Paul Faulkner: Is He Delivering?

[Banganappa]

Both PF and RL are in a no win position.  When MoN was splashing the cash, I don't recall a murmur of dissent or suggestion of profligacy, and it was not as though the examples of Leeds and Portsmouth weren't out there as warnings. Even in this thread, you can see people citing the acid test as being backing in the transfer market and that fundamentally is how most supporters judge the board. You only ever hear people wanting to "pay the going rate" or "stop messing about and do the deal". Yes they have ultimate financial responsibility for the club, but in practice we expect them to take risks by attracting the best players through wages and transfer fees, but only really doing this by leaving alone "backing the manager" and providing quality pies. Then we call them irresponsible no nothing twats when the manager gets it wrong.

[Risso]

...

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.

That would be true if we weren't still massively insolvent.  We are though.

[Banganappa]

So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.

[Concrete John]

It's not revisionism.  What they got wrong they got wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge what they also get right.

[Banganappa]

It's not revisionism.  What they got wrong they got wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge what they also get right.

Exactly, and at least they are trying and have as far as I can see always tried to push the club on.They also put their hands up when they got it wrong and did something about it.

[Mister E]

It's not revisionism.  What they got wrong they got wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge what they also get right.

As I said earlier PF has not been in role for the whole of the RL era and is learning on the job.
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 he has 'got it'.

I can understand that others have a more cynical view of the last three years.

[dave.woodhall]

Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.

I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.

[Risso]

So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.

We've just got rid of a far worse manager than O'Leary, just in case the past 12 months has passed you by completely.

[Risso]

Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.

I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.

Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt.  Then you would, and have.

[dave.woodhall]

Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.

I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.

Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt.  Then you would, and have.

Could you please explain what you mean here?

[Risso]

Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.

I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.

Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt.  Then you would, and have.

Could you please explain what you mean here?

You've accused people of not saying a bad word about the owners for the first three years, then changing their minds when it all goes wrong. 

[Banganappa]

So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.

We've just got rid of a far worse manager than O'Leary, just in case the past 12 months has passed you by completely.

Passed me by? I think you must have a short memory - O Leary took us to 16th in his last season so did McLeish. They were both crap. At least the last incumbent did not blame the fans!

[dave.woodhall]

Good going getting Lambert in, but there have been massive balls ups up to now and personally, i'm not ready to join the revisionism crowd just yet.

I wouldn't call changing an opinion because of subsequent events 'revisionism'.

Apart from when the subsequent events are bad ones of course, like being tens of millions in debt.  Then you would, and have.

Could you please explain what you mean here?

You've accused people of not saying a bad word about the owners for the first three years, then changing their minds when it all goes wrong. 

Yes, but the difference is that most of the criticism they give is because of actions they fully supported at the time. As has been pointed out above, nobody was questioning the money spent on players during the O'Neill years, yet overspending is now the main condemnation of Randy's ownership.   

[Risso]

So would you prefer we were back in the days of Doug with a prudently run solvent football club, with the likes of O'Leary in charge and no prospect of any change unless we were fortunate enough to stumble on the next David Moyes who can run a club on a shoestring but still turn in a performance - seems like clutching at straws.

We've just got rid of a far worse manager than O'Leary, just in case the past 12 months has passed you by completely.

Passed me by? I think you must have a short memory - O Leary took us to 16th in his last season so did McLeish. They were both crap. At least the last incumbent did not blame the fans!

I've no wish to defend O'Leary, but his record in English football is a lot better than McLeish's.  He took us to 6th as well, which is our glass ceiling for most of the last 20 years.