The UnHoly Trinity

[thetrees]

Faulkner's LinkedIn says he became COO of Villa in 2008 - wasn't involved at the club before then

I was aware that Randy Lerner's team were engaging with one or two supporters prior to the takeover, so Pilchard's note that Faulkner was one of 'the team' rings true, and suggests that he has been involved with the club in some form or other since day 1 A.D. (After Doug)

[BOF]

Not sure anyone has actually said Faulkner is doing a good job, just that almost everything negative said about him in this thread is either wrong or speculation, or both. 

The club are getting their transfer deals done smoothly and efficiently. Now don't get me wrong. We can complain about the transfer budget and direct that at Lerner. We can complain about the tactics and direct that at Lambert. But as well as ensuring Lerner's plan is carried out day to day (whatever that plan may be is open to speculation), Paul Faulkner's role is to go and get the transfer deals done that Lambert asks him for. And in that role I think he has done well. We've even been complimented in the past for our professionalism. Something that does warrant a note given how rare it is to hear that kind of thing in the meeja.

[thetrees]

Not sure anyone has actually said Faulkner is doing a good job, just that almost everything negative said about him in this thread is either wrong or speculation, or both. 

The club are getting their transfer deals done smoothly and efficiently. Now don't get me wrong. We can complain about the transfer budget and direct that at Lerner. We can complain about the tactics and direct that at Lambert. But as well as ensuring Lerner's plan is carried out day to day (whatever that plan may be is open to speculation), Paul Faulkner's role is to go and get the transfer deals done that Lambert asks him for. And in that role I think he has done well. We've even been complimented in the past for our professionalism. Something that does warrant a note given how rare it is.

Agreed. He seems to handle both the ins and outs extremely well.

Listening to an articulate Southampton fan on the radio yesterday talking about Cortese. He stated that "he's not a football man" (that mythical object again!), "but he knows how to organise and run a business"

I thought that the same words could be used about Faulkner.

[briny_ear]

Faulkner's LinkedIn says he became COO of Villa in 2008 - wasn't involved at the club before then

But his LinkedIn also shows a gap of 4 years between leaving MBNA in 2004 and becoming COO in 2008. I think I recall him saying somewhere he spent time researching the English football market for Mr Lerner, so it's quite possible he was around AVFC before 2008.

[Zatman]

 

Faulkner's LinkedIn says he became COO of Villa in 2008 - wasn't involved at the club before then

But his LinkedIn also shows a gap of 4 years between leaving MBNA in 2004 and becoming COO in 2008. I think I recall him saying somewhere he spent time researching the English football market for Mr Lerner, so it's quite possible he was around AVFC before 2008.

 

 

maybe he was travelling in them 4 years

[blandy]

Not sure anyone has actually said Faulkner is doing a good job, just that almost everything negative said about him in this thread is either wrong or speculation, or both. 

On the basis that I see no evidence otherwise, (as opposed to speculation, as you point out), I think he's doing OK. If I knew more about what his job involved in a bit more detail, then I'd be able to comment more, but as it is, with no evidence to the counter, and the kind of thing BOF has highlighted, I'll say I'm quite OK with what he's doing. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

The things that concern me are his involvement in the choice of 'Eck as manager. I don't think he's in the clear on that one, personally, I think he was in accord, at least and part of the board that failed to take / ignored advice given.

 

So we get deals done well. He's learnt a great deal, he's by all accounts a decent man, a good man and a human being, not some corporate robot (though he does use a bit of Co. speak at times, perhaps in interviews, but that's part of his background). He's done as well as could be expected, if not better, with commercial deals, and whatever we think of the policy, the wage bill which was clearly a concern for the owner has been reduced significantly, and he's played his part in that.

 

I look at the whole thing like this: Randy takes over the club, throws money at it via MO'N, much of it missed the target, like a Marlon Harewood shot but enough stuck to at least give us a good ride for 4 years. Then when the money ran out, due to the world financial crisis, divorce, the likes of Man City...we've embarked on a painful re-calibration. It's been grim watching and stretched patience and tolerance to the limit. Paying spectators should get more than we've had these last few years.

 

They've (including the managers) to this point just about scraped along at the bottom end of what's acceptable on the pitch, and sometimes fallen below that.

It could go either way, they could wreck things, or they could start back on an upward trend. But if it carries on sinking past this season, or just stays the same, then I don't think they'll have anyone backing them at all.

No miracles required, just clear signs of improvement in results, home performances particularly and evidence the revised financial structure is right for the future.

[thetrees]

Not sure anyone has actually said Faulkner is doing a good job, just that almost everything negative said about him in this thread is either wrong or speculation, or both. 

On the basis that I see no evidence otherwise, (as opposed to speculation, as you point out), I think he's doing OK. If I knew more about what his job involved in a bit more detail, then I'd be able to comment more, but as it is, with no evidence to the counter, and the kind of thing BOF has highlighted, I'll say I'm quite OK with what he's doing. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

The things that concern me are his involvement in the choice of 'Eck as manager. I don't think he's in the clear on that one, personally, I think he was in accord, at least and part of the board that failed to take / ignored advice given.

 

So we get deals done well. He's learnt a great deal, he's by all accounts a decent man, a good man and a human being, not some corporate robot (though he does use a bit of Co. speak at times, perhaps in interviews, but that's part of his background). He's done as well as could be expected, if not better, with commercial deals, and whatever we think of the policy, the wage bill which was clearly a concern for the owner has been reduced significantly, and he's played his part in that.

 

I look at the whole thing like this: Randy takes over the club, throws money at it via MO'N, much of it missed the target, like a Marlon Harewood shot but enough stuck to at least give us a good ride for 4 years. Then when the money ran out, due to the world financial crisis, divorce, the likes of Man City...we've embarked on a painful re-calibration. It's been grim watching and stretched patience and tolerance to the limit. Paying spectators should get more than we've had these last few years.

 

They've (including the managers) to this point just about scraped along at the bottom end of what's acceptable on the pitch, and sometimes fallen below that.

It could go either way, they could wreck things, or they could start back on an upward trend. But if it carries on sinking past this season, or just stays the same, then I don't think they'll have anyone backing them at all.

No miracles required, just clear signs of improvement in results, home performances particularly and evidence the revised financial structure is right for the future.

Good post.

FWIW I think that Faulkner was the driver for McLeish to be appointed, and that it was Mr.Lerner who needed convincing.

Not from any inside knowledge, just a feeling.

[AntrimBlack]

There are so many contradictions in that article that it is embarrassing to read.

 

I won't elaborate as I have neither the time or the inclination.

 

Surely anyone with half a brain would understand the sense of delegation.

 

This is just total anti Randy Lerner propoganda.

 

Agreed. The bias in this article is astounding, so much so that you cannot give credence to anything in it.

[AntrimBlack]

 

Faulkner joined Villa after MON was made manager, did he not? Because MON became manager before Lerner bought the club...

 

Based on that alone, I stopped reading the article, because the rest is likely as ill-researched and ignorant as that key faux pas

Wasn't Fitzgerald at the club before Faulkner?

 

 

Yes, I was surprised he missed him out completely.

Typical of the article as a whole, complete lack of research.

[AntrimBlack]

Well that certainly is a long article, you can say that much for it.

 

Yes. It is a shame that length is not an indication of quality.

[AntrimBlack]

 

Not sure anyone has actually said Faulkner is doing a good job, just that almost everything negative said about him in this thread is either wrong or speculation, or both. 

On the basis that I see no evidence otherwise, (as opposed to speculation, as you point out), I think he's doing OK. If I knew more about what his job involved in a bit more detail, then I'd be able to comment more, but as it is, with no evidence to the counter, and the kind of thing BOF has highlighted, I'll say I'm quite OK with what he's doing. Benefit of the doubt and all that.

The things that concern me are his involvement in the choice of 'Eck as manager. I don't think he's in the clear on that one, personally, I think he was in accord, at least and part of the board that failed to take / ignored advice given.

 

So we get deals done well. He's learnt a great deal, he's by all accounts a decent man, a good man and a human being, not some corporate robot (though he does use a bit of Co. speak at times, perhaps in interviews, but that's part of his background). He's done as well as could be expected, if not better, with commercial deals, and whatever we think of the policy, the wage bill which was clearly a concern for the owner has been reduced significantly, and he's played his part in that.

 

I look at the whole thing like this: Randy takes over the club, throws money at it via MO'N, much of it missed the target, like a Marlon Harewood shot but enough stuck to at least give us a good ride for 4 years. Then when the money ran out, due to the world financial crisis, divorce, the likes of Man City...we've embarked on a painful re-calibration. It's been grim watching and stretched patience and tolerance to the limit. Paying spectators should get more than we've had these last few years.

 

They've (including the managers) to this point just about scraped along at the bottom end of what's acceptable on the pitch, and sometimes fallen below that.

It could go either way, they could wreck things, or they could start back on an upward trend. But if it carries on sinking past this season, or just stays the same, then I don't think they'll have anyone backing them at all.

No miracles required, just clear signs of improvement in results, home performances particularly and evidence the revised financial structure is right for the future.

 

 

He is a very young CEO, so he must have something about him.

I do not feel I know enough to say if he has done a good job or not, but what I do know from experience is that in the higher echelons of business it is not easy to countermand the instructions of an owner or to dissuade him from his views.

There are some things you just have to do, like it or not.

And let us not forget, Lerner is the owner, not just a board chairman.

[villa-revolution]

The most important point regarding known circumstance currently emanating from Villa Park is that as things stand right now, the Chairman, the CEO & the Manager are all in perfect harmony. That must surely represent a major, major positive for all those at the Club & for all those who support the Club.

 

The only real grumblings are from various sections of the fan base, ( In certain circumstances not necessarily a bad thing) but these misgivings I believe are being emotionally driven by their genuine love of our special Club, allied to their concern & frustration in their desire to see an immediate period of prolonged success returning to our famous old Club oncemore & I believe that in the  inevitable difficult periods, some Villa fans let their hearts  rule their heads because of this & fail to see the bigger picture as to how we are currently having to strive for our ultimate success both on and off the pitch with a new overall strategy specifically designed due to necessity.

 

That is the reality as I see it.

Edited January 17, 2014 by villa-revolution

[VillaGoMarching]

Nice try with the blog, but like a lot of stuff I read on NewsNow. It's absolutely skewed to suit an agenda.