jon_c Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 At the moment it all reminds me of the Family Guy episode, when they say, I was the one that found George Bush after Katrina. And Bush is just hiding behind his desk saying 'I don't wanna come out, don't make me do stuff.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I just don't understand what their rationale was. It was possibly one of the most bizarre managerial appointments in history. Agreed. The fact we tapped him up as well! Like you say one most bizarre appointments ever. Perhaps he was genuinely the only 1 left available. We won't have had a list of candidates any better willing to take charge believe me. Why? Because we are not that good a prospect - especially with the 'cut the wage bill' startegy. The manager is most important position at any club. We appointed a championship , notoriously negative antifotball Bluenose championship manager who has proven a failure twice in Premiership already. We also paid a sizeable ammount of compensation for the privilage. It was one most ridiculous managerial appointments in Premier league history. Its like the club wanted controversy for controversy's sake . His laughable tactics and formations like last night and ppl will be immediately on his back - the board must have known this. Attendances will continue to evaporate with turd football like last night. Like Gary Megson at Bolton , Kean at Blackburn - McWank with us is always going to be a few losses away from chants for the sack. Crap manager , ignores any youngsters , ultra defensive negative antifootball. Heskey is is first choice winger. We would have been better giving the job to Kevin McDonald or appointing Sam Allardyce or Curbishley even than McWank. If we are that bargain bucket. Thing is we actually paid quite a bit to secure the services of McWank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Oh yeah, if they wanted to do it on the cheap why not just promote K Mac? He wouldn't do any worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 There aren't many potential Premiership club owners available, ask an Everton fan to confirm this fact. Apart from the obvious attraction of the really big clubs with all their built in marketing potential, owning a Premiership club is a guaranteed way to lose money. Randy is a decent guy who is doing his best for AVFC in his own somewhat inexperienced way. Would you swap him for the Venky's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 We would have been better giving the job to Kevin McDonald or appointing Sam Allardyce or Curbishley even than McLeish. If we are that bargain bucket. Thing is we actually paid quite a bit to secure the services of McLeish! Agreed. I would have been disappointed with all three but I could have understood them. McLeish, I just can't understand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villarocker Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I will probably be shot for this but I think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened had GH's heart not stopped working for him. Would we have parted company with him? Would Randy have given him money to spend than AM? Would Downing have stayed? etc etc. Something hit home with me last night. Gary Neville who, love him or hate him, seemed to be talking a lot of sense last night. He highlighted that the way to beat the better teams is to build from the back and bring them forward on to you to leave space in behind, something that Villa would surely benefit from with our pacey forwards? Neville was talking about how Chelsea should have continued with this approach despite the mistake by Mikel on Sunday. He said that Swansea also play this way and should continue to do so despite what happened to them on Saturday evening when they lost a goal as a result of a mistake. Even Danny Murphy mentioned that Fulham could see this and were exploiting this in the Spurs team in their game recently. The above made me think back to what Houllier was trying with us last season. The ball was played out from the back much more last season but unfortunately it led to us conceding a lot of possession and ultimately losing goals to it. This is clearly because our players at the back are just not good enough footballers to do this. But, what it does show is that Houllier was still clued up enough to try this tactic, knowing that our main asset was the pace of our forwards. All this highlights more than ever that our defenders are just not good enough footballers and are far too uncomfortable on the ball. So, for the remainder of the season, I think it is inevitable that we will see hoofball more than ever before. My question is, shouldn't we wait and see what kind of quality our manager - whoever that may be - brings in before calling for Randy's head? I am sure Randy would love nothing more than to get rid of these poor and overpaid defenders but I am sure that there is nobody else out there who would part with the same kind of wages for these guys so they are going to stay here and take ours! I say we should wait and see what we replace them with because it won't be long now before they are gone. I just hope that Randy coughs up enough money to find the decent enough quality that we need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm not sure Houllier was the man but that does not make Mcleish the right man either. Terrible judgement from Faulkner and Lerner on both accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I just want the hope back. When MON was appointed, I had real hope and the ride was interesting but it petered out when it was evident that he just didn't have the tactical nous and flexibility to take us that little bit further. Ged would not have been my first choice by a long way and he had some bad luck - no pre-season, severe injuries etc. - but I had hope that I might show us why he was so widely respected as a coach and as a man who could develop young talent. When RL appointed Eck, I lost all hope. This man has never done anything positive in the English game and this, coupled with his BlueNose heritage (2x) and the pressure that brings, was always destined to be a complete failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Because we are not that good a prospect Then surely you can see why people are annoyed with randy if we're now a club that no one half decent wants to manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villarocker Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm not sure Houllier was the man but that does not make Mcleish the right man either. Terrible judgement from Faulkner and Lerner on both accounts. Not saying he was the man either mate, just pointing out that he seemed to be in touch with the modern game, which is more than AM shows me at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Lerwill Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 ...Randy has not had any success with the AVFC accounts. He spent an absolute shitload and our revenue is terrible in comparison. 100% of his appointments have been disastrous so far. Houllier was a head-scratcher, Mcleish even more so (perhaps more like a skull-caver). ... Lerner needs a long-term Director of Football to help AVFC get its shit together if he's gonna stick around. One of the most relevant posts so far. Randy clearly needs a Director of Football with powers. I have intimated that the CEO should be a football man, but a DofF probably makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm happy for his to be the owner, to continue to improve, to work to make the club better and stronger and so on. His motives are good, his ethos is good and whilst all is not well, neither is everything in the sort of mess it was when he took over. We've taken about 4 steps forward and then a couple of steps back. Completely disagree, Pete, completely and utterly. I don't think Lerner's motives extend past it being a vanity project that he underestimated the costs of, with probably a faint hope that there's be some huge new TV deal that would double our income. He also charged a fair amount in management charges and interest on the loans from the family trust. And in terms of improvment, I don't think the squad is any better than when he took over, and if anything, Lerner and Faulkner are actually far worse at the actual business side of running a football club than Ellis and Stride were. Ellis actually appointed some terrific managers and indeed suggested O'Neill to Lerner. Lerner has appointed Houllier and McLeish, and has to pay compensation for all of them. Then there have been all the gaffes over kits, sponsors and so on. I'm sorry but when it comes to sports ownership, Lerner hasn't got a clue. That's fine. Each to their own, etc. Obviously, there's more than an element of truth in your analysis - for example it being a vanity project that he underestimated the costs of, with probably a faint hope that there's be some huge new TV deal that would double our income that seems to be the case for most owners -they get involved either to hope to make money, or for publicity or just because they're loaded and want a toy. There's few now who grew up as a lad in the shadow of the ground, went away and made their fortune selling clog nails and come back to their old home town and build a new Shoe-mender Dome for their club. So yeah , probably Villa was the equivalent of buying a nice sports car. But that's, to me, neither a mark for or against. It's just a situation of little or no relevance. Of more improtance is how much care he takes of his "sports car" - for me the evidence is overwhelming - the facilities and so on are way way better than when he bought the club. OK they don't kick the ball, but they do help get fitter better players, better youth development, better fan facilities, better revenue. Dull but important. Of course, you're right too about He also charged a fair amount in management charges and interest on the loans from the family trust. Again, to me, he's not profiting from the club, not taking money out for himself. The opposite is true. Some of the charges are a concern, some of the dates for reppayment are a concern, and that's why the plan to get the club running on an even keel is important. It's all I ever wanted, anyway. You're right too that the way some of the money borrowed/put in was spent was a mistake. On the player wages thing and the comparison with Spurs, it was enlightening to see that MO'N recently got an apology out of the Guardian for them saying much the same. He got the spology because he said his responsibility ended with player wages, and that these wer 63 million. So although the overall bill was 73 or 76 (I forget) million, over 10 million was going on other wages (pay-offs for people? - I dunno, but I'd like to). So yes, mistakes were made on wages, chasing a dream. I agree on Managers and accept the point on sponsors etc. though also think the likes of the Acorns deal should very much count in Randy's favour. It's not, to my eyes, anywhwere as extreme as your view. There's been good and some bad to my way of thinking. Slaughtering the Chairman or praising him to the hilt - neither are appropriate or valid at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 ...Randy has not had any success with the AVFC accounts. He spent an absolute shitload and our revenue is terrible in comparison. 100% of his appointments have been disastrous so far. Houllier was a head-scratcher, Mcleish even more so (perhaps more like a skull-caver). ... Lerner needs a long-term Director of Football to help AVFC get its shit together if he's gonna stick around. One of the most relevant posts so far. Randy clearly needs a Director of Football with powers. I have intimated that the CEO should be a football man, but a DofF probably makes sense. John, I certainly agree with your sentiment. I would love to see a CEO with CEO experience (successful in terms of growing revenues and profitability - I accept that the latter is not a concept that really features in football) in a £100m turnover ('ish) niche consumer business (ideally in lesiure/entertainment but I could accept outside if there was no candidates). I would accompany this with a board that had a CFO that was not a colourless crony of the owner, a commercial director (focused on revenue generation) and a strong PR/marketing/Comms executive (focused on liaison with the paying public and the media). In addition, I would include the following: - a non-exec/part time exec with footballing expertise that could be called upon in an advisory capacity; and - as an occasional member (quarterly board meetings possibly) a fans representative like Fear or someone of that ilk that would chair a broader fan based committee that would meet monthly and bring the fans views/ideas to the board table and provide a link. I would think this to be the ideal board structure for a forward thinking football club that wanted to grow and go forward in a fast moving and difficult industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 22, 2011 How much of this would have happened without Randy? How does this make him clueless? free coaches to Sunderland and Chelsea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Lerwill Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I would love to see a CEO with CEO experience (successful in terms of growing revenues and profitability - I accept that the latter is not a concept that really features in football) in a £100m turnover ('ish) niche consumer business (ideally in lesiure/entertainment but I could accept outside if there was no candidates). I would accompany this with a board that had a CFO that was not a colourless crony of the owner, a commercial director (focused on revenue generation) and a strong PR/marketing/Comms executive (focused on liaison with the paying public and the media). In addition, I would include the following: - a non-exec/part time exec with footballing expertise that could be called upon in an advisory capacity; and - as an occasional member (quarterly board meetings possibly) a fans representative like Fear or someone of that ilk that would chair a broader fan based committee that would meet monthly and bring the fans views/ideas to the board table and provide a link. I would think this to be the ideal board structure for a forward thinking football club that wanted to grow and go forward in a fast moving and difficult industry? Bloomin' 'eck, what you've just outlined is near to what was running through my thoughts!! I feel very strongly that there ought to be fans' representation - but I fear (gulp!) that JF is probably too close to PF for that to work properly. An elected fans' representation would surely be a nice tweek to your excellent suggestion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 How much of this would have happened without Randy? How does this make him clueless? free coaches to Sunderland and Chelsea Small instances of succes IMO don't make someone great. Is DOL a great manager because he took Leeds to the champions league semi final? While the training ground is important it's hardly a skill, it's a rich man spending his money. Any idiot winning the lottery can do the same. The holte pub means nothing to me, looks nice on match days but how does it help us as a competitive sports team? His dire control of finances and two shocking managerial appointments for me take a lot away from the small things that have been quite good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 22, 2011 No they don't, you're right. But someone as clueless as has been suggested wouldn't have delivered what has been 4 years out of 5 and a bit of the Club doing well and growing etc. My point being that yes he's made errors, money hasn't always been well spent and managerial choices have been "unfortunate" but now the world's changed financially and in the football landscape we shouldn't ignore the real evidence of the good as well as the bad.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 At the moment it all reminds me of the Family Guy episode, when they say, I was the one that found George Bush after Katrina. And Bush is just hiding behind his desk saying 'I don't wanna come out, don't make me do stuff.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Slaughtering the Chairman or praising him to the hilt - neither are appropriate or valid at this point. Exactly, I dont see why Randy has to be labelled as an amazing owner or a terrible one when in reality he isnt either and as you say has done a lot of good but also made some bad decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houllierout Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I love the pictures above... makes him look great.... shall i post some of when doug won us actual cups then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts