Board must take its share of the blame - General C Krulak

[Lucky Eddie]

this is perhaps the type of role we could have used Sir Graham in

Merv, my love and respect for Sir Graham is second to no man - but could you please help me to understand why he would be the best man to discover, sign and retain the services of not only European but African, Asian and South American young talent over the next five years. He's adored by me and my mates but that doesn't make him qualified for the job.

[Concrete John]

I don't think anyone fails to see what this sort of role could bring to us, but there are two issues some of us find concern over:-
1.  Is Houllier the right man for the job?
2.  Would whatever new manager we appoint like this or prefer to have control of over all the footballing aspects of the club himself?

Say what you want about 'total control' being handed to one man, but I'd be OK with it if it's the right man!

[Merv]

I can't: I've been explaining at length why I think Gerard Houllier would be well suited to a similar role. SGT got a passing mention!

And I mentioned Sir Graham as I believe he's been involved in the past in advising the board, maybe - and I'm happy to be corrected by those better informed - on a temporary basis. SGT would have been useful at board level, certainly a few years ago. And maybe universally welcomed to such a role back then. Houllier is better placed for that now.

[ROBBO]

Once a stance is taken against someone it is difficult to see any good in them. I was the same in the last few months of Oneills reign, i think it really started when he bought Heskey when we were in such a good position, after that i could see no positives in him at all. Some now feel the same way about Houllier, even if he returned and got us back challenging the feeling would remain. I still think he could be an asset to the club but worry that if he stays so does his chosen coach which to me looms as a bigger problem.

[Risso]

I've still yet to see any evidence whatsoever that Houllier is this powerhouse of European football knowledge.  To be honest if we're looking at someone with a track record of bringing in players on the cheap, and developing them into stars of the Premier League, we'd be better off appointing Steve Bruce.

[Lucky Eddie]

Once a stance is taken against someone it is difficult to see any good in them. I was the same in the last few months of Oneills reign, i think it really started when he bought Heskey when we were in such a good position, after that i could see no positives in him at all. Some now feel the same way about Houllier, even if he returned and got us back challenging the feeling would remain. I still think he could be an asset to the club but worry that if he stays so does his chosen coach which to me looms as a bigger problem.

we have a coach? ;-)

[Merv]

It would certainly be a newish concept to Villa, John, I agree. When the position of Director of Football is mentioned, I automatically think of someone who breathes down the manager's neck, tells him who to sign, or even worse, introduces a new signing to the manager: "this is Dave, he's playing centre-forward on Saturday... right? RIGHT?" The DoF sticks his nose into the dressing room 15 mins before kick-off and starts shouting over the team talk, that kind of thing...

I'm imagining more of a boardroom-level appointment. Houllier involved in the running of the club, alongside Paul Faulkner who, let's face it, is still reasonably new to this level of football. Something of a day-to-day role. Wouldn't directly be involved in first team matters at all. But probably would be involved in the recruitment of a new manager.

Steve Bruce might be another option, Risso, sure. Not my choice, admittedly.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

To be honest if we're looking at someone with a track record of bringing in players on the cheap, and developing them into stars of the Premier League, we'd be better off appointing Steve Bruce.

Risso drops his Nuclear warhead.

[Concrete John]

Merv,

To me that's a more traditional directorship and not something specifically football related.  That's one thing, but being in charge of scouting and recomending players to the manager is quite another.

[pauliewalnuts]

To be honest if we're looking at someone with a track record of bringing in players on the cheap, and developing them into stars of the Premier League, we'd be better off appointing Steve Bruce.

Risso drops his Nuclear warhead.

It's the Potato Head / Fat Sam upstairs / downstairs dream team nuclear option.

;-)

[Risso]

I'm not saying that I want Steve Bruce, but people keep talking about Houllier's European knowledge as if he's the next Arsene Wenger.  Where's the evidence of this?  In the transfer window just gone, we bought one average player from France, got the hopeless Bradley, then two players came from the Premier League.  He mostly bought a load of shit at Liverpool, having been lucky enough to inherit an extremely good crop of youngsters.

[Merv]

Merv,

To me that's a more traditional directorship and not something specifically football related.  That's one thing, but being in charge of scouting and recomending players to the manager is quite another.

I must admit, I haven't quite finished typing up the formal job description yet, it needs some tweaking... 

I'm prepared to accept that this exact role may not exist at another PL club so perhaps there's not a direct comparison to make. Like a Sporting Director, or Technical Director, maybe. I guess I'm just intrigued by Faulker's comment of following the Ajax model.

[Meanwood Villa]

We can agree to disagree on him being "crap". I mainly look at the results. A lot of the supposed positives from his tenure are frankly speculation. My opinion is he was a poor appointment, he's been a poor manager and why we would retain him on the payroll is beyond me. Clean slate for me.

[Mazrim]

Its not who he signed, and you cant write off his managerial career and winning all that silverware as luck, its his ability to develop infrastructure and his wealth of experience. And the fact we're light on the ground in this department.
In fact, my main point is not even about Houllier in particular but the need for a certain role in this club that he might be suited for.

I want to get away from having a new man come in every few years and having to reorganise everything to suit. We need to get our house in order, top to bottom and then managers can come and fit into that, not the other way around.
What if another O'Neill came in, neglected all our scouting network, had his assistants chuff 20 B&H on the sidelines whilst the players mill about? Then he's gone and we're left in limbo with no continuity and we have to to take two steps back again. Fuck that. We need a continuous plan.
If Houllier goes now and takes his staff, who decided on football matters at Villa? Sid? K Mac? We're vulnerable.

[TheSandman]

Ged has had his share of gaffes as well but the fingers really should be pointed at the players. The best resourced squad in our history earning the highest wages we've ever paid have produced the worst performances for a generation. Overwight smokers, players refusing to play, refusing to move home, hitting coaches, slagging off the city we come from, ducking tackles that our children would make for the club.

I never thought I'd say this about players who play for our Aston Villa , but I really do hate some of our team right now.

Whilst I am very critical of the job Houllier has done I think this is as big a part of it. I especially agree with the second paragraph. I really hope that quite a few of them fuck off and have miserable future careers.

the hopeless Bradley,

For Pete's sake he has only played twice! Once in a weakened team and the other when we were down to ten men. It's not like he's been like sodding Pires.