Paul Faulkner: Is He Delivering?

[Risso]

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.

[dave.woodhall]

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?

[Lee]

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".

[Risso]

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.

[not3bad]

Lambert is hopefully a big step in the right direction.

Backing him in the transfer market will be another.

[pelty]

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...

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[Risso]

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?

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[Matt Collins]

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?

[bertlambshank]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[The Left Side]

He is slowly gaining my confidence but still lots of room for improvement.

[Steve R]

...

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.

[Mister E]

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'.