The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[pauliewalnuts]

We've so far signed a free transfer and are rumoured to be about to sign one player, I'm not really sure that's a reflection on Tom Fox more than a realisation we have to sign better players.

One thing I will say - when he came, we heard a lot about his role in Arsenal's sponsorship deals (Emirates and Puma).

How big do we think the Quickbooks deal will be?

Also, Faulkner oversaw a managerial sacking as well. Lerner is dim but he's not dim enough not to have noticed the crushing requirement for a change of manager. Fox might have made the decision, but even then, he did so just in the nick of time, in a season we wound up finishing 17th.

Like I said, I am not going to pile into him for stuff he's not had the chance to change, but I am also not going to start recognising the progress made under him until we actually see more evidence of it.

[silhillvilla]

Re Tom Fox, ultimately he made the call in Feb to pull the trigger on Lambert, he appointed sherwood , a very ballsy move IMHO, we stayed up when we had no right to .
Season 1 in that respect Tom Fox has been a success.

[Villa in Denmark]

Unless you've get Chelsea or Man City money behind you, it doesn't matter who you've got bankrolling you over a certain level.

I personally wouldn't be to upset if Randy stays if the progress Tom Fox seems to be making continues.

Other than the potential for a "hairdresser" option, my biggest concern with a change of ownership would be that they canned Fox and we ended with another 12 months of someone getting their feet under the desk and reorganising the way the commercial side of things is set up again.

I am not going to lay into Fox until he gives us a reason to, so in that sense, he's good with me, but I don't really see how there is particular evidence that he is making progress.

Is there?

Strikes me there's nothing to suggest he's fucking it up, but nothing to suggest he's doing particularly well thus far.

Maybe it's just my perception, but didn't go through the whole club making various changes and filling posts that we (as a club) hadn't even thought about such as commercial director, basically giving us a structure that was more fit for purpose for the way Randy had said he wanted it run (i.e. he wanted to be hands off).

Then there was the not insignificant achievement of persuading / convincing (or hopefully just telling) Randy that his best mate was getting the sack.

I wasn't convinced by Sherwood's appointment, but the way it all went through quickly and the way the support team and assistants was put in place around him was by our recent standards impressive.

I'm not saying he's the puppies plums, but he has an air of competence about him,and after the last 4-5 years god knows we need some of that.

[pauliewalnuts]

But none of the above really suggests anything about how well he's doing the job.

[silhillvilla]

But none of the above really suggests anything about how well he's doing the job.

? He sacked Lambert ,  appointed a new guy, we stayed up ! Not sure what's not to like

[dave.woodhall]

But none of the above really suggests anything about how well he's doing the job.

? He sacked Lambert ,  appointed a new guy, we stayed up ! Not sure what's not to like

He should have sacked him a lot earlier.

[pauliewalnuts]

But none of the above really suggests anything about how well he's doing the job.

? He sacked Lambert ,  appointed a new guy, we stayed up ! Not sure what's not to like

We finished 17th.

I'm not going to start bigging up anyone at the club for that. That's disgraceful.

[silhillvilla]

But none of the above really suggests anything about how well he's doing the job.

? He sacked Lambert ,  appointed a new guy, we stayed up ! Not sure what's not to like

He should have sacked him a lot earlier.

I don't disagree, better late than never though. He probably shouldn't have sanctioned the 4 year deal for Lambert either. Bottom line though we stayed up when we looked truly dead and buried.

[Villa in Denmark]

I'd say it at least suggests he's got the right ideas.

To turn something like the mess we've been (are?) in around was never going to be a quick job.

It will probably 2-3 years from now before we really know.  I just have a feeling that for the first time in Randy's tenure, there's someone at the club who's business savvy and looking at putting some proper foundations down, instead of trying to do just enough to not get sacked, or spending money like he was reliving Brewster's Millions

[dave.woodhall]

But none of the above really suggests anything about how well he's doing the job.

? He sacked Lambert ,  appointed a new guy, we stayed up ! Not sure what's not to like

He should have sacked him a lot earlier.

I don't disagree, better late than never though. He probably shouldn't have sanctioned the 4 year deal for Lambert either. Bottom line though we stayed up when we looked truly dead and buried.

Which we wouldn't if Lambert had been sacked when he should have been.

[silhillvilla]

In February when we lost 0-2 at hull, we'd scored 12 league goals in 6 months !!
I'm still not sure how we are still in the premier league.

[Villa in Denmark]

But none of the above really suggests anything about how well he's doing the job.

? He sacked Lambert ,  appointed a new guy, we stayed up ! Not sure what's not to like

He should have sacked him a lot earlier.

I don't disagree, better late than never though. He probably shouldn't have sanctioned the 4 year deal for Lambert either. Bottom line though we stayed up when we looked truly dead and buried.

I guess we'll never know the details, but I'd be surprised if the new contract for Lambert wasn't top of his "things to do for Randy" list when he took the job, for no good reason other than I know it happens in large organisations, where a new manager arrives and spends the first two months doing precious little other than get such a list sorted.

No one taking on a job like that would have handed Lambert a new contract after 4 games, precisely to avoid looking like a prat 6 months later.

Once that was done he had to back him as far as he dared. I don't think anyone would have complained if he'd been potted after Christmas, but we don't know how much back and forth there was between Fox and Lerner over the weeks before he did get the chop.

It might well have come down to a "it's him or me" type conversation. (all hypothetical I accept)

[pauliewalnuts]

Again, all of that ^^^ is fair enough, but I'd suggest none of it points towards progress made under Fox.

[ciggiesnbeer]

We've so far signed a free transfer and are rumoured to be about to sign one player, I'm not really sure that's a reflection on Tom Fox more than a realisation we have to sign better players.

One thing I will say - when he came, we heard a lot about his role in Arsenal's sponsorship deals (Emirates and Puma).

How big do we think the Quickbooks deal will be?

Also, Faulkner oversaw a managerial sacking as well. Lerner is dim but he's not dim enough not to have noticed the crushing requirement for a change of manager. Fox might have made the decision, but even then, he did so just in the nick of time, in a season we wound up finishing 17th.

Like I said, I am not going to pile into him for stuff he's not had the chance to change, but I am also not going to start recognising the progress made under him until we actually see more evidence of it.

Eh, fair enough on most of those points I guess we will wait and see. One thing though, Faulkner did oversee Mcleishes*  sacking but he also hired him, so that is an extra ding on him I reckon


*I have given up trying to spell his name right, he is not worth the effort

[saunders_heroes]

We won't make progress till we start spending big money on decent players. Staying in the PL by the skin of our teeth is not progress no matter what Tom Fox may do. It's money we need.