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

[KevinGage]

In response to Toronto: the nature of a contingency plan is that you assess the risk of an event and the appropriate response to it. You would do this systematically with all material risks. Given that MON as a manager was always in demand, known to be touting himself to other clubs (apparently) and had had to be pacified by the owner days before he went, I reckon he would (or should) have been flashing like a Christmas tree on the risk dashboard. There is just no excuse for not having a plan in those circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, the Board can still put things right by making the correct decision for the club now. Trouble is, they are having to make the decision in the worst possible conditions, which in turn obviously means that the liklihood of a positive outcome is smaller (and is shrinking by the day).

Even that is not fatal in the gran scheme of things. But what seems certain is that it is going to cost us significantly in development time.

The problem in comparing staff/managerial appointments in football to those in the private/ public sector (real life in other words) is they aren't like for like comparisons.

I think it was you (apologies if it wasn't) who said on another thread "If this happened on my watch my boss would be asking why I didn't have the risk covered," or similar.

The crucial difference being that you might have hundreds possibly thousands of suitable candidates should one of your employees decide one day that working for the man is overrated.

Football management -particularly at the very top level- has less of a catchment pool, might (I say might as I don't know the calibre and qualifications of the staff you employ) be viewed as more specialised and vacancies are generally harder to fill. So for that reason, the comparison is redundant.

You're effectively comparing apples to double decker buses.

[Toronto Villa]

In response to Toronto: the nature of a contingency plan is that you assess the risk of an event and the appropriate response to it. You would do this systematically with all material risks. Given that MON as a manager was always in demand, known to be touting himself to other clubs (apparently) and had had to be pacified by the owner days before he went, I reckon he would (or should) have been flashing like a Christmas tree on the risk dashboard. There is just no excuse for not having a plan in those circumstances.

You simply cannot compare a regular business to football and use that analogy. It's not like having money put aside and being able to buy a new truck when your old one finally dies. In football, even if you had a list of names, their availability will vary with the time of year and whether or not they are under contract. I have no proof whether or not MON realized or calculated the impact of his departure. Either way it would have scuppered the best laid contingency plans.

[Claret trim]

I think it was you (apologies if it wasn't) who said on another thread "If this happened on my watch my boss would be asking why I didn't have the risk covered," or similar.

The crucial difference being that you might have hundreds possibly thousands of suitable candidates should one of your employees decide one day that working for the man is overrated.

It was me, KevinGage.

I take your broad point that the situations are not like-for-like, i.e., replacing a burger boy at MacDonald's is not the same as replacing a PL manager. However, the only difference is the level of risk. The smaller the talent pool and the greater the reliance on the incumbent, the higher the level of risk. At Villa, we had "key man risk" with MON. All the more (and not less) reason to have a contingency plan, in my view.

[Claret trim]

You simply cannot compare a regular business to football and use that analogy.

I explain above why I think that it applies to any business. In fact, it is one of the Board's primary responsibilities whether it be at AVFC or any other company.

[Risso]

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

Every business should have a succession plan.

[KevinGage]

I think it was you (apologies if it wasn't) who said on another thread "If this happened on my watch my boss would be asking why I didn't have the risk covered," or similar.

The crucial difference being that you might have hundreds possibly thousands of suitable candidates should one of your employees decide one day that working for the man is overrated.

It was me, KevinGage.

I take your broad point that the situations are not like-for-like, i.e., replacing a burger boy at MacDonald's is not the same as replacing a PL manager. However, the only difference is the level of risk. The smaller the talent pool and the greater the reliance on the incumbent, the higher the level of risk. At Villa, we had "key man risk" with MON. All the more (and not less) reason to have a contingency plan, in my view.

Perhaps Kev Mac is the contingency plan though? Someone who knows the club inside out at this point.

The situation in football is constantly changing. I can fully believe that there are/ were managers at other clubs that the board would keep an eye on (I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say they are huge admirers of David Moyes, for example), and would keep abreast of their contract situation. Plus any whispers on the grapevine of dissatisfaction with their current employers or notions of said manager (s) looking for 'a new challenge' and so forth.

That's all well and good.

But an already limited selection pool (I'd say even at the most opportune times the number of suitable candidates probably numbers less than ten) reduces further still right at the very start of a new campaign, with less than two weeks of the transfer window remaining.

At present -and in contrast to other periods in our history- there isn't a manager pulling up trees at a smaller club who immediately stands out, a club we could lean on and where they realistically wouldn't be able to say no to us.

And any similar sized (or bigger) club worth their salt wouldn't let a manager go at this time of year, not if they have any ambitions to do well themselves.

To fulfil notions of having a contingency plan we could have a whole raft of names to draw upon; anyone from Paul Jewell to Graeme Souness. I don't think they (or similar) would be of the required standard though, and wouldn't be palatable to the majority of the fanbase.
 

[Toronto Villa]

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

Every business should have a succession plan.

And they likely do but you cannot deny that the sudden timing of events has had a bearing. What if the list of 10 or so names they had were all available in various capacities in June or July? Once the season rolls closer all of those potential candidates would have tied themselves into jobs also because they don't uncertainty either. They wouldn't have been hanging on because of any rumours of unrest at Villa. Otherwise someone like Mark Hughes wouldn't have gone to Fulham. I'm quit convinced he's dying inside with his decision.

[Somniloquism]

Why would Hughes believe that there was likely to be a vacancy? Are you suggesting that our board sounded him out while O'Neill was still in the job? Pretty shitty thing to do if true.

Maybe because it seemed to be common knowledge within footballing circles that MON was vying for the Liverpool job. When Hodgeson got that gig Hughes probably believed that the Villa job was not available and went for the Fulham job as second choice after Jol.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

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

Every business should have a succession plan.

And they likely do but you cannot deny that the sudden timing of events has had a bearing. What if the list of 10 or so names they had were all available in various capacities in June or July?

The timing has no bearing on having a plan. What if he was run over by a bus?

[Toronto Villa]

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

Every business should have a succession plan.

And they likely do but you cannot deny that the sudden timing of events has had a bearing. What if the list of 10 or so names they had were all available in various capacities in June or July?

The timing has no bearing on having a plan. What if he was run over by a bus?

Then we'd be in exactly the same position as we are now. Off course it has a bearing.

[Claret trim]

Off course it has a bearing.

You are right insofar as the timing can increase the risk, which in turns makes the need for a plan all the greater.

To put it simply in the context of the events, were we thinking one step ahead when MON was on the point of throwing his toys out of the pram (or was backed into a corner, whichever way you look at it, it is immaterial now)?

Surely that is the only game in town?

[cheltenhamlion]

Sorry, but I don't see how you can have a contingency manager? It isn't like you can do with a brief and pay them retainers.

The board, for example, rate David Moyes highly. Had Randy and MON had the meeting in May and decided that the club was to take a new direction then it may well have been that Moyes would have been courted and brought in.

Not many managers want to drop their clubs in the shit by leaving on the eve of the season so he isn't available at this time.

What can they do?

[Claret trim]

The board, for example, rate David Moyes highly. Had Randy and MON had the meeting in May and decided that the club was to take a new direction then it may well have been that Moyes would have been courted and brought in.

Not many managers want to drop their clubs in the shit by leaving on the eve of the season so he isn't available at this time.

What can they do?

The point about contingency plans is that they deal with situations that have not gone to plan. The situation you describe above is one that is going according to plan.

Perhaps the Board did have one but that in itself went tits up? That would be pretty bad luck. However, that doesn't seem likely judging by the smoke signals coming out of the club. But then, who knows?

Ultimately the point boils down to something fairly simple: were we thinking one step ahead? That is the job of the custodians of the club. I really don't think that this is the slightest bit controversial.

[cheltenhamlion]

But how far does the "one step ahead" thinking go?

Do you plan to have a coach take over in the interim and have a number of candidates that you would like to interview? That makes sense but it doesn't mean that you will be able to get them.

And can you imagine the furore if we approached Moyes and said "If we ever sack MON, or he walks out, or gets run over by a bus, no matter what point in time that might occur, will you immediately drop everything and take over at the Villa?".

It's nonsensical. Talking to another manager who might already be in a post is tapping up and is a surefire way of fucking off the incumbent.

[KevinGage]

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

Where is the contingency for that?

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

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

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

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