Paul Faulkner: Is He Delivering?

[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.

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

Didn't we have a whole thread(s) about Paul Faulkner previously along the lines of 'What does he actually do' which turned into multiple posts of 'He's a wanker etc'
Not condoning that, but now it's swung to a new topic about how 'he's getting things right', that's a big dose of revisionism to me, I don't recall many defending him when we were up to our necks in shit under McLeish.

Getting Lambert in is hopefully a good move, but let's not forget that our financial situation is poor and that has to be laid at the door of Randy and the CEO.

A lot of hard work needed yet before we start patting him on the back.

[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. 

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.   

Why on earth would you expect fans to know if the current spending plans were sustainable or not?  Anybody questioning whether a billionaire spending £10m on Curtis Davies was sustainable or not would have been laughed off the boards.  We even had a director on here defending the spending, saying it was all part of the plan, and that the losses were expected.  As fans we're not privy to the day to day decisions of the club, we just have to trust that the board knew what they were doing, which they clearly didn't.  There's also criticism for decisions that hardly anybody supported, eg the signings of players like Harewood, Heskey and the appointment of McLeish.

[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'.

Didn't we have a whole thread(s) about Paul Faulkner previously along the lines of 'What does he actually do' which turned into multiple posts of 'He's a wanker etc'
Not condoning that, but now it's swung to a new topic about how 'he's getting things right', that's a big dose of revisionism to me, I don't recall many defending him when we were up to our necks in shit under McLeish.

Getting Lambert in is hopefully a good move, but let's not forget that our financial situation is poor and that has to be laid at the door of Randy and the CEO.

A lot of hard work needed yet before we start patting him on the back.

The financial position (along the lines of should we be worried about owing so much to Randy?) can be argued ad nauseum, but much of the losses are down to contracts signed before Faulkner became CEO, and therefore his responsibility for them is questionable. As for revisionism, praise when due, criticism when necessary. As I explained on a previous post, it's when criticism comes for actions which were previously praised that I find galling. 

[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!

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.

Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

[quote author=dave.woodhall link=topic=47214.msg2073347#msg2073347 As I explained on a previous post, it's when criticism comes for actions which were previously praised that I find galling. 
[/quote]
There's been a lot of galling revisionism on here over the years.

Pre signing Harewood - Shit player.
Post signing Harewood - I can see where O'Neill is coming from, he did have a good season for West Ham

Pre signing Heskey - The butt of nearly every joke on here.
Post signing Heskey - A masterstroke by O'Neill who knows how to get the best out fo him.

General on website - A good conduit to the club, unique and gives us good insider information.
Post General on website - He had no official position with the club, it was only his opinion, like that of an ordinary supporter.

[dave.woodhall]

Why on earth would you expect fans to know if the current spending plans were sustainable or not?  Anybody questioning whether a billionaire spending £10m on Curtis Davies was sustainable or not would have been laughed off the boards.  We even had a director on here defending the spending, saying it was all part of the plan, and that the losses were expected.  As fans we're not privy to the day to day decisions of the club, we just have to trust that the board knew what they were doing, which they clearly didn't.  There's also criticism for decisions that hardly anybody supported, eg the signings of players like Harewood, Heskey and the appointment of McLeish.

Heskey, for one, was not largely criticised.  And if the money hadn't been spent I can just imagine the abuse the board would have got - again, as is said above, even now the criteria for whether Randy is forgiven or not seems to be based around how much is spent during the summer. If we don't buy any new players, will you be praising the board for their financial prudence?

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Maybe somebody can come up with a definitive good and bad list and we can make up our minds from that.

Not me though, i'm a lazy bastard (you'll get one song and one song only)

[Concrete John]

Players like Heskey and Harewood were criticised at the time due to their ability on the pitch and not the sustainability of our finances in light of such deals.  What we then got was the issue of too much wages goning to players not playing, which seemed to come from the club before it was widely discussed on here.  In truth, they saw the warning signs and have tried to fix the problems.  The fact they didn't predict these problems first is partly due to, and I'm just guessing here, a prediction of the income increasing at a greater rate than it did. 

That's the financial balancing of the club, which to me is a separate issue to the poor managerial appointments they made in Houllier and TSM.

[dave.woodhall]

[quote author=dave.woodhall link=topic=47214.msg2073347#msg2073347 As I explained on a previous post, it's when criticism comes for actions which were previously praised that I find galling. 

There's been a lot of galling revisionism on here over the years.

Pre signing Harewood - Shit player.
Post signing Harewood - I can see where O'Neill is coming from, he did have a good season for West Ham

Pre signing Heskey - The butt of nearly every joke on here.
Post signing Heskey - A masterstroke by O'Neill who knows how to get the best out fo him.

General on website - A good conduit to the club, unique and gives us good insider information.
Post General on website - He had no official position with the club, it was only his opinion, like that of an ordinary supporter.

[/quote]

I don't think changing your mind about a player when he signs for your club is particularly noteworthy, or indeed unique to us. As for the general, I can't remember anyone saying he was an ordinary supporter either before or after his appearances on here. 

[Banganappa]

Players like Heskey and Harewood were criticised at the time due to their ability on the pitch and not the sustainability of our finances in light of such deals.  What we then got was the issue of too much wages goning to players not playing, which seemed to come from the club before it was widely discussed on here.  In truth, they saw the warning signs and have tried to fix the problems.  The fact they didn't predict these problems first is partly due to, and I'm just guessing here, a prediction of the income increasing at a greater rate than it did. 

That's the financial balancing of the club, which to me is a separate issue to the poor managerial appointments they made in Houllier and TSM.

Yes and if you think about it, from what is believed, they had the conversation with MoN who then chucked his toys out of the pram leaving them to sort a managerial mess constantly off the back foot with our best players being picked off in the meantime.

[Risso]

Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.

My dispassionate view is that they've mostly done a poor job.  Those 6th placed finishes were based on huge and unsustainable spending that we have paid for over the last two years with two relegation battles and the sale of all of the decent players.  If we weren't owned by a billionaire we'd be bust now.

[dave.woodhall]

If we weren't owned by a billionaire we wouldn't have spent his money.

[Banganappa]

Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.

My dispassionate view is that they've mostly done a poor job.  Those 6th placed finishes were based on huge and unsustainable spending that we have paid for over the last two years with two relegation battles and the sale of all of the decent players.  If we weren't owned by a billionaire we'd be bust now.

And of course you're entitle to that view but can you honestly say that:
1. You were concerned at the time about the level of spending and criticised it.
2. You would have preferred that Randy had not spent the money and not had a tilt at breaking in to the champions league
3. You would prefer things to be as they were, with no prospect of the club going anywhere.

I don't recall anyone saying 1. or 2. and the fact is in the current world, the only alternative to 3. is to spend some money and take a risk, which the board did but fortunately put the brakes on in time.

[Risso]

Which illustrates the point of where this thread has been going. You are prepared to give DoL credit for taking us to 6th but not the current executive (both RL and PF) for supporting managers who have done the same thing 3 times. Yes they appointed a blue nose who far more importantly was a shit football manager. A mistake and they've admitted it. They also sent out an insensitive letter. On balance the good they've done (a significantly longer list) in my view considerably outweighs. I just think people should be more measured, dispassionate and fair in their appraisal.

My dispassionate view is that they've mostly done a poor job.  Those 6th placed finishes were based on huge and unsustainable spending that we have paid for over the last two years with two relegation battles and the sale of all of the decent players.  If we weren't owned by a billionaire we'd be bust now.

And of course you're entitle to that view but can you honestly say that:
1. You were concerned at the time about the level of spending and criticised it.
2. You would have preferred that Randy had not spent the money and not had a tilt at breaking in to the champions league
3. You would prefer things to be as they were, with no prospect of the club going anywhere.

I don't recall anyone saying 1. or 2. and the fact is in the current world, the only alternative to 3. is to spend some money and take a risk, which the board did but fortunately put the brakes on in time.

1) I wasn't in a position to know whether the spending was sustainable or not.  Financial information is reported a year after the event, so it is impossible to assess until then.  However I did question the wisdom of spending so much money on the likes of Heskey, Dunne and Collins considering the amounts already spent, yes.
2) I would have preferred that he had a proper working relationship with O'Neill, or somebody else he could have trusted.  I'd rather that things had been planned properly rather than "shit or bust".
3) While the appointment of Lambert is a good one, the chances of us getting "anywhere" are now slim.  I can't see us qualifying for the Champions League or winning a trophy in the forseeable future.

[Risso]

If we weren't owned by a billionaire we wouldn't have spent his money.

Wasted his money would be a more accurate way of putting it.