Randy Lerner

[mr underhill]

there's probably someone from year two still hiding in a cupboard somewhere.

[hvkfa1]

A few point. Firstly, even if General Krulak wanted to be here,  he isn't well enough to travel transatlantic. Secondly, he has nothing to do with the running of the club and hasn't done for years. Third, it is unfortunate that The Sun always call him when they want a Villa quote and he still hasn't grasped "no comment" as the best way to go. With him seeing Randy as a surrogate son he will always come out swinging in his defence.

I am interested in the comment a couple of pages back that seems to be aimed at AVST though. To just disregard an elected board as some kind of club flunkies, desperately trying to wangle a job at the Villa, does them a great disservice.

You would be pointing to my post, I suspect. It is untrue that I was referring to the AVST. The type of group I mean is the little groups that clubs have where fans become connected to the board in some way. The AVST, whose AGM I asked about how to attend on here the other day, appear to be a truly independent body that is not frightened to speak out against the club. This is not the case with fans 'representatives' who, are known to sell their souls to the Devil once they have wheedled their way into position.

You will of course be backing this statement up with an example of this happening, yes?

It hasn't at Villa yet but the concept of fans reps on boards has happened at about a dozen clubs. There has been much talk of the turncoat nature of those appointed. It is similar to how some Man Utd fans will tell of how the board of FC United have forgotten what put them there in the first place.

[Clampy]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

Let's take Bowery for instance. How many other managers would have thought he was good enough for a premiership club? I know he didn't play much but Randy didn't cut the spending to the extent that resorted to Lambert having to buy a player who wasn't even good enough for League 1, never mind the Premiership.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

Let's take Bowery for instance. How many other managers would have thought he was good enough for a premiership club? I know he didn't play much but Randy didn't cut the spending to the extent that resorted to Lambert having to buy a player who wasn't even good enough for League 1, never mind the Premiership.

No, but he did exert pressure to reduce the wage bill, which is another influencing factor.

Pretty sure the general mantra from the club at the time was "its not the transfer fees, it is the wage bill"

The end result was still the same

[Clampy]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

Let's take Bowery for instance. How many other managers would have thought he was good enough for a premiership club? I know he didn't play much but Randy didn't cut the spending to the extent that resorted to Lambert having to buy a player who wasn't even good enough for League 1, never mind the Premiership.

No, but he did exert pressure to reduce the wage bill, which is another influencing factor.

Pretty sure the general mantra from the club at the time was "its not the transfer fees, it is the wage bill"

The end result was still the same

But maybe we had to, otherwise we wouldn't have done it.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

Let's take Bowery for instance. How many other managers would have thought he was good enough for a premiership club? I know he didn't play much but Randy didn't cut the spending to the extent that resorted to Lambert having to buy a player who wasn't even good enough for League 1, never mind the Premiership.

No, but he did exert pressure to reduce the wage bill, which is another influencing factor.

Pretty sure the general mantra from the club at the time was "its not the transfer fees, it is the wage bill"

The end result was still the same

But maybe we had to, otherwise we wouldn't have done it.

i don't believe we had to reduce it that much, that quickly - that's what caused the problems. Too much of a cut, much too fast.

[Clampy]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

Let's take Bowery for instance. How many other managers would have thought he was good enough for a premiership club? I know he didn't play much but Randy didn't cut the spending to the extent that resorted to Lambert having to buy a player who wasn't even good enough for League 1, never mind the Premiership.

No, but he did exert pressure to reduce the wage bill, which is another influencing factor.

Pretty sure the general mantra from the club at the time was "its not the transfer fees, it is the wage bill"

The end result was still the same

But maybe we had to, otherwise we wouldn't have done it.

i don't believe we had to reduce it that much, that quickly - that's what caused the problems. Too much of a cut, much too fast.

That's a fair point, but to the level where could only pick up the likes of Ashley Westwood's and Jordan Bowery's?

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

Let's take Bowery for instance. How many other managers would have thought he was good enough for a premiership club? I know he didn't play much but Randy didn't cut the spending to the extent that resorted to Lambert having to buy a player who wasn't even good enough for League 1, never mind the Premiership.

No, but he did exert pressure to reduce the wage bill, which is another influencing factor.

Pretty sure the general mantra from the club at the time was "its not the transfer fees, it is the wage bill"

The end result was still the same

But maybe we had to, otherwise we wouldn't have done it.

i don't believe we had to reduce it that much, that quickly - that's what caused the problems. Too much of a cut, much too fast.

That's a fair point, but to the level where could only pick up the likes of Ashley Westwood's and Jordan Bowery's?

We didn't only buy Bowery / Westwood buys, though. Benteke and Vlaar cost more and probably earned more, too. The problem was the whole 'package' was weighted far too much to low fee / cheap wage players.

It can't have been Lambert's choice to buy so much cheap crud, though - he was another one who kept on talking about the wage bill and the need to get it down.

If I remember correctly, at the time Lukaku went to Albion on loan, we'd tried to get him in but couldn't afford (or wouldn't pay) the loan fee.

I honestly think our impending relegation is far from down to one thing, though, it is a combination of about ten factors over the last five years. Mistake after mistake, and this sort of young and hungry fuck up was a big one of them.

[Clampy]

Without wanting to add to the quotathon Paulie, I agree with the last line. It's been a combination of poor decisions over time, not just 'it's been done on the cheap' argument.

[tomd2103]

I'm with VID on what he says. Whilst the spending is not what it was during Lerner's early years, it's not as if managers have been forced to build a team on free transfers and loans. I think we can all agree that some of the players that have come in haven't been good enough though.

Most of the damage was done in that period when we were signing the likes of Luna, Bennett, Westwood, Bacuna, Tonev, Bowery, Lowton, Sylla - were all those in Lambert's first season? Near enough I reckon.

The problem wasn't so much that we signed these players - signing them with a view to developing them wouldn't have been the worst idea - it was that we signed these players and most of them found themselves playing week in, week out, when they were patently not good enough at that time - combined with some home grown players who certainly weren't good enough.

I think that is absolutely the most salient point. Players such as Lowton / Bennett / Westwood from that batch or Clark from the home grown bunch may well have developed into reasonable players at that level if they'd been integrated gradually into a team with some experience around them and allowed to develop.  Instead they were pretty much all thrown into the first time to sink or swim.

That period from December to March in Lambert's first season possibly curtailed / ruined 4 or 5 careers.

And yet the end to that season provided some real optimism.  I agree at the transfer policy at the end of that season was a disaster.

[Perry Barr Pet]

Wasn't there a rumour that our "transfer committee" wanted to sign Vardy, but Sherwood wanted Gestede?

I heard that too.

[oldhill_avfc]

General Krulak is no doubt a brave man.  You don't become a General without having guts.

However his comments today are embarrassing.

Why is he no doubt brave?
There's many ways to become a general - I doubt being brave is one. 

You'd imagine being strategically aware and using tactical nous might be closer to the mark - but he's never demonstrated that either.  Why on earth Lerner thinks he's ever been asset to the board I'll never know.

Perhaps Lerner likes a man in uniform? lol

His military career is very impressive and started at the bottom of the ladder. I am very uncomfortable with the personal abuse he is attracting here.

It's a shame he decided to come out with the guff he has then, otherwise his thoughts would've remained a mystery - along with his other good buddy.

Why does the fact his comments are considered guff call for comments about his military career, and Randy Lerner's sexual preference?

Also can you be specific about his strategic failings, militarily and in relation to Aston Villa?

The point I was making is that his military career is only relevent if his skills and experiences were put to good use in his role and non-exec director. 

More specifically I suggested that his bravery is basically unknown to all but those who served alongside him.  So why bring it up or say 'undoubtedly'.

With regard to his strategic and tactical nous; can anyone see any evidence of where that may have been put to use?  All I can see are the business and footballing failings of a board of which he is a key member.  Surely, I don't need to elaborate on these?

As for Randy's sexual preferences - well let's just say in so many ways he doesn't seem to know his arse from his .....

[Chico Hamilton III]

Remember a few years ago when we had an influx of Cleveland Browns fans on the board having a nose, things turned out almost exactly the way they said they would.

Here's an article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer from 2005. Swap "Browns" for "Villa" and it could have been written yesterday

Browns lose president as fans lose confidence;



Here's what Browns owner Randy Lerner should learn from the Phil Savage fiasco: The team's fans are tired, shell-shocked and a little scared.
It has been 10 years since the original Browns moved to Baltimore, seven years since they were born again as an expansion team. In that decade, it has been one mess after another for this franchise of broken dreams.
Year after year....
Sunday after Sunday....
Loss after loss....
The fans keep renewing their overpriced tickets to the sold-out games. They keep coming, and yes, they keep complaining because they love this team so much.
They love the Browns of Paul Brown. Of Jim Brown. Of Otto Graham. Of Bernie Kosar. Of Brian Sipe. Of Paul Warfield. Of Mack and Byner. Of Minnifield and Dixon.
Not Butch and Carmen. Not Warren, Green and Garcia.
They long for the Browns of their youth, the Browns of their parents and grandparents. Those teams didn't always win and never went to a Super Bowl, but they were Browns teams that seemed to appreciate what it meant to play in front of some of the NFL's most passionate fans.
What we have now is a crisis in confidence, a sense that the family is falling apart, and the leader doesn't get it. That's why it was critical for John Collins to leave his position as team president, allowing Savage to remain as general manager.
The front office infighting is the fault of Lerner, who couldn't keep his friend and marketing man Collins from tinkering with Savage's football department. No matter what the spin is on the story, the fact is the team nearly lost Savage. The problem was the meddling of Collins and the reluctance of Lerner to stop it until it was nearly too late.
Since 1999, the Browns have been through five supposedly starting quarterbacks, four coaches and three player personnel types.
In three years under Lerner, the team has had three coaches, (soon to be) three presidents and 33 losses....

[pig]

I wonder if there is an opportunity for Aston Villa to become a supporter owned club, is there a possibility of crowdfunding enough money to buy out Randy Lerner?

[rob_bridge]

The only thing I'll say is the Browns were shit for a decade+ before Lerner was Chariman and have been shit since he left.

I agree with the sentiment we aren't going to get a Paul McGrath anymore than they will get another Jim Brown