PompeyVillan Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Strange timing for Randy to be thinking about changing the CEO! It may not necessarily be Randy's own line of thinking That's what I thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momo Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) I know that a lot of people are saying he did a bad job, but except for the one or two managerial mistakes he made, he has done a good job. I wish Lambert inherited the squad after O'Neill, because both Lambert and Faulkner have suffered as a consequence of being at the poorest club in the Premier League. Edited July 8, 2014 by momo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Albert Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 And to think our biggest grumble was cueller playing as a right back. Id give my left arm to moan about cueller playing right back now 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 So goes Paul Faulkner, whose reign as chief executive is almost the exact time of the decline of the Lerner project. He will be missed as much as tooth ache. Here is a man who was given the job on his close friendship of the owner. He was neither a Villa man to the core, nor a successful football administrator with a proven track record. He was promoted due to patronage and set about peddling a message of half truths and pr waffle for the last four years. Under his watch we have sunk to a side just to be pleased to be in the top flight. He has overseen the total retrenchment of our ambitions and to become a selling club. He led us to quietly drop the North Stand redevelopment and replaced our kit sponsorship from Nike to a brand most people had never heard off. He gave us McLeish as the future and promised that that was a plan. No there was not. It has been four years of cut backs overseen by Faulkner as our bored owner has got fed up of his play thing. We have been fed lies by a lackey who is now fleeing the sinking ship. Goodbye and good riddance. i take it your not a fan.lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderball Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I'm more leaning towards Fun Factory's view - you can't lay all the rubbish at Lerners door, he was appointed to move the club forward despite the challenge, he needed to front up to the challenge and make it happen. It will be no coincidence that he has presided over a very dark period. Bad decisions have been made, PR is poor, and despite the major surgery the accounts are still looking grim. I do feel the job was beyond him, but I cannot deny the constraints imposed by the owner and the fickleness of the football results business in that he is the Patsy for a lack of results by the playing staff and Manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadlydion Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Sorry, but I see this slightly different to the rest of you. Randy has already stated he wants out and is trying to move the club on. On the back of this he is clearly going to be trying to build his other business interests or acquire new ones and from how I read the official statement, Randy wanted PF to play a greater part in those other interests, some of which he may have been better suited to, however to do that PF would not have been able to commit the time needed to continue to be involved in all operational matters at VP(which a CEO clearly is) and so Randy wanted PF to take a non operational, consultant type role, which PF has decided he did not want. On the basis that PF will obviously not remain in his CEO post after any takeover, and on the back of Randy deeming that PF role could be performed by others, he has decided to call it quits and seek pastures new. Just my take on it. Appreciate I could be way off the mark but that is how I have read between the lines in the statement when not having a cynical or conspiracy based outlook. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabby Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Nursey's take on it in the Mirror is that he cleared his desk and left straight away....despite the PR from Villa I don't think the parting was that amicable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Nursey's take on it in the Mirror is that he cleared his desk and left straight away....despite the PR from Villa I don't think the parting was that amicable. It doesn't look like Lerner "does" amicable partings. But look on the brightside, Krulak is still a NED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I wonder if Faulkner who appears to be pretty close with Lambert pointed out that his current plan of little or no spending was very likely to end with relegation and a resulting drop in value of the club. Lerner as usual didnt like to be criticised and decided he would move PF from his current role so he can take a more hands on role or run the club as he wants without any interference. PF decided he has had enough and throws in the towel. If any of that is close to the truth where does that leave Lambert ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted July 9, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2014 Sorry, but I see this slightly different to the rest of you. Randy has already stated he wants out and is trying to move the club on. On the back of this he is clearly going to be trying to build his other business interests or acquire new ones and from how I read the official statement, Randy wanted PF to play a greater part in those other interests, some of which he may have been better suited to, however to do that PF would not have been able to commit the time needed to continue to be involved in all operational matters at VP(which a CEO clearly is) and so Randy wanted PF to take a non operational, consultant type role, which PF has decided he did not want. On the basis that PF will obviously not remain in his CEO post after any takeover, and on the back of Randy deeming that PF role could be performed by others, he has decided to call it quits and seek pastures new. Just my take on it. Appreciate I could be way off the mark but that is how I have read between the lines in the statement when not having a cynical or conspiracy based outlook. This is what I think happened. RL is moving out of football and wanted to retain PF for his other businesses. PF wants to stay involved in football full time (see his new role with the FA for proof he fully invested in the football industry) so he has moved on. Expect him to pop up at another club in the near future in a similar role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Some quotes from Faulkner's interview on January 15 2014: We’ve got a really, really good relationship the three of us [Lerner, Faulkner and Lambert]. Paul is a really good manager to work with. We have a view of where we want to try to develop and take the club forward and I think it’s one that we all share. In any walk of life if you’re in a working relationship like that it’s a good place to be and you do feel like you can get stuff done. I think that’s where we look this year at steps that we’re making, progress that we’re making, very real cold hard facts of progress. That’s ultimately the only measure that matters in this business, points and places. It’s all about keeping developing. It’s sort of like the overnight success story which takes two or three years to sort of put in place. If you don’t keep going when there’s a little bit of stick flying then you’ll never achieve anything ultimately. Absolutely. You have that trust, it’s key to any working relationship. You don’t just let him get on with it, you work together to make it happen. But it’s about supporting and everyone having a common goal in a very tough business, tough industry and you try to find some strength from that. It’s about how do we keep taking those positive strides forward and making this club better and stronger again. We feel good about where we are right now, There’s a lot of work gone on behind the scenes to get things in order and in terms of this year we feel good going forward. 12 May 2014 - Randy Lerner says club is for sale 8 July 2014 - Paul Faulkner leaves Aston Villa So much for continuity, team work and putting things right. Rats abandoning a sinking ship. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 9, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2014 Sorry, but I see this slightly different to the rest of you. Randy has already stated he wants out and is trying to move the club on. On the back of this he is clearly going to be trying to build his other business interests or acquire new ones and from how I read the official statement, Randy wanted PF to play a greater part in those other interests, some of which he may have been better suited to, however to do that PF would not have been able to commit the time needed to continue to be involved in all operational matters at VP(which a CEO clearly is) and so Randy wanted PF to take a non operational, consultant type role, which PF has decided he did not want. On the basis that PF will obviously not remain in his CEO post after any takeover, and on the back of Randy deeming that PF role could be performed by others, he has decided to call it quits and seek pastures new. Just my take on it. Appreciate I could be way off the mark but that is how I have read between the lines in the statement when not having a cynical or conspiracy based outlook. This is what I think happened. RL is moving out of football and wanted to retain PF for his other businesses. PF wants to stay involved in football full time (see his new role with the FA for proof he fully invested in the football industry) so he has moved on. Expect him to pop up at another club in the near future in a similar role. He doesn't have a role at the FA certainly not after yesterday. He was on the FA Council as a representative of the Premier League, he isn't going to be able to continue on that council when he doesn't represent the Premier League or one of its members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted July 9, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2014 Sorry, but I see this slightly different to the rest of you. Randy has already stated he wants out and is trying to move the club on. On the back of this he is clearly going to be trying to build his other business interests or acquire new ones and from how I read the official statement, Randy wanted PF to play a greater part in those other interests, some of which he may have been better suited to, however to do that PF would not have been able to commit the time needed to continue to be involved in all operational matters at VP(which a CEO clearly is) and so Randy wanted PF to take a non operational, consultant type role, which PF has decided he did not want. On the basis that PF will obviously not remain in his CEO post after any takeover, and on the back of Randy deeming that PF role could be performed by others, he has decided to call it quits and seek pastures new. Just my take on it. Appreciate I could be way off the mark but that is how I have read between the lines in the statement when not having a cynical or conspiracy based outlook. This is what I think happened. RL is moving out of football and wanted to retain PF for his other businesses. PF wants to stay involved in football full time (see his new role with the FA for proof he fully invested in the football industry) so he has moved on. Expect him to pop up at another club in the near future in a similar role. He doesn't have a role at the FA certainly not after yesterday. He was on the FA Council as a representative of the Premier League, he isn't going to be able to continue on that council when he doesn't represent the Premier League or one of its members. Well yeah, obviously. My point was that by taking a role with the FA whist CEO of Aston Villa he was showing that he is interested in the football aspects of the job, as well as just the generic business aspects. I suspect he wants to continue working within football, which RL will be trying to move him out of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMcKenna Posted July 9, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) So Trent, you say don't listen to Pat Murphy. Are you implying that Faulkner left on his own terms rather than being pushed out the door like Murphy is suggesting?What's curious is the reason for Faulkner leaving. The statement says Having discussed his re-engaging with the Chairman's broader business while remaining involved with Villa in a non-operational role, agreement could not be reached. That seems like Randy wanted Faulkner to no longer be CEO, and he was offering "other work" to him - Why would Randy not want him to be CEO? It's not going to be about his past performance in the job, it'll be about some disagreement over the way to proceed whilst the prospect of a sale is on. It would seem reasonable to surmise that Faulkner wanted more investment/money etc. for players and more "care and attention" paid and feels that the club is no longer being run in the interests of the club itself. I'm worried about Randy Lerner's state of mind, frankly. Some pretty bizarre things have been happening of late. PF was being offered a "non operational role" definitely suggests he was asked to remain on the board and likely a significantly reduced income and obvious total loss of responsibility. Personally I do not feel that PF had a great affinity with Villa or that he was strong enough to demand more "investment/money". In my dealings with him I found him to be very professional but I really don't think he would stick his neck on the block. The offer of a "non operational role" obviously means that RL was not happy with his performance in some way OR that his removal as CEO is a precursor to a sale in the offing. I accept that nothing has come of all the rumours but PF leaving may actually suggest more is happening behind the scenes than we realise. Given the state of ST sales, the uncertainty about new signings, the club being up for sale etc it makes no sense that RL would effectively get rid of his CEO at this time unless something else is going on. Edited July 9, 2014 by MikeMcKenna 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Except Mike what would he gain at this point by NOT having a CEO. Steve Stride worked through the transition from Ellis to Lerner and you would think that any new owners would like some kind of handover from PF to their CEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMcKenna Posted July 9, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2014 Except Mike what would he gain at this point by NOT having a CEO. Steve Stride worked through the transition from Ellis to Lerner and you would think that any new owners would like some kind of handover from PF to their CEO. To an extent that is my point. As the statement said he was offered a non operational role so the decision had already been made to move him out of the CEO position but PF obviously didn't like the idea. If PF was doing a good job why would RL want to rock the boat at this point? If anything this suggests the reverse and that RL didn't think he was up to the mark or his removal from the CEO job is linked to something else. My understanding was that he got on very well with Lambert and that from the business perspective he had also done well in trying times. Another possibility is that it is connected to the Culverhouse and Karsa debacle. It is very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 PF is looking for a role at another club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 PF is looking for a role at another club. If that's the case then surely he's been sacked or a takeover is closer than we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djemba_Villan Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 My guess (and that is all anyone else is basing their opinions on), is that he was happy to be a part of Villa's long term strategy of developing youth players + buying hungry foreign players with potential for long term success. RL's prerogative has changed and all he cares about now (rightly from his perspective) is to stay in the PL so is devoting the remaining budget on "do a job" experienced pros who might keep us above 18th this year. PF thought "well this is doing my career no good" and PL will be out the door should we have a bad start Strange club at the moment. Hope the sale occurs soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lp_villa830 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Except Mike what would he gain at this point by NOT having a CEO. Steve Stride worked through the transition from Ellis to Lerner and you would think that any new owners would like some kind of handover from PF to their CEO. Steve Stride wasn't CEO though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts