Randy Lerner

[oswald funkletrumpet]

the main problem is what we are now perceived to be worth

i can see randolph never selling as he isnt going to get anything he like what he perceives to be a good price

very dark days ahead

[Villafirst]

I see Lerner's net worth is $1.07bn as of March 2016. So very up-to-date.  I'm sure his fortune was $1.5bn 12 months ago, so quite a financial hit. Still not bad to have about £700 million in his pocket!

[Jimbo]

Aston Villa has cost Randy Lerner $100,000 a day - Forbes.

http://onforb.es/1YQ0lTd

[Villa in Denmark]

Aston Villa has cost Randy Lerner $100,000 a day - Forbes.

http://onforb.es/1YQ0lTd

The only news in  that was that we were £24M in debt when Doug sold as opposed to the debt free that is often cited.  Adds some credence to the "we hadn't got a pot to piss in" and Petrov's signing could have pushed us into administration without him acting as guarantor.

Quite impressive to spend over £250 million from there and end up actually worse off.  If it was anybody else you'd piss yourself laughing.

[levico]

the main problem is what we are now perceived to be worth

i can see randolph never selling as he isnt going to get anything he like what he perceives to be a good price

very dark days ahead

I think you may well be right.

Lerner is already clearly not a 'motivated seller' and what little motivation he has left is likely to atrophy over coming years. I'm pretty sure that his message to Hollis et al is to reduce costs, reduce expenditure and keep losses to a minimum. I think he will get rid of Fox but not just because he is incompetent but because he doesn't provide VFM.

Now watch our great club diminish year on year. We'll need luck to avoid a double drop.

[Ads]

We'll need luck to not be playing a league game at The Grove in six years time. How far we have fallen and so forth.

[Billy Walker]

Possibly the ideal scenario for everyone would be Randy selling up to competent people whilst keeping a ten or twenty per-cent stake in the Club for himself.  Long-term (and I mean long-term!) it's possible he could make some money back.  As things stand, with him as the main man, I believe the Club is toxic.  I have zero belief that we can possibly move forward until he is gone.

[Toronto Villa]

Aston Villa has cost Randy Lerner $100,000 a day - Forbes.

http://onforb.es/1YQ0lTd

The only news in  that was that we were £24M in debt when Doug sold as opposed to the debt free that is often cited.  Adds some credence to the "we hadn't got a pot to piss in" and Petrov's signing could have pushed us into administration without him acting as guarantor.

Quite impressive to spend over £250 million from there and end up actually worse off.  If it was anybody else you'd piss yourself laughing.

Crazy isn't it. If someone had told me when Randy bought us that he'd spend that much money in 10 years and with MON at the helm, I'd have expected a few runs at the title and a cup or three. Even if the landscape changed with Man City we should have been well set up for sustained success or at the very least a top 6 or 7 side. I still think back to leading 4-1 at Spurs or 2-0 vs Stoke as massive defining moments. How Spurs have maintain the trajectory we should have been on. And ironically how after this weekend, Spurs' Moscow moment wasn't to be and their Europa League gamble paid off and they maintained their title ambitions. Off course it helped they played us. Randy should never be criticised for the level of his investment, but roundly lambasted for how he wasted pretty much every penny of it. Randy Lerner is Tom Hanks in The Money Pit. Aston Villa is his crumbling house.

[ClaretAndBlueBlood]

Aston Villa has cost Randy Lerner $100,000 a day - Forbes.

http://onforb.es/1YQ0lTd

The only news in  that was that we were £24M in debt when Doug sold as opposed to the debt free that is often cited.  Adds some credence to the "we hadn't got a pot to piss in" and Petrov's signing could have pushed us into administration without him acting as guarantor.

Quite impressive to spend over £250 million from there and end up actually worse off.  If it was anybody else you'd piss yourself laughing.

Crazy isn't it. If someone had told me when Randy bought us that he'd spend that much money in 10 years and with MON at the helm, I'd have expected a few runs at the title and a cup or three. Even if the landscape changed with Man City we should have been well set up for sustained success or at the very least a top 6 or 7 side. I still think back to leading 4-1 at Spurs or 2-0 vs Stoke as massive defining moments. How Spurs have maintain the trajectory we should have been on. And ironically how after this weekend, Spurs' Moscow moment wasn't to be and their Europa League gamble paid off and they maintained their title ambitions. Off course it helped they played us. Randy should never be criticised for the level of his investment, but roundly lambasted for how he wasted pretty much every penny of it. Randy Lerner is Tom Hanks in The Money Pit. Aston Villa is his crumbling house.

I think the difference being that spurs have been prepared to play the long game and maintain that level and progressively try to build adding new players and youngsters to the squad, being there or thereabouts until they got into the top 4. Randy had a dash at it, went for the short term dash for Champs League with O'neill, realised that nothing sustainable had been built when O'neill walked and then lost his nerve when he realised he was starting again and the amount of money it was going to cost. Plus Man City happening

[Villa in Denmark]

Aston Villa has cost Randy Lerner $100,000 a day - Forbes.

http://onforb.es/1YQ0lTd

The only news in  that was that we were £24M in debt when Doug sold as opposed to the debt free that is often cited.  Adds some credence to the "we hadn't got a pot to piss in" and Petrov's signing could have pushed us into administration without him acting as guarantor.

Quite impressive to spend over £250 million from there and end up actually worse off.  If it was anybody else you'd piss yourself laughing.

Crazy isn't it. If someone had told me when Randy bought us that he'd spend that much money in 10 years and with MON at the helm, I'd have expected a few runs at the title and a cup or three. Even if the landscape changed with Man City we should have been well set up for sustained success or at the very least a top 6 or 7 side. I still think back to leading 4-1 at Spurs or 2-0 vs Stoke as massive defining moments. How Spurs have maintain the trajectory we should have been on. And ironically how after this weekend, Spurs' Moscow moment wasn't to be and their Europa League gamble paid off and they maintained their title ambitions. Off course it helped they played us. Randy should never be criticised for the level of his investment, but roundly lambasted for how he wasted pretty much every penny of it. Randy Lerner is Tom Hanks in The Money Pit. Aston Villa is his crumbling house.

I think the difference being that spurs have been prepared to play the long game and maintain that level and progressively try to build adding new players and youngsters to the squad, being there or thereabouts until they got into the top 4. Randy had a dash at it, went for the short term dash for Champs League with O'neill, realised that nothing sustainable had been built when O'neill walked and then lost his nerve when he realised he was starting again and the amount of money it was going to cost. Plus Man City happening

I think the salient difference is that Spurs were always in a position to exploit more expensive match tickets and more expansive corporate hospitality at a London premium that enabled them to sustain that spending a bit longer.  Then they got CL money for was it 2 out of 3 years? That must have helped almost reset the books and enabled them to "go again" but from a much higher starting point.  That coupled to the only managerial blow out they've had over that period has been Villa Boas has meant that they've stayed there or there abouts.

[Glenn Peen]

I don't blame Lerner. A fool and his money. I do, however, think his recruitment - in terms of executives, managers and players - has been dreadful.

Post O'Neill (and he bought piles of junk, too), you're struggling to think of good signings. Could we get a team of post-O'Neill players that looks competent on paper? Benteke, Snake, any others...?

[pauliewalnuts]

Recruitment has been his biggest failure.

Ten years in and we are only just getting what looks like it might be a competent board, for example

[Glenn Peen]

Can we thank Hollis for that? Or is that too soon?

[Toronto Villa]

It certainly helped Spurs financially to get into the CL, but also to land the jackpot with Bale. A joke to one of the worlds best players. How often does that happen? And now they have Kane who has to be approaching £50m territory. It's a combination of great planning coupled with immense good fortune. Especially when you consider how many managers they have gone through of varying styles of leadership.

[Villa in Denmark]

Can we thank Hollis for that? Or is that too soon?

It's either that or one hell of a coincidence and all these appointments were lined up before Hollis was appointed.

I think he really has been parachuted in with a brief to run it as he sees fit.  The only time Lerner will want to hear about Aston Villa is if Hollis wants some money before approaching a bank for funding, at some point we manage to turn a profit and he gets £3.50 back in the slush fund or BoA turn up a credible buyer.  Other than that I don't think, and actually hope he doesn't give a flying f¤¤k or second thought.

As Paulie says above,  we should have been after this kind of structure from day 1, although he may have tried it.  I seem to recall we lost 2 CEOs (Fitzgerald and Cunnah) in rapid succession in what in hindsight were probably "him or me" type power struggles with MON.  Of course there was only ever going to be one winner there!