Current media comments towards us

[Villa'Zawg]

Problem is, as is usual with the press, he has it wrong on the KMac situation; KMac was not pushed into anything. Swain does not know what went on behind the scenes anymore than any other journalist in  the country nor does he understand the intricacies and difficulties of identifying and finding a manager when your previous one leaves five days before the opening of the season. As per usual on these sites, sadly, if it is written in black and white, it must be true.

And ROBBO, based on what evidence would you replace Faulkner. What has he done to deserve the sack? Give specific examples, please.

As CEO isn't he responsible for anything that goes wrong?

Sure. What has gone so wrong here? The manager quit; it took some time to identify and contact parties w/ whom the club were interested and who were interested in the club. The interview process took further time. Once Houllier was identified, it took even more time to work out the contract and the details of his remaining issues with the FFF. It is not simply a matter of "We want you for X pounds tomorrow" and GH saying, "OK, see you then!" So where exactly is the problem? A statement was released in late August about the process, so the fans were kept informed in that way as well. Just because peoples' hands were not held the whole way, they feel as though it has all gone horribly wrong. This is not the case. The board knew of GH's commitments and decided that it was worth the wait. I suppose you can criticize them for that, but beyond that, I do not get it.

What has gone wrong? I'm not entirely sure.

At the time Faulkner was appointed CEO, Randy Lerner held a press conference where he said the Manager was staying, Milner wouldn't be sold and there was money available for players to come in during the summer transfer window. I had high hopes we would be able to improve again on what had been arguably our best season in about 15 years.

We then are told two months later by the General, minutes after you posted a diatribe against O'Neill that the focus is on getting to grips with wages and that we needed to sell some players.

My understanding was that Faulkner had taken over some of O'Neill's responsibilities for conducting transfers and that he, Randy and O'Neill had identified 6 players who could be made available for sale to another club. Only one of those 6 has been sold.

I don't know the reason why O'Neill suddenly decided to resign. The club hasn't offered any explanation. I don't know if there was a change in policy or an agreement was broken that left the manager feeling his position was untenable. I'm not at all convinced that his leaving was the start of our difficulties rather than another symptom.

So from a feeling of high optimism in May, I now have to accept that rather than building upon last season's relative success, we have instead lost our manager, sold our best player, are still waiting 6 weeks later for a new manager to arrive.

It's all well and good you saying that the press don't know what is going on at Villa but they're just filling an information vacuum left by our reclusive executive board. 

Perhaps you have a more upbeat version of our CEO's "first 100 days in office".

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Good article by Swain.

I trust you agree where he says,"..after Martin O’Neill made his spitefully-timed and melodramatic exit", Chris?

[Chris Smith]

Good article by Swain.

I trust you agree where he says,"..after Martin O’Neill made his spitefully-timed and melodramatic exit", Chris?

No, he's picked that up from the psychics on here.

I agree with this though "O’Neill’s legacy is a mixed bag of brilliant but unfulfilled potential on the pitch and a club worryingly bereft of football experience off it".

[ktvillan]

Problem is, as is usual with the press, he has it wrong on the KMac situation; KMac was not pushed into anything. Swain does not know what went on behind the scenes anymore than any other journalist in  the country nor does he understand the intricacies and difficulties of identifying and finding a manager when your previous one leaves five days before the opening of the season. As per usual on these sites, sadly, if it is written in black and white, it must be true.

And ROBBO, based on what evidence would you replace Faulkner. What has he done to deserve the sack? Give specific examples, please.

As CEO isn't he responsible for anything that goes wrong?

Sure. What has gone so wrong here? The manager quit; it took some time to identify and contact parties w/ whom the club were interested and who were interested in the club. The interview process took further time. Once Houllier was identified, it took even more time to work out the contract and the details of his remaining issues with the FFF. It is not simply a matter of "We want you for X pounds tomorrow" and GH saying, "OK, see you then!" So where exactly is the problem? A statement was released in late August about the process, so the fans were kept informed in that way as well. Just because peoples' hands were not held the whole way, they feel as though it has all gone horribly wrong. This is not the case. The board knew of GH's commitments and decided that it was worth the wait. I suppose you can criticize them for that, but beyond that, I do not get it.

This statement from the article struck a chord with me Pelty:

"It may be the American way to line up all the candidates outside the chairman’s office with their power-point presentations in an executive briefcase, but it doesn’t work like that in English football."

I know the timing of O'Neill's exit didn't help but it is rather unusual for a top football club to go through a (rather lengthy) process of first identifying suitable candidates and then interviewing them.  I can't think of many other top clubs that have done it this way, or at least taken so long about it.  More often than not I believe most boards would have quickly and quietly identified the man they wanted, or at least narrowed it down to two or three with a first choice, and have gone about securing their target at the earliest opportunity.  I could be wrong but I don't recall Liverpool going through a lengthy interview process to recruit Hodgson, nor Fulham with Hughes, nor Spurs when they recruited Redknapp, or Blues when recruiting McLeish.
 
They would have understood the urgency of getting a good manager in quickly to make use of what was left of the transfer window and to avoid a vacuum.  Even the bad timing and apparent lack of available candidates ought not have precluded a much more decisive and dynamic  response to the manager situation, in my view.   This is where the football knowledge of the Board comes in to play, and is crucial.  Our board, in the opinion of many, including myself,  were found wanting.  A knowledgable, experienced CEO with contacts throughout the game could have guided them through this far more quickly and effectively. 

And of course it is all compounded by the fact that after this laborious process we recruited a manager that wasn't even available to start. 

In short, the PL is a merciless beast and won't hang around and wait for us while we fanny about with normal business procedures.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Just because peoples' hands were not held the whole way, they feel as though it has all gone horribly wrong.

I think that the current board over the last 4 years have turned us into a Nanny Club, always trying desperately hard to please us, what with free coaches, cheap tickets, better food, basically everything the fans request. To then suddenly not hold our hand when that naughty man Martin O'Neill left is both shocking and a disgrace.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Good article by Swain.

I trust you agree where he says,"..after Martin O’Neill made his spitefully-timed and melodramatic exit", Chris?

No, he's picked that up from the psychics on here.

I agree with this though "O’Neill’s legacy is a mixed bag of brilliant but unfulfilled potential on the pitch and a club worryingly bereft of football experience off it".

The last part we can't confirm but we do know about the "mixed bag". Some great players bought but clueless in maximising their potential. Agreed?

[Reality]

Good article by Swain.

I trust you agree where he says,"..after Martin O’Neill made his spitefully-timed and melodramatic exit", Chris?

No, he's picked that up from the psychics on here.

I agree with this though "O’Neill’s legacy is a mixed bag of brilliant but unfulfilled potential on the pitch and a club worryingly bereft of football experience off it".

That is certainly a very fair point, and one I would also agree with.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Just because peoples' hands were not held the whole way, they feel as though it has all gone horribly wrong.

I think that the current board over the last 4 years have turned us into a Nanny Club, always trying desperately hard to please us, what with free coaches, cheap tickets, better food, basically everything the fans request. To then suddenly not hold our hand when that naughty man Martin O'Neill left is both shocking and a disgrace.

MON was a living god, the fact that the board didn't carry on dishing out mega wages to players who never played is a disgrace, the board should do the decent thing and sell up, in the meantime, he's a picture of lovely honest MON, the man who would have led us to European cup glory.
http://schriftman.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/god-the-father.jpg

[Chris Smith]

Good article by Swain.

I trust you agree where he says,"..after Martin O’Neill made his spitefully-timed and melodramatic exit", Chris?

No, he's picked that up from the psychics on here.

I agree with this though "O’Neill’s legacy is a mixed bag of brilliant but unfulfilled potential on the pitch and a club worryingly bereft of football experience off it".

The last part we can't confirm but we do know about the "mixed bag". Some great players bought but clueless in maximising their potential. Agreed?

Clueless, definitely not. It could have been better, could have been a lot worse.

I think we can confirm the last part; who on the board has any football experience?

[pelty]

More upbeat? No. It has been a tough month+. My issue is laying it at the feet of PF with no evidence to back it beyond your own assumptions. PF works hard for the club and has its best interests at heart, to include ensuring the long-term fiscal health of the club. That was endangered by the previous manager who, rather than accepting the limits to which he had previously agreed on MULTIPLE occasions, left the club high-and-dry. For whatever reason, you wish not to believe this. Why you have such a suspicion of the club's owner and board is beyond me. What have they done over the past four years to warrant such distrust? Not a whole lot, but when the going gets tough, you push all the blame on them and look for some sort of conspiracy theory. That is sad.

***I had written a point-by-point refutation of the entirety of your post, but upon reflection I think it would have been wasted on you. You prefer your conspiracy theories, so I will leave you to them. Cheers.***

[pelty]

Problem is, as is usual with the press, he has it wrong on the KMac situation; KMac was not pushed into anything. Swain does not know what went on behind the scenes anymore than any other journalist in  the country nor does he understand the intricacies and difficulties of identifying and finding a manager when your previous one leaves five days before the opening of the season. As per usual on these sites, sadly, if it is written in black and white, it must be true.

And ROBBO, based on what evidence would you replace Faulkner. What has he done to deserve the sack? Give specific examples, please.

As CEO isn't he responsible for anything that goes wrong?

Sure. What has gone so wrong here? The manager quit; it took some time to identify and contact parties w/ whom the club were interested and who were interested in the club. The interview process took further time. Once Houllier was identified, it took even more time to work out the contract and the details of his remaining issues with the FFF. It is not simply a matter of "We want you for X pounds tomorrow" and GH saying, "OK, see you then!" So where exactly is the problem? A statement was released in late August about the process, so the fans were kept informed in that way as well. Just because peoples' hands were not held the whole way, they feel as though it has all gone horribly wrong. This is not the case. The board knew of GH's commitments and decided that it was worth the wait. I suppose you can criticize them for that, but beyond that, I do not get it.

This statement from the article struck a chord with me Pelty:

"It may be the American way to line up all the candidates outside the chairman’s office with their power-point presentations in an executive briefcase, but it doesn’t work like that in English football."

I know the timing of O'Neill's exit didn't help but it is rather unusual for a top football club to go through a (rather lengthy) process of first identifying suitable candidates and then interviewing them.  I can't think of many other top clubs that have done it this way, or at least taken so long about it.  More often than not I believe most boards would have quickly and quietly identified the man they wanted, or at least narrowed it down to two or three with a first choice, and have gone about securing their target at the earliest opportunity.  I could be wrong but I don't recall Liverpool going through a lengthy interview process to recruit Hodgson, nor Fulham with Hughes, nor Spurs when they recruited Redknapp, or Blues when recruiting McLeish.
 
They would have understood the urgency of getting a good manager in quickly to make use of what was left of the transfer window and to avoid a vacuum.  Even the bad timing and apparent lack of available candidates ought not have precluded a much more decisive and dynamic  response to the manager situation, in my view.   This is where the football knowledge of the Board comes in to play, and is crucial.  Our board, in the opinion of many, including myself,  were found wanting.  A knowledgable, experienced CEO with contacts throughout the game could have guided them through this far more quickly and effectively. 

And of course it is all compounded by the fact that after this laborious process we recruited a manager that wasn't even available to start. 

In short, the PL is a merciless beast and won't hang around and wait for us while we fanny about with normal business procedures.

This is a fair post. The timing of the departure definitely threw the board, no doubt, and necessitated a dual-pronged approach of stabilizing the club from within and turning the attention outwards as well. In the examples of the other clubs you mentioned, there was a difference in the timing (summer) and/or the board's recognition that they would be losing their manager and needed to get on with the hiring process (did anyone not know Benitez was leaving?).

That being said, once MON left, contact with potential managers was made immediately and, sometimes, multiple contacts with the same person. I am not sure I agree entirely w/ your scenario of a "football man" and his contacts because who would he have thought to contact that the board did not? Perhaps a promising young manager from a lower league, but would this really have been the appointment to make at this time? Some might argue for this, but I think the stick the board would take for such a move would have been hot and heavy. So, without knowing exactly what you have in mind with this, I cannot refute or agree with it. The usual suspects were contacted but were not interested.

As for GH and his responsibilities w/ the FFF, the delay was thought to be worth it as GH was, to their mind, easily the best option. Are they happy with the delay? No, but it is what it is.

[Chris Smith]

More upbeat? No. It has been a tough month+. My issue is laying it at the feet of PF with no evidence to back it beyond your own assumptions. PF works hard for the club and has its best interests at heart, to include ensuring the long-term fiscal health of the club. That was endangered by the previous manager who, rather than accepting the limits to which he had previously agreed on MULTIPLE occasions, left the club high-and-dry. For whatever reason, you wish not to believe this. Why you have such a suspicion of the club's owner and board is beyond me. What have they done over the past four years to warrant such distrust? Not a whole lot, but when the going gets tough, you push all the blame on them and look for some sort of conspiracy theory. That is sad.

***I had written a point-by-point refutation of the entirety of your post, but upon reflection I think it would have been wasted on you. You prefer your conspiracy theories, so I will leave you to them. Cheers.***

Whether it is fair or not the perception is that the club have handled the situation poorly. You can't keep blaming everything on Martin O'Neill, at some point you have to take responsibility. The article in the E & S is only saying what a lot of fans have been saying in recent weeks and the lack of any clear response from the club has only fuelled it.

Your last little snippet was, with respect, a kop out. If you've got answers to his points, then let's hear them. I'd be really interested to know why we had to sell Milner and why we haven't signed anyone. If there are good reasons then why hasn't anyone bothered to let us know?

[pauliewalnuts]

More upbeat? No. It has been a tough month+. My issue is laying it at the feet of PF with no evidence to back it beyond your own assumptions. PF works hard for the club and has its best interests at heart, to include ensuring the long-term fiscal health of the club. That was endangered by the previous manager who, rather than accepting the limits to which he had previously agreed on MULTIPLE occasions, left the club high-and-dry. For whatever reason, you wish not to believe this. Why you have such a suspicion of the club's owner and board is beyond me. What have they done over the past four years to warrant such distrust? Not a whole lot, but when the going gets tough, you push all the blame on them and look for some sort of conspiracy theory. That is sad.

***I had written a point-by-point refutation of the entirety of your post, but upon reflection I think it would have been wasted on you. You prefer your conspiracy theories, so I will leave you to them. Cheers.***

Pelty

I think it is too easy to brush away the criticisms as unmerited criticism / paranoid suspicion / lack of gratitude, or whatever.

I, personally, think the former manager left us right up shit creek having been asked - like any manager is asked from time to time - to do something about the wage bill. My own opinion is also that he knew exactly what he was doing, leaving when he did.

I also think a lot of the "OMG, you're so cheap!" drama queenery ( (c) Mark Kelly) over the summer at the board is ungracious, undeserved and not what the board deserve after the investment of the last four years. In fact, I think it is incredibly embarassing.

However, having said that, I do think that some of the things over the period since the manager left have been handled less than brilliantly. I'm talking about:

- giving KM two weeks to make his mind up whether he even wanted to apply. This was, in itself, a strange move, but it also left you open to criticism of "they're timing it so the transfer window closes before they make a decision". I don't think that was what you were aiming for, but I'm surprised you allowed a situation to develop where people could level that accusation at you.

- unveiling GH at a press conference without actually telling people up front that he'd not signed a contract, didn't know when he could start, it might be Wolves, but it might be even later, he might have to go back to France for a few days here and there etc.

I'm sure this was an attempt to create some sort of stability, but it didn't really. It just introduced more uncertainties.

We then had KM - made to believe he was hot favourite (it's hard to believe he was otherwise when the interview process wasn't even started until he'd had two weeks to decide whether to even apply) - interviewed for the job, passed over, sat and watched the new bloke unveiled, been offered the number two role, turned it down, but then expected to run the team for at least another two games (and could have been even more at that point).

That to me sounds unfair on KM apart from anything else.

Throw into the mix the confusion and ridiculous delays over the shirt (regardless of whether it is Nike's fault rather than ours, the club manages these relations with the supplier and allowed this to happen) and you can see why people are starting to think the club is drifting.

I have no idea whatsoever if it is PF's fault. I don't know who does what at the club, so I'm not going to point the finger at him.

I do, though, think that - even taking into account the mess MON dropped the club in - the last five weeks have been a real mess, and the club could have done much better.

Also, whilst I appreciate the job the General does, and I understand Randy's reluctance to enter the spotlight, if ever there was a time we needed our chairman to be visible, to make himself heard, to be our "leader", this was it.

[pelty]

"Your last little snippet was, with respect, a kop out. If you've got answers to his points, then let's hear them. I'd be really interested to know why we had to sell Milner and why we haven't signed anyone. If there are good reasons then why hasn't anyone bothered to let us know?"

A fair criticism. I removed that portion of the post not to "kop out," but because I think it would go unheeded. Also, I am concerned about saying too much. Let me say this: I think Swain has it right in saying that the board allowed MON too much sway. Right or wrong, this is Randy's way. He hires the people he thinks are best and let's them get on with it; to my mind, MON needed more oversight, but look at how MON reacted when steps in this direction were made!

RE: Milner, I want to be careful. Let me put it this way, no one was more surprised by the comments made by MON in mid-July than the board *and* Milner. To my knowledge, things were NOT in motion prior to those comments. Why they were made? Who knows?

[pelty]

Pelty

I think it is too easy to brush away the criticisms as unmerited criticism / paranoid suspicion / lack of gratitude, or whatever.

I, personally, think the former manager left us right up shit creek having been asked - like any manager is asked from time to time - to do something about the wage bill. My own opinion is also that he knew exactly what he was doing, leaving when he did.

I also think a lot of the "OMG, you're so cheap!" drama queenery ( (c) Mark Kelly) over the summer at the board is ungracious, undeserved and not what the board deserve after the investment of the last four years. In fact, I think it is incredibly embarassing.

However, having said that, I do think that some of the things over the period since the manager left have been handled less than brilliantly. I'm talking about:

- giving KM two weeks to make his mind up whether he even wanted to apply. This was, in itself, a strange move, but it also left you open to criticism of "they're timing it so the transfer window closes before they make a decision". I don't think that was what you were aiming for, but I'm surprised you allowed a situation to develop where people could level that accusation at you.

- unveiling GH at a press conference without actually telling people up front that he'd not signed a contract, didn't know when he could start, it might be Wolves, but it might be even later, he might have to go back to France for a few days here and there etc.

I'm sure this was an attempt to create some sort of stability, but it didn't really. It just introduced more uncertainties.

We then had KM - made to believe he was hot favourite (it's hard to believe he was otherwise when the interview process wasn't even started until he'd had two weeks to decide whether to even apply) - interviewed for the job, passed over, sat and watched the new bloke unveiled, been offered the number two role, turned it down, but then expected to run the team for at least another two games (and could have been even more at that point).

That to me sounds unfair on KM apart from anything else.

Throw into the mix the confusion and ridiculous delays over the shirt (regardless of whether it is Nike's fault rather than ours, the club manages these relations with the supplier and allowed this to happen) and you can see why people are starting to think the club is drifting.

I have no idea whatsoever if it is PF's fault. I don't know who does what at the club, so I'm not going to point the finger at him.

I do, though, think that - even taking into account the mess MON dropped the club in - the last five weeks have been a real mess, and the club could have done much better.

Also, whilst I appreciate the job the General does, and I understand Randy's reluctance to enter the spotlight, if ever there was a time we needed our chairman to be visible, to make himself heard, to be our "leader", this was it.

I see your points here and agree with some of them. The KMac issue was not a "wait-and-see" job. I am not going to say more here about this, so I will just have to let the common opinion prevail, I guess. I am not trying to be coy, but I just do not think it is right to say much more about it. My main issue, and why I posted originally, is that PF was getting unmerited stick. I will leave it at that.