Steven Hollis

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Well, he's clearly not much of a public speaker.

Sounds like it, but I doubt public speaking is a major part of his job. Look, he might be a total numpty for all I know, but one bad interview - possibly his first ever? - doesn't mean he's shit at being Chairman. 

[weedman]

Tom Fox, excellent PR, "Yeah but it means nothing, all the talk in the world is irrelevant, it's actions that count so he's shit"

Steven Hollis, terrible PR, "you can tell from that talk that he's totally out of his depth, what he says is very important and proves he doesn't have a clue, he's obviously shit"

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

He has made a quite terrible start in my view.

dont know, we still havent lost yet under his reign

[VillaCas]

8 minutes ago, Mantis said:

This is VT - we have players being judged before they've even played a game for us.

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

To be fair, you 'absolutely and totally' cannot judge that from one interview on 'Midlands Today'

I agree it is a snap judgement - let's hope he proves me wrong BUT I defy anyone who saw that interview to think "this is a bloke who's going to sort us out" - small time cringefest

All the positivity from Tuesday has been sapped by this appointment. Happy to eat my words if he proves a resounding success, but I really, really doubt it

[TrentVilla]

15 minutes ago, Mantis said:

This is VT - we have players being judged before they've even played a game for us.

Its almost like we've had 10 years of woeful appointments by Lerner who each have contributed towards our shambolic current state isn't it....

Hardly surprising that when the latest questionable appointment makes a complete horlicks out of his opening gambit people raise a collective groan.

[Godders]

The more I think about this, the more worried I get...

Its clear RL has well and truely washed his hands of us now. He has zero need to do anything anymore. He's just delegated his sole remaining fiduciary duties on the board. We're even more of an albatross around his neck now. A tax that he has to pay until he can offload us. 

If he's Executive Chairman, then it will be interesting to see how his role overlaps with Tom Fox's, since both (in theory) would be responsible for overseeing the day-to-day running of the business side of the club (assuming the football side is separate). I understand this guy has no football knowledge, whereas at least TF has worked in the industry before. This basically means Randy would have given at least some executive decision making power to someone with as much industry knowledge as me. I wouldn't back myself as exec chair in my current industry, let alone one I've had no experience in before.

My guess is he's a non-executive chairman, so I'm really not bothered what he says since he has no decision making powers at all- that  still sits with Tom Fox. He's simply going to be RL's voice I think, since RL can't be arsed to say anything himself.

[Stevo985]

Anyone concluding that this guy is "out of his depth" needs to have a word with themselves.

He might be the worst appointment in the history of the planet, but at least give the guy a **** chance.

[Mantis]

44 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Its almost like we've had 10 years of woeful appointments by Lerner who each have contributed towards our shambolic current state isn't it....

Hardly surprising that when the latest questionable appointment makes a complete horlicks out of his opening gambit people raise a collective groan.

I'm not going to pre-judge somebody just because Lerner's got a history of bad appointments and this guy gave a bad interview.

[ozvillafan]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

I'm not going to pre-judge somebody just because Lerner's got a history of bad appointments and this guy gave a bad interview.

So you'd buy a car of a guy that has a criminal record and his crony's sales pitch fails to mention that the car only has 3 wheels? Of course you wouldn't.

I'll reserve my right to pre-judge: I'm not convinced Hollis will make any difference. Being proven wrong couldn't make me happier.

[srsmithusa]

22 minutes ago, ozvillafan said:

So you'd buy a car of a guy that has a criminal record and his crony's sales pitch fails to mention that the car only has 3 wheels? Of course you wouldn't.

I'll reserve my right to pre-judge: I'm not convinced Hollis will make any difference. Being proven wrong couldn't make me happier.

I'm really not making fun of you, because I know what you mean, but I hope you can see that sentence is just funny,

[VillakevBromsgrove]

I can not tell if he will be good or bad but the football on the pitch will not be his priority in his position. We are being run as a business and as such his responsibilities will be to ensure that each department is being run both efficiently and effectively. It is a fact that we have been poor as a business financially falling behind other clubs on the commercial front for many years and the finances we have for wages and players reflect this. His job will be to ensure the correct people are in the correct roles and are achieving their briefs or he will get rid and replace them with someone who will. He is not about public speaking so I do not feel worried about the interview. The fact he said buying the best players does not ensure success is correct. Liverpool Chelsea and Man C have the best squads but are not firing on all cylinders where Leicester West Ham are showing team effort with the right players can be as effective. We have seen the results of some of the contracts given to average players with daft release clauses etc and how it has been detrimental to us, hopefully he will ensure that this stops and we are more aware of the future and how these things will hurt us. Give him time to establish himself and implement the changes needed, although to the average fan we may not see what it is he does until the finances are released next season.

[OutByEaster?]

This question of whether or not he's a Non-Executive Chairman or an Executive Chairman is troubling. 

I work for a good sized company that was sold last year, as part of that, our Chairman visited us more often to work with the CEO in finalising the sale, and I got to know what he looked like. Our CEO runs the company, he's physically present within the business, he's in every trade paper, local TV, running events, he makes big decisions from the top, he's shaken the company up and he's the driving force behind our success. I've been with the company for 20 years. I don't know the Chairman's name. He doesn't communicate with the press on our behalf, he doesn't speak to the workforce, he doesn't get involved with the business as  a whole - he has one relationship - he's the link between the money and the CEO. He provides a sounding board and to a degree the boundaries for the CEO's imagination.

Steven Hollis is talking like a CEO, not a Chairman. As a Chairman, by now we should know his name and not a whole lot else - in the press, I'd have expected Tom Fox to have talked a little about him and his role in helping Tom run the club through Randy. Tom is the boss if he's CEO - he should be in the papers, on websites and on TV. The Chairman should be largely invisible.

It looks like a fudge, Hollis seems to be CEO, with the title of Chairman, Tom looks to have been almost demoted - but there's been no discussion about structure or roles, just a lot of 'Shake it up' talk from a man who shouldn't be talking much at all.

In theory, Hollis's remit in terms of a shake up is get rid of Tom Fox or don't. Everything else should be Tom's responsibility. At least that's how I see it.

If he'd come out and said, Tom wants to shake the place up and I'm here to help him do that, then that would be a very different message and one that was easier to comprehend. Instead we've got a lot of macho tough talk from our silent partner - he's come in like Bruce Willis in a vest - well yippee-kay-aye MF - but I'm hearing cowboy, not tough guy.

Now of course, we don't have a mountain of information yet, and I'm aware I'm working on a molehill, but it would be very nice to get a little confirmation on who is doing what, and what our new structure is - and hey, if it's the more traditional Non-Executive Chairman role, it'd be nice to hear less from the new chap.

More substance please, less fudge.

 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, VillakevBromsgrove said:

I can not tell if he will be good or bad but the football on the pitch will not be his priority in his position. We are being run as a business and as such his responsibilities will be to ensure that each department is being run both efficiently and effectively. It is a fact that we have been poor as a business financially falling behind other clubs on the commercial front for many years and the finances we have for wages and players reflect this. His job will be to ensure the correct people are in the correct roles and are achieving their briefs or he will get rid and replace them with someone who will. He is not about public speaking so I do not feel worried about the interview. The fact he said buying the best players does not ensure success is correct. Liverpool Chelsea and Man C have the best squads but are not firing on all cylinders where Leicester West Ham are showing team effort with the right players can be as effective. We have seen the results of some of the contracts given to average players with daft release clauses etc and how it has been detrimental to us, hopefully he will ensure that this stops and we are more aware of the future and how these things will hurt us. Give him time to establish himself and implement the changes needed, although to the average fan we may not see what it is he does until the finances are released next season.

I think you just described Tom Fox's job perfectly.

 

[DCJonah]

I said it previously. It seems like we've hired someone to do a job Tom Fox is more qualified to do. 

[DCJonah]

7 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Its almost like we've had 10 years of woeful appointments by Lerner who each have contributed towards our shambolic current state isn't it....

Hardly surprising that when the latest questionable appointment makes a complete horlicks out of his opening gambit people raise a collective groan.

Agreed. This isn't just blind judgement. Not a single person, in a variety of roles, that we've brought in during Lerner's time here has had a positive impact over a long period. 

If anything, assuming this will work out would be the blind judgement because that would be ignoring 10 years worth of evidence. 

[honest_bertie]

I have seen a lot of reports lately where Fox and now Hollis are saying something is fundementally broken at the club, think Learner Evan mentioned in his Hollis statement. They all run on about fixing but no one dares mention that the only constant  throughout the years that still exists is Learner, Krulak and the board. Pretty obvious all know this and are pretty much saying it but without saying it... Elephant in the room? Randy Learner and his buddy's like Krulak are what's fundamentally broken at Villa!!!

[TrentVilla]

7 hours ago, Mantis said:

I'm not going to pre-judge somebody just because Lerner's got a history of bad appointments and this guy gave a bad interview.

I'm not pre-judging him though.

I've simply pointed out he has made a poor start and that combined with the track record of the person who appointed him is for me reason to suspect it won't be a good appointment.

That isn't pre-judgment, I'm not saying he will be a failure what I'm saying is right now I think there is more reason to think he will be than to think otherwise.

We shall see. But I see absolutely no reason at this moment in time to be at all optimistic about his arrival.

[calcifer]

The bit that made me laugh was money does not buy success.. So Man City got where they are from working hard? They were just like us a struggling team, then got very rich owners who threw money at anything. They eventually won the title! Once you become successful then you start getting higher gates better sponsorship deals and money from the CL and better players.

Come the end of the season our squad will be decimated by players that want to leave ( and probably for magic beans!) So will the plan be not to spend but rely on what we have left and youth until we become more self sufficient? Good luck in trying to get out the Championship with that attitude Steve!

If you want out the Championship you have to do it 1st time by using your parachute payment money. You cant expect to just come back up its a very tough league to get out of look at Forest and Leeds....

We may have spent 50m but most of it was from selling 2 good players! Net spent was around 8m? The money wasn't invested well in recruitment out of the 13 players signed only a few have made the grade.

Good luck tho Steve you are going to need it!

[VillakevBromsgrove]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think you just described Tom Fox's job perfectly.

 

Actually thinking about it you are right it does,

[Tony]

Don't know if anyone seen this or if I read it completely wrong, but seen collymore tweet yesterday that Brian Little was being appointed as a board member. Seems to have deleted that tweet aswell know. Could be complete garbage.