hippo

Im going to state here and now I think TS is a disaster waiting to happen.

In 3 months he moved us up 1 place in the league. Mainly due to Benteke finding his scoring boots and Burnley beating Hull. Along the way he appears to have alientated Guzan, Gil , Cissokho  - we don't have enough money to discard such players....

 

TS is right though, it is obvious to anybody looking at our club that the players we have are just not good enough, there is no fight, no passion, he did not say they were losers he said the have a loser mentality, too many times have we seen sloppy passing, lack of tracking players, bad marking,walking round the pitch, we have to get players who refuse to lose, will put their body on the line to get points, we just have no fight or movement, TS as manager takes the blame for this, why should it be his fault if players do not follow simple instructions or put the effort in. It has gone on for too long and it needs to change.

He is right. I don't think anybody has disagreed with that.

 

But there's a difference between thinking something and publicly stating something. I don't think it's the most motivating tactic to call the players losers and tell some of them they'll never play for Villa again days before a cup final.

 

Good enough for what ?

I think that squad is capable of more than 4th bottom.  Look what an organised defence has done for WBA , Palace.

Is that a quote? Where did you hear that?

No it was just on WM that he had ruled making wholesale changes. To be fair to TS thats probably what he meant all along.

Well Andy Gray's son seems to think something is in pipeline not sure how reliable he is though.

I wonder if that might be more to do with the new chairman rather than a takeover.

IMO Randy has dropped enough hints not to expect a takeover soon, I don't beleive its anywhere near myself.

Saying on the radio this morning he has backtracked - theres not going to be wholesale changes, its only the fringe players that he will move on. For me Cissokho, Guzan, Gil, could all still play a part - Madness !

I think the first question when employing a new coach should be 'Can he organise a defence' , Sherwood clearly can't - do we make that call now or wait November \ December ?

You want a winning mentality ? looking at the coaching staff - that Robson geezer had a run 0 wins from 15 matches whilst briefly in charge of Barnet ! - If he started talking to me about a winning mentality I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face - what must the players think ?

 

 

 

Well Charlie Wijeratna was brought in, in February. Maybe this was with a view to eventually making Fox chairman. Although I suspect nothing will change really save for his job title.

 

Is the CEO not the guy who runs the club?  Is the chairman not the face of the club?  Just wondering would fox not be better staying in his current role as it is more important?

 

 

Yes Im sure he would be thrilled at having someone promoted over his head.

What has Tom Fox actually done at Aston Villa thats so great anyway ? he had no option to but to sack Lambert then recuited the easiest available option, hardly a great visionary is he ?

 

The CEO is the most important person within an organisation. The Chairman, invariably is a non-executive director. If the Principles of the Corporate Governance Code are followed, the role of a Chairman is as follows:

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-8215

 

The chairman

The chairman leads the board, sets its agenda and ensures it is an effective working group at the head of the company. He must promote a culture of openness and debate and is responsible for effective communication with shareholders (but note the role of the senior independent director as well. (See:Composition and structure of the board, an OUT-LAW guide.) And he must ensure that all board members receive accurate, timely and clear information.

The Code says the roles of chairman and chief executive should not be held by the same person.

“There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company between the running of the board and the executive responsibility for the running of the company’s business. No one individual should have unfettered powers of decision” – main principle A.2.

The chairman may not always be a part-time non-executive: many are full time and describe themselves as executive chairman, but the roles of chairman and CEO are at least distinct. In addition to the responsibilities described above, the chairman ensures there is a good working relationship between the executive and non-executive directors and sufficient time to discuss strategic issues.

By contrast, the chief executive has responsibility for the day to day management of the company and putting into effect the decisions and policies of the board.

Any big public company combining the roles of chairman and CEO will have to persuade shareholders that the right checks and balances are in place. (See the case study on Marks & Spencer below).

Equally to be frowned upon, according to the Code, is the previously widespread practice of a chief executive stepping up to become chairman of the same company. Those against the practice argue that a new chief executive is going to have a next to impossible job if his predecessor stays as chairman, constantly looking over his shoulder and perhaps disagreeing with any departure from past policies. Those in favour sing  the praises of a chairman who may have years of experience with the company, still has much to offer and who is quite capable of establishing a good working relationship with a new CEO.

The Code does concede that in exceptional cases the rule may be broken. Any board in breach should consult major shareholders in advance and set out its reasons for the appointment, both at the time and in the next annual report. Banks, in particular, have argued that only the incumbent CEO has the knowledge and experience of a large, multinational group’s operations to fulfil the chairman’s role.

This view received some indirect backing from the Walker Report, which argued for a greater emphasis on relevant industry experience among non-executive directors. And much play was made of the fact that of the three UK banks that failed in 2007–2008, RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock, none had a chairman with a banking background. In contrast, the chairmen of HSBC and Standard Chartered, which emerged relatively unscathed from the banking crisis, were lifetime bankers (and both had stepped up from the chief executive role).

Case study: How Marks and Spencer got its way

Marks & Spencer is a rare case of a major company where the roles of chairman and chief executive have been combined.

In 2008, the chief executive, Sir Stuart Rose, was handed the chairman’s job as well – in contravention of principle A.2. Shareholders muttered that this was contrary to the Code, but the company stressed that the roles would be split again when Sir Stuart retired in 2011. In the meantime, the new chairman’s dominance would be counterbalanced by the senior independent director, who was given special responsibility for governance issues.

When a resolution was tabled at the July 2009 AGM calling forthe early appointment of an independent chairman, it received an unusually high level of support, from 38 per cent of voting shareholders, but 62 per cent backed the board, and Sir Stuart remained in place. Despite that, a new chief executive joined in early 2010, and the roles were once again separated.

 

Jeremy Peace is chairman of the albion - he runs the show - Likewise Ashley at Newcastle.

If you own a business, you can have staff employed calling them what you want, and performed tasks roles you state. What you have quoted would seem to be best practice guidelines.

 

Can I just add a comment on the Tom Fax love in....he game Lambert a 4 year contract essensually because of 3 wins in 4 games, let him run amok without an assistant or decent coaching staff for months, and sacked Lambert just in time.

Didn't Mr Fox say the Lambert contract was already being discussed before he took over?

 

He did. But if youre CEO of multi million pound business and you see something wrong, you have to act, you can't just sit idly by and play 'Im new here', it doesn't cut it at that level.

Im convinced Fox will move on in the not to distant future..

One thing I will say, I doubt Fox would have ever have given a job to Mcleish.

99% of the footballing world wouldn't have chosen Mcleish as AVFC manager. Im not against Tom Fox, but as of now I don't get what he has done at Villa, that he is held in such high regard. If were giving him credit for Sherwood, then the CEO's of Sunderland, Crystal Palace, WBA must absolute genuises .....

 

 

If Faulkner was still here instead of Fox, he'd have probably appointed Sherwood as well.

 

You're joking with that right?

 

 

Why would I be joking? Giving the job to Sherwood wasn't such an amazing out the box decision that Faulkner wouldn't have possibly have thought of it, it was the most obvious move to make.

 

Nah, only super guru Tom Fox knew of Sherwood

It's not so much sacking lambert and bringing in sherwood, it's next month when the dafabet deal ends we'll get to see if fox can work his magic, to be fair to Faulkner he had us punching above our weight I'm expecting fox to do even more

Thats the key word 'Expecting'

 

Well Charlie Wijeratna was brought in, in February. Maybe this was with a view to eventually making Fox chairman. Although I suspect nothing will change really save for his job title.

 

Is the CEO not the guy who runs the club?  Is the chairman not the face of the club?  Just wondering would fox not be better staying in his current role as it is more important?

 

Yes Im sure he would be thrilled at having someone promoted over his head.

What has Tom Fox actually done at Aston Villa thats so great anyway ? he had no option to but to sack Lambert then recuited the easiest available option, hardly a great visionary is he ?

 

My god that doesn't very promising at all, it reads to me like a hell of a lot of unpopular decisions are going to be made, and Randy doesn't want to be associated with them. References to swansea and southampton are worrying (well run, but much smaller clubs than Aston Villa).

The new chairman thing is totally bizzare, as he conceeds Tom Fox runs the show, so tom Fox is either going to have his wings clipped, leave, or be promoted to chairman, given the rate Lerner gets through CEO'S and the low profile of Fox, I reckon his days are numbered.

Sure he dangles the carrot of sale, to me that just a bit of free advertising before the cup final, it also implies that any talks of a sale are at vert tentative stages - if at all.

Another upheaval, and another relegation struggle next season.

I'm not sure Randy Lerner could make us any less ambitious than we already are. We have to be sold ASAP as we will eventually go down under his ownership.

 

Agree, but it would appear that no one with funds is interested in buying us.

 

 

 

 

On the one hand it seems like good news with Randy confirming interest and talks with a few parties. But on the other, stuff about appointing a chairman if he can't sell us, seems strange considering it seems like Fox is running the show anyway now. Almost feels like we're being braced for a no-sale and all that's going to happen is Fox will be given a new title to placate fans craving for change.

 

If a new chairman is brought in, Tom Fox will depart IMO. He also makes reference to other new board members, Fox looks on very thin ice here.

No he doesn't. The Chairman is just a figure head. Some one where the buck stops. At present that's Lerner but he's not in the UK to be an active one. I bet you couldn't name Arsenals or Chelsea's Chairman but know the owners. Since Fox has been here we have been bringing in more board members people that are experts in their field. If Lerner does stay I can see him bringing in some board members with stronger Villa links.

 

Wait and see Fox will either be chairman or leave.

Seeing as Lerner trusts him he won't be leaving anytime soon under Lerners ownership! I doubt he'll become Chairman as he is a hands on bloke who's just in his first year as CEO but as you say we'll have to wait and see.

 

Lerner historically has got through CEO'S quite quickly.

 

 

On the one hand it seems like good news with Randy confirming interest and talks with a few parties. But on the other, stuff about appointing a chairman if he can't sell us, seems strange considering it seems like Fox is running the show anyway now. Almost feels like we're being braced for a no-sale and all that's going to happen is Fox will be given a new title to placate fans craving for change.

 

If a new chairman is brought in, Tom Fox will depart IMO. He also makes reference to other new board members, Fox looks on very thin ice here.

No he doesn't. The Chairman is just a figure head. Some one where the buck stops. At present that's Lerner but he's not in the UK to be an active one. I bet you couldn't name Arsenals or Chelsea's Chairman but know the owners. Since Fox has been here we have been bringing in more board members people that are experts in their field. If Lerner does stay I can see him bringing in some board members with stronger Villa links.

 

Wait and see Fox will either be chairman or leave.

On the one hand it seems like good news with Randy confirming interest and talks with a few parties. But on the other, stuff about appointing a chairman if he can't sell us, seems strange considering it seems like Fox is running the show anyway now. Almost feels like we're being braced for a no-sale and all that's going to happen is Fox will be given a new title to placate fans craving for change.

If a new chairman is brought in, Tom Fox will depart IMO. He also makes reference to other new board members, Fox looks on very thin ice here.

My god that doesn't very promising at all, it reads to me like a hell of a lot of unpopular decisions are going to be made, and Randy doesn't want to be associated with them. References to swansea and southampton are worrying (well run, but much smaller clubs than Aston Villa).

The new chairman thing is totally bizzare, as he conceeds Tom Fox runs the show, so tom Fox is either going to have his wings clipped, leave, or be promoted to chairman, given the rate Lerner gets through CEO'S and the low profile of Fox, I reckon his days are numbered.

Sure he dangles the carrot of sale, to me that just a bit of free advertising before the cup final, it also implies that any talks of a sale are at vert tentative stages - if at all.

Another upheaval, and another relegation struggle next season.

I think Kendall stands a very good chance now. Wouldn't be surprised to see here made favourite over the next couple of weeks.

just checking around the web, some guys are saying that Percy has backtracked and is now saying nothing is immenent, Does anyone have any info on this ?

mendi was atleast a bit entertaining, get him back

Wot about that Abdul geezer ?  At least everyone knew not to take Mendi seriously, people actually beleived Abdul and his Al batan load of bollox !!!!

Im sure there are better keepers out there - but lets be brutally honest - we are at best aiming for mid table next season - Guzan IMO is good enough for that. To replace him with a better keeper would IMO cost at least £6m , out of a likley budget of say £15m, that money could be better spent.

_{His form seemed to dip after the arrival of sherwood and his new goalkeeping coach - Given offers little if any improvement. If we find a better goalie than guzan 'in budget' then fine - personally I think thats a tall order !}

Think youre all barking up the wrong tree here - The reason labour lost and lost so badly ......Lynton Crosby ! - Never mind the leader - Labour need someone like him....there was a brilliant article which I haven't been able to find since - but some of what he did was:-

Massive polling in the marginal seats (not the 1000 from you gov populus etc)

From this they built up a profile of the 'Don't Knows'

Using this profile on social media, they found out what would influence the don't knows

Then released sound bites accordingly

They even let out a false story that labour was winning the ground war !

They didn't have a national campaign as such, and he wanted to keep the tory's off the front page (let labour make the mistakes) - not all his decisions were popular with the tories (He chaired strategy meetings - even when Cameron was present)

Basically when I read it - you just realise Labour never had a chance, the Labour approach was amatuer by comparision, the tories for example were monitoring social media 24/7 - , the daily briefings started at 5am - ready for 7am as the days news broke - Labour didn't start there strategy meetings until 7am

Crosby is a total proffesional - he goes around the world winning elections for fee - nothing illegal - just an approach labour needs to adopt..

Never said they were but that won't stop the unions from trying to get their preferred candidate (which is presumably Burnham) elected. That said I think unlike Ed, Burnham will probably get the most votes from all parts of the Labour Party.

I don't follow:-

With signficantly fewer voters via union membership  in the leadership contest - how does the union get its preffered candidate ?

Youve then even said that Burnham will probably  get most votes from all sections of the labour party, the conclusion to be drawn is surley that without the votes of the rank and file Labour members the unions wouldn't get their preferred candidate ?

 

 

 

 

...they're the only reason he won...

Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him.

Never said only the unions supported him, just that the unions are the reason he won. All of those groups you mentioned backed David.

 

That's not right. More Unions backed Ed than backed David. More MEPs backed David than Ed and so on - that's snowy's point - Ed wouldn't and couldn't have won, (even if every Union vote went for him), without the other votes from MPs etc. to add on. Total Union votes add up to 1/3 rd of all votes. the other 2/3rds come (came) from MPs and MEPS and party members. I think they've slightly changed it, so the unions have even less say, now.

 

And nor was it my point that Ed only had the backing of the unions and literally nobody else - would've thought that was blatantly obvious.

 

Yeah they have changed it but I doubt that'll stop the unions from trying to get as many people as possible signed up to vote.

 

But each union member who wishes to vote - has to 'opt in' to be an affialite of the Labour party.

By no means are all union members even labour voters, far from it in my experience.