The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[Toronto Villa]

just to be clear, you're referring to Randy right?

He made mistakes and spent and lost his own money. It was massively naive of him to back MON as he did without any checks and balances. But it remains a fact he backed him especially and other managers to a level we have never experienced before as a club. Yes, things went hugely shit shaped as he clearly alludes to and he should have got out. But when you are that far in the hole it's probably really hard to just walk away. For me his biggest stain will be TSM as it was totally avoidable and set him and the club back further than he will ever admit or realize.

[Jon Crofts]

He came with the best of intentions,  he made mistakes but he had a go and the money he lost went into the club. I've got no problem with him whatsoever.

I get the sentiment but did the money he lost go into the club?  Or did it go on the ridiculous wages of mediocre players and paying off his unsuccessful managerial appointments? 

[pauliewalnuts]

just to be clear, you're referring to Randy right?

He made mistakes and spent and lost his own money. It was massively naive of him to back MON as he did without any checks and balances. But it remains a fact he backed him especially and other managers to a level we have never experienced before as a club. Yes, things went hugely shit shaped as he clearly alludes to and he should have got out. But when you are that far in the hole it's probably really hard to just walk away. For me his biggest stain will be TSM as it was totally avoidable and set him and the club back further than he will ever admit or realize.

Well, McLeish was awful - I still find it hard to believe anyone thought that was going to work out well, really - but then again, he gave Lambert a four year deal based on five so-so matches at the start of this season, which must be pretty high up there in the utter stupidity stakes.

I think Randy is a thoroughly likeable bloke with good intentions (compare him to that other arse-end-of-table elusive chairman, for example), he just got it badly wrong and went about putting it right again in a pretty dangerous way.

Some of the trouble was other people letting him down - Martin O'Neill being the best example.

Some of it was bad luck - the arrival of money in even huger quantities at Manchester City. The timing of FFP (which we, with Man City and Chelsea, were the only club to vote against)

Some of it was down to poor leadership.

[Dave]

He came with the best of intentions,  he made mistakes but he had a go and the money he lost went into the club. I've got no problem with him whatsoever.

I get the sentiment but did the money he lost go into the club?  Or did it go on the ridiculous wages of mediocre players and paying off his unsuccessful managerial appointments? 

That's still technically going into the club. It's paying bills that the club is responsible for and money that if he weren't personally stumping up then the club would need to find from elsewhere.

[bob]

All this "he's a nice bloke, he will make sure he sells to the right kind of buyer" guff falls down on the basis that it would require Randy to be able to make a good decision, to be a decent judge of character, to choose the right person for the job...

[Chico Hamilton III]

All this "he's a nice bloke, he will make sure he sells to the right kind of buyer" guff falls down on the basis that it would require Randy to be able to make a good decision, to be a decent judge of character, to choose the right person for the job...

Yep, if his managerial appointments are an indicator of his judgement, then we're well and truly fucked.   

[pauliewalnuts]

I wonder if, when Randy does go, we'll have Doug on the telly again rolling out his "yeah, Hicks and Gillet came and offered more money, but I could tell they were massive fucking chancers, then Randy gave me a Browns helmet (f'naar) and I knew he was a good un" story.

[Jimbo]

He'll sell the club to Alex McLeish.

[Dave]

"Alex Ferguson sent me a personal letter saying that he can't think of anybody better to sell the club to than Mike Ashley..."

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The only real negative I can take from that interview is that despite the rumours, it's looking very unlikely we'll be taken over on the 1st of June having already secured our Premier League status.

[Toronto Villa]

The only real negative I can take from that interview is that despite the rumours, it's looking very unlikely we'll be taken over on the 1st of June having already secured our Premier League status.

I guess it's only a negative if having him at the club adversely affects the running of it. I'd sooner he was here with good intention than have it sold to someone just to have it sold. He's backed Sherwood already by investing in a much larger staff than we have had in a very long while, so I hope he will continue to back him in the market.

[kippaxvilla2]

What does Randy stepping down as Chairman actually mean in practice for the day to day running of the club?  Surely as the owner he still has the final say on decisions?

[OCD]

Randy's not been involved in the day-to-day running for some time so no difference whatsoever. Even with Sherwood, it was all Fox's work and Lerner just rubber stamped it.

[pauliewalnuts]

Randy's not been involved in the day-to-day running for some time so no difference whatsoever. Even with Sherwood, it was all Fox's work and Lerner just rubber stamped it.

If that's the case, why is he suggesting that he needs to appoint a chairman?

I'm not arguing either side, btw, just occurs to me that there must be something to do in the role if he thinks it is important.

[OCD]

It sounds like he wants to set-up a full board of directors, not just a Chairman so that would go a lot further and is something we've sorely lacked for too long.