Time for Randy to go?

[maidstonevillain]

The horrible, horrible thing is ..... and it makes me feel a bit queasy to admit this ... but it looks increasingly like the man most responsible for a lot of things going well in the 06-10 period was O'Neill.

When he left and they were "on their own", it all started going pear shaped.

Don't get me wrong, the pube headed one was a vindictive shit and his half arsed transfer policy is a big contributing factor to where we are, but it's really hard not to look at events since and think that once the new kids were handed the ship and told "it's all yours", it headed straight for the rocks.

I think a lot of it was to do with when you're on a roll, all pulling together, things generate themselves. He left, the momentum stopped rolling...

So who created the momentum. Doesn't that point to Paulie being correct.

[hawkeye]

This get a good football man in is hokum, you need a good CEO, someone who can appoint the right people Head Scout, 1st Team Manager and so on, most football people know nothing about running organisations.

THis all goes back to O'Neill.  When you take over a business in a field you know nothing about, you need to employ people who know what they're doing.  Lerner inherited O'Neill on Ellis's recommendation, and at first having an old fashioned manager who looked like he'd run most aspects of the football side must have been a weight off Lerner's shoulders.  It became increasingly obvious though, that without anybody at all putting the brakes on O'Neill's ego, that Lerner was effectively just signing away the future of the club and the value of his investment with every blank cheque.

MON is a stronger personality than Faulkner, as soon as Faulkner on Randys instuctions told MON to reign it in a bit they parted company.

[dave.woodhall]

And I agree with you here, the best organisations have a disconnect between the Executive and the Shareholders, The Chairman represents the Shareholders the CEO represents the business and is accountable to The Chairman. As soon as these lines get blurred you have problems.
[/quote]

At the time Randy arrived there seemed too many new staff who were his men rather than Villa (or football)  men. The conflict of loyalties was too easy to make. It's possible to see a link between Villa and the Birmingham mayoral debate - two organisations which have lost their way and need to find a focus. They both need one man in executive charge who can see where the problems lie and be able to do something about them.

[Rob92]

I find it odd that people think there won't be anyone to buy the club. We're a Premier League club (for now), with a big stadium and a big fanbase. There's huge potential here, as there was at Man City and we'd be a decent proposition to anyone with deep pockets.

[TheSandman]

I find it odd that people think there won't be anyone to buy the club. We're a Premier League club (for now), with a big stadium and a big fanbase. There's huge potential here, as there was at Man City and we'd be a decent proposition to anyone with deep pockets.

You could say the same thing about Everton and they've been on the market for an eternity.

[maidstonevillain]

I think the board and Randy need help, someone with a bit more football knowledge to offer advice.

They do, but of the usually quoted suspects, Sir Graham's at Watford, BFR's retired and Ian Taylor is a great bloke but whether that transfers into business ability remains to be seen.

I think it is also too easy to point at someone who clearly loves the club and assume they'd be the man. Ian Taylor is a Villa fan who played for the club, and does a bit of meet and greet. Like you said, how does that transfer to the skillset he'd need?

Also, there's always the question f whether people mentioned would even want to do the job. Martin Laursen is a good example of that. Perhaps he likes doing a bit of media work and seeing his family?

It is too easy to go for the sentimental option, although I understand the thinking, when what we need are cold hard business decisions.

I'd rather have a tough, cold bastard who had no prior attachment to the club, but who'd do a fucking good job.

Or to put it another way, Karren Brady would probably do a far better job than Faulkner.

[hawkeye]

That's always been our problem. We've had too may Villa people working for us. Now we have too many Randy people. Was it you who said Houllier gave the impression of being a consultant, here to fix a problem with no company loyalty or feeling for any other department?

No that was me

There was probably a lot of truth in it. His biggest problem was trying to do things too quickly.

Yes I can see that now, but it goes back to the original problem, RL has a yes man as CEO. If Randy wants to run the club from a distance then he needs to have someone that is capable of making big decisions on his behalf and also disagree with him from time to time. Having seen Faulkner in action he does not exactly come over as a David Dein character, you only need look at his CV to work that out.

[Whiney MacWhineface]

THis all goes back to O'Neill.  When you take over a business in a field you know nothing about, you need to employ people who know what they're doing.  Lerner inherited O'Neill on Ellis's recommendation, and at first having an old fashioned manager who looked like he'd run most aspects of the football side must have been a weight off Lerner's shoulders.  It became increasingly obvious though, that without anybody at all putting the brakes on O'Neill's ego, that Lerner was effectively just signing away the future of the club and the value of his investment with every blank cheque.

I remember an article from the takeover days, when Randy siad he wanted to have some fun (I've searched in vain for it alas). The above scenario fits perfectly into this situation where they seemed to beleive that applying some basic business practices (mostly marketing) to a football club would achive great things. Which it may have if O'Neill had been even a slightly better manager and sneaked us into the top 4 in the third season.

But he wasn't and the whole thing fell apart, partly because, as you say, Randy didn't apply all of the basic business practices, like keeping an eye on the budgets and maintaining proper controls over the one man who controlled everything but the money.

[ktvillan]

The horrible, horrible thing is ..... and it makes me feel a bit queasy to admit this ... but it looks increasingly like the man most responsible for a lot of things going well in the 06-10 period was O'Neill.

When he left and they were "on their own", it all started going pear shaped.

Don't get me wrong, the pube headed one was a vindictive shit and his half arsed transfer policy is a big contributing factor to where we are, but it's really hard not to look at events since and think that once the new kids were handed the ship and told "it's all yours", it headed straight for the rocks.

I think a lot of it was to do with when you're on a roll, all pulling together, things generate themselves. He left, the momentum stopped rolling...

So who created the momentum. Doesn't that point to Paulie being correct.

The thing is though things weren't really going that well 06-10, they only appeared to be.  As I said on the other thread, while all looked okay, O'Neill was quietly being allowed to lead the club into severe financial difficulties during that period.  We are where we are now because of that profligacy and lack of control as much the owner and his cohorts floundering since MON walked out.

[dave.woodhall]

There's probably half a good board at Villa. The marketing and customer care sides seem fine (and if anyone doesn't think so, try comparing our approach with any other Premier League club) but the footballing side has lacked a focus for two years. Maybe Judas should have been the DoF we talk about.

[pauliewalnuts]

Then again, why shouldn't Brady be a very good football CEO? She's got the experience.

It is interesting that Richard FitzGerald and Michael Cunnah (and, in fact, wasn't there another one for a short spell) didn't last long as CEO with MON, which suggests the inevitable conclusion that Randy allowed them to walk at the behest of the manager (interesting too to see how Quinn went so quickly after MON's arrival at Sunderland).

Maybe that was Lerner's first, big, and long lasting mistake - to allow the manager to be so utterly in control. The wage bill suggests it was. It's admirable that he recognised this wasn't going to work when the manager refused to do anything about that wage bill. I dont blame him for that.

The problem is that, having established what looks like a more formal operating structure, and having lost the megalomaniacal manager, they then made such a gigantic pigs ear of the first big decisions they had to make on their own that they've effectively thrown away all the progress they'd made.

Randy can still pull it around, I think, if he bins this manager. I think that, contrary to a lot of what people say here, they'll give him another go to get it right if he admits it was a bad appointment, and does something about it. The worst thing he could do would be to bury his head in the sand and just plough on.

If you look at it from a purely business point of view, it's very hard to say he's done a good job of it. He's invested a stack of money, we're losing lots of money, we're roughly where we were when he arrived table-wise, we've got a ridiculously weak squad, and the club feels disunited.

If we feel that suicidal about it, then he, with it being his money, should - must - feel really compelled to do something to turn things around. Let's hope he does, and let's hope it works.

[dave.woodhall]

It is interesting that with MON, Richard FitzGerald and Michael Cunnah (and, in fact, wasn't there another one for a short spell) didn't last long as CEO with MON, which raises the inevitable conclusion that Randy allowed them to walk at the behest of the manager (interesting too to see how Quinn went so quickly after MON's arrival at Sunderland).

Just those two. Cunnah was a strange one - he arrived seemingly with some sort of remit to re-build the ground, him coming led to FitzG leaving, but he was never formally CEO and left soon after. 

[hawkeye]

And I agree with you here, the best organisations have a disconnect between the Executive and the Shareholders, The Chairman represents the Shareholders the CEO represents the business and is accountable to The Chairman. As soon as these lines get blurred you have problems.

At the time Randy arrived there seemed too many new staff who were his men rather than Villa (or football)  men. The conflict of loyalties was too easy to make. It's possible to see a link between Villa and the Birmingham mayoral debate - two organisations which have lost their way and need to find a focus. They both need one man in executive charge who can see where the problems lie and be able to do something about them.
[/quote]Exactly, i have spent a lot of my working life dealing with the aftermath of failure in this area, the technical term is Corporate Governance. It seems pretty obvious that the right structure was never put in place.

[pauliewalnuts]

It is interesting that with MON, Richard FitzGerald and Michael Cunnah (and, in fact, wasn't there another one for a short spell) didn't last long as CEO with MON, which raises the inevitable conclusion that Randy allowed them to walk at the behest of the manager (interesting too to see how Quinn went so quickly after MON's arrival at Sunderland).

Just those two. Cunnah was a strange one - he arrived seemingly with some sort of remit to re-build the ground, him coming led to FitzG leaving, but he was never formally CEO and left soon after. 

FitzGerald left as he couldn't work with MON - that's something I've heard from as close to the horse's mouth as you can get.

[dave.woodhall]

It is interesting that with MON, Richard FitzGerald and Michael Cunnah (and, in fact, wasn't there another one for a short spell) didn't last long as CEO with MON, which raises the inevitable conclusion that Randy allowed them to walk at the behest of the manager (interesting too to see how Quinn went so quickly after MON's arrival at Sunderland).

Just those two. Cunnah was a strange one - he arrived seemingly with some sort of remit to re-build the ground, him coming led to FitzG leaving, but he was never formally CEO and left soon after. 

FitzGerald left as he couldn't work with MON - that's something I've heard from as close to the horse's mouth as you can get.

FitzG and O'Neill obviously didn't get on, but it seems the ultimate catalyst was Cunnah. That's what Charles Sale says and he writes for the Daily Mail so he should know.