KHV Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, El-Reacho said: I'm pretty sure I've read the Riley was appointed by Randy himself because he was so impressed with the Benteke signing. Yeah, that really was great guesswork from Riley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Rob182 said: I stopped reading at 'let's look at Toms great job so far', as I haven't said that. Did I say you said that Rob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 23, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Demitri_C said: Villa chief executive Tom Fox said: "We have a long-term vision for Villa. "Paul is completely integrated into our plan to manage the club carefully and ambitiously back to a position in the Premier League appropriate to our history and collective expectations." He then sacked him few months later wasting how much money? I'm not certain, but I think the answer to this is nothing. I'm fairly certain we didn't have to pay Lambert his full contract because of severance clauses in it. Clauses that were probably put into his new contract. I don't imagine sacking him when we did cost us significantly more than if we'd sacked him at the same time under his original contract. Can't be sure of that, just something I remember reading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Did I say you said that Rob? You quoted my post and started your post with a sarcastic tone, so it looked like a response to my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 16 minutes ago, Rob182 said: You quoted my post and started your post with a sarcastic tone, so it looked like a response to my post. I was sarcastic at Tom Foxs job not your post Rob, as I am clearly very unhappy with the job this clown has done since he came here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 39 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: I'm not certain, but I think the answer to this is nothing. I'm fairly certain we didn't have to pay Lambert his full contract because of severance clauses in it. Clauses that were probably put into his new contract. I don't imagine sacking him when we did cost us significantly more than if we'd sacked him at the same time under his original contract. Can't be sure of that, just something I remember reading. Hmm I wasnt aware of that, I still found it odd that we gave him a new contract on the basis of four games in. Absolutely ridiculous decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 23, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just now, Demitri_C said: Hmm I wasnt aware of that, I still found it odd that we gave him a new contract on the basis of four games in. Absolutely ridiculous decision Like I said at the time, I imagine it wasn't based on four games. My guess would be there was an agreement that after 2 seasons Lambert would get a new contract if he met his remit, which presumably was to keep us in the league. But I'm speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 44 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: I'm fairly certain we didn't have to pay Lambert his full contract because of severance clauses in it. We didn't, we paid him a certain amount ( I can't remember the amount) instead of the remainder of his contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just now, Stevo985 said: Like I said at the time, I imagine it wasn't based on four games. My guess would be there was an agreement that after 2 seasons Lambert would get a new contract if he met his remit, which presumably was to keep us in the league. But I'm speculating. Yeah could be, its in credible how that turned out. As soon as he signed we just massively flopped. Makes me wonder though why he offered to resign then signs a new deal. Something doenst sound right to me about that. But whoeveer made that agreement is a fool, was a bad decision. should have waited until Xmas time see how we got along then gave him a new contract. We had no hollis here at the time so it must have been Fox or Lerner who made this decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I honestly don't know what he does, so I'm finding it weird that so many people dislike him. Same with Hollis. If results on the pitch were fine and we were sitting in 12th place, I'm fairly certain this thread would be near on empty. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 He was responsible for running of the club until hollis has come in so really this is how the structure as I understand it its ------------------------------------------Lerner------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------Hollis---------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------Fox------------------------------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, blandy said: I know, we're all scatter gunning around blaming everyone and anyone. I kind of look at the thing like this, in 3 parts. Part 1 Randy takes over, all enthusiastic, throws loads of money at stuff - Ground, training Ground, Pub, players, manager, free coaches and stuff. The money is not all well spent, and there's no-one in place with any football wisdom or experience to provide good council. There's no structure, but lots of good will and enthusiasm. Part 2. Randy stops being enthusiastic, still no structure or knowledge, various poor managerial appointments, cut backs due to over/out of control spending early on. Things start to go quite badly. Part 3. Randy gives up. Decides to have a structure, appoints people to roles for which they are unsuited. Disaster ensues. When you say that " Fox was not to know that Garde's first win would not be for ages" and similar points can be made - like Fox was not to know that Sherwood wouldn't....", or " Fox was not to know that [whatever]" - the thing is he is paid, as CEO to have the judgement and abilities not to know for sure what will happen, but to have a reasonable idea, and an alternative course of action if things start to go awry with the initial plan. He's been here 18 months and while he may (or may not) have improved the Commercial aspects (which is where is experience lies) the club has regressed enormously. He's the CEO. While the owner can be and should be blamed for benign negligence, basically, over these past few years, the man in charge of the day to day running and decision making has made a massive mess of it. There has been money for players, managers and all the rest. Decisions have been terrible, and predictably so. Bang on the button. for me it has appeared he has appointed CEO's above their station. Insufficient experience for the post and insufficient football knowledge to challenge results and performances. One was an Office manager and the other a commercial manager. It seems to me that Richard Fitzgerald could have been better, Cunnah was not here long enough for me to have any idea......but we have got through umpteen MD's Football is a unique business in the sense, that when I look back at all the successes its the MANAGER that stands out. Edited February 23, 2016 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 17 minutes ago, bobzy said: I honestly don't know what he does, so I'm finding it weird that so many people dislike him. Same with Hollis. If results on the pitch were fine and we were sitting in 12th place, I'm fairly certain this thread would be near on empty. hard to argue with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 23, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2016 16 minutes ago, bobzy said: If results on the pitch were fine and we were sitting in 12th place, I'm fairly certain this thread would be near on empty. I can't speak for anyone else, but because results on the pitch are not fine and we're in 20th place, people look to analyse why that might be, and maybe think to themselves "the CEO, the man in charge of day to day stuff for the past 18 months - could he be part of the reason?" And many of them conclude, perhaps that he might well be. Appointments, policies, results, bodyguards, supporter-bannings, personal behaviours, staff morale.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) Tom Fox should know whether Remi has a chance of making it or not.....and he should be honest with him. In fact most of the seniors need to be dealing in more honesty. My view is, (with my limited knowledge of what Remi is doing at BMH) he needs much more time and ideally his own people. As an example : If a salesman/Sales Manager is not producing sufficient sales......The sales Director, will look at the activity schedule. How much prospecting, How many appointments, how many cold calls, How many referrals, How many demonstrations, how many quotes/proposals etc. There must be an appraisal method for a football manager, even when he is losing games.....They must know what lines/track he is on and if it is feasible....stick with it. During Man U's dark days post Docherty, McGuiness,Farrell,Atkinson ( to a lesser degree) SAF had the support of Martin Edwards when most fans wanted him out.....Edwards knew the good work SAF was doing and backed him and Mark Robins created the turning point....There usually is one.....We are still waiting for ours. Someone in Authority must know if Remi is the real deal or not.....results say not ,but behind the scenes may say much different. Edited February 23, 2016 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Surely it would have been better to have this inquest when we have actually been relegated. It has got to be counter-productive at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchard Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just now, AntrimBlack said: Surely it would have been better to have this inquest when we have actually been relegated. It has got to be counter-productive at this time. Interested to see why you think this? I know it's mathematically possible to stay up - but we aren't. We don't have anyone capable of scoring goals, and we don't have a goalkeeper good enough for this league. We are going down. Now is in my mind exactly the right time to be doing it. The more time we give ourselves to work on making it right in the Summer, rather than using the Summer to work out why it went wrong - the better. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Pilchard said: Interested to see why you think this? I know it's mathematically possible to stay up - but we aren't. We don't have anyone capable of scoring goals, and we don't have a goalkeeper good enough for this league. We are going down. Now is in my mind exactly the right time to be doing it. The more time we give ourselves to work on making it right in the Summer, rather than using the Summer to work out why it went wrong - the better. I think it may breed resentment in Fox, Almstad and Riley, who at least have some experience of working in a football club, to be investigated by two businessmen with no experience in the area they will be judging. And it will hardly do anything for the fragile moral of the players either, with yet something else going on behind the scenes. Absolutely they should look at everything if/when we are definitely relegated, but I see nothing positive to be gained by doing it before then. And it is not simply a summer signing problem, which I suspect he will find to be the cause of the problems. We on VT know that there have been any number of things influencing our possible demise; previous stupid decisions by the owner; ongoing budget cuts; new foreign signings, now our best players, not being given a chance to bed in by our previous manager; a backbone of existing players with no backbone; expensive, experienced players who have not performed as we would have expected; the wrong strikers targeted by the previous manager; this manager not given the funds to buy the players he wants, thereby making our chances of staying up even more remote. This club's sad state has been because of a series of errors by Lerner right from the start, and I think Hollis is just the latest one. And if he finds the trio culpable, as I suspect he will, I have no faith that Hollis will find any better to replace them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 6 hours ago, bobzy said: I honestly don't know what he does, so I'm finding it weird that so many people dislike him. Same with Hollis. If results on the pitch were fine and we were sitting in 12th place, I'm fairly certain this thread would be near on empty. Of course, but that's because both would be doing there jobs better which wouldn't require much discussion. But we're not. So of course the man who is working with his 3rd manager in 18 months and the man who put together the transfer committee that completely changed our squad is going to be discussed. And after a January window with zero spending, it's no surprise the same discussions are happening about the new chairman. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 23 hours ago, bobzy said: I honestly don't know what he does, so I'm finding it weird that so many people dislike him. Same with Hollis. If results on the pitch were fine and we were sitting in 12th place, I'm fairly certain this thread would be near on empty. I don't understand your example. Do you believe the results on the pitch and the overall job done by the CEO would have nothing or little in common? I think it's pretty clear if we were 12th that would have meant Fox would have done a much better job than he actually has, and thus the thread would have naturally contained less criticism. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts