Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Drummond on June 07, 2012, 11:46:31 AM
-
I would like to think that he is; after what was a shaky time with managerial appointments, a poor kit manufacturer, reducing crowds etc things are gettign better.
We've got a young, determined manager who has been getting better and better results from his teams.
Our kit deal is great, in terms of revenue, design and commitment to the club.
Season ticket sales are going back up.
He's on the FA thingy.
All-in-all I'd say he's becoming more respected in the game as a whole, is handling the marketing etc really well and has sold the club to a manager that had a great playing career and knows how to win (e.g. winning the European Cup).
I'd like to doff my cap.
-
p.s. he also got rid of Heskey.....
-
I'm feeling more positive towards him after the last week.
Was he wearing eye liner in the presser?
Wasn't our revenue at an all time high last year? Or have I got that wrong.
-
The club have started to redeem themselves after a sequence of enormous cock ups. Let's not forget, this time last year, he was sitting next to McLeish, unveling him (well, actually, he wasn't, he didn't turn up for it).
In my mind they (the top management) still have a way to go towards redemption, but it's certainly a start.
-
The club have started to redeem themselves after a sequence of enormous cock ups. Let's not forget, this time last year, he was sitting next to McLeish, unveling him (well, actually, he wasn't, he didn't turn up for it).
In my mind they (the top management) still have a way to go towards redemption, but it's certainly a start.
I agree with that, it's going the right way.
-
He certainly did chicken out of the McLeish presser last year
-
There's also the fact that the savagery of the cost cutting process last season, plus the shit appointment, led to us being really quite lucky not to get relegated.
The scale of the deterioration since O'Neill left is pretty shocking all-round. It is their job to manage the growth of the club, and judged against that, it looks really, reallly poor.
-
We all make mistakes.
The key is to learn from them.
PF seems to be learning, I can forgive.
-
We'll be able to tell if he's any good if he learns from his mistakes and puts things right. TSM was a shockingly stupid appointment, but Lambert is a huge step in the right direction. Let's see if Faulkner can persuade Lerner to part with some more of his money and invest in the team, because we're going to see more of the same dross on the pitch (albeit much less horrific) unless we hack back then strengthen.
-
The only reason Paul Faulkner is actually ever spoke about is due to the last two seasons.Had we had a team that were playing well there'd be a vast number of fans who wouldn't know who Faulkner was if they tripped over him. I, along with seemingly the majority of fans am delighted with the appointment of Lambert. However, should it go tits up then Faulkner will once again be in the spotlight. If we do well he won't be mentioned.
-
I think the man has come up trumps in every way since the final whistle of last season, and certainly in additon to the Genting and Macron deals. It's been very easy to criticise him for many things in the past two years, but some of it has been completely unjust and beyond his control. I really think that he and Randy have taken stock of many things in the past few months and there is a very different feeling about the club. My thinking is Randy was affected by how people began to perceive him and he will show his support for the manager again this summer. Work had to be done to the wage bill and TSM in some ways was the bloke that got sacrificed in all that. Still now, with a fresh start, healthier finances and superb managerial appointment the club is on the up again. Fair play to Faulkner and also Randy for not allowing the mess to continue and for doing something about it.
-
In terms of the business and marketing side of things I think he has done a superb job of selling the Aston Villa "brand". I feel where he struggles is on the footballing side. We dont seem to have anyone on the board who has that sort experience.
It looks like he is learning fast though and is only 33 so fair play to him as its a big job.
-
In terms of the business and marketing side of things I think he has done a superb job of selling the Aston Villa "brand". I feel where he struggles is on the footballing side. We dont seem to have anyone on the board who has that sort experience.
It looks like he is learning fast though and is only 33 so fair play to him as its a big job.
This. I still feel we need someone with a football head on the board.
-
There's also the fact that the savagery of the cost cutting process last season, plus the shit appointment, led to us being really quite lucky not to get relegated.
The scale of the deterioration since O'Neill left is pretty shocking all-round. It is their job to manage the growth of the club, and judged against that, it looks really, reallly poor.
I sometimes wonder if like me and quite many others RL and PF believed the hype and this midas touch thing which surrounded MON. After a while they probably wondered what was going on and had to act and when they did it was all a bit late and also they probably went around it in the wrong way. After it had happened they were left in a right mess and didn't really know what to do. I still do not and I'm sure deep down they will not know what happened as regards appointing TSM.
-
If he has any freebies or invites to hospitality days going, i'll certainly be on his side.
-
The club have started to redeem themselves after a sequence of enormous cock ups. Let's not forget, this time last year, he was sitting next to McLeish, unveling him (well, actually, he wasn't, he didn't turn up for it).
In my mind they (the top management) still have a way to go towards redemption, but it's certainly a start.
This sums it up for me.
The club (ie Lerner and Faulkner) made a huge and costly series of errors in allowing O'Neill unfettered access to silly amounts of money, and they then compounded this by two managerial appointments, one which was questionable and the other downright moronic. On top of this this were lots of other bad news stories and silly decisions like poorly worded letters to supporters ("Top 20 in the Deloitte league" indeed) . Since then though, there seems to have been a general upturn in fortunes, so I'm looking forward to the new season, and it's basically a clean slate as far as I'm concerned. They've made an excellent start with the acquisition of Lambert, now they need to back it up with repairing the squad numbers and quality.
-
In terms of the business and marketing side of things I think he has done a superb job of selling the Aston Villa "brand". I feel where he struggles is on the footballing side. We dont seem to have anyone on the board who has that sort experience.
It looks like he is learning fast though and is only 33 so fair play to him as its a big job.
This. I still feel we need someone with a football head on the board.
;D I've got this image of a well dressed man with a mitre ball for his bonce
-
wanker one week, hero the next. how fickle are we/you!
oh no, i used the f word!!
-
I think the man has come up trumps in every way since the final whistle of last season, and certainly in additon to the Genting and Macron deals. It's been very easy to criticise him for many things in the past two years, but some of it has been completely unjust and beyond his control. I really think that he and Randy have taken stock of many things in the past few months and there is a very different feeling about the club. My thinking is Randy was affected by how people began to perceive him and he will show his support for the manager again this summer. Work had to be done to the wage bill and TSM in some ways was the bloke that got sacrificed in all that. Still now, with a fresh start, healthier finances and superb managerial appointment the club is on the up again. Fair play to Faulkner and also Randy for not allowing the mess to continue and for doing something about it.
I still think Lerner witnessing the Bolton debacle and the fans reaction was a massive turning point in the history of our club, albeit we were blessed with luck in staying up.
-
I think the tipping point was most likely the lack of season ticket sales.
-
He has realised his mistake and managed to get the man most fans wanted as manager to come. His commercial aspects have been fairly good, so he deserves time to prove that he can learn from errors on the football side. Time will tell.
-
I agree with nearly all the posts in one way or another.
It was clear that he wasn't a 'Football' person as he failed to realise the fans feeling regarding the appointment of AMcL. I think he's learnt from that mistake.
He's a young guy and will only get better if he learns from his mistakes of the past.
Given this appointment he's certainly ticking the right boxes with the supporters.
Keep up the good work Paul.
-
The club have started to redeem themselves after a sequence of enormous cock ups. Let's not forget, this time last year, he was sitting next to McLeish, unveling him (well, actually, he wasn't, he didn't turn up for it).
In my mind they (the top management) still have a way to go towards redemption, but it's certainly a start.
This sums it up for me.
The club (ie Lerner and Faulkner) made a huge and costly series of errors in allowing O'Neill unfettered access to silly amounts of money, and they then compounded this by two managerial appointments, one which was questionable and the other downright moronic. On top of this this were lots of other bad news stories and silly decisions like poorly worded letters to supporters ("Top 20 in the Deloitte league" indeed) . Since then though, there seems to have been a general upturn in fortunes, so I'm looking forward to the new season, and it's basically a clean slate as far as I'm concerned. They've made an excellent start with the acquisition of Lambert, now they need to back it up with repairing the squad numbers and quality.
Also worth nothing that appointing Lambert will not benefit the club at all if he's not backed with money in the transfer market.
-
I have criticised pf and rl heavily over the past few months and looking back I stand by that criticism. But I also have to give credit where it's due. Pl is an excellent acquisition and I think that the majority of support will back the manager now come what may. They have also now gone some way to rectifying the mess left after the mon era so well done for that too. I also love Nike as a brand so was disappointed when we quit with them to go with macron. But watching the videos on the effort and care being put into our new kit by the Italians has proved that to be an excellent move as well. Everyone is human and makes mistakes, it is unfortunate that their mistakes are in a business that is held close to the heart by many so there is not much leeway. But they are going about things in the right way at the moment so they are getting cut some slack in my book. All we asked is for them to listen and it is hard to argue they aren't doing that now....
-
I think both PF and RL came into the situation re owning/managing Villa with no previous experience whatsoever. MON had been appointed (presumably with their agreement) and he was the person with the football "know-how". Unfortunately as we know RL backed him but it didn't quite work out. Presumably PF was still wet behind the ears and didn't know how to stop what was happening until they both realised what the dire financial position was that we were in. After this realisation we all know what happened and events have unfolded over the last 2 years which hopefully will not be repeated. But as many on here have already stated, it looks as if PF has grown up fast and is getting a good grip on the agenda regarding running a major club. His appointment to the FA Council can only assist his development as he will be mixing with others in the corridors of power and further developing as time unfolds. I truly believe that with PL in charge on the field and PF now established in the back office we can go on to develop into a major force once again.
-
I am rather more circumspect. I'm delighted with the managerial appointment but there will have to be much more of an ongoing feel-good factor to redress the last couple of years.
-
In terms of the business and marketing side of things I think he has done a superb job of selling the Aston Villa "brand". I feel where he struggles is on the footballing side. We dont seem to have anyone on the board who has that sort experience.
It looks like he is learning fast though and is only 33 so fair play to him as its a big job.
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. I don't see any raised awareness of the Villa 'brand' at all.
I recognise it's a difficult job and I'd agree he's done OK - but hardly superbly.
-
In terms of the business and marketing side of things I think he has done a superb job of selling the Aston Villa "brand". I feel where he struggles is on the footballing side. We dont seem to have anyone on the board who has that sort experience.
It looks like he is learning fast though and is only 33 so fair play to him as its a big job.
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. I don't see any raised awareness of the Villa 'brand' at all.
I recognise it's a difficult job and I'd agree he's done OK - but hardly superbly.
He's overseen the signing of the 3 biggest sponsorship deals we've ever had, he's got our revenue at the highest level it's ever been.
He (and Lerner) have made mistakes, letting mon push the club towards ruin and appointing the worst manager in our history being the major ones but, since MoN was told to take it easy on the money, the work to get us back on track and put us in a stronger position to reinvest has been good, that's what he's employed to do and he's done a fair job of it so far. At the end of the summer we'll see whether that progresses from fair to excellent based on spending, if we go out and spend 25m+ then it's a clear indication that the finances are back in a very strong position, I only expect 3-4 sides in the league to spend around that level (after sales), with only man city likely to spend silly money this season.
-
In terms of the business and marketing side of things I think he has done a superb job of selling the Aston Villa "brand". I feel where he struggles is on the footballing side. We dont seem to have anyone on the board who has that sort experience.
It looks like he is learning fast though and is only 33 so fair play to him as its a big job.
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. I don't see any raised awareness of the Villa 'brand' at all.
I recognise it's a difficult job and I'd agree he's done OK - but hardly superbly.
He's overseen the signing of the 3 biggest sponsorship deals we've ever had, he's got our revenue at the highest level it's ever been.
He (and Lerner) have made mistakes, letting mon push the club towards ruin and appointing the worst manager in our history being the major ones but, since MoN was told to take it easy on the money, the work to get us back on track and put us in a stronger position to reinvest has been good, that's what he's employed to do and he's done a fair job of it so far. At the end of the summer we'll see whether that progresses from fair to excellent based on spending, if we go out and spend 25m+ then it's a clear indication that the finances are back in a very strong position, I only expect 3-4 sides in the league to spend around that level (after sales), with only man city likely to spend silly money this season.
I've tried to understand the points you're trying to make here.
The first para says he's signed the three biggest deals in the clubs history - fair enough and well done - I happen to think they reflected the higher profile of Villa under MON/Lerner's first phase, and are perhaps in line with general football inflation. Our commercial income remains just about inline with our upper midtable standing - nothing outstanding.
I'm not sure what on earth you're saying in the second para - the only thing I might comment on is that if we spend £25m it will not be because the commercials support it, but will reflect Lerner's attitude to investing further in the club.
-
I think both RL and PF have been given a seriously unjust amount of stick in the recent past. On the one hand people say they should have spotted the MON largesse before it became a problem; but I don't recall too many saying at the time that it was madness spending £10m or whatever on Curtis Davies et al, just good news that we seemed to be stepping up to the plate. Then there is a chorus from some that they are clueless about football, yet you can imagine the reaction if they were thought to be dabbling in matters that are considered to be on the football side.
Sure the McL appointment was a mistake at every level, but they've pretty much held their hands up to that. GH could well have worked out. The fact is they backed MoN fully who left them with a steaming pile, which they've had to clear up.
On balance I think they have credit in the bank and are decent folks to be running this club.
-
In terms of the business and marketing side of things I think he has done a superb job of selling the Aston Villa "brand". I feel where he struggles is on the footballing side. We dont seem to have anyone on the board who has that sort experience.
It looks like he is learning fast though and is only 33 so fair play to him as its a big job.
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. I don't see any raised awareness of the Villa 'brand' at all.
I recognise it's a difficult job and I'd agree he's done OK - but hardly superbly.
He's overseen the signing of the 3 biggest sponsorship deals we've ever had, he's got our revenue at the highest level it's ever been.
He (and Lerner) have made mistakes, letting mon push the club towards ruin and appointing the worst manager in our history being the major ones but, since MoN was told to take it easy on the money, the work to get us back on track and put us in a stronger position to reinvest has been good, that's what he's employed to do and he's done a fair job of it so far. At the end of the summer we'll see whether that progresses from fair to excellent based on spending, if we go out and spend 25m+ then it's a clear indication that the finances are back in a very strong position, I only expect 3-4 sides in the league to spend around that level (after sales), with only man city likely to spend silly money this season.
I've tried to understand the points you're trying to make here.
The first para says he's signed the three biggest deals in the clubs history - fair enough and well done - I happen to think they reflected the higher profile of Villa under MON/Lerner's first phase, and are perhaps in line with general football inflation. Our commercial income remains just about inline with our upper midtable standing - nothing outstanding.
I'm not sure what on earth you're saying in the second para - the only thing I might comment on is that if we spend £25m it will not be because the commercials support it, but will reflect Lerner's attitude to investing further in the club.
Completely disagree on your last point, Lerner has tried the sugar daddy approach with MoN and signed the cheques without any restrictions, it didn't work and unsustainable. He's not going to have put the club through all this to repeat the same mistakes. The club needs to be self sufficient, money for players (both fees and wages) will come on the basis that the club has the money, not due to Lerner throwing another fortune at it. Any money from Lerner directly will be very carefully agreed on the basis that we can make the money back in the form of a saleable asset.
-
He's overseen the signing of the 3 biggest sponsorship deals we've ever had, he's got our revenue at the highest level it's ever been.
Whilst I'm not knocking him, at least not this week, wont most of the current PL sponsorship deals for all teams represent their biggest ones ever?
-
I think both RL and PF have been given a seriously unjust amount of stick in the recent past. On the one hand people say they should have spotted the MON largesse before it became a problem; but I don't recall too many saying at the time that it was madness spending £10m or whatever on Curtis Davies et al, just good news that we seemed to be stepping up to the plate.
In fairness, at the time we were spending insane money on Curtis Davies, we didn't realise that such spending would have left the club in dire financial straits quite so quickly.
We didn't know, but they should have.
-
I think both RL and PF have been given a seriously unjust amount of stick in the recent past. On the one hand people say they should have spotted the MON largesse before it became a problem; but I don't recall too many saying at the time that it was madness spending £10m or whatever on Curtis Davies et al, just good news that we seemed to be stepping up to the plate.
In fairness, at the time we were spending insane money on Curtis Davies, we didn't realise that such spending would have left the club in dire financial straits quite so quickly.
We didn't know, but they should have.
Was Faulkner even at the club at that stage? My understanding of events was that when he came in he saw the mess re. wages, tried to act, and that's when MON walked. Am I wrong on that one?
-
My brother in law knows Paul in business context and believes the guy to be very astute commercially, but is just as convinced you can contain his football knowledge on the bell end of a gnat's cock.
-
He only failed with Mc Leish, but only who doesn't work doesn't fail, as we say in Italy. He is a very prepared but in the same time nice, humble guy, 100% committed to the club and I never understood all the anger that there was against him. Happy to see that he has been rehabilitated now.
-
I know hind sight is a wonderful thing but we should have kept Steve Stride on
I know he would have loved to have stayed on when RL took over and with his footballing knowledge and working at Villa since an early age - he would have been a safe pair of hands (TSM would not have darkened our doorstep)
That said PF is now getting on with things and it would appear we are heading in the right direction - he has had a steep learning curve which could have cost us dearly
Onwards and upwards
-
I think both RL and PF have been given a seriously unjust amount of stick in the recent past. On the one hand people say they should have spotted the MON largesse before it became a problem; but I don't recall too many saying at the time that it was madness spending £10m or whatever on Curtis Davies et al, just good news that we seemed to be stepping up to the plate.
In fairness, at the time we were spending insane money on Curtis Davies, we didn't realise that such spending would have left the club in dire financial straits quite so quickly.
We didn't know, but they should have.
Was Faulkner even at the club at that stage? My understanding of events was that when he came in he saw the mess re. wages, tried to act, and that's when MON walked. Am I wrong on that one?
I dont know, I doubt it, am really referring to Randy / the management
-
Was Faulkner even at the club at that stage? My understanding of events was that when he came in he saw the mess re. wages, tried to act, and that's when MON walked. Am I wrong on that one?
He was Chief Operating Officer (whatever that was) for two years before becoming Chief Exec a few months before MON walked. I would suggest he was only on the business side beforehand anyway.
-
He has messed up twice on big decisions . This has cost the business he is responsible for lot of money in compensation and loss of revenue. He really should have fallen on his sword and left along with McLeish. I have very little confidence in him.
And oh he messed up Milner transfer as well by accepting Ireland in px rather than maximising cash into club.
-
But is it fair to expect the executive to 2nd guess the manager? The world and his wife thought MoN could do no wrong, and at that point in time, there was no difference between an Ashley Young buy and a Curtis Davies buy. It's only with hindsight that we know the difference - so surely it's unfair to expect the people who's job it is to appoint someone who is a genuine football professional (i.e. the manager) and do the job without interference then criticise for leaving the professionals to it. I think we can legitimately praise or criticize for branding/sponsorship/facilities issues but the malaise at AVFC to my mind has been all playing side related.
-
I know hind sight is a wonderful thing but we should have kept Steve Stride on
I know he would have loved to have stayed on when RL took over and with his footballing knowledge and working at Villa since an early age - he would have been a safe pair of hands (TSM would not have darkened our doorstep)
That said PF is now getting on with things and it would appear we are heading in the right direction - he has had a steep learning curve which could have cost us dearly
Onwards and upwards
The Steve Stride thing really is getting to be a bit boring now. Steve was a good administrator, one of the best even. But the problem wasn't one of administration, it was the fundamental relationship balance between Lerner and O'Neill that was all wrong. O'Neill was given carte blanche to spend what he liked, so even after blowing the best part of £20m on Davies and Cuellar, he then went and replaced them a year later with Collins and Dunne, as just one example. Even if Stride had questioned the wisdom of giving a 31 year old non-scoring Heskey £65K a week for 3 years, it would have come down to Lerner either backing O'Neill or not.
What was needed was a coherent plan between Lerner and O'Neill, and it just wasn't there. Steve Stride wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference in my opinion.
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Plan A - throw money at it and tie up as a junior partner with IMG and Nike in the hope that their glamour rubs off - failed. Plan B - spend within our means and be a large fish in a smaller corporate pool - is about to begin. If it works Randy and Paul will be heralded as the model way to run a medium-to-large club.
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Plan A - throw money at it and tie up as a junior partner with IMG and Nike in the hope that their glamour rubs off - failed. Plan B - spend within our means and be a large fish in a smaller corporate pool - is about to begin. If it works Randy and Paul will be heralded as the model way to run a medium-to-large club.
Spot on, couldn't agree more.
-
I thought this was going to be a thread about the chubby cheeked chappy resigning and getting a paper round.
Also wassa presser when it is at home?
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Faulkner has got lots of deserved criticism for things that he has been directly involved in. Like appointing McLeish for instance, and the fact that we've lost something like £130m in the last three years.
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Faulkner has got lots of deserved criticism for things that he has been directly involved in. Like appointing McLeish for instance, and the fact that we've lost something like £130m in the last three years.
And the things he's done right?
-
The club have started to redeem themselves after a sequence of enormous cock ups. Let's not forget, this time last year, he was sitting next to McLeish, unveling him (well, actually, he wasn't, he didn't turn up for it).
In my mind they (the top management) still have a way to go towards redemption, but it's certainly a start.
This sums it up for me.
The club (ie Lerner and Faulkner) made a huge and costly series of errors in allowing O'Neill unfettered access to silly amounts of money, and they then compounded this by two managerial appointments, one which was questionable and the other downright moronic. On top of this this were lots of other bad news stories and silly decisions like poorly worded letters to supporters ("Top 20 in the Deloitte league" indeed) . Since then though, there seems to have been a general upturn in fortunes, so I'm looking forward to the new season, and it's basically a clean slate as far as I'm concerned. They've made an excellent start with the acquisition of Lambert, now they need to back it up with repairing the squad numbers and quality.
Agreed. Jury still out for me, but it seems that they have started to repair the void that the Board actually created.
They have done (and continue to do) some great initiatives off the pitch, but the be all and end all is the eleven that turn up and play on a Saturday/Sunday/WheneverSkyfeel. They seem to have addressed this after a few misguided decisions surrounding the First Team. Appointing Lambert is hopefully the start of reparing the damage and indeed the route back to the "Bright Future".
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Faulkner has got lots of deserved criticism for things that he has been directly involved in. Like appointing McLeish for instance, and the fact that we've lost something like £130m in the last three years.
And the things he's done right?
He's got an awful lot to do to put right the wrongs of the last two years. Still, Lambert is hopefully a big step in the right direction.
-
Lambert is hopefully a big step in the right direction.
Backing him in the transfer market will be another.
-
I know hind sight is a wonderful thing but we should have kept Steve Stride on
I know he would have loved to have stayed on when RL took over and with his footballing knowledge and working at Villa since an early age - he would have been a safe pair of hands (TSM would not have darkened our doorstep)
That said PF is now getting on with things and it would appear we are heading in the right direction - he has had a steep learning curve which could have cost us dearly
Onwards and upwards
The Steve Stride thing really is getting to be a bit boring now. Steve was a good administrator, one of the best even. But the problem wasn't one of administration, it was the fundamental relationship balance between Lerner and O'Neill that was all wrong. O'Neill was given carte blanche to spend what he liked, so even after blowing the best part of £20m on Davies and Cuellar, he then went and replaced them a year later with Collins and Dunne, as just one example. Even if Stride had questioned the wisdom of giving a 31 year old non-scoring Heskey £65K a week for 3 years, it would have come down to Lerner either backing O'Neill or not.
What was needed was a coherent plan between Lerner and O'Neill, and it just wasn't there. Steve Stride wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference in my opinion.
Not to mention, Stride WANTED to leave!!! It was not as though he was kicked out the door. The guy wanted to retire...
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Faulkner has got lots of deserved criticism for things that he has been directly involved in. Like appointing McLeish for instance, and the fact that we've lost something like £130m in the last three years.
And the things he's done right?
He's got an awful lot to do to put right the wrongs of the last two years. Still, Lambert is hopefully a big step in the right direction.
As I said - the mistakes are down to him and the good decisions are ignored.
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Faulkner has got lots of deserved criticism for things that he has been directly involved in. Like appointing McLeish for instance, and the fact that we've lost something like £130m in the last three years.
And the things he's done right?
He's got an awful lot to do to put right the wrongs of the last two years. Still, Lambert is hopefully a big step in the right direction.
As I said - the mistakes are down to him and the good decisions are ignored.
No, nothing like that at all in fact. Are you seriously arguing that the state of the club's finances and the appointment of the last manager are nothing to do with the company's Chief Executive?
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Faulkner has got lots of deserved criticism for things that he has been directly involved in. Like appointing McLeish for instance, and the fact that we've lost something like £130m in the last three years.
And the things he's done right?
He's got an awful lot to do to put right the wrongs of the last two years. Still, Lambert is hopefully a big step in the right direction.
As I said - the mistakes are down to him and the good decisions are ignored.
No, nothing like that at all in fact. Are you seriously arguing that the state of the club's finances and the appointment of the last manager are nothing to do with the company's Chief Executive?
Of course I'm not, although we don't know in whose hands the final decision on such matters as managerial appointment rests. What I'm saying, and what you haven't yet answered, is that my original point stands. It appears that throughout top-flight football the CEO is some sort of pantomime villain figure who is inevitably at fault when things are going wrong but ignored at other times.
-
Reading about both PF and other CEOs it seems their main role is Chief Scapegoat. The bad things are their fault and the good ones are down to the manager.
Faulkner has got lots of deserved criticism for things that he has been directly involved in. Like appointing McLeish for instance, and the fact that we've lost something like £130m in the last three years.
Not been massively impressed by PF. But surely those losses are driven by what went on before he arrived?
-
The problem with PF he his learning on the job.The same as the owner.
70/30 for me,but hopefully they are pulling it back.
-
Of course I'm not, although we don't know in whose hands the final decision on such matters as managerial appointment rests. What I'm saying, and what you haven't yet answered, is that my original point stands. It appears that throughout top-flight football the CEO is some sort of pantomime villain figure who is inevitably at fault when things are going wrong but ignored at other times.
That just isn't true. I've seen lots of people saying that Lerner has done well in securing the Genting and Macron deals for example. What you seem to be ignoring though, is that as Chief Executive, he's directly responsible for the results of the company, and in the last three years we have rocked up huge losses, seen just about all of our better players sold, been involved in two relegation battles, appointed the worst manager we've had in 25 years and seen a big drop in support. He may well have had successes along the way, but seeing as the main purpose of the club is to win football matches the last two years have been a story of failure. It may not be all directly his fault, but as a CEO he is legally and morally responsible.
Now, hopefully that's all in the past and just as Faulkner should take the rap for his part in appointing McLeish, he can have a big pat on the back for admitting the mistake and rectifying it quickly and successfully with the manager most people wanted.
-
He is slowly gaining my confidence but still lots of room for improvement.
-
...
He may well have had successes along the way, but seeing as the main purpose of the club is to win football matches the last two years have been a story of failure. It may not be all directly his fault, but as a CEO he is legally and morally responsible.
Now, hopefully that's all in the past and just as Faulkner should take the rap for his part in appointing McLeish, he can have a big pat on the back for admitting the mistake and rectifying it quickly and successfully with the manager most people wanted.
It could equally be argued that during his term as CEO the club has recovered from the precipice of near insolvency to one of relative stability. He has seen out a situation that has killed other clubs without the loss of PL status and has therefore succeeded where many other 'football men' have failed.
-
I think that both RL and PF can be accused of a surprising amount of naivety - giving MON so much freedom and becoming overly-reliant on purely his view of the football world. When the MON love-in imploded the initial reaction was reasonably balanced: they put an existing employee in charge and gave him the opportunity to sink or swim.
The appointment of GHou was left-field and potentially a master-stroke but floundered for the two reasons of GHou's health and - I think - fright at what GHou had uncovered and not being prepared to fund the fundamental remedial actions he wanted to take (diismantling the squad, with player write-offs and new fees to fund).
Last season's debacle was another left-field risk, but one with more constraints placed on it: no big transfers / retrenchment is the approach. It nearly blew back at them.
The naivety comes from a risk-taking approach, rather than one based on a long-term strategy; and from the mistaken belief that FFP will level the playing field (it won't).
PF has not been in role for the whole of the RL era and is - as others have said - learning on the job. What has scuppered him has been the unexpected turbulence at the club post-MON and the rewriting of the £££ rules by Citeh.
With a better wage-bill situation, enhanced sponsorship deals, an apparenly-sensible and capable manager and returning lapsed ST holders / fans, this season and the next should be the time to judge whether PF has 'got it'.
-
Both PF and RL are in a no win position. When MoN was splashing the cash, I don't recall a murmur of dissent or suggestion of profligacy, and it was not as though the examples of Leeds and Portsmouth weren't out there as warnings. Even in this thread, you can see people citing the acid test as being backing in the transfer market and that fundamentally is how most supporters judge the board. You only ever hear people wanting to "pay the going rate" or "stop messing about and do the deal". Yes they have ultimate financial responsibility for the club, but in practice we expect them to take risks by attracting the best players through wages and transfer fees, but only really doing this by leaving alone "backing the manager" and providing quality pies. Then we call them irresponsible no nothing twats when the manager gets it wrong.
-
...
He may well have had successes along the way, but seeing as the main purpose of the club is to win football matches the last two years have been a story of failure. It may not be all directly his fault, but as a CEO he is legally and morally responsible.
Now, hopefully that's all in the past and just as Faulkner should take the rap for his part in appointing McLeish, he can have a big pat on the back for admitting the mistake and rectifying it quickly and successfully with the manager most people wanted.
It could equally be argued that during his term as CEO the club has recovered from the precipice of near insolvency to one of relative stability. He has seen out a situation that has killed other clubs without the loss of PL status and has therefore succeeded where many other 'football men' have failed.
That would be true if we weren't still massively insolvent. We are though.
-
So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
-
It's not revisionism. What they got wrong they got wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge what they also get right.
-
It's not revisionism. What they got wrong they got wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge what they also get right.
Exactly, and at least they are trying and have as far as I can see always tried to push the club on.They also put their hands up when they got it wrong and did something about it.
-
It's not revisionism. What they got wrong they got wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge what they also get right.
As I said earlier PF has not been in role for the whole of the RL era and is learning on the job.
With a better wage-bill situation, enhanced sponsorship deals, an apparenly-sensible and capable manager and returning lapsed ST holders / fans, this season and the next should be the time to judge whether he has 'got it'.
I can understand that others have a more cynical view of the last three years.
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
-
So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.
We've just got rid of a far worse manager than O'Leary, just in case the past 12 months has passed you by completely.
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt. Then you would, and have.
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt. Then you would, and have.
Could you please explain what you mean here?
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt. Then you would, and have.
Could you please explain what you mean here?
You've accused people of not saying a bad word about the owners for the first three years, then changing their minds when it all goes wrong.
-
So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.
We've just got rid of a far worse manager than O'Leary, just in case the past 12 months has passed you by completely.
Passed me by? I think you must have a short memory - O Leary took us to 16th in his last season so did McLeish. They were both crap. At least the last incumbent did not blame the fans!
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt. Then you would, and have.
Could you please explain what you mean here?
You've accused people of not saying a bad word about the owners for the first three years, then changing their minds when it all goes wrong.
Yes, but the difference is that most of the criticism they give is because of actions they fully supported at the time. As has been pointed out above, nobody was questioning the money spent on players during the O'Neill years, yet overspending is now the main condemnation of Randy's ownership.
-
So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.
We've just got rid of a far worse manager than O'Leary, just in case the past 12 months has passed you by completely.
Passed me by? I think you must have a short memory - O Leary took us to 16th in his last season so did McLeish. They were both crap. At least the last incumbent did not blame the fans!
I've no wish to defend O'Leary, but his record in English football is a lot better than McLeish's. He took us to 6th as well, which is our glass ceiling for most of the last 20 years.
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
Didn't we have a whole thread(s) about Paul Faulkner previously along the lines of 'What does he actually do' which turned into multiple posts of 'He's a wanker etc'
Not condoning that, but now it's swung to a new topic about how 'he's getting things right', that's a big dose of revisionism to me, I don't recall many defending him when we were up to our necks in shit under McLeish.
Getting Lambert in is hopefully a good move, but let's not forget that our financial situation is poor and that has to be laid at the door of Randy and the CEO.
A lot of hard work needed yet before we start patting him on the back.
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt. Then you would, and have.
Could you please explain what you mean here?
You've accused people of not saying a bad word about the owners for the first three years, then changing their minds when it all goes wrong.
Yes, but the difference is that most of the criticism they give is because of actions they fully supported at the time. As has been pointed out above, nobody was questioning the money spent on players during the O'Neill years, yet overspending is now the main condemnation of Randy's ownership.
Why on earth would you expect fans to know if the current spending plans were sustainable or not? Anybody questioning whether a billionaire spending £10m on Curtis Davies was sustainable or not would have been laughed off the boards. We even had a director on here defending the spending, saying it was all part of the plan, and that the losses were expected. As fans we're not privy to the day to day decisions of the club, we just have to trust that the board knew what they were doing, which they clearly didn't. There's also criticism for decisions that hardly anybody supported, eg the signings of players like Harewood, Heskey and the appointment of McLeish.
-
Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.
I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.
Didn't we have a whole thread(s) about Paul Faulkner previously along the lines of 'What does he actually do' which turned into multiple posts of 'He's a wanker etc'
Not condoning that, but now it's swung to a new topic about how 'he's getting things right', that's a big dose of revisionism to me, I don't recall many defending him when we were up to our necks in shit under McLeish.
Getting Lambert in is hopefully a good move, but let's not forget that our financial situation is poor and that has to be laid at the door of Randy and the CEO.
A lot of hard work needed yet before we start patting him on the back.
The financial position (along the lines of should we be worried about owing so much to Randy?) can be argued ad nauseum, but much of the losses are down to contracts signed before Faulkner became CEO, and therefore his responsibility for them is questionable. As for revisionism, praise when due, criticism when necessary. As I explained on a previous post, it's when criticism comes for actions which were previously praised that I find galling.
-
So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.
We've just got rid of a far worse manager than O'Leary, just in case the past 12 months has passed you by completely.
Passed me by? I think you must have a short memory - O Leary took us to 16th in his last season so did McLeish. They were both crap. At least the last incumbent did not blame the fans!
I've no wish to defend O'Leary, but his record in English football is a lot better than McLeish's. He took us to 6th as well, which is our glass ceiling for most of the last 20 years.
Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.
-
[quote author=dave.woodhall link=topic=47214.msg2073347#msg2073347 As I explained on a previous post, it's when criticism comes for actions which were previously praised that I find galling.
[/quote]
There's been a lot of galling revisionism on here over the years.
Pre signing Harewood - Shit player.
Post signing Harewood - I can see where O'Neill is coming from, he did have a good season for West Ham
Pre signing Heskey - The butt of nearly every joke on here.
Post signing Heskey - A masterstroke by O'Neill who knows how to get the best out fo him.
General on website - A good conduit to the club, unique and gives us good insider information.
Post General on website - He had no official position with the club, it was only his opinion, like that of an ordinary supporter.
-
Why on earth would you expect fans to know if the current spending plans were sustainable or not? Anybody questioning whether a billionaire spending £10m on Curtis Davies was sustainable or not would have been laughed off the boards. We even had a director on here defending the spending, saying it was all part of the plan, and that the losses were expected. As fans we're not privy to the day to day decisions of the club, we just have to trust that the board knew what they were doing, which they clearly didn't. There's also criticism for decisions that hardly anybody supported, eg the signings of players like Harewood, Heskey and the appointment of McLeish.
Heskey, for one, was not largely criticised. And if the money hadn't been spent I can just imagine the abuse the board would have got - again, as is said above, even now the criteria for whether Randy is forgiven or not seems to be based around how much is spent during the summer. If we don't buy any new players, will you be praising the board for their financial prudence?
-
Maybe somebody can come up with a definitive good and bad list and we can make up our minds from that.
Not me though, i'm a lazy bastard (you'll get one song and one song only)
-
Players like Heskey and Harewood were criticised at the time due to their ability on the pitch and not the sustainability of our finances in light of such deals. What we then got was the issue of too much wages goning to players not playing, which seemed to come from the club before it was widely discussed on here. In truth, they saw the warning signs and have tried to fix the problems. The fact they didn't predict these problems first is partly due to, and I'm just guessing here, a prediction of the income increasing at a greater rate than it did.
That's the financial balancing of the club, which to me is a separate issue to the poor managerial appointments they made in Houllier and TSM.
-
[quote author=dave.woodhall link=topic=47214.msg2073347#msg2073347 As I explained on a previous post, it's when criticism comes for actions which were previously praised that I find galling.
There's been a lot of galling revisionism on here over the years.
Pre signing Harewood - Shit player.
Post signing Harewood - I can see where O'Neill is coming from, he did have a good season for West Ham
Pre signing Heskey - The butt of nearly every joke on here.
Post signing Heskey - A masterstroke by O'Neill who knows how to get the best out fo him.
General on website - A good conduit to the club, unique and gives us good insider information.
Post General on website - He had no official position with the club, it was only his opinion, like that of an ordinary supporter.
[/quote]
I don't think changing your mind about a player when he signs for your club is particularly noteworthy, or indeed unique to us. As for the general, I can't remember anyone saying he was an ordinary supporter either before or after his appearances on here.
-
Players like Heskey and Harewood were criticised at the time due to their ability on the pitch and not the sustainability of our finances in light of such deals. What we then got was the issue of too much wages goning to players not playing, which seemed to come from the club before it was widely discussed on here. In truth, they saw the warning signs and have tried to fix the problems. The fact they didn't predict these problems first is partly due to, and I'm just guessing here, a prediction of the income increasing at a greater rate than it did.
That's the financial balancing of the club, which to me is a separate issue to the poor managerial appointments they made in Houllier and TSM.
Yes and if you think about it, from what is believed, they had the conversation with MoN who then chucked his toys out of the pram leaving them to sort a managerial mess constantly off the back foot with our best players being picked off in the meantime.
-
Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.
My dispassionate view is that they've mostly done a poor job. Those 6th placed finishes were based on huge and unsustainable spending that we have paid for over the last two years with two relegation battles and the sale of all of the decent players. If we weren't owned by a billionaire we'd be bust now.
-
If we weren't owned by a billionaire we wouldn't have spent his money.
-
Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.
My dispassionate view is that they've mostly done a poor job. Those 6th placed finishes were based on huge and unsustainable spending that we have paid for over the last two years with two relegation battles and the sale of all of the decent players. If we weren't owned by a billionaire we'd be bust now.
And of course you're entitle to that view but can you honestly say that:
1. You were concerned at the time about the level of spending and criticised it.
2. You would have preferred that Randy had not spent the money and not had a tilt at breaking in to the champions league
3. You would prefer things to be as they were, with no prospect of the club going anywhere.
I don't recall anyone saying 1. or 2. and the fact is in the current world, the only alternative to 3. is to spend some money and take a risk, which the board did but fortunately put the brakes on in time.
-
Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.
My dispassionate view is that they've mostly done a poor job. Those 6th placed finishes were based on huge and unsustainable spending that we have paid for over the last two years with two relegation battles and the sale of all of the decent players. If we weren't owned by a billionaire we'd be bust now.
And of course you're entitle to that view but can you honestly say that:
1. You were concerned at the time about the level of spending and criticised it.
2. You would have preferred that Randy had not spent the money and not had a tilt at breaking in to the champions league
3. You would prefer things to be as they were, with no prospect of the club going anywhere.
I don't recall anyone saying 1. or 2. and the fact is in the current world, the only alternative to 3. is to spend some money and take a risk, which the board did but fortunately put the brakes on in time.
1) I wasn't in a position to know whether the spending was sustainable or not. Financial information is reported a year after the event, so it is impossible to assess until then. However I did question the wisdom of spending so much money on the likes of Heskey, Dunne and Collins considering the amounts already spent, yes.
2) I would have preferred that he had a proper working relationship with O'Neill, or somebody else he could have trusted. I'd rather that things had been planned properly rather than "shit or bust".
3) While the appointment of Lambert is a good one, the chances of us getting "anywhere" are now slim. I can't see us qualifying for the Champions League or winning a trophy in the forseeable future.
-
If we weren't owned by a billionaire we wouldn't have spent his money.
Wasted his money would be a more accurate way of putting it.
-
Going back to the original point, I can't remember exactly when he was appointed as CEO (3 years ago?) or when he joined Villa and apparently came with a degree of influence (longer?).
I will exclude him from what went before as I feel Lerner did not exert the correct level of control over the Ulster Jack Russell, not that many were moaning on here about the lavish spending (although some questioned some of the personnel being recruited).
Faulkner did oversee:
1) Two disastrous, not to mention divisive managerial appointments - the second one of which was (in footballing or business context) unbelieveable. These cost the club best part of £10 million and one of them wasn't even ready to start the job on time! That was sheer ineptitude - no other description.
This has been tempered by rectifying at the earliest practical opportunity a replacement which seems to merit a very positive consensus from the fans, not seen since BFR and MON - though not quite with the profile those 2 gave use.
We have to wait the result of this appointment.
2) Off field he appears to have increased revenues - however not sure what the original targets were and how they compare to similar clubs in terms of sponsorship deals etc and where they are in terms of renewal cycles - say Everton, Spurs, Sunderland and Newcastle (accepting there are some variations in match day revenues). Anyone have these details?N.B. and only for context Man U signed a £40m deal for their training kit sponsorship.
3) The wage bill has reduced substantially and I assume that was part of his remit to move deadwood towards the door. We were pissing money up the wall and are down to emptying the remaining contents of a very bloated bladder - take note Collins, Dunne, Warnock and possibly CNZ. However this was done see Point 1 with what amounted to wasting money on managerial appoitntments and 2 relegation battles.
So and I am a hard task master (and it isn't an easy job but he gets well remunerated for it) I'd give him 3.5 - 4 out of 10 which is a lot more than just after the appointment of TSM. If anyone can advise on comparable spon
The Lambert appointment has bought him time though if he (and most of us) turn out to be wrong, he will rightly be judged as someone who was out of his depth.
-
Even in this thread, you can see people citing the acid test as being backing in the transfer market and that fundamentally is how most supporters judge the board.
I think this still is the acid test. To make a successful football team you have to get the right players in and get them playing the right way. The difference now is that we are more aware that backing must be sustainable, and if the board can make adequate funds available to Paul Lambert to strengthen the squad without putting Villa into further financial trouble, it will be evidence that they are doing their job.
-
If we weren't owned by a billionaire we wouldn't have spent his money.
Wasted his money would be a more accurate way of putting it.
Probably, but do you accept that if we weren't owned by a billionaire we still wouldn't be bust because we wouldn't have had millions to waste trying to get that fabled Champions League spot.
We had a go, it failed because they put all their faith in O'Neill and trusted that he knew what he was doing with Randy's Millions, as did most of the rest of us if we are being honest.
Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.
-
1) I wasn't in a position to know whether the spending was sustainable or not. Financial information is reported a year after the event, so it is impossible to assess until then. However I did question the wisdom of spending so much money on the likes of Heskey, Dunne and Collins considering the amounts already spent, yes.
2) I would have preferred that he had a proper working relationship with O'Neill, or somebody else he could have trusted. I'd rather that things had been planned properly rather than "shit or bust".
3) While the appointment of Lambert is a good one, the chances of us getting "anywhere" are now slim. I can't see us qualifying for the Champions League or winning a trophy in the foreseeable future.
[/quote] I think you're very much in a minority then. Yes, on football grounds Heskey has always polarised views, but in the first season or two both Dunn and Collins were immense for us. I suggest almost no one thought we'd paid too much either up front or as wages.
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.
-
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.
The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off. There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best. So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years. There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.
-
My view isn't revisionist.
Faulkner can't be held responsible for everything crap, much of what he inherited is poor.
I'm saying that actually, at the moment, he's doing well.
Sponsorship, Manager, Kit, FA Council. It's good, could be great, could work out badly, but it's refreshing and movign the right way.
McLeish was a bad idea and Faulkner has to take some responsibility for that, however, it's rectified.
-
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.
The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off. There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best. So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years. There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.
I think you are being unrealistic and unfair. Yes it is a business, but it's not a case of "I make and sell widgets, therefore if I do more of it successfully I'm confident I'll turn a bigger profit". It's about football matches, and you can lose them. Therefore the successful clubs are the ones who chuck money at the problem and are able to sustain it through thick and thin.The alternative is almost to do nothing and cling on. It's very difficult to advocate the middle ground and almost impossible to avoid hindsight.
-
3) While the appointment of Lambert is a good one, the chances of us getting "anywhere" are now slim. I can't see us qualifying for the Champions League or winning a trophy in the forseeable future.
How do you think Newcastle fans were feeling about their prospects of staying up, let alone achieving what they did achieve in the league 12 months ago? Not saying I expect Paul Lambert to replicate those achievements next season, but it does show that even in this modern, money obsessed, cynical age, football is, in many ways, still a "funny old game".
-
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.
The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off. There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best. So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years. There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.
Maybe Lerner and Faulkner didn't know enough about Football and Footballers?
-
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.
The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off. There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best. So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years. There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.
I think you are being unrealistic and unfair. Yes it is a business, but it's not a case of "I make and sell widgets, therefore if I do more of it successfully I'm confident I'll turn a bigger profit". It's about football matches, and you can lose them. Therefore the successful clubs are the ones who chuck money at the problem and are able to sustain it through thick and thin.The alternative is almost to do nothing and cling on. It's very difficult to advocate the middle ground and almost impossible to avoid hindsight.
So, you think there isn't a sensible middle ground between doing nothing, and going on ridiculous unsustainable spending sprees?
-
Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.
It was an interesting situation.
I think he'd definitely reached his achievement ceiling, but then again, it's really hard to suggest he should have been sacked - he certainly didn't do anything to deserve that (not suggesting he was sacked, incidentally).
-
...
It could equally be argued that during his term as CEO the club has recovered from the precipice of near insolvency to one of relative stability. He has seen out a situation that has killed other clubs without the loss of PL status and has therefore succeeded where many other 'football men' have failed.
That would be true if we weren't still massively insolvent. We are though.
That may or may not be be where are today in absolute terms, but if you are judging Faulkner's tenure you have to compare where we are now to where we were then.
We have survived the millstone of having a lot poor players on fat contracts plus the departure of many of the better players without having sacrificed the ability to regenerate.
Look at what really did for Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday etc etc.
We haven't had to let good players go for peanuts, we are still in the PL, we can still attract reasonable sponsorship. There's even a bit of a feelgood factor returning - apparently reflected in ST sales.
I am not saying Faulkner is responsible for all this - in truth, the main reason we have survived is that our owner has also been our de facto banker.
Nevertheless, the case for arguing that Faulkner has done a poor job is not as clear cut many would have it.
Getting to where we are today compared to the depth of shite we were in may well turn out to be a bigger achievement than getting 6th place in the league by throwing container loads of cash at journeymen footballers.
-
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.
The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off. There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best. So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years. There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.
I think you are being unrealistic and unfair. Yes it is a business, but it's not a case of "I make and sell widgets, therefore if I do more of it successfully I'm confident I'll turn a bigger profit". It's about football matches, and you can lose them. Therefore the successful clubs are the ones who chuck money at the problem and are able to sustain it through thick and thin.The alternative is almost to do nothing and cling on. It's very difficult to advocate the middle ground and almost impossible to avoid hindsight.
So, you think there isn't a sensible middle ground between doing nothing, and going on ridiculous unsustainable spending sprees?
No not at all, but I am saying it is by far the most difficult route. If you haven't got Russian Oil money or Arab Oil money but you do have some cash (actually a lot of cash just not an inexhaustible amount) it is more finely balanced between success and failure, where the consequences of failure are often you drop like a stone past where you started from. You are expecting them to foresee all of these pitfalls and call them accurately, where as I think they are due credit for having a go, and being let down by their professionals.
-
Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.
It was an interesting situation.
I think he'd definitely reached his achievement ceiling, but then again, it's really hard to suggest he should have been sacked - he certainly didn't do anything to deserve that (not suggesting he was sacked, incidentally).
Maybe give him the year's notice his rolling contract needed? "Better than 6th next season or your out Martin." He would soon have thrown his toys and fucked off!
Nah, you're right, he was pretty much untouchable back then even though there were some of us questioning whether he could ever finish higher, or even ever win in March. I do remember saying though that the time to replace a manager for a better one is when you are on the up or at the height of what he is capable of rather than on the way back down.
-
Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.
It was an interesting situation.
I think he'd definitely reached his achievement ceiling, but then again, it's really hard to suggest he should have been sacked - he certainly didn't do anything to deserve that (not suggesting he was sacked, incidentally).
In my view and I suspect a fair few who follow the Villa, he reached his achievement ceiling as a football manager, where as I suspect many in the press and professional punditry would disagree and contend that the club bottled it and he was limited by their lack of ambition.
-
No not at all, but I am saying it is by far the most difficult route. If you haven't got Russian Oil money or Arab Oil money but you do have some cash (actually a lot of cash just not an inexhaustible amount) it is more finely balanced between success and failure, where the consequences of failure are often you drop like a stone past where you started from. You are expecting them to foresee all of these pitfalls and call them accurately, where as I think they are due credit for having a go, and being let down by their professionals.
The amounts overspent have been huge though. You'd have a point if we'd had to retrench slightly, sold a player or two and finished 8th or 9th. But the decline has been absolutely atrocious, from being a lot of people's "second" team for a while, to being the team that most people wanted to see relegated last season, stripped of all its good players. As for being "let down by their professionals" they are the directors of the club as I keep saying. By far Lerner's biggest mistake was putting too much faith in O'Neill, and while we're on about mentioning things at the time, I was saying O'Neill had too much power and had spent too much money ages before he left, which was about as popular a view on here as a hippy at a BNP rally.
-
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.
The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off. There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best. So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years. There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.
Maybe Lerner and Faulkner didn't know enough about Football and Footballers?
This is the key to everything. I actually think what went wrong is Lerner tried to apply a lot of american sport principals to football and genuinely didn't know what to do when it didn't work.
As for Faulkner I think he's doing a decent job, I've thought that all along and said so in the massive tsm thread a few months ago.
His job has to be considered as a work in progress, he got the role at a point where we were in an impossible situation and on a road to oblivion, until this point all he's been able to do is try to stabilise. What we don't know is how long he was given to achieve that task.
I'd suggest that this summer was the target given the amount of big contracts that were running down. Heskey, cuellar and guzan were all overpaid for what they did and Beye would also have been out of contract had he not left - at a conservative estimate that lot were taking around £170-180k a week to generally sit on the bench, that's the best part of £10m a year for spots that we could fill for 3-4m without much loss in ability.
That's why I think this summer is key. If he's achieved the goal and, despite the huge recorded loss last year, we're now in a much prettier place thenI'd suggest we'll see higher spending than we're thinking but focused on buying players with more chance of their value increasing. A 31 year old striker won't increase in value (read this as me thinking there's more chance of us signing ET than there is we'll get Grant Holt), even if he does well, whereas a 24 year old has a good season and becomes significantly more valuable.
This way the derived value of the squad is much more stable and allows for natural 'churn' of the playing squad.
-
...
It could equally be argued that during his term as CEO the club has recovered from the precipice of near insolvency to one of relative stability. He has seen out a situation that has killed other clubs without the loss of PL status and has therefore succeeded where many other 'football men' have failed.
That would be true if we weren't still massively insolvent. We are though.
That may or may not be be where are today in absolute terms, but if you are judging Faulkner's tenure you have to compare where we are now to where we were then.
We have survived the millstone of having a lot poor players on fat contracts plus the departure of many of the better players without having sacrificed the ability to regenerate.
Look at what really did for Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday etc etc.
We haven't had to let good players go for peanuts, we are still in the PL, we can still attract reasonable sponsorship. There's even a bit of a feelgood factor returning - apparently reflected in ST sales.
I am not saying Faulkner is responsible for all this - in truth, the main reason we have survived is that our owner has also been our de facto banker.
Nevertheless, the case for arguing that Faulkner has done a poor job is not as clear cut many would have it.
Getting to where we are today compared to the depth of shite we were in may well turn out to be a bigger achievement than getting 6th place in the league by throwing container loads of cash at journeymen footballers.
Agreed. He might be criticised for not being as market savvy as some and piping up with "do you realise how much you are asking me to pay this guy per week" only to be undoubtedly faced with "I need the player, it's what the going rate is to get him, do you back me or not" fundamentally a business decision will run up against a subjective football one, and we clearly went through a period of backing the manager for which people now want to string them up for!
-
No not at all, but I am saying it is by far the most difficult route. If you haven't got Russian Oil money or Arab Oil money but you do have some cash (actually a lot of cash just not an inexhaustible amount) it is more finely balanced between success and failure, where the consequences of failure are often you drop like a stone past where you started from. You are expecting them to foresee all of these pitfalls and call them accurately, where as I think they are due credit for having a go, and being let down by their professionals.
The amounts overspent have been huge though. You'd have a point if we'd had to retrench slightly, sold a player or two and finished 8th or 9th. But the decline has been absolutely atrocious, from being a lot of people's "second" team for a while, to being the team that most people wanted to see relegated last season, stripped of all its good players. As for being "let down by their professionals" they are the directors of the club as I keep saying. By far Lerner's biggest mistake was putting too much faith in O'Neill, and while we're on about mentioning things at the time, I was saying O'Neill had too much power and had spent too much money ages before he left, which was about as popular a view on here as a hippy at a BNP rally.
It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.
-
Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell.
This is correct. It is the manager who stands or falls by the choice of player to bring in. It's the board's job to provide him with the means. Where the board failed was when they allowed O'Neill to sort out the contracts as well as choose the players. But the board cannot be held responsible for the failure of these players to deliver on the pith.
-
It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.
Only in hindsight?! Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then. Ever heard of budgets? I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.
-
Faulkner reminds me a bit too much of Cbeebies Nonce Justin Fletcher.
-
It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.
Only in hindsight?! Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then. Ever heard of budgets? I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.
Very wrong assumption.
It's nothing to do with budgets.
Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"
I don't think so.
-
Faulkner reminds me a bit too much of Cbeebies Nonce Justin Fletcher.
Just because you don't like the cut of the chubby-cheeked chap's jib is no justification for noncifying him Rip Van, ya daft noncifier.
-
I think also the board have been over criticised for the good players leaving. I don't think Milner,Young and Barry were sold to balance books,they were just taken off us by better clubs and we would have preferred to have rid ourselves of the other deadwood mentioned above. The Downing incident just confirms what good people they are and confirms they have our club at heart: they honour the contract they offered to an injured player who after 1 good season asks to leave, so they got rid way above market value.Good on em.
-
It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.
Only in hindsight?! Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then. Ever heard of budgets? I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.
Very wrong assumption.
It's nothing to do with budgets.
Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"
I don't think so.
Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years? To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does. "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money". It's a really unintelligent argument.
-
Faulkner reminds me a bit too much of Cbeebies Nonce Justin Fletcher.
Just because you don't like the cut of the chubby-cheeked chap's jib is no justification for noncifying him Rip Van, ya daft noncifier.
He reminds me of plenty of Letting agents that i've had to deal with in the past. Too much hair gel,and wearing the latest suit from Burtons.
-
It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.
Only in hindsight?! Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then. Ever heard of budgets? I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.
Very wrong assumption.
It's nothing to do with budgets.
Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"
I don't think so.
Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years? To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does. "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money". It's a really unintelligent argument.
While I agree to a large extent with you, football isn't like a regular business. It is tied up in emotion and the fact that you can get very carried away and influenced by those that are perceived to be experts. I think the point about having a highly reputable manager is valid and that they simply gave him too much rope. All of sudden a few years in, it was a case of "shit what have we done?" when CL football didn't arrive and the finances were way out of line to revenues. We gambled on the big prize as Liverpool have done, and having failed have been paying fopr the consequences. I'm sure with a better understanding of everything we'll attack the same goal in a different manner, much like Newcastle and Spurs have shown that it can be done.
-
It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.
Only in hindsight?! Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then. Ever heard of budgets? I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.
Very wrong assumption.
It's nothing to do with budgets.
Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"
I don't think so.
Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years? To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does. "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money". It's a really unintelligent argument.
It's taken longer than usual, but you've eventually sunk to the usual personal insults you come out with when someone disagrees with you about Randy.
-
It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.
Only in hindsight?! Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then. Ever heard of budgets? I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.
Very wrong assumption.
It's nothing to do with budgets.
Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"
I don't think so.
Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years? To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does. "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money". It's a really unintelligent argument.
And you're behaving like an accountant. How many times have I sat in a boardroom, agonised and argued about a decision with the financial director not saying a word. You make a decision and trust people to carry it out. Sometimes it doesn't work, and funnily enough it's the bean counter who tells you after the event that it would have been better if you'd done something differently. Trawling through the minutes there's no trace of them saying a word at the time.......
Lerner's not good because he spent lots of money. He and his team have made some mistakes, but they've also made some good decisions and allowed managers to have a go and provided them with funds. He's been let down.
-
I'm curious what the reaction would have been from those criticising Randy for not keeping MON reigned in if it had ever come out that he was interfering with who MON wanted to sign?
You can't really say to a manager "here's £30million to spend on players this summer and you have a budget of 250K a week in wages for them, but you can only sign players I want."
-
I'm curious what the reaction would have been from those criticising Randy for not keeping MON reigned in if it had ever come out that he was interfering with who MON wanted to sign?
You can't really say to a manager "here's £30million to spend on players this summer and you have a budget of 250K a week in wages for them, but you can only sign players I want."
No doubt they would have applauded him for prudent budgetary control? Oh all right, they would have called him an interfering, know nothing tosser, who if he can't back the manager should sell up and piss off back to the colonies.
-
I'm curious what the reaction would have been from those criticising Randy for not keeping MON reigned in if it had ever come out that he was interfering with who MON wanted to sign?
You can't really say to a manager "here's £30million to spend on players this summer and you have a budget of 250K a week in wages for them, but you can only sign players I want."
No doubt they would have applauded him for prudent budgetary control? Oh all right, they would have called him an interfering, know nothing tosser, who if he can't back the manager should sell up and piss off back to the colonies.
By your simplistic logic, Leeds fans should be applauding Ridsdale for spending lots of money. You're missing the huge point that there clearly wasn't a budget. It wasn't a case of agreeing with O'Neill a set amount of money and letting him choose the players and pay salaries within that budget. What has clearly happened is that there were no such boundaries set. You don't get into the financial mess Villa are in as a result of sensible planning.
-
It is hard to believe there was any kind of financial planning if a spending regime was allowed to persist which was so shit or bust we spent almost two whole seasons dicing with relegation immediately after.
Their remit is the stewardship and growth of he club. Look at the books, then look at where we finished last season and where we finished the season before they came, and it is pretty hard to suggest we have been prudently managed.
I hope they continue to improve and this is a good start, but let's not pretend the last few years have been anything but a disaster.
-
And you're behaving like an accountant. How many times have I sat in a boardroom, agonised and argued about a decision with the financial director not saying a word. You make a decision and trust people to carry it out. Sometimes it doesn't work, and funnily enough it's the bean counter who tells you after the event that it would have been better if you'd done something differently. Trawling through the minutes there's no trace of them saying a word at the time.......
It doesn't sound like your finance director is much cop to be honest, and without an effective team of directors, especially where finances are concerned I can only imagine your company is not successful. You don't work for Aston Villa Limited by any chance do you?
-
I'm curious what the reaction would have been from those criticising Randy for not keeping MON reigned in if it had ever come out that he was interfering with who MON wanted to sign?
You can't really say to a manager "here's £30million to spend on players this summer and you have a budget of 250K a week in wages for them, but you can only sign players I want."
No doubt they would have applauded him for prudent budgetary control? Oh all right, they would have called him an interfering, know nothing tosser, who if he can't back the manager should sell up and piss off back to the colonies.
By your simplistic logic, Leeds fans should be applauding Ridsdale for spending lots of money. You're missing the huge point that there clearly wasn't a budget. It wasn't a case of agreeing with O'Neill a set amount of money and letting him choose the players and pay salaries within that budget. What has clearly happened is that there were no such boundaries set. You don't get into the financial mess Villa are in as a result of sensible planning.
No i'm not missing the whole point. None of us know what the budget in those days was or what the long term projections were. Or indeed if any budgeting was going on.
Had we finished top 4 in MON's second or third season then the outlay may well have been justified and sustainable. Implied odds to use a poker term.
Or a simpler way for you to understand my initial post, a better manager than MON could have spent the money better which would probably have led to top 4 thus making the budget justified.
However, once RL decided how much he could spend he had to leave MON with carte blanche to spend that amount how he wanted as any interference would have seen him slated at the time when MON could do little or no wrong in fans eyes.
-
And you're behaving like an accountant. How many times have I sat in a boardroom, agonised and argued about a decision with the financial director not saying a word. You make a decision and trust people to carry it out. Sometimes it doesn't work, and funnily enough it's the bean counter who tells you after the event that it would have been better if you'd done something differently. Trawling through the minutes there's no trace of them saying a word at the time.......
It doesn't sound like your finance director is much cop to be honest, and without an effective team of directors, especially where finances are concerned I can only imagine your company is not successful. You don't work for Aston Villa Limited by any chance do you?
Arrogance of such breathtaking proportions, deserves to be left alone alone so I will.
PeterWithesShin sums it up quite nicely.
-
It is hard to believe there was any kind of financial planning if a spending regime was allowed to persist which was so shit or bust we spent almost two whole seasons dicing with relegation immediately after.
Their remit is the stewardship and growth of he club. Look at the books, then look at where we finished last season and where we finished the season before they came, and it is pretty hard to suggest we have been prudently managed.
I hope they continue to improve and this is a good start, but let's not pretend the last few years have been anything but a disaster.
I don't think you can seriously argue that someone who spent most of his career in investment banking and runs a number of businesses around the world probably did not carry out any financial planning. You might be frustrated at the results or not agree with them but to say they are unlikely to have been in place is a bit far fetched. Actually we don't know what the position was.
If the poor performance last season particularly was financially driven, don't you think then it was unfair to sack McLeish. Clearly we would not have challenged the top 8 but personally I think a half decent manager would have had us well clear of where we ended up with exactly the same resources.
-
And you're behaving like an accountant. How many times have I sat in a boardroom, agonised and argued about a decision with the financial director not saying a word. You make a decision and trust people to carry it out. Sometimes it doesn't work, and funnily enough it's the bean counter who tells you after the event that it would have been better if you'd done something differently. Trawling through the minutes there's no trace of them saying a word at the time.......
It doesn't sound like your finance director is much cop to be honest, and without an effective team of directors, especially where finances are concerned I can only imagine your company is not successful. You don't work for Aston Villa Limited by any chance do you?
Arrogance of such breathtaking proportions, deserves to be left alone alone so I will.
PeterWithesShin sums it up quite nicely.
Arrogant? You were the one who brought up your company and your finance director who apparently doesn't play a part in decision making or board meetings. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that a company with an individual like that is going to have their work cut out.
-
And you're behaving like an accountant. How many times have I sat in a boardroom, agonised and argued about a decision with the financial director not saying a word. You make a decision and trust people to carry it out. Sometimes it doesn't work, and funnily enough it's the bean counter who tells you after the event that it would have been better if you'd done something differently. Trawling through the minutes there's no trace of them saying a word at the time.......
It doesn't sound like your finance director is much cop to be honest, and without an effective team of directors, especially where finances are concerned I can only imagine your company is not successful. You don't work for Aston Villa Limited by any chance do you?
Arrogance of such breathtaking proportions, deserves to be left alone alone so I will.
PeterWithesShin sums it up quite nicely.
Arrogant? You were the one who brought up your company and your finance director who apparently doesn't play a part in decision making or board meetings. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that a company with an individual like that is going to have their work cut out.
I think you'll find if you review your posts, that it was you that decided I had no business experience, (an incorrect guess); then that my business is not successful (another incorrect guess and a pretty bold one considering you have no idea whether it's a FTSE 100 company or a corner shop); that the people I work with are not much cop and ineffective (yet another stab in the dark) all layered upon a whole stack of illogical assumptions as to how things are done at AVFC. You top it off with a pop at me. So yes, arrogant. Or as DW pointed out earlier, insulting if you like.
-
I'm curious what the reaction would have been from those criticising Randy for not keeping MON reigned in if it had ever come out that he was interfering with who MON wanted to sign?
You can't really say to a manager "here's £30million to spend on players this summer and you have a budget of 250K a week in wages for them, but you can only sign players I want."
Does anyone remember those first couple of summers when we were berating O'Neill for CHOOSING not to spend all the millions upon millions that Lerner was apparently making available?
-
I'm curious what the reaction would have been from those criticising Randy for not keeping MON reigned in if it had ever come out that he was interfering with who MON wanted to sign?
You can't really say to a manager "here's £30million to spend on players this summer and you have a budget of 250K a week in wages for them, but you can only sign players I want."
Does anyone remember those first couple of summers when we were berating O'Neill for CHOOSING not to spend all the millions upon millions that Lerner was apparently making available?
Ah yes, I remember it well.
A prevaricating, twitching Woody Allen was the caricature of choice.
-
Does anyone remember those first couple of summers when we were berating O'Neill for CHOOSING not to spend all the millions upon millions that Lerner was apparently making available?
I remember that being touted as 'doing things the right way', i.e. not forking out great sums on marquee signings. Then again, when Houllier was brought in that was also touted as 'doing things the right way'. And it's now being said of our current transfer policy, such as it is.
-
that the people I work with are not much cop and ineffective (yet another stab in the dark) all layered upon a whole stack of illogical assumptions as to how things are done at AVFC. You top it off with a pop at me. So yes, arrogant. Or as DW pointed out earlier, insulting if you like.
Sorry, when you said this "How many times have I sat in a boardroom, agonised and argued about a decision with the financial director not saying a word. You make a decision and trust people to carry it out. Sometimes it doesn't work, and funnily enough it's the bean counter who tells you after the event that it would have been better if you'd done something differently. Trawling through the minutes there's no trace of them saying a word at the time" that was you saying that your finance director is much cop and is highly effective? And whether my assumptions about the goings on at Villa are illogical or not, the fact is that the last two years have been an absolute disaster, so tend to back up my views a bit more strongly than yours. As for insulting you, are you really such a delicate little flower? Your little dig about accountants and bean counters didn't bother me although it was clearly designed to be insulting.
-
It's a strange definition of disaster when a club can finish in the top half despite the many things that were out of our control in the Houllier season.
-
Does anyone remember those first couple of summers when we were berating O'Neill for CHOOSING not to spend all the millions upon millions that Lerner was apparently making available?
I remember that being touted as 'doing things the right way', i.e. not forking out great sums on marquee signings. Then again, when Houllier was brought in that was also touted as 'doing things the right way'. And it's now being said of our current transfer policy, such as it is.
What was our transfer policy with Houllier?
-
Your little dig about accountants and bean counters didn't bother me although it was clearly designed to be insulting.
[/quote] What the fuck are you talking about?
-
What was our transfer policy with Houllier?
Exactly my point.
-
It's a strange definition of disaster when a club can finish in the top half despite the many things that were out of our control in the Houllier season.
I think it's fair to say that the club's trajectory since O'Neill left has been downward and steep. To say the board / owner have done an adequate job in that period - let alone a good job - would be a pretty bold statement. Sure, we've had a bit of bad luck but some of the major decision-making has been terrible and that pretty much set the course for how things have gone.
-
It's a strange definition of disaster when a club can finish in the top half despite the many things that were out of our control in the Houllier season.
I think it's fair to say that the club's trajectory since O'Neill left has been downward and steep. To say the board / owner have done an adequate job in that period - let alone a good job - would be a pretty bold statement. Sure, we've had a bit of bad luck but some of the major decision-making has been terrible and that pretty much set the course for how things have gone.
The club has, indeed, gone backwards but to say that the season in question was a disaster just isn't true.
-
It's a strange definition of disaster when a club can finish in the top half despite the many things that were out of our control in the Houllier season.
You know full well that the Houllier season was one bad news story after another. Two final wins that moved us up about six places didn't disguise that. We hadn't been in the top half since October, and were in a relegation battle as even Houllier openly admitted.
-
The club has, indeed, gone backwards but to say that the season in question was a disaster just isn't true.
Agreed. Last season was a disaster; the season before that now seems like a birthday present in comparison. It was bitterly disappointing at the time though.
-
It's a strange definition of disaster when a club can finish in the top half despite the many things that were out of our control in the Houllier season.
You know full well that the Houllier season was one bad news story after another. Two final wins that moved us up about six places didn't disguise that. We hadn't been in the top half since October, and were in a relegation battle as even Houllier openly admitted.
Please don't tell me what I think. It doesn't matter how well or badly we'd been doing in October, or at any other point of the season, the one unarguable fact is that we finished ninth, a whole three places lower than the previous year, despite the many problems the club had faced during that period. I wouldn't call that a disaster.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
We have also given extended runs to young players which should enable decisions on their future to be made quicker than would normally have been the case.
-
Let's hope last season is still viewed as a disaster because if it isn't, it would mean that the coming season would have been worse. Given how poor the quality of football was and the long list of club records that were broken last season, that would take some doing.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
Yes, I have to admit in darker moments to wondering whether the appointment of McLeish was some sort of fiendishly brilliant plan to get some poor plonker to take the rap while the wage bill was cut etc.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
We have also given extended runs to young players which should enable decisions on their future to be made quicker than would normally have been the case.
Yes, but they were played in incredibly restrictive systems and told they weren't good enough every week and that as soon as the underperforming, trouble-causing, arrogant seniors returned to even half-fitness, they'd be out.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
We have also given extended runs to young players which should enable decisions on their future to be made quicker than would normally have been the case.
Yes, but they were played in incredibly restrictive systems and told they weren't good enough every week and that as soon as the underperforming, trouble-causing, arrogant seniors returned to even half-fitness, they'd be out.
I very much doubt that they were told that at all. It is probably another mountain out of a molehill concerning something McLeish said that has been misconstrued.
However, the fact remains that many young players got longer runs than normal and we have the benefit of that experience.
-
So,
is Faulkner doing a lot better at the moment? :-)
I think he is.
-
So,
is Faulkner doing a lot better at the moment? :-)
I think he is.
As I said earlier, this season should be a clean slate, and it's started off well so far.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
We have also given extended runs to young players which should enable decisions on their future to be made quicker than would normally have been the case.
Yes, but they were played in incredibly restrictive systems and told they weren't good enough every week and that as soon as the underperforming, trouble-causing, arrogant seniors returned to even half-fitness, they'd be out.
I very much doubt that they were told that at all. It is probably another mountain out of a molehill concerning something McLeish said that has been misconstrued.
However, the fact remains that many young players got longer runs than normal and we have the benefit of that experience.
The facts of what he did and said in the press are there and overwhelming. He would always bemoan the loss of the seniors, and would say, essentially, that the main reason we were getting bad results was because we had to play loads of youngsters in there instead. As soon as a senior even approached full fitness, they were back in the team. It was the most maddeningly pathetic excuse for man-management - you don't ever help people to be better at anything they do in any walk of life by telling them, directly or indirectly - that they're not good enough.
However, he's gone, I don't wish to ever have a McLeish debate ever again. The fact that you are, almost literally, the only person in the world other than him who gives him as little responsibility for our disastrous season as you do is your own problem.
-
The McLeish defence falls down on the fact that in the first half of the season we had next to no injuries and still managed to win hardly any games.
Injuries don't help, but McLeish's worst enemy was himself and the turgid anti-football nonsense he fell back on far too often.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
We have also given extended runs to young players which should enable decisions on their future to be made quicker than would normally have been the case.
Yes, but they were played in incredibly restrictive systems and told they weren't good enough every week and that as soon as the underperforming, trouble-causing, arrogant seniors returned to even half-fitness, they'd be out.
I very much doubt that they were told that at all. It is probably another mountain out of a molehill concerning something McLeish said that has been misconstrued.
However, the fact remains that many young players got longer runs than normal and we have the benefit of that experience.
The facts of what he did and said in the press are there and overwhelming. He would always bemoan the loss of the seniors, and would say, essentially, that the main reason we were getting bad results was because we had to play loads of youngsters in there instead. As soon as a senior even approached full fitness, they were back in the team. It was the most maddeningly pathetic excuse for man-management - you don't ever help people to be better at anything they do in any walk of life by telling them, directly or indirectly - that they're not good enough.
However, he's gone, I don't wish to ever have a McLeish debate ever again. The fact that you are, almost literally, the only person in the world other than him who gives him as little responsibility for our disastrous season as you do is your own problem.
Your last paragraph makes assumptions which are wrong. I made the point about the kids getting a better chance than normal in response to a comment about the season not being a total disaster. That is fact. Also some of them were not automatically dropped when more senior players became available.
-
So,
is Faulkner doing a lot better at the moment? :-)
I think he is.
I agree Drummond. The problem with football is that so many people can second guess you all the time based on limited information and every major decision is so public. He's made errors as he learned his job, but he has made some very good moves along the way. In the end stepping in front of MON may prove to be the best one of all for the long term future of the club.
-
I also think time will show that the season just gone wasn't a disaster either. We've cleared a whole lot of deadwood, retained our PL status and let Lambert prove himself for a season.
The only person who can feel hard done by is TSM, although financially compensated, he's been professionally ruined and treated like a patsy.
We have also given extended runs to young players which should enable decisions on their future to be made quicker than would normally have been the case.
Yes, but they were played in incredibly restrictive systems and told they weren't good enough every week and that as soon as the underperforming, trouble-causing, arrogant seniors returned to even half-fitness, they'd be out.
I very much doubt that they were told that at all. It is probably another mountain out of a molehill concerning something McLeish said that has been misconstrued.
However, the fact remains that many young players got longer runs than normal and we have the benefit of that experience.
I have serious reservations as to how useful any experience gained last season will be for any of the younger players. I also thoroughly agree that his attitude towards the kids was pathetic.
Back on topic as mentioned, since he got the job he's been fighting to stave of administration, whatever the reasons/failings are that led to that point is nothing to do with him. This summer is probably the end point of that process as most of the MON failures are now gone (particularly if we see the back of Warnock and 1 of Collins or Dunne).
I therefore think this topic is probably a season premature as it's only when we're not struggling under a crippling wage bill that the effects of the work Faulkner has done to increase turnover will truly be felt.
Once more the only true error he's made was in believing that blues as a club were shit and no manager could make them anything more than shit.
-
NO. Don't be silly. Why Paul Lambert? Here we go again, who will it be at the end of next season I wonder?
-
NO. Don't be silly. Why Paul Lambert? Here we go again, who will it be at the end of next season I wonder?
"Here we go again" with what?
-
[
Back on topic as mentioned, since he got the job he's been fighting to stave of administration, whatever the reasons/failings are that led to that point is nothing to do with him.
[/quote]This is complete bollocks
-
Whilst the job of any CEO is to fight the corner of the club, whatever, I'm struggling to identify the times when Villa have been close to administration since PF took office.
Crappy team performance, yes, over the last season. Implosion of the club to the extent of impending complete economic collapse?
To quote Hawkeye, above.
-
Back on topic as mentioned, since he got the job he's been fighting to stave of administration, whatever the reasons/failings are that led to that point is nothing to do with him.
Crikey.
What on earth are you talking about? Stave off administration?
-
We had a wage bill of ~90% of turnover and have been kept in the black by numerous loans from the owner, there has been no immediate danger but it was clearly where we'd have been heading without wholesale changes. I clearly played it up a bit (mainly to get some responses if I'm honest) but the facts are we were in a terrible financial position when he got the job, the reasons for which are irrelevant to(this discussion.
The whole point is, no one likes the people who are in charge when the money dries up, but if they do the job well, without the consequences being too great, and the spending starts again in the future then you have to applaud them. At the minute we've only seen PF in the bad times, lets give him a year of not being the fall-guy before we judge him too harshly.
I'd liken it to the government but I guess the difference is slashing costs without a concern is fine when it means a relegation scrap or 2 but doing it at the expense of a couple of million people having jobs is possibly taking things a bit far.
-
We had a wage bill of ~90% of turnover and have been kept in the black by numerous loans from the owner, there has been no immediate danger but it was clearly where we'd have been heading without wholesale changes. I clearly played it up a bit (mainly to get some responses if I'm honest) but the facts are we were in a terrible financial position when he got the job, the reasons for which are irrelevant to(this discussion.
The whole point is, no one likes the people who are in charge when the money dries up, but if they do the job well, without the consequences being too great, and the spending starts again in the future then you have to applaud them. At the minute we've only seen PF in the bad times, lets give him a year of not being the fall-guy before we judge him too harshly.
I'd liken it to the government but I guess the difference is slashing costs without a concern is fine when it means a relegation scrap or 2 but doing it at the expense of a couple of million people having jobs is possibly taking things a bit far.
Your surname isn't Faulkner is it?
-
I saw a milkman on our road the other day and I said:
"Do you deliver?"
"No" he replied "just milk and eggs and bacon".
-
I saw a milkman on our road the other day and I said:
"Do you deliver?"
"No" he replied "just milk and eggs and bacon".
And I thought Peter Kaye was a Bolton fan.
-
We had a wage bill of ~90% of turnover and have been kept in the black by numerous loans from the owner, there has been no immediate danger but it was clearly where we'd have been heading without wholesale changes. I clearly played it up a bit (mainly to get some responses if I'm honest) but the facts are we were in a terrible financial position when he got the job, the reasons for which are irrelevant to(this discussion.
The whole point is, no one likes the people who are in charge when the money dries up, but if they do the job well, without the consequences being too great, and the spending starts again in the future then you have to applaud them. At the minute we've only seen PF in the bad times, lets give him a year of not being the fall-guy before we judge him too harshly.
I'd liken it to the government but I guess the difference is slashing costs without a concern is fine when it means a relegation scrap or 2 but doing it at the expense of a couple of million people having jobs is possibly taking things a bit far.
Your surname isn't Faulkner is it?
Afraid not, and I'm not ginger either.
-
I think paul's post above is very accurate. What it doesn't explain is PF's role in two cack handed and wrong managerial appointments. I also think they were over confident about the youth and may have cut too far too fast on the senior playing side, tho it's actually hard to see that sidwell, NRC and l young would have made that much difference last year. I guess if the makoun, Hutton, jenas and CNZ signings had come off in any respect we'd have been in a much better position. So perhaps it all comes back to the managerial appointments
For instance, if we'd bought cabaye, ben arfa, frimpong (loan) and Naughton, under the leadership of a decent manager, I'm sure we'd have been infinitely better off and just as Newcastle are doing, would be demonstrating you can cut your cloth accordingly and still succeed.
-
For instance, if we'd bought cabaye
Were we not going to get Cabaye in if Houllier had stayed on?
-
So I keep hearing, but not from anyone who really knows.
See also: Keane, R, and McGeady, A.
-
I just cannot see how people say the GH appointment was a disaster.
Pubehead walked with 5 days to a season to go
The club like all of us must have been shocked at that point
What self respecting manager would do the same dispicable thing and leave their club to join us at that time.
We looked good with Kev Mc against Wet spam but bloody awful when hammered by the bar codes
Of all the out of work managers (as that was really only our choice) GH surely had to be the most experienced and credible - we got him, eventually
There were some PR cock ups and he loved 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' a bit too much but at least we saw signs of good football and some decent reults
Unless as some have wondered TSM was part of the master plan to cut away the dross on huge wages and to be well paid to be the fall guy then the only thing i would blame PF for would be the TSM appointment. And that i would put down to inexperience and i am sure both he and randy have learned a lot by it
-
I just cannot see how people say the GH appointment was a disaster.
Pubehead walked with 5 days to a season to go
The club like all of us must have been shocked at that point
What self respecting manager would do the same dispicable thing and leave their club to join us at that time.
We looked good with Kev Mc against Wet spam but bloody awful when hammered by the bar codes
Of all the out of work managers (as that was really only our choice) GH surely had to be the most experienced and credible - we got him, eventually
What despicable manager, let me see, erm....Paul Lambert maybe? He walked out on Colchester after the first game of a new season. The idea that we could only attract somebody out of work, and that the virtually retired Houllier was the best option is utter nonsense in my opinion.
-
I agree. We had to put Villa first and be agressive in going after the right man. We didn't and ended up with someone in semi-retirement with heart problems.
-
What despicable manager, let me see, erm....Paul Lambert maybe? He walked out on Colchester after the first game of a new season.
Well, RL and PF were determined to be "nice guys" at the time as I recall. They decided against going after somebody in work on principal.
-
I just cannot see how people say the GH appointment was a disaster.
Pubehead walked with 5 days to a season to go
The club like all of us must have been shocked at that point
What self respecting manager would do the same dispicable thing and leave their club to join us at that time.
We looked good with Kev Mc against Wet spam but bloody awful when hammered by the bar codes
Of all the out of work managers (as that was really only our choice) GH surely had to be the most experienced and credible - we got him, eventually
There were some PR cock ups and he loved 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' a bit too much but at least we saw signs of good football and some decent reults
Unless as some have wondered TSM was part of the master plan to cut away the dross on huge wages and to be well paid to be the fall guy then the only thing i would blame PF for would be the TSM appointment. And that i would put down to inexperience and i am sure both he and randy have learned a lot by it
To be perfectly honest I regard McLeish and Houllier on the same level.In McLeish's defence he may have been shit but not once did he disrespect us, the fans in the manner that steaming pile of shit Houllier did.
-
I just cannot see how people say the GH appointment was a disaster.
Pubehead walked with 5 days to a season to go
The club like all of us must have been shocked at that point
What self respecting manager would do the same dispicable thing and leave their club to join us at that time.
We looked good with Kev Mc against Wet spam but bloody awful when hammered by the bar codes
Of all the out of work managers (as that was really only our choice) GH surely had to be the most experienced and credible - we got him, eventually
There were some PR cock ups and he loved 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' a bit too much but at least we saw signs of good football and some decent reults
Unless as some have wondered TSM was part of the master plan to cut away the dross on huge wages and to be well paid to be the fall guy then the only thing i would blame PF for would be the TSM appointment. And that i would put down to inexperience and i am sure both he and randy have learned a lot by it
To be perfectly honest I regard McLeish and Houllier on the same level.In McLeish's defence he may have been shit but not once did he disrespect us, the fans in the manner that steaming pile of shit Houllier did.
no but we had to be' realistic against the elite clubs' . what would he had said if we had played liquidized Rangers? , (did they even like him??)
-
I think paul's post above is very accurate. What it doesn't explain is PF's role in two cack handed and wrong managerial appointments. I also think they were over confident about the youth and may have cut too far too fast on the senior playing side, tho it's actually hard to see that sidwell, NRC and l young would have made that much difference last year. I guess if the makoun, Hutton, jenas and CNZ signings had come off in any respect we'd have been in a much better position. So perhaps it all comes back to the managerial appointments
For instance, if we'd bought cabaye, ben arfa, frimpong (loan) and Naughton, under the leadership of a decent manager, I'm sure we'd have been infinitely better off and just as Newcastle are doing, would be demonstrating you can cut your cloth accordingly and still succeed.
Houllier wasn't a bad idea in theory, manager known to play good football, experienced at all levels of the game, had a reasonable record with bringing through younger players and came from a role in youth development. The health thing can't be considered, doctors confirmed he was fine so it shouldn't have been a risk, it was in hindsight but nothing before the appointment would've been conclusive to suggest not going for it. That he made a number of gaffes can't be blamed on the board.
TSM was a bad choice but as I've said, I'm convinced that they were told to ignore his time at blues and look at his record elsewhere and what they saw was someone they thought could be our Moyes. We all disagree and ignoring the sheer volume of ill feeling was silly as it was always going to stay just below the surface.
Lambert is the fans choice, that was clear when we played Norwich, so as fans even if this one goes wrong we have no right to blame the board for a bad appointment.
So as it stands 1 decision made to be the nice guys which could've gone either way, 1 shocker that went against the fans and 1 good appointment that was exactly what the fans wanted. Not great clearly but the latest choice (along with interviewing OGS) shows that they're improving, this comes back to them slowly learning what the game is about.