Time for Randy to s*** or get off the pot?

[sfx412]

I totally agree with Claret Trim.  The difficulty in replacing a manager is more of a reason to have a back up plan, not less.

Every business should have a succession plan.

We've been assured they didn't then?

[Claret trim]

What if -in a fit of pique- MON burned Villa Park to the ground after bailing out?

Where is the contingency for that?

Or Kevin Mac started firing off RPG's into the Trinity Road stand v West Ham?

Extreme examples, but you really can't cover every eventuality.

If RL had spoken to MON on Sat night and everything was hunky dorey, and then on Monday MON decides that the players hate him and doesn't fancy it any more, I don't see how the board are liable.

They'll be judged on the next appointment.  They know that, so they have to get it right.
I'd much rather that scenario than Graeme Souness or Phil Brown parachuted in within 24 hours of MON's departure. That would have been a rapid response,  would it not? But still a poor one.

When you strip out the characters involved, the first example would amount to business continuity risk (i.e., ability to keep operating in the event of a catastrophic incident) and the second I guess would be risk of terrorism. I would be very surprised if the club did not have plans in place for just such events.

No offence KevinGage, but f I had meant "hire Phil Brown/Graeme Sourness" by contingency plan, I might have said just that!

The Board is not "liable" in the legal sense in the event of a material adverse event. BUt it is responsible. 

Can't find this year's accounts, but this is what the annual report said in 2005:

Risk Assessment
Management has the responsibility for the identification and evaluation of significant risks applicable to their area of business, together with the design of suitable internal controls. The risks are assessed by the management on a continual basis. A Group risk register is maintained and this is reviewed by the Audit Committee each year.

An in-depth risk report 3 months ago would almost certainly have flagged up "key man risk" with regard to MON (as well as "key man risk" with regard to certain players, even the owner, I guess).

[Claret trim]

I totally agree with Claret Trim.  The difficulty in replacing a manager is more of a reason to have a back up plan, not less.

Every business should have a succession plan.

We've been assured they didn't then?

Nobody is saying that (on the contrary, that point has been made several times in this thread). But it certainly doesn't look like they have.

[pauliewalnuts]

I wish we'd risk management plans in place in the event of MON signing Emile Fucking Heskey.

We knew it would happen, it actually did happen, and we're lumbered with the useless fecker

[villajk]

Couldn't have put it better myself paulie.

[KevinGage]

What if -in a fit of pique- MON burned Villa Park to the ground after bailing out?

Where is the contingency for that?

Or Kevin Mac started firing off RPG's into the Trinity Road stand v West Ham?

Extreme examples, but you really can't cover every eventuality.

If RL had spoken to MON on Sat night and everything was hunky dorey, and then on Monday MON decides that the players hate him and doesn't fancy it any more, I don't see how the board are liable.

They'll be judged on the next appointment.  They know that, so they have to get it right.
I'd much rather that scenario than Graeme Souness or Phil Brown parachuted in within 24 hours of MON's departure. That would have been a rapid response,  would it not? But still a poor one.

When you strip out the characters involved, the first example would amount to business continuity risk (i.e., ability to keep operating in the event of a catastrophic incident) and the second I guess would be risk of terrorism. I would be very surprised if the club did not have plans in place for just such events.

No offence KevinGage, but f I had meant "hire Phil Brown/Graeme Sourness" by contingency plan, I might have said just that!

The Board is not "liable" in the legal sense in the event of a material adverse event. BUt it is responsible. 

Can't find this year's accounts, but this is what the annual report said in 2005:

Risk Assessment
Management has the responsibility for the identification and evaluation of significant risks applicable to their area of business, together with the design of suitable internal controls. The risks are assessed by the management on a continual basis. A Group risk register is maintained and this is reviewed by the Audit Committee each year.

An in-depth risk report 3 months ago would almost certainly have flagged up "key man risk" with regard to MON (as well as "key man risk" with regard to certain players, even the owner, I guess).

How about if Kevin Mac is -and always was- the contingency?

Is it completely out of the question?

Think about it, it's not as if it took him long to step into the breach.  So there was no extended period of limbo for the players or supporters in regards to that particular decision.

The idea that there was no back up plan/ risk management might have more validity if there had been an extended period of uum-ing and aahing from the board "shall we appoint a caretaker/ shall we go straight to a long term appointment?" and so on.

Kevin Mac is a trusted member of staff.

Perhaps it was decided months/ even years ago that if MON was to depart either because of another job offer or personal reasons Kevin Mac would hold the fort until such time as an adequate long term replacement was acquired.  I'm pretty certain the board would be aware that such a character would most likely be in demand for other jobs too, and he wouldn't  be waiting around on the off chance that a vacancy cropped up at the Villa.

[dave.woodhall]

The more I look at it the more I think they're prepared to write off this season while they look for a long-term successor, or if Kev Mac does the job well, keep him there. This also has the added benefit of letting us see how the 25 players and any other new rules might affect us.

[KevinGage]

I tend to agree Dave, but I think it would be a mistake.

We'd be 99% certain of losing Ash and if they want to see a reversal in declining gates, writing this season off isn't really going to help in that regard.

It also makes it that much harder to try to close the gap and gain any kind of momentum next summer, so there would be a certain amount of naivety at play if they assume autopilot up until that time will suffice.

Klinsmann with his relative lack of experience of Sven with his damaged reputation might be more open to a short term deal -with a view to extending based on progress. That would be a better route and create more of a buzz than effectively announcing to the world we aren't going to bother this year - which is what I'd take the Kev Mac appointment to signify.

[dave.woodhall]

Maybe they could also play the "It was going to be a difficult season, but with ther manager leaving as he did it'll be impossible and here's the least-painful option." I don't know, but they might.

[Villa'Zawg]

I tend to agree Dave, but I think it would be a mistake.

We'd be 99% certain of losing Ash and if they want to see a reversal in declining gates, writing this season off isn't really going to help in that regard.

It also makes it that much harder to try to close the gap and gain any kind of momentum next summer, so there would be a certain amount of naivety at play if they assume autopilot up until that time will suffice.

Klinsmann with his relative lack of experience of Sven with his damaged reputation might be more open to a short term deal -with a view to extending based on progress. That would be a better route and create more of a buzz than effectively announcing to the world we aren't going to bother this year - which is what I'd take the Kev Mac appointment to signify.

It is what I took the Pelty/General posts on the first day of pre-season to signify and nothing that has happened since has pointed in any other direction.

[KevinGage]

Aye, you've made that pretty clear.

And you could be right yet, who knows.

Would you backtrack if we made a notable appointment though, or would you continue to take issue with the board for something they ultimately had very little control over - MON's walk out?

[Villa'Zawg]

Aye, you've made that pretty clear.

And you could be right yet, who knows.

Would you backtrack if we made a notable appointment though, or would you continue to take issue with the board for something they ultimately had very little control over - MON's walk out?

I would be delighted to see any indication whatsoever that my concerns were unfounded.

[Chris Smith]

The more I look at it the more I think they're prepared to write off this season while they look for a long-term successor, or if Kev Mac does the job well, keep him there. This also has the added benefit of letting us see how the 25 players and any other new rules might affect us.

Which poses the question were they prepared to write it off even before the manager walked and were the two issues related?

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

The more I look at it the more I think they're prepared to write off this season while they look for a long-term successor, or if Kev Mac does the job well, keep him there. This also has the added benefit of letting us see how the 25 players and any other new rules might affect us.

You talk about a long-term successor, but what you mean is, a manager for a few years before the moaning begins, and he leaves.

Long-term would be 5 years +. Maybe then a manager could build a team and not have to buy one to finish high in the league, of which you need money to do that. And lot's of it.

[Claret trim]

How about if Kevin Mac is -and always was- the contingency?

Is it completely out of the question?

Think about it, it's not as if it took him long to step into the breach.  So there was no extended period of limbo for the players or supporters in regards to that particular decision.

The idea that there was no back up plan/ risk management might have more validity if there had been an extended period of uum-ing and aahing from the board "shall we appoint a caretaker/ shall we go straight to a long term appointment?" and so on.

Kevin Mac is a trusted member of staff.

Perhaps it was decided months/ even years ago that if MON was to depart either because of another job offer or personal reasons Kevin Mac would hold the fort until such time as an adequate long term replacement was acquired.

It's possible. I've said several times that we obviously don't know what the Board was thinking, only what it looks like they were thinking. However, if Kevin Mac was the contingency plan, then (as you point out in your reply to DW above) that would plainly have been a mistake.

Personally, I think it looks rather more like Kevin Mac was the last man standing after the coaching staff was decimated. For example, had he been the plan, surely by now he would have been calling the shots, getting in the staff essential to a club of our stature (fitness coach), doing some player trading, etc.

Instead we have a state of (apparent) inertia – manifested, as Dave says, in an (apparent) readiness to "write off the season".