Paul Faulkner: Is He Delivering?

[rob_bridge]

Going back to the original point, I can't remember exactly when he was appointed as CEO (3 years ago?) or when he joined Villa and apparently came with a degree of influence (longer?).

I will exclude him from what went before as I feel Lerner did not exert the correct level of control over the Ulster Jack Russell, not that many were moaning on here about the lavish spending (although some questioned some of the personnel being recruited).

Faulkner did oversee:

1) Two disastrous, not to mention divisive managerial appointments - the second one of which was (in footballing or business context) unbelieveable. These cost the club best part of £10 million and one of them wasn't even ready to start the job on time! That was sheer ineptitude - no other description.

This has been tempered by rectifying at the earliest practical opportunity a replacement which seems to merit a very positive consensus from the fans, not seen since BFR and MON - though not quite with the profile those 2 gave use.

We have to wait the result of this appointment.

2) Off field he appears to have increased revenues - however not sure what the original targets were and how they compare to similar clubs in terms of sponsorship deals etc and where they are in terms of renewal cycles - say Everton, Spurs, Sunderland and Newcastle (accepting there are some variations in match day revenues). Anyone have these details?N.B. and only for context Man U signed a £40m deal for their training kit sponsorship.

3) The wage bill has reduced substantially and I assume that was part of his remit to move deadwood towards the door. We were pissing money up the wall and are down to emptying the remaining contents of a very bloated bladder - take note Collins, Dunne, Warnock and possibly CNZ. However this was done see Point 1 with what amounted to wasting money on managerial appoitntments and 2 relegation battles.

So and I am a hard task master (and it isn't an easy job but he gets well remunerated for it) I'd give him 3.5 - 4 out of 10 which is a lot more than just after the appointment of TSM. If anyone can advise on comparable spon

The Lambert appointment has bought him time though if he (and most of us) turn out to be wrong, he will rightly be judged as someone who was out of his depth.

[not3bad]

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.

I think this still is the acid test.  To make a successful football team you have to get the right players in and get them playing the right way.  The difference now is that we are more aware that backing must be sustainable, and if the board can make adequate funds available to Paul Lambert to strengthen the squad without putting Villa into further financial trouble, it will be evidence that they are doing their job.

[Dave Cooper please]

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.

Probably, but do you accept that if we weren't owned by a billionaire we still wouldn't be bust because we wouldn't have had millions to waste trying to get that fabled Champions League spot.

We had a go, it failed because they put all their faith in O'Neill and trusted that he knew what he was doing with Randy's Millions, as did most of the rest of us if we are being honest.
Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.

[Banganappa]

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 foreseeable future.
[/quote] I think you're very much in a minority then. Yes, on football grounds Heskey has always polarised views, but in the first season or two both Dunn and Collins were immense for us. I suggest almost no one thought we'd paid too much either up front or as wages.
Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.

[Risso]

Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.

The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off.  There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best.  So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years.  There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.

[Drummond]

My view isn't revisionist.

Faulkner can't be held responsible for everything crap, much of what he inherited is poor.

I'm saying that actually, at the moment, he's doing well.

Sponsorship, Manager, Kit, FA Council. It's good, could be great, could work out badly, but it's refreshing and movign the right way.

McLeish was a bad idea and Faulkner has to take some responsibility for that, however, it's rectified.

[Banganappa]

Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.

The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off.  There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best.  So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years.  There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.

I think you are being unrealistic and unfair. Yes it is a business, but it's not a case of "I make and sell widgets, therefore if I do more of it successfully I'm confident I'll turn a bigger profit". It's about football matches, and you can lose them.  Therefore the successful clubs are the ones who chuck money at the problem and are able to sustain it through thick and thin.The alternative is almost to do nothing and cling on. It's very difficult to advocate the middle ground and almost impossible to avoid hindsight.

[not3bad]

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.

How do you think Newcastle fans were feeling about their prospects of staying up, let alone achieving what they did achieve in the league 12 months ago?  Not saying I expect Paul Lambert to replicate those achievements next season, but it does show that even in this modern, money obsessed, cynical age, football is, in many ways, still a "funny old game".

[N'ZMAV]

Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.

The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off.  There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best.  So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years.  There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.

Maybe Lerner and Faulkner didn't know enough about Football and Footballers?

[Risso]

Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.

The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off.  There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best.  So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years.  There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.

I think you are being unrealistic and unfair. Yes it is a business, but it's not a case of "I make and sell widgets, therefore if I do more of it successfully I'm confident I'll turn a bigger profit". It's about football matches, and you can lose them.  Therefore the successful clubs are the ones who chuck money at the problem and are able to sustain it through thick and thin.The alternative is almost to do nothing and cling on. It's very difficult to advocate the middle ground and almost impossible to avoid hindsight.

So, you think there isn't a sensible middle ground between doing nothing, and going on ridiculous unsustainable spending sprees?

[pauliewalnuts]

Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.

It was an interesting situation.

I think he'd definitely reached his achievement ceiling, but then again, it's really hard to suggest he should have been sacked - he certainly didn't do anything to deserve that (not suggesting he was sacked, incidentally).

[Steve R]

...
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.

That may or may not be be where are today in absolute terms, but if you are judging Faulkner's tenure you have to compare where we are now to where we were then.

We have survived the millstone of having a lot poor players on fat contracts plus the departure of many of the better players without having sacrificed the ability to regenerate.

Look at what really did for Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday etc etc.

We haven't had to let good players go for peanuts, we are still in the PL, we can still attract reasonable sponsorship. There's even a bit of a feelgood factor returning - apparently reflected in ST sales.

I am not saying Faulkner is responsible for all this - in truth, the main reason we have survived is that our owner has also been our de facto banker.

Nevertheless, the case for arguing that Faulkner has done a poor job is not as clear cut many would have it.

Getting to where we are today compared to the depth of shite we were in may well turn out to be a bigger achievement than getting 6th place in the league by throwing container loads of cash at journeymen footballers.

[Banganappa]

Didn't O'Neil always maintain he had a good relationship with the board, and we heard constantly about the "5 year plan". I don't recall too many saying it was a crock of shit or we were muddling through on a shit or bust basis? I'm afraid I share your skepticism as to our future prospects, but Lambert is a risk like all appointments and hopefully it is a good one. The point is that if it does not work out, it will have been well meant; was an appointment that many other prudent clubs would have made and does not make the guy whose call it was a complete tosser.

The General was maintaining that O'Neill had an excellent relationship with Lerner almost up until the very day that O'Neill stropped off.  There are of course no guarantees in business, all you can do is your best.  So I agree that Lambert is probably about the best appointment that they they could have made this summer, but I don't agree about the general spending over the years.  There were enough warning signs early on, but Lerner kept on chucking money at O'Neill way past the point he should have realised he couldn't afford it.

I think you are being unrealistic and unfair. Yes it is a business, but it's not a case of "I make and sell widgets, therefore if I do more of it successfully I'm confident I'll turn a bigger profit". It's about football matches, and you can lose them.  Therefore the successful clubs are the ones who chuck money at the problem and are able to sustain it through thick and thin.The alternative is almost to do nothing and cling on. It's very difficult to advocate the middle ground and almost impossible to avoid hindsight.

So, you think there isn't a sensible middle ground between doing nothing, and going on ridiculous unsustainable spending sprees?

No not at all, but I am saying it is by far the most difficult route. If you haven't got Russian Oil money or Arab Oil money but you do have some cash (actually a lot of cash just not an inexhaustible amount) it is more finely balanced between success and failure, where the consequences of failure are often you drop like a stone past where you started from. You are expecting them to foresee all of these pitfalls and call them accurately, where as I think they are due credit for having a go, and being let down by their professionals.

[Dave Cooper please]

Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.

It was an interesting situation.

I think he'd definitely reached his achievement ceiling, but then again, it's really hard to suggest he should have been sacked - he certainly didn't do anything to deserve that (not suggesting he was sacked, incidentally).

Maybe give him the year's notice his rolling contract needed? "Better than 6th next season or your out Martin." He would soon have thrown his toys and fucked off!
Nah, you're right, he was pretty much untouchable back then even though there were some of us questioning whether he could ever finish higher, or even ever win in March. I do remember saying though that the time to replace a manager for a better one is when you are on the up or at the height of what he is capable of rather than on the way back down.

[Banganappa]

Their main failing in my eyes was not spotting at least six months to a year earlier that O'Neill had plataued and just wasn't going to make it.

It was an interesting situation.

I think he'd definitely reached his achievement ceiling, but then again, it's really hard to suggest he should have been sacked - he certainly didn't do anything to deserve that (not suggesting he was sacked, incidentally).

In my view and I suspect a fair few who follow the Villa, he reached his achievement ceiling as a football manager, where as I suspect many in the press and professional punditry would disagree and contend that the club bottled it and he was limited by their lack of ambition.