly, and secondly, that all you need to do is buy these players and give them time, and enough of them will turn out to be good enough.

That's a very risky road to take, IMO. Lots of clubs have tried not spending big and combining players from the lower leagues with academy products, with a low wage bill, and has it ever worked?

[frank]

It is true that I estimate at least 80% of the 68 years I have been a Holte Ender Villa have been less than good.   At times they have been bereft, desperate and clueless for months on end.   The big difference of the time between the departure of O'Neill and now and those years since 1946 is that however bad we were we always believed we would rise again.   And we did.   

When Randy Lerner bought us, like many more I thought that we would rise yet again.   Until the Stoke game I thought we could win the European Cup again.   Now I don't think we can beat West Ham next week.   How sad is that?

I thought that the appointment of Houllier was a stupid mistake.   I thought that appointing TSM was an administrative blunder of galactic proportions.   But I still believed we would rise again.

These seasons with Lambert have convinced me that Villa have voluntarily accepted a place in the lower orders of the game for strictly financial reasons.   The difference between us and Everton is the difference between Bill Kenwright and Randy Lerner.   The former stretches his own and his club's resources to the limit.   The latter talks to his accountants and takes their advice.

I would like the owner, the board or the manager to give us a sign, any sign, a word, a quip, a gesture that they believe we will rise again.   All we get is the commitment that they are trying not to get any worse while balancing the budget.

Dave Woodhall makes this point about Everton in today's Birmingham Press.

I started supporting a few years after you, Brian, but at a time when, as you say, we still believed that we would rise again. Until fairly recently that was still possible. But the days when a small club like Blackburn could win the league with a relatively small investment have passed - not for ever, perhaps, because nothing lasts for ever, but certainly in the short and medium term. Abramovich's and Mansour's billions have changed everything. Add to this the success and world-wide popularity of Liverpool and Man U and the astute management over many years of Arsenal and you have to admit that Villa are not in this league.

Even in this changed world we should, however, be able to compete with a team like Everton and be the best of the rest, never winning the league but perhaps in a good year competing for a CL place. We have to accept that Lerner hasn't got the resources of a Russian oligarch or an oil sheikh, but he has far greater means at his disposal than Bill Kenwright and has invested some £200m in Villa as well as underwriting our losses.

So why can't we compete with Everton? Let's not forget that at the beginning of this season we thought we would, despite the disastrous end of the O'Neill era, despite the wasted years under Houllier and McLeish. Neither must we forget that many of us thought that Lambert was the right man for the job.

I came away from Everton on Saturday very depressed by our performance and our tactics. But in the previous fortnight I have left Anfield and Villa Park very encouraged. I certainly agree that Lambert has on occasions got his tactics wrong, that the squad contains players signed by him that are simply not PL standard and that we missed an important opportunity to strengthen the squad in the latest window, but I felt last summer that under Lambert we are capable of moving up a level, to Everton's level, and I still believe that.

Whether we can rise again in the way you have hoped, Brian, is a different question. Not in the near future. Not without a takeover by a multi-billionaire or international corporation. Would we take that here and now, or will we give Lerner/Lambert a chance?