Paul Faulkner: Is He Delivering?

[Risso]

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.

The amounts overspent have been huge though.  You'd have a point if we'd had to retrench slightly, sold a player or two and finished 8th or 9th.  But the decline has been absolutely atrocious, from being a lot of people's "second" team for a while, to being the team that most people wanted to see relegated last season, stripped of all its good players.  As for being "let down by their professionals" they are the directors of the club as I keep saying.  By far Lerner's biggest mistake was putting too much faith in O'Neill, and while we're on about mentioning things at the time, I was saying O'Neill had too much power and had spent too much money ages before he left, which was about as popular a view on here as a hippy at a BNP rally.

[paul_e]

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?

This is the key to everything.  I actually think what went wrong is Lerner tried to apply a lot of american sport principals to football and genuinely didn't know what to do when it didn't work.

As for Faulkner I think he's doing a decent job, I've thought that all along and said so in the massive tsm thread a few months ago.

His job has to be considered as a work in progress, he got the role at a point where we were in an impossible situation and on a road to oblivion, until this point all he's been able to do is try to stabilise.  What we don't know is how long he was given to achieve that task.

I'd suggest that this summer was the target given the amount of big contracts that were running down.  Heskey, cuellar and guzan were all overpaid for what they did and Beye would also have been out of contract had he not left - at a conservative estimate that lot were taking around £170-180k a week to generally sit on the bench, that's the best part of £10m a year for spots that we could fill for 3-4m without much loss in ability.

That's why I think this summer is key.  If he's achieved the goal and, despite the huge recorded loss last year, we're now in a much prettier place thenI'd suggest we'll see higher spending than we're thinking but focused on buying players with more chance of their value increasing.  A 31 year old striker won't increase in value (read this as me thinking there's more chance of us signing ET than there is we'll get Grant Holt), even if he does well, whereas a 24 year old has a good season and becomes significantly more valuable.

This way the derived value of the squad is much more stable and allows for natural 'churn' of the playing squad.

[Banganappa]

...
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.

Agreed. He might be criticised for not being as market savvy as some and piping up with "do you realise how much you are asking me to pay this guy per week" only to be undoubtedly faced with "I need the player, it's what the going rate is to get him, do you back me or not" fundamentally a business decision will run up against a subjective football one, and we clearly went through a period of backing the manager for which people now want to string them up for!

[Banganappa]

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.

The amounts overspent have been huge though.  You'd have a point if we'd had to retrench slightly, sold a player or two and finished 8th or 9th.  But the decline has been absolutely atrocious, from being a lot of people's "second" team for a while, to being the team that most people wanted to see relegated last season, stripped of all its good players.  As for being "let down by their professionals" they are the directors of the club as I keep saying.  By far Lerner's biggest mistake was putting too much faith in O'Neill, and while we're on about mentioning things at the time, I was saying O'Neill had too much power and had spent too much money ages before he left, which was about as popular a view on here as a hippy at a BNP rally.

It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.

[not3bad]

Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell.

This is correct.  It is the manager who stands or falls by the choice of player to bring in.  It's the board's job to provide him with the means.  Where the board failed was when they allowed O'Neill to sort out the contracts as well as choose the players.  But the board cannot be held responsible for the failure of these players to deliver on the pith.

[Risso]

It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.

Only in hindsight?!  Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then.  Ever heard of budgets?  I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Faulkner reminds me a bit too much of Cbeebies Nonce Justin Fletcher.

[Banganappa]

It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.

Only in hindsight?!  Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then.  Ever heard of budgets?  I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.

Very wrong assumption.

It's nothing to do with budgets.

Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"   
I don't think so.

[adrenachrome]

Faulkner reminds me a bit too much of Cbeebies Nonce Justin Fletcher.

Just because you don't like the cut of the chubby-cheeked chap's jib  is no justification for noncifying him Rip Van, ya daft noncifier.

[andrew08]

I think also the board have been over criticised for the good players leaving. I don't think Milner,Young and Barry were sold to balance books,they were just taken off us by better clubs and we would have preferred to have rid ourselves of the other deadwood mentioned above. The Downing incident just confirms what good people they are and confirms they have our club at heart: they honour the contract they offered to an injured player who after 1 good season asks to leave, so they got rid way above market value.Good on em.

[Risso]

It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.

Only in hindsight?!  Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then.  Ever heard of budgets?  I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.

Very wrong assumption.

It's nothing to do with budgets.

Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"   
I don't think so.

Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years?  To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does.  "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money".  It's a really unintelligent argument.

[garyshawsknee]

Faulkner reminds me a bit too much of Cbeebies Nonce Justin Fletcher.

Just because you don't like the cut of the chubby-cheeked chap's jib  is no justification for noncifying him Rip Van, ya daft noncifier.

He reminds me of plenty of Letting agents that i've had to deal with in the past. Too much hair gel,and wearing the latest suit from Burtons.

[Toronto Villa]

It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.

Only in hindsight?!  Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then.  Ever heard of budgets?  I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.

Very wrong assumption.

It's nothing to do with budgets.

Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"   
I don't think so.

Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years?  To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does.  "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money".  It's a really unintelligent argument.

While I agree to a large extent with you, football isn't like a regular business. It is tied up in emotion and the fact that you can get very carried away and influenced by those that are perceived to be experts. I think the point about having a highly reputable manager is valid and that they simply gave him too much rope. All of sudden a few years in, it was a case of "shit what have we done?" when CL football didn't arrive and the finances were way out of line to revenues. We gambled on the big prize as Liverpool have done, and having failed have been paying fopr the consequences. I'm sure with a better understanding of everything we'll attack the same goal in a different manner, much like Newcastle and Spurs have shown that it can be done.

[dave.woodhall]

It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.

Only in hindsight?!  Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then.  Ever heard of budgets?  I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.

Very wrong assumption.

It's nothing to do with budgets.

Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"   
I don't think so.

Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years?  To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does.  "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money".  It's a really unintelligent argument.

It's taken longer than usual, but you've eventually sunk to the usual personal insults you come out with when someone disagrees with you about Randy.   

[Banganappa]

It's only with hindsight that we say it was overspent. Should the board have turned around and said Ashley Young and James Milner will be pure gold you can buy them but you're wasting our money on Davis, Beye and Sidwell. With that sort of intuition they wouldn't need a manager at all. We criticise clubs when they hire and fire every two minutes but now we are having a go when the manager is given a chance and blows it.

Only in hindsight?!  Jesus, I assume you've never been in any sort of business yourself then.  Ever heard of budgets?  I wouldn't expect Lerner to know much about the relative merits of various players, but I would expect him to know how much money he had to spend.

Very wrong assumption.

It's nothing to do with budgets.

Owner says ....."Mr Manager you are a recognised Messiah in your field, here's £35m to spend on players, please spend it wisely and not a penny more"........ 1 year later.....Owner says "Mr Manager you spent my £35m on Emile Heskey and a bunch of other donkeys and we've still only finished 6th again"......Chorus from fans...."The Chairman is a wanker, he didn't budget properly!"   
I don't think so.

Of course it's to do with budgets, or is there another reason for losing £150m over 3 years?  To be honest you're showing the same level of business savvy in this debate as Dave W usually does.  "Lerner's good because he spent lots of money".  It's a really unintelligent argument.

And you're behaving like an accountant. How many times have I sat in a boardroom, agonised and argued about a decision with the financial director not saying a word. You make a decision and trust people to carry it out. Sometimes it doesn't work, and funnily enough it's the bean counter who tells you after the event that it would have been better if you'd done something differently. Trawling through the minutes there's no trace of them saying a word at the time.......

Lerner's not good because he spent lots of money. He and his team have made some mistakes, but they've also made some good decisions and allowed managers to have a go and provided them with funds. He's been let down.